While our primary mission is freedom for software users, we want to be clear, the FSF board unanimously condemns misogyny, racism,and other bigotry as well as defamation, intimidation, and unfair attacks on free thought and speech.
im very unsure a fork is the play. probably better to let it die
there are enough similar organizations already anyway, we don't need another with this baggage.
Lots of mission critical software still is kept under the FSF’s umbrella, if it is intent on deciding on making itself a problem then the ecosystem needs to route itself around it and some things do require organization.
7
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
As long as they publish a new software license that (L/A)GPL projects can migrate to, I can see the Conservancy being the next organization to dictate the concept of software freedom. Even though no single organization should be granted that much power
1
This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more
Their recommended form of licensing is "GPLv3 or later" where the FSF has the power to release a new version of the license for all of those projects. The licensing is very relevant if you don't want them to have that power over many projects.
See https://twitter.com/marcan42/status/1376418013151338496… for an existing example of this being used to switch to a much more permissive license.
GPLv3 also intentionally weakened enforcement beyond simply obtaining compliance compared to GPLv2. They can and do make it more permissive, not just restrictive.
So Wikipedia "magically" became CC. Even though the original version of the GFDL made this impossible, the "or any later version" backdoor was used in this case.
This is precedent for the FSF abusing the "or any later version" backdoor to make *massive* licensing changes.