emails about FSFE impersonating the FSF

[Daniel Pocock]

I've published more emails about the FSFE problem here:

https://danielpocock.com/matthias-fsfe-analogous-identity-fraud/

Regards,

Daniel

-- 
https://softwarefreedom.institute
Software Freedom Institute SA, CHE-426.705.848
c/o Impact Hub, Avenue des Bergières 10
1004 Lausanne, Switzerland
tel:+41-21-552-7000

Follow with RSS: https://softwarefreedom.institute/en/feed.xml

recognition of Dr Richard Stallman, Honorary Debian Developer

[Daniel Pocock]

I've recently been able to acquire[1] the Debian trademark in Switzerland

Using whatever authority comes with the trademark, I'm recognizing Dr
Stallman as an Honorary Debian Developer

For safety, I revoked the Code of Conduct before[1] doing this.

Thanks Dr Stallman, none of the competing Debian trademark registrations
would exist without your efforts creating the GNU software and
philosophy in the first place.


Regards,

Daniel


1. https://danielpocock.com/using-the-debian-trademark-for-good/




-- 
https://softwarefreedom.institute
Software Freedom Institute SA, CHE-426.705.848
c/o Impact Hub, rue du Jura 11
1004 Lausanne, Switzerland
tel:+41-21-552-7000

why didn't de Blanc include Matthias Kirschner, FSFE in open letter?

[Daniel Pocock]

There is far more evidence concerning Kirschner's behavior towards women.

A female employee engaged a lawyer to tell him not to visit her home

He still came to her home anyway.

http://fsfellowship.eu/matthias-kirschner-jonas-oberg-fsfe-paternity-maternity-hypocrisy/

de Blanc and her enablers choose to attack RMS

They choose not to turn a blind eye to Kirschner, they give him money,
which shows active support for bullying when convenient.

Re: police report against the petition mob

[Daniel Pocock]

On 27/03/2021 01:05, DJ Delorie wrote:
> 
> There's a huge difference between an armed insurrection at a political
> capital, and people expressing their opinions calmly in writing
> (regardless of what those opinions are, or how much you sensationalize
> them).  Choosing such highly "emotionally charged" words when making
> such unfair comparisons only adds fuel to the fire.
> 
> Please use kinder words.
> 
> (and I mean this for people on both sides of this conversation)
> 


It is not about the presence of weapons

The issue here is about the polarization, asking people to take sides

Asking people to use the force of numbers instead of developing leadership

If people want to replace RMS or the leader of any organization or
country then the best way to do so is by demonstrating a higher standard
of leadership.

police report against the petition mob

[Daniel Pocock]

If you feel the same pain watching the attacks on RMS that you felt
watching the mob at the US Capitol then you are a witness to a crime.

https://debian.community/molly-de-blanc-arrest-and-prosecution-for-cyberbullying/

Uncensored Speakers invitation today/tonight, Honorary Membership for RMS

[Daniel Pocock]

I've written to the President of Uncensored Speakers and suggested
making RMS an Honorary Member

The next meeting is 18:50 UTC today, that is in about 45 minutes from
now.  There is a guest speaker from Harvard, Professor Latica Tomasic
Kickert will talk about leadership.

The meetings are usually held in a Dublin bar but they are online due to
the pandemic

Free as in beer or Free as in Zoom

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/277302726?pwd=VjFuVy9rUXpEMXRLRFhRc1pYZHRMUT09

https://uncensoredspeakers.toastmasterclub.org/

RMS and fresh censorship attempts

[Daniel Pocock]

I don't know if this message will be received or not

Is it a coincidence that RMS returns to the FSF board and there is a
simultaneous campaign to censor blogs from other web sites and services?

Is anybody else experiencing these censorship attempts on mailing lists,
IRC, Planet sites, social media or anywhere else?

The petition against RMS is a prima-facie example of cyberbullying

If people don't agree with the leader of an organization they can always
resign.  Hundreds of people resigned from FSFE after their President,
Matthias Kirschner, sacked[1] all the women.

The posts that various organizations have made about RMS on their blogs
and Planet sites are violations of their own Codes of Conduct.  This
demonstrates the Animal Farm phenomena is well and truly at work.  When
it comes to obeying a Code of Conduct, all animals are equal but some
animals are more equal than others.


