4 ms·

No. The better question is, why didn't FSF contact Leah before trying to publish their own Libreboot releases at libreboot.at? Why did they try to impersonate L

No. The better question is, why didn't FSF contact Leah before trying to publish their own Libreboot releases at libreboot.at? Why did they try to impersonate Libreboot? Whatever you may think of Leah publishing an unofficial GNU Boot release for them to rebase off of, she didn't try to impersonate them by buying a confusingly similar domain. Compare her single reference to an "unofficial GNUBoot release" to this: https://libreboot.at/ https://libreboot.at/

evasb 3y ago
[flagged]
- torstenvl 3y ago
  The OP link is a trademark enforcement action for an FSF-owned trademark. A project cannot enforce FSF-owned trademarks if the FSF "has nothing to do with it." I suspect you know very well that what you said is false.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- whstl 3y ago
  Happy to be corrected, but according to these two websites [1] [2], the maintainers that were booted were Andrew Robbins and Sebastian Grzywna, and that happened two years before Adrien Bourmault and Denis Carikli created libreboot.at. Libreboot.at itself seems to be a reaction to binary-blobs, not to this other drama. [1] https://www.andrewrobbins.info/libreboot.html https://www.andrewrobbins.info/libreboot.html [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20210331005023/https://libreboot.org/news/resignations.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210331005023/https://libreboot... Unless there was a third "abandonment" and a "takeover" after that, I don't see how those events are related. Once again, happy to be corrected.
slabity 3y ago
> No. The better question is, why didn't FSF contact Leah before trying to publish their own Libreboot releases at libreboot.at? Why did they try to impersonate Libreboot? That's not a better question at all. They list out their explicit reasoning for their attempted name takeover. I definitely don't agree with it, but I have no reason to believe that they're lying about their own beliefs. I absolutely do have reason to doubt Leah's words of releasing GNU Boot as being in good faith though. Their history of drama with them is the reason for my doubt. In terms of practicality, I feel like a better reaction would have been to either trademark their project name or maintain a separate fork of Libreboot that would include the binary blobs. Why resort to trademark infringement?
- 1000bestlives 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - foota 3y ago
    The whole thing is unprofessional on both sides. At least the libreboot fork site is clear in why it was created, but the core boot fork page is a mess.
  - Dah00n 3y ago
    There's absolutely nothing laudable in that at all and it screams of drama queen. "Lesser coders" - well that's is one person I'd avoid at all cost. Also, empty barrels make the most noise!
    - 1000bestlives 3y ago
      Dramaphobic, and probably transphobic to boot. You need to be better than you are right now.
      - Dah00n 3y ago
        It says a lot that you see an aversion to drama as a bad thing. I have no idea what transphobic got to do with anything, but I'm not surprised someone who apparently has a drama fetish throws it around.

evasb 3y ago

[flagged]

torstenvl 3y ago
The OP link is a trademark enforcement action for an FSF-owned trademark. A project cannot enforce FSF-owned trademarks if the FSF "has nothing to do with it." I suspect you know very well that what you said is false.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
whstl 3y ago
Happy to be corrected, but according to these two websites [1] [2], the maintainers that were booted were Andrew Robbins and Sebastian Grzywna, and that happened two years before Adrien Bourmault and Denis Carikli created libreboot.at. Libreboot.at itself seems to be a reaction to binary-blobs, not to this other drama. [1] https://www.andrewrobbins.info/libreboot.html https://www.andrewrobbins.info/libreboot.html [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20210331005023/https://libreboot.org/news/resignations.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210331005023/https://libreboot... Unless there was a third "abandonment" and a "takeover" after that, I don't see how those events are related. Once again, happy to be corrected.

slabity 3y ago

> No. The better question is, why didn't FSF contact Leah before trying to publish their own Libreboot releases at libreboot.at? Why did they try to impersonate Libreboot? That's not a better question at all. They list out their explicit reasoning for their attempted name takeover. I definitely don't agree with it, but I have no reason to believe that they're lying about their own beliefs. I absolutely do have reason to doubt Leah's words of releasing GNU Boot as being in good faith though. Their history of drama with them is the reason for my doubt. In terms of practicality, I feel like a better reaction would have been to either trademark their project name or maintain a separate fork of Libreboot that would include the binary blobs. Why resort to trademark infringement?

1000bestlives 3y ago
[flagged]
- foota 3y ago
  The whole thing is unprofessional on both sides. At least the libreboot fork site is clear in why it was created, but the core boot fork page is a mess.
- Dah00n 3y ago
  There's absolutely nothing laudable in that at all and it screams of drama queen. "Lesser coders" - well that's is one person I'd avoid at all cost. Also, empty barrels make the most noise!
  - 1000bestlives 3y ago
    Dramaphobic, and probably transphobic to boot. You need to be better than you are right now.
    - Dah00n 3y ago
      It says a lot that you see an aversion to drama as a bad thing. I have no idea what transphobic got to do with anything, but I'm not surprised someone who apparently has a drama fetish throws it around.