> You said that it's necessary to sue to protect trademarks. In this case, where is the necessity? I understand you don't like questions. Moglen founded SFLC

> You said that it's necessary to sue to protect trademarks. In this case, where is the necessity? I understand you don't like questions. Moglen founded SFLC and helped SFC come to the light. He even registered SFC trademark, he asked for the cancellation of SFC, not the trademark of "Free Software". Now it's sure that no one will try to register a trademark similar to FSLC or FSC dealing with free software. With that move he protected both. There's no need to double down on the false accusation line. Facts are well know by now. > You can choose to believe me or you can choose to believe I'm lying - entirely up to you. I'm not a believer. I prefer the sane way of doing things: reviewing evidence. You are not providing any, just "believe me or not", which is not what I'd like to do when it's about my money. You said something about Moglen that upset me, I've just asked for a clarification, that you refuse to provide. > Eh. Asked him to resign with the understanding that he'd be fired otherwise So you did fire him, but issued a different statement. Good to know. > It's not a crime, it's just inappropriate to take money from a company and provide legal opinions that serve their interests When did this happen exactly? Wasn't Moglen providing legal opinions to Debian, the FSF, Canonical, but not Oracle? And What interests are you talking about? Is Google any different from Oracle? One of my favourite programmer ever, Alan Cox (who also kinda look like Stallman), worked for a long time on the Linux kernel but was also being paid by Intel for a few years. What's wrong about that? > as general counsel for an organisation that strongly and publicly holds a different opinion The different opinion was a minor difference though. I remember the OpenZFS problem: the only difference was that Moglen believed that users can legally distribute copies of OpenZFS binary blobs as the result of the compilation of an openly licensed source code, while FSF said no. They had the same opinion on everything else. Even Linus said in the past “But one gray area in particular is something like a driver that was originally written for another operating system (ie clearly not a derived work of Linux in origin). At exactly what point does it become a derived work of the kernel (and thus fall under the GPL)?” Is this enough to fire people? BTW Canonical have been distributing OpenZFS for years now and the sky has not fallen, nor Oracle have become richer thanks to that. They still distribute the real ZFS (the proprietary one) which is a much better implementation of ZFS.