1.
http://fsfellowship.eu/matthias-kirschner-jonas-oberg-fsfe-paternity-maternity-hypocrisy/

Re: Shannon Dosemagen and the FSF

[Daniel Pocock]

On 01/03/2020 01:56, aviva wrote:

> It is a radical organization that ostracizes anyone who doesn't believe
> in it's principles, and has a chilling effect on public discourse.   

Please don't emphasize that point

Some free software organizations try to ostracize volunteers who simply
aren't willing to follow orders like submissive tradwives.  Leaders of
such organisations will be sitting in the front row for this keynote
looking for tips.

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Daniel Pocock]

On 28/02/2020 05:37, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 22:26:27 +0100, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> It took me a few days, but I finally came up with a concise summary of
>> the situation:
>>
>> https://fsfellowship.eu/what-is-a-safe-space/
> 
> I am ashamed to have "free software" appear on this page and for anyone
> to believe I or anyone else here may be affiliated with such an
> extremist and horrific perspective.  How dare you equate the ongoing
> discussion with the slaughter of people.
> 
> This is not welcome on this list.
> 

The UN’s special rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhumane or
degrading treatment or punishment has said[1] exactly the same thing as me.

The PsyOps techniques that large free software communities are now using
against volunteers, minimising people's views, misquoting/gaslighting,
scapegoating, shaming and emotional blackmail do as much harm or more
than physical violence.

These have become tools-of-the-trade for the people who sought to
displace RMS

Regards,

Daniel


1.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/feb/21/un-rapporteur-warns-of-rise-of-cybertorture-to-bypass-physical-ban

Re: Why the "social contract" should not be endorsed

[Daniel Pocock]

On 22/02/2020 08:29, Alex Taylor wrote:
> Finally "endorsing" the text would give the rebel group a legitimacy
> which they neither have, nor deserve.  It's instructive to look at the
> track record of these renegades.   The Guile and Guix projects have both
> excluded and/or vilified people who disagree with the people in power
> (the same people who push the "social contract").    If you choose to
> endorse this text, bear in mind that the words are imprecise so don't be
> surprised if, sometime down the road, your endorsement is used as a
> weapon against you when you fall out of favor with the powermongers.

It took me a few days, but I finally came up with a concise summary of
the situation:

https://fsfellowship.eu/what-is-a-safe-space/

Re: avoiding the bias in vocabulary

[Daniel Pocock]

On 19/02/2020 23:26, Alexandre François Garreau wrote:
> Le samedi 15 février 2020, 18:56:21 CET Daniel Pocock a écrit :
> 
>> There are a lot of words used in various discussions today that have
> 
>> some bias.
> 
>>
> 
>> For example, the word /ban/ is quite disparaging to the victim. Simply
> 
>> using the word continues the bias.
> 
>>
> 
>> From a technical perspective, banning somebody from a mailing list and
> 
>> censoring somebody on a mailing list are both achieved by clicking the
> 
>> same button.
> 
>>
> 
>> Use the word ban, it leaves a lingering feeling that the volunteer may
> 
>> have done something questionable.
> 
>>
> 
>> Use the word censor, it implies the organization is avoiding some
> 
>> questions.
> 
>  
> 
> Use the word “moderate” it implies something has gone (irrelevantly?)
> too much or excessive;

No two people have the same definition of too much or too little.

To put it another way, each person values a different set of issues.

Avoiding the issue by ridiculing the person is a disturbing trend.

Making character attacks against somebody because /you/ think they
respond too quickly is as bad as kicking people out when somebody else
thinks they didn't respond quickly enough.

The only course of action left is for people to sit in the middle and
not say anything controversial, in other words, sell their souls to the
gods of groupthink.


> use the word “toxic” it implies you’re contaminated (it’s transitive),
> from an evil you can’t see right-away.

That reminds me of the woman who gives talks about humiliating people.
I'm not a fan of the term toxic woman but that's the expression that
comes to mind.

enforcement => bullying

safe space => cult

community => unpaid workforce

twitter storm => lynching

harassment (in a free software community) => speaking truth to power



Regards,

Daniel

--
Debian Developer
https://danielpocock.com

torture in online communities, FSF, Debian, etc

[Daniel Pocock]

There is news today about expanding the definition of torture to include
the psychological abuse we see in online communities.

