This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Free Software Foundation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 4, 2007, October 4, 2008, October 4, 2009, and October 4, 2010. |
|
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The article says FSF holds copyrights to most GNU software projects - there are thousands of independent GNU software products, so how can it be FSF owns them all? -- Abdull 08:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
From the Sister Organisations section, I've removed "On 2001-04-19, The Free Software Foundation France was founded in France." because I don't think FSF France is actually an official sister organisation of FSF.
A search of fsf.org can confirm that FSF-India is a sister organisation [1] and that FSF-Europe is a sister organisation [2] but I can't find anything to say FSF-France is a sister organisation. There is also an FSF-Hungry, but it's not an official sister organisation of FSF, it just uses the name.
Can anyone give more info? Gronky 20:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Staff_and_employees_of_the_Free_Software_Foundation.
This new article started as a section in this FSF article, and was split off with no rationale, discussion, or consensus by User:Chealer ( talk| contribs) . The editors of this FSF article could have good points to make on this AfD. Lentower 18:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yh Adriano Diogo Dos Banzelado ( talk) 11:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
View all Sebata2 ( talk) 23:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
There should be a section on criticism of FSF. 12.65.42.116 04:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
If you know of notable and encyclopedic information about this organization, you should add it. If some of that happens to be criticism, that's fine. If there's enough thematically similar criticism to warrant its own section, one should be created. Going out and fishing for criticism doesn't strike me the best way to improve this article. — mako ๛ 13:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC) It is not GNU/linux. Linux is a kernel. GNU was a failed project that was never finished so people began porting the software they made for it over to linux & bsd. Linux can perform without any GNU software it's basically Richards attempt to take credit for other people's work. The whole point of the free software foundation is to take down the selling of software rather than what they claim, which is freedom to modify software and sharing. Ironically they beg people to donate and purchase pointless objects at high prices to go into schools and lecture everyone on how they should not try to make a living in the field they are going into. But they are making money by doing all of this. They are hypocrites who want nothing more than corporate control and to oppress users and developers. It is not freedom if the intentions are to enforce and oppress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.241.143 ( talk) 20:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Witsubrene ( talk) 01:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the lists of notable whatevers. This article should describe and tell the story of FSF. Anyone notable should be mentioned in the description and story. These lists are also running into the usual problem of having no criteria for inclusion/exclusion. Here is what I removed:
====Notable current staff and employees====
====Notable former programmers==== In alphabetical order:
====Notable other former staff and employees==== In alphabetical order:
Gronky 16:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. Thanks! In general, the article reads a bit too much like a series of lists. I think this is a good baby step toward a solution. — mako ๛ 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a 1 sentence article describing a campaign that the FSF does. It really should be merged. Panoptical 18:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The voting board being a superset of the Board of Directors is an unsubstantiated claim. The Board of Directors and the voting board should reflect exactly http://www.fsf.org/about/leadership.html and there should be no distinction between the two. Joshuagay 14:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure this category is accurate since they aren't against intellectual property per se but certain classes of what they see as excess. However, from a navigational perspective it clearly should be in this category. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 16:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the instances of "digital restrictions management" in the article to "digital rights management". While I'm quite aware that the FSF promotes the latter term, it is not the canonically correct term for the technology, as used by the people who produce it. It is, of course, virtally important that we state in the article why this alternate expansion of the term is being promoted, with a reference back to the FSF's web site so that an interested reader can pursue it further. Whether any of us agree with the terms isn't important... WP:NPOV needs to be adhered to, and that means using the proper name, and not the politically-motivated rebranding of it. -/- Warren 11:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The "High priority projects" section should not replicate the list on fsf.org. If "High priority projects" is an interesting topic for an encyclopedia, it is interesting to describe it, not mirror it. What sort of projects get added to the high priority list? Do project generally stay there a long time? Is there any measureable success rate? What portion are non-GNU projects? Are there any common threads such as language/licence used?
Please, write about the list, don't write the list itself. -- Gronky ( talk) 10:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed a few external links, and I've converted others to references.
The world needs a descriptive webpage about FSF, and it needs a webpage to help people get involved in FSF's work. Wikipedia cannot be both, so let's let Wikipedia be the encyclopedia and let fsf.org be FSF's advocacy page. -- Gronky ( talk) 12:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this so called "freedoom movement" communist?
