Hostile party WTF? (Re: CTI - Making a decision for glibc.)

[Alexandre Oliva]

On Feb  1, 2026, Maxim Kuvyrkov <maxim.kuvyrkov@linaro.org> wrote:

> Could you, please, clarify, what do you mean by "controlled" in "It's
> controlled by GPL violators." ?

I can try to hand wave a little further, but it probably won't be
convincing to you.

You look at the companies that fund the LF, you get a large number of
companies that ship products that contain Linux the kernel, but that
don't make corresponding sources available to those who buy their
products.  You get companies that make proprietary drivers that work
with the kernel Linux.  LF (board?) membership seems to be often
perceived as a licensing fee to overstep the permissions granted by the
GPL without consequences.

> Are some of them present GPL violators?

Depends on whom you ask, I guess.

Some will insist that, until they're sued and found to be, erhm, guilty
of violation, they are to be presumed innocent.  (This is not a matter
of criminal law, but you'll find such reasoning out there)

Some will buy their products and rationalize that they wouldn't use the
source code anyway, so why even bother trying to get it?

Some will try to get the sources and run into walls.

Some will see the proprietary drivers and conclude that they're proof of
GPL violation.  (that conclusion is not a given, but there you go)

Some will see the obnoxiously-licensed firmware (disguised binary blobs)
that still ship inside the kernel Linux so-called "sources", and
conclude (also not a given) that Torvalds himself would be violating the
GPL if these blobs actually existed.  They do, but the conclusion
doesn't follow.  It is hostile to user freedom nevertheless, and so is
the dependence on blobs distributed separately.

Some will look at all the SaaSS, and all programs that LF
controllers/members use to deny users freedom, and see a pattern of
misalignment with the ideals of Free Software, and even with those of
Open Source, wherein Linux is at best a commoditized layer they can use
to push their proprietary or SaaSS stuff with.

> Do you have knowledge of present GPL violators having majority control of LF?

I can't even view their web pages, because their server demands me to
(automatically) install and run software under their control on my own
computer.  Software that would be nonfree to me, because it's under
their control.  I won't allow that, so I can't even see what's there.
That's how freedom-unfriendly they are to me.

But I can see (some of) their public actions, and how they (fail to)
align with the notions of software freedom.

> My point here is that if one takes a large-enough set of companies,
> there ought to be some better and some worse companies in that set by
> whatever metric one selects.

Point taken.

It could be that it's not the controlling community of companies that is
freedom-hostile.  It could be that LF is freedom-hostile out of its own
volition (if there is such a thing), and that the controlling community
of companies merely tolerates that for whatever reason.

That alternative doesn't offer me much relief, to be honest.

> Looking at it from a business point of view: if LF was controlled by a
> small of companies -- whether GPL violators or some other small set --
> it would not make business sense for the other hundreds of companies
> to join a foundation where their voices would not be heard.  Since
> that's NOT the observed case -- LF, indeed, has hundreds of members --
> I don't think your statement is accurate.

I don't see that their voices aren't heard.  I mean, not literally, but
it's pretty clear to me that the LF promotes the business interests of
those who exploit FLOSS in ways that aren't exactly respectful of users
freedom.  It makes perfect sense for such businesses to fund the LF and
make it stronger, because they're aligned.

What they aren't aligned with is software freedom.
And that's my gripe with them all.

> I do, however, find it difficult to consider strong statements, which
> could be shown to be partially incorrect.  It is difficult for me to
> distinguish what you say as your opinion from what you state as an
> objective fact.

That's fair.

I'm surprised it's not widely-known that the LF is more friendly to
exploitative business intersts than to software freedom.

But then, I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  A lot of people here don't
(or hopefully didn't) even get that SaaSS is fundamentally opposite to
software freedom.

You know that the kernel Linux, that gives the LF its name, contains
obnoxiously-licensed programs disguised as source code, don't you?

You know that the LF claims all GNU software typically included in
GNU/Linux distros to be "Linux", right?

You know nearly all (dare I say actually all?) LF members distribute
nonfree software and/or offer SaaSS?  (Could anyone expect the
organization they collectivey "own" to be any different?)

I mean, these are such obvious truths to me that what you ask of me is
like asking me to prove that 2+2=4.

So people who claim or show alignment with the LF come across to me as
bringing the hostility that the LF has historically had to software
freedom, to the free software movement, and to GNU.

But maybe they don't mean that.  Maybe they don't know.  Maybe because
they don't know they think the LF could be friendly, and even an ally in
the pursuit of software freedom for all.

But then they listen to the LF, who uses carefully crafted language
stating "it's going to be FOSS", without saying "it's going to respect
your freedom", which those who can't tell the difference might mistake
for the same.  And they won't listen to me when I try to point out the
difference.  At which point, whether or not they meant to be hostile at
first, they end up being hostile to me and to software freedom.

> I, personally, like to add terms like "may be", "in
> my opinion", etc. when I present my opinion.  And I try to add
> citations and references when I'm stating an objective fact.

That's good advice.  I wish I could follow it.

I mean, I know I can't lie (so if I state something as fact, I believe
it to be so), but I can be wrong, so it would be good to follow it.

Alas, very often, I find that I can't.

Quite often it's because I'm not organized to save my sources and
references to be able to find them when needed.  I merge the new facts
with my prior knowledge and go from there, and then, later on, if I try
to find where I got a certain piece of information, I fail to find it.

Sometimes it's because the resources are just inaccessible to me (like
LF's webpages), or, in rare cases, I've been shown something in
confidence and I'm not in possession of a copy, or I'm not allowed to
share the evidence (it hurts when this happens).

In other circumstances, I am not prevented from showing it, except by my
own conscience.  For example, when people ask me for proof that Linux
contains nonfree software, I face a hard time, because I know exactly
where that is, but I refuse to direct people at nonfree software.

Sucks to be me, I guess :-/

-- 
Alexandre Oliva, happy hacker            https://blog.lx.oliva.nom.br/
Free Software Activist     FSFLA co-founder     GNU Toolchain Engineer
Learn the truth about Richard Stallman at https://stallmansupport.org/