Questioning the Linux Foundation's Credentials

nadamsieee writes "Neil McAllister has posted a provocative article titled Questioning the Linux Foundation's credentials. He questions the motivations behind the newly formed organization. Quoting: 'But wouldn't it make more sense to call the merged organization the Open Source and Standards Lab, or the Free Software and Standards Group? Why did they have to go and call it the Linux Foundation?' McAllister then goes on to explain why he believes that 'the Linux Foundation isn't any kind of philanthropic foundation at all[,] it's an industry trade organization.'"

Sure it is.

[inode_buddha]

Sure its an industry trade organization. What's wrong with that? After all, we also have the BSA, the RIAA, and a plethora of standards bodies and "think tanks", "focus groups", ad nauseum and et cetera.

So, what's the issue?

Re:Phht

[datafr0g]

Hello America!
That's the British English spelling used by most (if not, all) countries in the British Commonwealth - in this case, the article is from New Zealand so spelling is correct.
We generally use -ise instead of -ize [wikipedia.org].

Re:Sure it is.

[mrchaotica]

You talk about it in the same breath as the BSA and RIAA, and then still wonder what the issue is?!

The issue is that an "industry trade organization" is interested in profit, and might be motivated to corrupt the ideals behind Linux (and Free Software in general). That might be well-and-good from their perspective, but it wouldn't be good from the community's perspective. Therefore, people in the community could have cause to be worried about it.

Not news ...

[tomhudson]

"McAllister then goes on to explain why he believes that 'the Linux Foundation isn't any kind of philanthropic foundation at all"

Big deal. It never claimed to be any kind of "philanthropic foundation." What next - "Microsoft Windows isn't free software" or "The **AA doesn't promote file sharing"? Or "Bush doesn't eat kittens for breakfast"?

So, how again is this news?

Re:Not news ...

[CyberGarp]

Since when did Linux equal Philanthropic? Linus did it for fun and is still having fun. As long as they play by the license, trade organizations are natural part of business.

Re: .sig

[Anpheus]

The problem with your signature isn't that you decry fundamentalism wrong. The problem with your signature is that you rather unfairly associate Atheism with the actions of one very maladjusted individual -- oh to hell with it, we'll just speak his name: You equate Atheism with Hitler. That's the problem with your signature. Atheism has nothing to do with eugenics. Hitler didn't target the religious, instead, he, being a deeply maladjusted individual (to put it lightly) targeted several groups that he felt were not fit enough for a 'clean' or 'pure' Germany. Please, just change that part of your signature. Don't equate Atheism with Hitler. Fundamentalism, or more correctly, the idea that people who disagree with your fundamental beliefs should not deserve to live, is wrong. But eugenics has nothing to do with it. Thank you.

It could fool the European Commission

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

When the European Commission want to consult the industry about something, they usually try to find a diverse cross sample. So they'll talk to BSA, some union, some Linux representative, etc. One possible choice for the "Linux representative" would be FSFE. FSFE would say "software patents are incompatible with the goals of the community we support". Another choice for the "Linux representative" now will be Linux Foundation (which is IBM and friends by a new name), and they'll say "software patents are grand, there are a few glitches that let unenforceable patents through, but we'll harness the community to fix these problems for us and everything will be fine". So the European Commission will publish a dreadful recommendation and will say "we even consulted the Linux free software crowd".

Re:Wrong way round!

[Brandybuck]

Most of what the Linux Foundation works is not Linux. So why narrow the scope to something on the periphery of their activity?

I agree with the article's premise: The Linux Foundation is not a standards organization, it's a trade organization.

Re: .sig

[Anonymous Coward]

> that Religion has answers to the "Why" questions Science cant answer

Really?

I think those answers are as valid as the FSM.

Re:because

[polemistes]

You're absolutely right.
One of the reasons Free Software or Open Source or whatever is less popular than Mac or Windows is computer hackers' inability to come up with catchy names. Mac is perhaps the most successful in giving names to their products.
The worst example is of course FSF's GNU, which sounds like some form of health organisation, and by insisting on GNU/Linux they're leaving 80% of the world's population behind, left with just a shrug.
Who would use Ekiga when they can use Skype? Or Gimp when they have Photoshop? I think a lot of potential Free Software users get turned off when they first hear about Gnome or KDE, not because the concept of choosing their desktop environment is too difficult to grasp, but because their names are so unattractive.
Linux is one of the few really successful names in Free Software, together with Firefox. That's why The Linux Foundation isn't a bad idea.
I think it's time for us who know that GNU is the most important software ever written, hidden behind the ugliest name, to start the renaming of the FOSS world, whether the hackers want it or not.

Re:Sure it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

"ad nauseum and et cetera"?

It's Grammar Nazi time!

First, it is "ad nauseam" (from "nausea" - which English even borrowed from Latin).

Secondly, "et" means "and", so in English that would be:
"until vomiting and and others".
Don't you see anything wrong with that?

Kids these days. No education to speak of whatsoever.