The first associate member is stated as bkuhn, but note that RMS is member zero. [3] -- Ashawley ( talk) 00:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
In the introduction it says this, ``From its founding until the mid-1980s, FSF's funds were mostly used to employ software developers to write free software for the GNU Project.'' It was founded in 1985... so it was never focused on employing software developers? This needs to be clarified. ~ 10nitro ( talk) 04:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Didn't the FSF once sponsor the development of the Debian GNU/Linux? 85.76.117.180 ( talk) 10:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Some more explanation is called for in the introductory paragraph of this section. For example, if the Foundation supports a movement, the purpose of which is "to promote the universal freedom to create, distribute and modify computer software," then it is not clear what "copyright infringement" would consist of for someone utilizing software subject to "universal freedom" of use. Indeed, it is not clear why the producers of such software would resort to copyright protection at all. The Foundation acting to uphold such copyrights would seem to be in contradiction with its primary stated purpose.
No doubt there is some perfectly reasonable explanation for this seeming inconsistency, but it is not readily apparent in this section, and the section is therefore more confusing than informative as it stands. I would edit this myself, but lack sufficient background on this issue to know what that explanation might be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 ( talk) 23:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The Criticism section needs checking. -- AVRS ( talk) 13:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I rewrote a paragraph which cited something next to opposite (maybe Torvalds criticized something that can be associated with Stallman in that post, but certainly not enforcement of GPL or any other license, developers’ choice of which he defended?!). -- AVRS ( talk) 13:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
In the second Torvalds paragraph; "Torvalds was quoted as saying that he does not want to be associated with "free software" and criticized the movement for having "extremists"." Is this quote actually about FSF, or is it directed to either the free software movement in general, possibly Stallman, or something else? I cant view the source since its behind a paywall, so can someone please determine what the target of the criticism is? I removed this paragraph and replaced with one where Torvalds makes a directed criticism towards FSF about the GPL 3 and its anti-DRM parts. 81.170.228.65 ( talk) 14:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The article “Ogg versus the world: don't fall for open-source FUD”, which is a reference for “The errors include the patent nature of the ogg format,” cites MPEG LA CEO's 2010 statement about Ogg Theora and other codecs (I might be misreading: is it cited as if it counters FSF’s statement about Ogg Vorbis; isn’t that wrong, even if Ogg Vorbis is one of the world’s “other codecs”?). What if it cited this 2000 article, where a Thomson representative said “We think it is likely they are infringing.” about Vorbis vs MP3? Is there anything in that article which has more ground on the subject of the patent nature of “ogg formats”? -- AVRS ( talk) 13:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a bit of confusion and opinions on the matter on what the word freedom means as it is being used in the article. The lead use the phrase "universal freedom" which Im not use if it actually helps clear the matter up. Recently a Criticism entry about this was added, but reverted because the sentence just added to the confusion and the hole thing was sourced by a blog post. Now, adding a section to clarify the different views on the word could help lesser the confusion, but at same time; would that actually make the article better? It should added that the article Liberty do in a very broad sense take up those different view points, so a summery section in how that relate to Freedom in a software sense could be an option here. Belorn ( talk) 04:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:FSF-Logo.svg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 04:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
I do not think the section with Ed Bott's comments are weighted correctly. Is his views inline with the existing significant viewpoints in regards to the FSF's PlayOgg and privacy campaigns? It look like his views are of a tiny minority, and thus do not really belong in this article. Belorn ( talk) 20:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
On May 2, 2010, Ed Bott, author of 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, [1] on ZDNet accused the FSF of presenting factual errors on the front page of their PlayOgg campaign and accused the author of deliberately attempting to misinform. [2]
Ed Bott stated that the FSF's reference to Microsoft being ordered to pay Alcatel-Lucent $1.5 billion in a MP3 patent lawsuit [3] was "an outright lie" because, although Microsoft was in fact found guilty and ordered to pay for infringing on their patent, the verdict was later reversed. However, the text he was criticizing was written prior to the reversal [4]. Ed Bott also criticized an alleged reference to software such as RealPlayer, Windows Media Player and iTunes as being formats instead of software, claiming that it was FUD. He also referred to the statement that those software titles spied on users as being "FUD in its purest form" and were "pretty serious accusation to make with no factual backup", in spite of widely reported privacy issues in RealPlayer, [4] [5] [6] iTunes [7] [8] and Windows Media Player. [9] [10]
I removed these from the article for various reasons. One is that they shouldn't be in a "Criticisms" section - criticisms should be (when relevant and significant) integrated into the sections which deal with that subtopic. Another is that these aren't criticisms, these are about some guy saying X is wrong, and someone else pointing out that X is widely known to be correct, etc.
If someone has time, the other two paragraphs of the Criticisms section should be reviewed. Is there no other place with a more complete handling of the GPLv3 process? Is a journalist's criticism of one or two FSF campaigns really significant, given that FSF is 28 years old and every one of their campaigns (just like every active, political organisation) has been moaned about by someone? Gronky ( talk) 14:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |authorlink=
(
help)
The intro should mention something about where FSF's funding comes from.
