What ? The Linux Foundation ? It opposes Free Software ? Did I misunderstand this sentence ?
Would you characterize the violence used against minorities as ancient history or would you say it is still very relevant? Companies, like counties have the burden of their history to bare.
I would hope that Microsoft has changed but I for one would not trust them. Nor would I trust any other large company, they all have their own motives that sometimes align with Open Source but they can also change their stance. Notably Google has made moves to close source Android(2016, not sure how it played out)(https://fossbytes.com/google-making-closed-source-android-pr...)
I don’t think it’s binary in that RedHat is owned by a company that has other motivations than when RedHat was independent.
People were threatening Microsoft because of GitHub’s actions.
I think it’s reasonable that a lawyer at IBM identified this area to message whatever is supposed to be right and talked with RedHat to coordinate signing or whatnot.
I think it’s weird that corporations make these kinds of moral/ethical statements.
Please show me any announcement from The Linux Foundation where they push for free software. They call it "open source" instead, which misses the point: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.....
The OSI has in recent years been an ardent defender of free software principles, holding fast to the Debian Free Software Guidelines despite corporate pressure to approve various licenses where the source is technically open but fundamental freedoms are gone.
And, importantly, these corporate interests care about labeling their software as "open source" but not about labeling it as "free software." The FSF would say these licenses aren't "free software," but the corporate interests don't want people to think about fundamental freedoms anyway, so they wouldn't mind. It's therefore very important that someone is out there saying that you can't be "open source" either without the fundamental freedoms, and the OSI has been doing exactly that.
The fact that the FSF does not recognize what the OSI is doing for free software and sticks by an essay from roughly 20 years ago consisting of their opinions about users of the term "open source" is evidence of the FSF's continuing leadership failure - the FSF has been completely irrelevant in the discussions about the SSPL etc., which are among the biggest practical threats to free software today, and not only do they not realize that there's a job to be done, they don't realize who's been doing it, either.
But even that decade-old essay has a very clear footnote:
> Lakhani and Wolf's paper on the motivation of free software developers says that a considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software should be free. This is despite the fact that they surveyed the developers on SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an ethical issue.
That is, a lot of people believe in the ethical imperative that the FSF calls "free software," even if they don't themselves phrase it in a way that the FSF approves of.
The community should force the companies to do what we want, not what the companies prefer. We want that free software be called "free", because it makes people think about freedom. The OSI decided that what companies want is more important and most people now do not know about their freedoms.