They specifically talk about the practices of shaming and humiliating
people, as we've seen in FSF abusing RMS and Debian abusing a number of
volunteers.

Misquoting people and gaslighting both appear in PsyOps manuals.

Regards,

Daniel


1.
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2020/feb/21/un-rapporteur-warns-of-rise-of-cybertorture-to-bypass-physical-ban

Re: avoiding the bias in vocabulary

[Daniel Pocock]

On 15/02/2020 21:30, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> 
> 
> On 15/02/2020 21:11, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:
>> On 2020-02-15 09:56, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>> There are a lot of words used in various discussions today that have
>>> some bias.
>>>
>>> For example, the word /ban/ is quite disparaging to the victim.  Simply
>>> using the word continues the bias.
>>
>> Note that this word is quite central in the "Code of Conduct" proposed
>> on the
>> disruptive, deceptive "gnu.tools" site.
>>
>> There's gonna be witch hunts if these brown shirt scoundrels have their
>> way.
> 
> Using the word ban in a formal document is incredibly immature.
> 
> It implies that this is more like a WhatsApp group than an organization
> of professionals.
> 

An extended list:


ban => censor

privacy policy => privacy waiver

code of conduct => code of obedience

contributor license agreement => unpaid employment agreement
(applicable to some of the badder CLAs)

permissive license => doormat license

the difference between Open Source and Free Software?
  => white-collar modern-day slavery


Can anybody think of other examples of terms that are misleading or biased?

Regards,

Daniel

Re: duplicated messages and NYLXS cross-posting

[Daniel Pocock]

On 16/02/2020 15:02, John Darrington wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 16, 2020 at 01:44:57PM +0000, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 16/02/2020 12:59, Ruben Safir wrote:
>>> It is pretty simple.  Stop trying to remove the emotional content
>>> of my emails in face of this broad injustice to RMS and GNU
>>
>> This is a legitimate and important point
> 
> I'm not sure to which point you are refering.
> 
> Highlighting injustice is certainly a legitimate use of GNU 
> infrastructure - especially when it is being perpetrated in
> such a sustained and systematic way.
> 
> On the other hand, using this list to vent emotion (even when
> severly provoked) is not, in my opinion, an acceptable use.


Let me clarify then:

Except for some extreme cases, emails featuring emotive language don't
deserve to be censored

People who use metaphors as a way to help readers understand something
are not doing anything wrong either.  John Sullivan censored me from
libreplanet when I used the lynching metaphor.  If anybody wants to
discuss that particular metaphor, please don't reply here, take it up on
the libreplanet-discuss list.

An example with emotion and metaphor that would be censored under some
Codes of Conduct:
After the corruption of voting in FSFE and the Debian Project Leader
election in 2019, I felt really cheated, like those Aussie swimmers who
missed out on medals at the Olympics because the Chinese were doping.

Regards,

Daniel

Re: duplicated messages and NYLXS cross-posting

[Daniel Pocock]

On 16/02/2020 12:59, Ruben Safir wrote:
> It is pretty simple.  Stop trying to remove the emotional content
> of my emails in face of this broad injustice to RMS and GNU

This is a legitimate and important point

Any serious course on communication teaches that logos, ethos and pathos
go together.

One of the things people try to do with Codes of Conduct is to undermine
that, reducing the communication to logos alone.  In other words, people
can do work for free in their communities but nobody can offer an
alternative leadership vision.

> Stop the soft talking Nazi's from pushing their political agenda to
> destroy GNU
> 
> and Stop Censuring me.
> 
> After 30 years of this crap on mailing lists, this is the breaking
> point.  I am sick of these talk kindly and be nice rules  when people
> are straight out trying to .

This is an accurate assessment of the situation.

Nonetheless, I don't feel your solution is the only option and I feel
you can make more impact without certain words.

As for a technical solution, please look at how I put the Libre back
into Libreplanet:
https://fsfellowship.eu/freedom-and-censorship-on-mailing-lists/

Running a forked list for discuss...@lists.fsfe.org was important
because I see no value in encouraging new people to join FSFE.  The
constitution of the organization is rigged and they have no elections
any more.  They are Google puppets.

