Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux Foundation No Longer Lets Individual Members Elect Directors

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Linux Foundation No Longer Lets Individual Members Elect Directors

    Phoronix: Linux Foundation No Longer Lets Individual Members Elect Directors

    The Linux Foundation has quietly changed their stance concerning individual members being allowed to vote for directors of the foundation...

    http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...mber-Directors

  • #2
    So the Linux Foundation felt that a GPL activist on the board would get in the way of pandering to the interests of the large corporate members and decided to hand over all election rights to said members?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by kenjitamura View Post
      So the Linux Foundation felt that a GPL activist on the board would get in the way of pandering to the interests of the large corporate members and decided to hand over all election rights to said members?
      Some politicians in other countries do similar things. Let them elect, put the opposition into jail, nail down all media ... and call all this democracy.

      So! Nothing new... nothing to see...

      Comment


      • #4
        Why would they freak out about one hypothetical lone member? One isn't exactly a controlling stake.

        Comment


        • #5
          So directors elected by members then decided that no future director would be member-elected. That's bollocks.

          Imagine if Obama said hes now president for life and nobody can elect anyone else, or that only he and his buddy can elect.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by zouboulou View Post
            So directors elected by members then decided that no future director would be member-elected. That's bollocks.

            Imagine if Obama said hes now president for life and nobody can elect anyone else, or that only he and his buddy can elect.
            Except this is not democracy, it's a private foundation and you have to pay (donate) to be part of it.
            They probably weighted the amount of donation coming from individuals and decided they could do without it to better fulfill the will of higher tier donors.
            Fits perfectly with Torvalds idea on software freedom.

            Comment


            • #7
              Matthew points out that this change in policy comes months after Karen Sandler of the Software Freedom Conservancy had planned to run for the Linux Foundation board, which could cause some potential conflicts of interest due to the SFC's focus on GPL enforcement while the Linux Foundation doesn't actively pursue such members.
              This is really interesting. Personally I interpret it as "soon we will do another major move which is to fully support LLVM, get rid of GCC as a whole, and eventually migrate to a more permissive license like that of revised BSD and allow our members to include their proprietary blobs without worrying about potential license violation for doing so."

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by stephen82 View Post
                This is really interesting. Personally I interpret it as "soon we will do another major move which is to fully support LLVM, get rid of GCC as a whole, and eventually migrate to a more permissive license like that of revised BSD and allow our members to include their proprietary blobs without worrying about potential license violation for doing so."
                That freaks me out... it's like the Linux Foundation is slowly shoving its true face: "partnering" with Microsoft, organizing a private blockchain and now choosing sides against the GPL.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by stephen82 View Post

                  This is really interesting. Personally I interpret it as "soon we will do another major move which is to fully support LLVM, get rid of GCC as a whole, and eventually migrate to a more permissive license like that of revised BSD and allow our members to include their proprietary blobs without worrying about potential license violation for doing so."
                  Releasing code under a less permissive license would be terrible mistake. But then again linux and the entire ecosystem is getting more and more corporation-controlled everyday. Look at RedHat pushing Gnome 3 down our throats.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Look what I have found from their official website (LinuxFoundation's that is) that I did not know about it: LLVMLinux

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X