Sources:
I'm stuck for time right now and for the next month or two, but hope this helps someone. Gronky ( talk) 13:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The "Structure" section sort of rambled, so I sub-sectioned it. "Board", "Voting", "Finance", "Legal", "Membership", "Employment", hoping they'll attract more interest from editors who will want to fill them with more content.
"Voting" I have questions about. It had a legalese quote in it, seemed contradictory, had discussion from bkhun, and is still confusing. Why is "FSF Articles of Organization" going to the Massachusetts state government web site is a minor question I have, but more importantly, the information was no longer there. The legalese quote I footnoted; another cite I copied from the talk page; and a third "ref name=maaa" (Mass. Articles of Ammendment) are all citing the same source, but the quotes and information are not there. — Cpiral Cpiral 04:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The sentence "FSF in opposite of its Motto restricts freedom" looks like an opinion to me. Shouldn't the cited text be removed and the fact expressed in a NPOV way? 181.15.176.3 ( talk) 18:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with this. The citations were pretty shaky to make the point, which was badly worded and highly POV. Is this even the right place to discuss the difference between FSF "free" software and permissive licenses? As has been mentioned a few times here in Talk, this seems to be an issue with the term "freedom". I've removed the line. FracV ( talk) 23:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems like there should be some discussion of the kinds of controversies discussed in GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns and GnuTLS, copyright assignment, and GNU project governance. I haven't gotten to the bottom the whole story yet or I would add it... II | ( t - c) 04:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Text currently says "Since the mid-1990s, the FSF's employees and volunteers have mostly worked on legal and structural issues for the free software movement and the free software community."
I suggest adding advocacy camapaigns (expanded on here [1]) to this sentence -- at least three of the FSF's more than ten staff focus on advocacy as part of the campaigns team. Georgia ( talk) 15:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment puis-je suite à ce malentendu re participer aux discussion? Ludo517 ( talk) 23:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
None of the recent history between Free Software Foundation and GNU is mentioned in this article. Why not? Erxnmedia ( talk) 15:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Free Software Foundation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 4, 2007, October 4, 2008, October 4, 2009, and October 4, 2010. |
|
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
|
The article says FSF holds copyrights to most GNU software projects - there are thousands of independent GNU software products, so how can it be FSF owns them all? -- Abdull 08:58, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
From the Sister Organisations section, I've removed "On 2001-04-19, The Free Software Foundation France was founded in France." because I don't think FSF France is actually an official sister organisation of FSF.
A search of fsf.org can confirm that FSF-India is a sister organisation [1] and that FSF-Europe is a sister organisation [2] but I can't find anything to say FSF-France is a sister organisation. There is also an FSF-Hungry, but it's not an official sister organisation of FSF, it just uses the name.
Can anyone give more info? Gronky 20:46, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Staff_and_employees_of_the_Free_Software_Foundation.
This new article started as a section in this FSF article, and was split off with no rationale, discussion, or consensus by User:Chealer ( talk| contribs) . The editors of this FSF article could have good points to make on this AfD. Lentower 18:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Yh Adriano Diogo Dos Banzelado ( talk) 11:57, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
View all Sebata2 ( talk) 23:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
There should be a section on criticism of FSF. 12.65.42.116 04:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
If you know of notable and encyclopedic information about this organization, you should add it. If some of that happens to be criticism, that's fine. If there's enough thematically similar criticism to warrant its own section, one should be created. Going out and fishing for criticism doesn't strike me the best way to improve this article. — mako ๛ 13:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC) It is not GNU/linux. Linux is a kernel. GNU was a failed project that was never finished so people began porting the software they made for it over to linux & bsd. Linux can perform without any GNU software it's basically Richards attempt to take credit for other people's work. The whole point of the free software foundation is to take down the selling of software rather than what they claim, which is freedom to modify software and sharing. Ironically they beg people to donate and purchase pointless objects at high prices to go into schools and lecture everyone on how they should not try to make a living in the field they are going into. But they are making money by doing all of this. They are hypocrites who want nothing more than corporate control and to oppress users and developers. It is not freedom if the intentions are to enforce and oppress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.4.241.143 ( talk) 20:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC) Witsubrene ( talk) 01:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the lists of notable whatevers. This article should describe and tell the story of FSF. Anyone notable should be mentioned in the description and story. These lists are also running into the usual problem of having no criteria for inclusion/exclusion. Here is what I removed:
====Notable current staff and employees====