But for FSF/LibrePlanet and GNU, the situation is a little bit
different.  By simulating List-Id headers, you avoid the inconvenience
of duplicate messages.  Less people will be annoyed and they focus on
contents of your message rather than the duplication of messages.

Look at what happened in FSFE, here is how I tell the story without foul
language, do you feel it remains easy to read and gets the point across?

a) May 2017: an independent candidate elected, not the person management
wanted

b) December 2017: to dilute the vote of people elected by the community,
the FSFE President appoints his friend Florian Snow and some of his
employees to have a vote in the GA/board too

c) May 2018: special general meeting changes constitution.  Only 9
people at the meeting, 5 staff.  It is done in Berlin office while the
community representative is at an event in Kosovo.

d) later 2018: FSFE President censors emails and blog of the
representative elected by the community

e) FSFE President engages in conspiracy with Debian and Mozilla to
further censor blog posts of last community representative, removing the
representative from FSFE and Debian keyring on the same day

They offered the community an election, they didn't get a result they
liked so they made a conspiracy.  This level of cheating is clearly
criminal.

Regards,

Daniel

Re: duplicated messages and NYLXS cross-posting

[Daniel Pocock]

On 16/02/2020 09:43, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>Is FSF censoring gnu-misc-discuss and other GNU lists and are these
>other things an attempt to circumvent that?
> 
> The FSF is not handling moderation of GNU project mailing lists, nor
> is there any censorship going on here anymore.  The list _is_

I noticed some of my own posts to this list were delayed, sometimes by
many hours

> moderated but that is to get rid of very nasty and obvious garbage --
> the majority sent by a single person who is the one who setup the
> ghost list.  Since they are constantly trying to subvert any means, it
> has meant that things pass through slowly, and sometimes garbage
> sneaks through.  
> 
> I suspect that people are also simply confused as to which list is
> which, making it look all crazy.

That may be the primary intention of some people.  Some users end up
unsubscribing from all the lists when confronted with too much garbage
and confusion.

>Can there be a more efficient way to achieve this?
> 
> Since the GNU project isn't in control of the ghost list, we can't do
> much to address that. :-( Do you have any suggestions on how to tackle
> this? 

The first thing is transparency.  It is useful to document factually,
not politically, what has actually happened.  E.g. foo was censored, foo
forked the list, how many people have copies of subscriber data,
unsubscribe links for each list.  This can be written without taking
sides or blaming anybody.  Most users can decide for themselves how they
want to proceed.

Users who control their own mail servers probably have tactical
solutions they can use, e.g. /etc/postfix/access

Mail filters can also be used.  For example, telling the filter to match
on certain things in the Received headers.

Strategically, both the censorship that started the problem and the
attempts to work around the censorship are both faults that need to be
addressed at a high level, it raises questions like:

- what is the best way to build an electronic communications platform
that is de-centralized, without gatekeepers/censors/moderators but also
not susceptible to abuse?

- taking a step back even further, can and should free software
communities operate without discussion lists or any mailing lists?

Regards,

Daniel

duplicated messages and NYLXS cross-posting

[Daniel Pocock]

Some odd things appear to be going on between gnu-misc-discuss and
hang...@nylxs.com

Some people appear to be cross-posting to both lists and/or other lists

Somebody appears to have set up out-of-band forwarding of messages from
the list hang...@nylxs.com to go to other individual addresses
subscribed to the gnu-misc-discuss list so some messages are delivered
more than once.

Is FSF censoring gnu-misc-discuss and other GNU lists and are these
other things an attempt to circumvent that?

Can there be a more efficient way to achieve this?

Re: avoiding the bias in vocabulary

[Daniel Pocock]

On 15/02/2020 21:11, Kaz Kylheku (gnu-misc-discuss) wrote:
> On 2020-02-15 09:56, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>> There are a lot of words used in various discussions today that have
>> some bias.
>>
>> For example, the word /ban/ is quite disparaging to the victim.  Simply
>> using the word continues the bias.
> 
> Note that this word is quite central in the "Code of Conduct" proposed
> on the
> disruptive, deceptive "gnu.tools" site.
> 
> There's gonna be witch hunts if these brown shirt scoundrels have their
> way.

Using the word ban in a formal document is incredibly immature.

