Why?
> except when something related to free software is at stake in politics.
They're the Mozilla Foundation, not the Free Software Foundation.
The free software movement has always been intertwined with more or less radical political movements to lesser or greater extents over time. It's only relatively recently that "open source" is primarily the thing you do so you have a GitHub profile that will land you a 100k paycheck.
>And requesting the latter to be politically neutral is... well.
I don't see any incompatibility between free software and any political ideology.
My point (now edited into the comment) was that political activism has been intertwined with free software for a long time. Just think about the absurdity someone complaining about leftist politics at Richard Stallman's Free Software Foundation. This intertwining isn't some new thing, and it shouldn't be surprising.
> I don't see any incompatibility between free software and any political ideology.
But for many of the original strong advocates for free software, there was an enormous link between larger political issues and free software.
You can argue that those links aren't fundamentally necessary or have eroded over time, but to deny them is an anti-historical understanding of the free/open source software movement.
> then the organization would lose credibility and support from a lot of people. If the Mozilla CEO wants to do that, then fine, we'll find another organization to support and to look up to.
Open source wasn't always so mainstream. My money is that the people who have been around for decades aren't fased by these sorts of threats.
There are a lot of software developers I used to respect and followed on Twitter whom I stopped following because I got sick of their American politics tweets. I'm sure it's the same dynamics with American celebrities tweeting about Donald Trump. Most of the world don't care about Donald Trump nor want to hear about some privileged rich Americans complaining about their politics.
They havre their own shit to worry about and don't have time to be force-fed all the American political propaganda.
I can understand individuals being political, but if you're an organization like Mozilla, you have a clear goal, and that is NOT left politics. They should aspire to be as neutral as they can.
Only in the sense of privacy and civil freedoms e.g free speech, copyright. Not in the sense of capitalism/socialism, collectivism/individualism, more taxes/less taxes. In this case, Mozilla supported an organization that is openly against capitalism. I would have applauded Mozilla if they'd supported an organization in favor of free speech, privacy, freedom of information, etc. But that wasn't the case. Capitalism is a gray area for the free software community: some support it, others fight against it.
And a lot of people across the world in different countries. Compared to a lot of the rest of the developed world US liberals/Democrats are centrists.
If you are American and are looking at their 'leftist' views using only US politics as a reference point you may be skewing your results.
Err, no, growing up in an European socialist country I can say this is not true. The left in the US has caught up pretty well ..
Which organisation would this be? Mozilla is pretty unique.
Free software goes pretty strongly against market capital as a philosophy.
It goes against the idea that people will pay for things they need/want. It goes against the idea that commerce will spawn progress.
That's fine, and people don't need to be that ideological. But if you want to promote free software, then: basic income, single payer, the 30 hour week, greater research spending, stronger practice of public domain-ing government financed work will all help
And lots of more left-leaning orgs will go along that.