====Notable former programmers==== In alphabetical order:
====Notable other former staff and employees==== In alphabetical order:
Gronky 16:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Seems reasonable. Thanks! In general, the article reads a bit too much like a series of lists. I think this is a good baby step toward a solution. — mako ๛ 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
This is a 1 sentence article describing a campaign that the FSF does. It really should be merged. Panoptical 18:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The voting board being a superset of the Board of Directors is an unsubstantiated claim. The Board of Directors and the voting board should reflect exactly http://www.fsf.org/about/leadership.html and there should be no distinction between the two. Joshuagay 14:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure this category is accurate since they aren't against intellectual property per se but certain classes of what they see as excess. However, from a navigational perspective it clearly should be in this category. Thoughts? JoshuaZ 16:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I've changed the instances of "digital restrictions management" in the article to "digital rights management". While I'm quite aware that the FSF promotes the latter term, it is not the canonically correct term for the technology, as used by the people who produce it. It is, of course, virtally important that we state in the article why this alternate expansion of the term is being promoted, with a reference back to the FSF's web site so that an interested reader can pursue it further. Whether any of us agree with the terms isn't important... WP:NPOV needs to be adhered to, and that means using the proper name, and not the politically-motivated rebranding of it. -/- Warren 11:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
The "High priority projects" section should not replicate the list on fsf.org. If "High priority projects" is an interesting topic for an encyclopedia, it is interesting to describe it, not mirror it. What sort of projects get added to the high priority list? Do project generally stay there a long time? Is there any measureable success rate? What portion are non-GNU projects? Are there any common threads such as language/licence used?
Please, write about the list, don't write the list itself. -- Gronky ( talk) 10:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I've removed a few external links, and I've converted others to references.
The world needs a descriptive webpage about FSF, and it needs a webpage to help people get involved in FSF's work. Wikipedia cannot be both, so let's let Wikipedia be the encyclopedia and let fsf.org be FSF's advocacy page. -- Gronky ( talk) 12:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Is this so called "freedoom movement" communist?
The first associate member is stated as bkuhn, but note that RMS is member zero. [3] -- Ashawley ( talk) 00:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
In the introduction it says this, ``From its founding until the mid-1980s, FSF's funds were mostly used to employ software developers to write free software for the GNU Project.'' It was founded in 1985... so it was never focused on employing software developers? This needs to be clarified. ~ 10nitro ( talk) 04:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Didn't the FSF once sponsor the development of the Debian GNU/Linux? 85.76.117.180 ( talk) 10:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Some more explanation is called for in the introductory paragraph of this section. For example, if the Foundation supports a movement, the purpose of which is "to promote the universal freedom to create, distribute and modify computer software," then it is not clear what "copyright infringement" would consist of for someone utilizing software subject to "universal freedom" of use. Indeed, it is not clear why the producers of such software would resort to copyright protection at all. The Foundation acting to uphold such copyrights would seem to be in contradiction with its primary stated purpose.
No doubt there is some perfectly reasonable explanation for this seeming inconsistency, but it is not readily apparent in this section, and the section is therefore more confusing than informative as it stands. I would edit this myself, but lack sufficient background on this issue to know what that explanation might be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.92.174.105 ( talk) 23:20, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The Criticism section needs checking. -- AVRS ( talk) 13:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I rewrote a paragraph which cited something next to opposite (maybe Torvalds criticized something that can be associated with Stallman in that post, but certainly not enforcement of GPL or any other license, developers’ choice of which he defended?!). -- AVRS ( talk) 13:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
In the second Torvalds paragraph; "Torvalds was quoted as saying that he does not want to be associated with "free software" and criticized the movement for having "extremists"." Is this quote actually about FSF, or is it directed to either the free software movement in general, possibly Stallman, or something else? I cant view the source since its behind a paywall, so can someone please determine what the target of the criticism is? I removed this paragraph and replaced with one where Torvalds makes a directed criticism towards FSF about the GPL 3 and its anti-DRM parts. 81.170.228.65 ( talk) 14:32, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
The article “Ogg versus the world: don't fall for open-source FUD”, which is a reference for “The errors include the patent nature of the ogg format,” cites MPEG LA CEO's 2010 statement about Ogg Theora and other codecs (I might be misreading: is it cited as if it counters FSF’s statement about Ogg Vorbis; isn’t that wrong, even if Ogg Vorbis is one of the world’s “other codecs”?). What if it cited this 2000 article, where a Thomson representative said “We think it is likely they are infringing.” about Vorbis vs MP3? Is there anything in that article which has more ground on the subject of the patent nature of “ogg formats”? -- AVRS ( talk) 13:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