It implies that this is more like a WhatsApp group than an organization
of professionals.

Regards,

Daniel

Re: GNU Social Contract version 1.0

[Daniel Pocock]

On 14/02/2020 18:03, Andreas Enge wrote:

> We have invited all GNU maintainers to send a message until February 24,
> the end of the endorsement period, to endorse this version 1.0 of the
> GNU Social Contract, or to declare they do not wish to adhere to it.

You appear to be presenting that as a binary decision.

The way you write "do not wish to adhere to it", you appear to be
implying that people who don't explicitly and publicly endorse it are
therefore against it.

There are many people who may already be quite comfortable with some or
all of the social contract but they don't want to publicly endorse it in
its current form.

A situation where people have to choose one side or the other is
basically a split or a fork of the community.  If that is what you want,
please don't hide behind the social contract, why not just create a gnu
group with a gnu name and ask everybody who wants a social contract to
resign from GNU and join your group instead?

Maybe you could call your new group "GNU Europe", taking inspiration
from the business model of the "FSF Europe" domain squatters?

Personally, I'm not speaking for or against your social contract.  My
concern is with the process.

Regards,

Daniel

avoiding the bias in vocabulary

[Daniel Pocock]

There are a lot of words used in various discussions today that have
some bias.

For example, the word /ban/ is quite disparaging to the victim.  Simply
using the word continues the bias.

>From a technical perspective, banning somebody from a mailing list and
censoring somebody on a mailing list are both achieved by clicking the
same button.

Use the word ban, it leaves a lingering feeling that the volunteer may
have done something questionable.

Use the word censor, it implies the organization is avoiding some
questions.

Re: Endorsing version 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract

[Daniel Pocock]

> I, Frederic Y. Bois, maintainer of package GNU MCSim, endorse version
> 1.0 of the GNU Social Contract, available at
> .


People are welcome to endorse the social contract (or any other
document, like the Bible or the Koran) if they wish

However, how is that relevant if some people endorse it and others don't?

Could it be better to work from the ground up, to document the points
which almost everybody agrees on before talking about the points that
are controversial?

what is GNU? what is a social contract?

[Daniel Pocock]

To correctly talk about things like the social contract, I feel it is
first necessary to define what GNU means

Each person may have a slightly different answer.

When talking about a social contract or any other document like that: it
is a bit like the Bible or the Koran: people can interpret the document
to mean anything they want.  For example, does Debian's social contract
prohibit debian-private or does it even encourage leaking of
debian-private?  Decide for yourself.

https://debian.community/does-debian-private-violate-the-debian-social-contract/

Regards,

Daniel


--
Debian Developer
https://danielpocock.com

code of conduct, or code of rights?

[Daniel Pocock]

This is very relevant to discussions about a Code of Conduct

The acid attack is also an interesting metaphor for what people have
done to RMS, the attempts to associate him with villains, etc

https://debian.community/codes-of-conduct-and-hypocrisy/

"Most people don't object to codes of conduct, but we have to remember
that not all codes of conduct are equal."

As far as I know, no cats were harmed in making this blog.

Re: suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

[Daniel Pocock]

On 15/01/2020 01:19, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> 
> 
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 5:48 PM Daniel Pocock  <mailto:dan...@pocock.pro>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 15/01/2020 00:42, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> > This will create a lot of paperwork which puts GNU project
> maintainers in a 
> > very bad position. In practice, 
> this is the sad reality of an organization where volunteers have not
> been registered as equal members with equal votes in the corporate
> entity, FSF, Inc
> 
> 
> You are missing the point entirely. This is not about representation or
> voting,
> this is about the burden of daily activities.


I agree those issues are important and burdensome for the project
maintainers.

Nonetheless, contributors have a right to decide who owns the
intellectual property.

The decision of the contributor/developer comes first as they are the
one contributing their time and skill without any payment whatsoever.
Everything else has to be secondary to that.

Regards,

Daniel

Re: suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

[Daniel Pocock]

On 15/01/2020 00:42, Joel Sherrill wrote:
> This will create a lot of paperwork which puts GNU project maintainers in a 
> very bad position. In practice, 
this is the sad reality of an organization where volunteers have not
been registered as equal members with equal votes in the corporate
entity, FSF, Inc

Re: Moderation / Censorship

[Daniel Pocock]

On 14/01/2020 19:28, Jean Louis wrote:
> * Ludovic Courtès  [2020-01-14 15:39]:
>> Dear moderators,
>>
>> A large part of the traffic over the last few weeks was repeated
>> ad-hominem attacks, always by the same people.
>>
>> This is a violation of the list’s stated policy at
>> .  It gives a
>> poor image of the project and undoubtedly silences many.
>>
>> I call on to you to make it stop.  I reckon moderation is a tough and
>> thankless task, and I am grateful for your work, but I think it’s in the
>> project’s interest to put an end to abuse of that sort.
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>> Ludo’.
> 
> Then why did you start in the first place with defamation of GNU
> project and RMS?
> 
> Reference:
> https://guix.gnu.org/blog/2019/joint-statement-on-the-gnu-project/
> 
> It is violation of GUIX Code of Conduct.


Neither Moderation nor a Code of Conduct is a solution

We need to think outside the box about the way communication is effected
in free software communities.

It looks like the list is already moderated / censored.  I posted a
message today and it took 59 minutes to be distributed.  Check the
Received headers of messages you receive to see if that is happening to
other people.

Regards,

Daniel

Re: suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

[Daniel Pocock]

On 14/01/2020 22:31, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2020 at 10:39 AM Daniel Pocock  wrote:
>> FSF will not change unless somebody gives them a strong reason to change.
>>
>> For example, if GNU developers write the following email to FSF, that
>> will bring change.
>>
>> Each developer needs to make their own decision if they will send the
>> email.  RMS has previously suggested he would not like people to
>> completely abandon the agreements.  The email template below is only for
>> a conditional suspension of the agreement.  Nobody can tell you to
>> continue assigning[1] your rights to FSF if you want to wait for more
>> clarity about FSF's future.
>>
>> You can still keep coding during the suspension: if a significant
>> quantity of code is published and virtually embargoed like this, it
>> creates an incentive for FSF to satisfy those people and gain rights
>> over that code.
> 
> I can empathize with your frustration over the current state of
> affairs and the lack of transparency (including timely updates to
> members of the FSF).
> 
> However, what you propose is seems like a measure of last resort.
> 

That is a matter of perspective

In France, la grève is the go-to solution


> May I encourage you to help the current GNU Project volunteers working
> to define a governance model that is organized from the bottom-up? A
> governance model that rallies around the community to engage them in
> the goals of the GNU Project, not just the outcomes.

My proposal is not intended to distract from that. Rather, it is
intended to help focus people's minds.

> We absolutely need people like you to promote the goals of the GNU Project.
> 

Thanks, I really appreciate your positive attitude.

suspending FSF contributor agreements with immediate effect

[Daniel Pocock]

FSF will not change unless somebody gives them a strong reason to change.

For example, if GNU developers write the following email to FSF, that
will bring change.

Each developer needs to make their own decision if they will send the
email.  RMS has previously suggested he would not like people to
completely abandon the agreements.  The email template below is only for
a conditional suspension of the agreement.  Nobody can tell you to
continue assigning[1] your rights to FSF if you want to wait for more
clarity about FSF's future.

You can still keep coding during the suspension: if a significant
quantity of code is published and virtually embargoed like this, it
creates an incentive for FSF to satisfy those people and gain rights
over that code.

Regards,

Daniel Pocock
--
Debian Developer
https://danielpocock.com



To: John Sullivan 
CC: (relevant project mailing lists)
Subject: suspension of contributor agreement

Dear John,

I am writing to suspend my FSF / GNU project contributor agreement[1]
signed __/__/

I will continue contributing code to (names of projects) retaining all
intellectual property rights personally during this suspension of the
agreement.

I also wish to notify you that my contributor agreement will be
reinstated when FSF makes a satisfactory commitment about leadership and
governance issues.  I have not yet decided what will constitute a
satisfactory commitment, for now, I will review the proposals put
forward by FSF and I may contribute further criteria as the situation
evolves.

All work completed during this suspension will be assigned
retrospectively to FSF when the conditions of reinstatement are satisfied.

Sincerely,

Developer


1. https://www.gnu.org/prep/maintain/maintain.html#Legal-Matters