I think there is a bit of confusion and opinions on the matter on what the word freedom means as it is being used in the article. The lead use the phrase "universal freedom" which Im not use if it actually helps clear the matter up. Recently a Criticism entry about this was added, but reverted because the sentence just added to the confusion and the hole thing was sourced by a blog post. Now, adding a section to clarify the different views on the word could help lesser the confusion, but at same time; would that actually make the article better? It should added that the article Liberty do in a very broad sense take up those different view points, so a summery section in how that relate to Freedom in a software sense could be an option here. Belorn ( talk) 04:11, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:FSF-Logo.svg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 04:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC) |
I do not think the section with Ed Bott's comments are weighted correctly. Is his views inline with the existing significant viewpoints in regards to the FSF's PlayOgg and privacy campaigns? It look like his views are of a tiny minority, and thus do not really belong in this article. Belorn ( talk) 20:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
On May 2, 2010, Ed Bott, author of 25 books on Microsoft Windows and Office, [1] on ZDNet accused the FSF of presenting factual errors on the front page of their PlayOgg campaign and accused the author of deliberately attempting to misinform. [2]
Ed Bott stated that the FSF's reference to Microsoft being ordered to pay Alcatel-Lucent $1.5 billion in a MP3 patent lawsuit [3] was "an outright lie" because, although Microsoft was in fact found guilty and ordered to pay for infringing on their patent, the verdict was later reversed. However, the text he was criticizing was written prior to the reversal [4]. Ed Bott also criticized an alleged reference to software such as RealPlayer, Windows Media Player and iTunes as being formats instead of software, claiming that it was FUD. He also referred to the statement that those software titles spied on users as being "FUD in its purest form" and were "pretty serious accusation to make with no factual backup", in spite of widely reported privacy issues in RealPlayer, [4] [5] [6] iTunes [7] [8] and Windows Media Player. [9] [10]
I removed these from the article for various reasons. One is that they shouldn't be in a "Criticisms" section - criticisms should be (when relevant and significant) integrated into the sections which deal with that subtopic. Another is that these aren't criticisms, these are about some guy saying X is wrong, and someone else pointing out that X is widely known to be correct, etc.
If someone has time, the other two paragraphs of the Criticisms section should be reviewed. Is there no other place with a more complete handling of the GPLv3 process? Is a journalist's criticism of one or two FSF campaigns really significant, given that FSF is 28 years old and every one of their campaigns (just like every active, political organisation) has been moaned about by someone? Gronky ( talk) 14:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |authorlink=
(
help)
The intro should mention something about where FSF's funding comes from.
Sources:
I'm stuck for time right now and for the next month or two, but hope this helps someone. Gronky ( talk) 13:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
The "Structure" section sort of rambled, so I sub-sectioned it. "Board", "Voting", "Finance", "Legal", "Membership", "Employment", hoping they'll attract more interest from editors who will want to fill them with more content.
"Voting" I have questions about. It had a legalese quote in it, seemed contradictory, had discussion from bkhun, and is still confusing. Why is "FSF Articles of Organization" going to the Massachusetts state government web site is a minor question I have, but more importantly, the information was no longer there. The legalese quote I footnoted; another cite I copied from the talk page; and a third "ref name=maaa" (Mass. Articles of Ammendment) are all citing the same source, but the quotes and information are not there. — Cpiral Cpiral 04:02, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
The sentence "FSF in opposite of its Motto restricts freedom" looks like an opinion to me. Shouldn't the cited text be removed and the fact expressed in a NPOV way? 181.15.176.3 ( talk) 18:52, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with this. The citations were pretty shaky to make the point, which was badly worded and highly POV. Is this even the right place to discuss the difference between FSF "free" software and permissive licenses? As has been mentioned a few times here in Talk, this seems to be an issue with the term "freedom". I've removed the line. FracV ( talk) 23:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
It seems like there should be some discussion of the kinds of controversies discussed in GNU sed 4.2.2 released; maintainer resigns and GnuTLS, copyright assignment, and GNU project governance. I haven't gotten to the bottom the whole story yet or I would add it... II | ( t - c) 04:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Text currently says "Since the mid-1990s, the FSF's employees and volunteers have mostly worked on legal and structural issues for the free software movement and the free software community."
I suggest adding advocacy camapaigns (expanded on here [1]) to this sentence -- at least three of the FSF's more than ten staff focus on advocacy as part of the campaigns team. Georgia ( talk) 15:16, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment puis-je suite à ce malentendu re participer aux discussion? Ludo517 ( talk) 23:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
None of the recent history between Free Software Foundation and GNU is mentioned in this article. Why not? Erxnmedia ( talk) 15:50, 20 January 2020 (UTC)