Matthias Kirschner, FSFE analogous to identity fraud
There have been two high profile hacks in Australia recently, Medibank
and Optus. Optus is one of the largest mobile phone networks in Australia.
Hackers obtained details of identity documents for
millions of Optus customers. The situation is so bad that
all Australian states are reprinting driving licenses.
The first thing that came to my mind was my experience with Matthias
Kirschner and his FSFE. In 2017,
the community elected me as the Fellowship representative
in FSFE.
Within a few days, I received concerns from John Sullivan, the
Executive Director of the real FSF. He told me that the FSFE,
the fake FSF, was impersonating the FSF, in other words,
behaving like common garden variety identity thieves:
Subject: FSFE
Date: Fri, 02 Jun 2017 09:50:48 -0400
From: John Sullivan
To: Daniel Pocock
Hi Daniel,
Congratulations on your election to FSFE's general assembly!
I'm wondering, if as part of your new position, you have been briefed on
the current issues between FSF and FSFE.
I have been trying to discuss them with Jonas and Matthias for the last
several years, but have gotten nowhere, and in fact things are now much
worse than they were before. They made it clear at our last in-person
meeting in April that they do not intend to change anything.
In your post at
<https://danielpocock.com/risks-of-using-proprietary-software>, you
expressed some of the same concerns FSF has. So I'm reaching out to you
in the hopes that we might be able to figure out a solution, and also to
hear anything you can share about plans you have for trying to address
your concerns from your new position. We could arrange a call, or we
could discuss by email, if you are open to talking.
Will you be at Debconf in Montreal?
I am also attaching a copy of the agreement FSFE made with us in order
to use the FSF name, in case you have not seen it.
-john
In 2018, I completely resigned as the Fellowship representative and
I resigned from FSFE altogether. One of the reasons for my complete
resignation from the organization is the deception of a volunteer
who gave them a bequest of €150,000. FSFE refuses to show anybody
the documents from his will so we don't know if this money is really for
the FSF or the FSFE. As the community representative, it was my job
to ask questions about this money.
There are more emails to demonstrate FSFE knows they are deceiving
the community but they keep doing it for as long as they can get away
with it.
The emails below demonstrate some of their attitudes but the real
reason is money. Looking at their financial disclosures, we can
see that
the name FSFE is giving them approximately €600,000 per year
in revenue and of that, approximately €200,000 comes from small individual
donations who are completely unaware of the FSF/FSFE identity fraud.
I suspect that between twenty percent and fifty percent of their funding
would disappear if they stopped impersonating the FSF. Therefore, despite
all the long emails about the issue, I don't think they will make
any effort to change their name unless there is legal action from FSF
or legal action from individual donors who have been deceived.
Google, Red Hat, Ubuntu and Mozilla are contributing about a third
of the FSFE budget. These organizations are clever enough to know that
Matthias Kirschner is impersonating and undermining the FSF.
Are they incentivizing him to do so?
Would they stop funding him altogether if he chose another name?
If you add up all the donations over 20 years,
FSFE has received
approximately €8 million by ripping off the name of the real FSF.
That is more than the $A15 million ransom demanded by the Medibank hackers.
FSFE's internal discussions about impersonating FSF
Jonas Oberg, the FSFE Executive Director, acknowledged that their
original agreement with FSF was abandoned years ago, leaving them with
no right to keep deceiving volunteers with a name like FSFE:
Subject: Re: FSF asking us to change our name II
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 15:31:39 +0200
From: Jonas Oberg
To: Bernhard Reiter
CC: ga@fsfeurope.org
Hi Bernhard,
I largely agree with you, but I would like to ask for a clarification on
this part:
> I don't see why. We should ask them to establish the agreed cooperation.
If I take an honest look at the framework agreement, I believe it's
phrased rather favourable towards the FSF, and a lot of what we would
like to see -- such as joint decision making on important issues related
to Free Software -- isn't actually in the agreement aside from an intent
to develop such a way in some hypothetical future.
And I can truly see why the FSF believes we are in violation of the
agreement, at least on parts. Our work on the Radio Directive and other
policy work I believe is an example of work that according to the agreement should be carried out by the FSF, and not the FSFE.
Our work on standards for cloud services is close to what's reserved for
the FSF. On the other part, there are a number of activities envisioned
from the FSFE which we don't do, or never did: operate the GNU Business
Network, develop new free software, translate FSF position papers,
recruit more volunteers for the GNU project, resell FSF merchandise,
and so on.
So the framework agreement, as it stands, is not being honored from
any side. What I understand from you is that you think we can push
more on this:
We intend, in the
future, after we have gained experience working together, to develop a
system wherein these decisions are approved jointly by a specific list
of several major FSFs.
Essentially, our message could be that now, after 15 years, we have the
experience of working together. It's not been a pleasurable experience,
but we now know what the current tensions and activities are, which makes
this a good time to now negotiate what such a system for join decision
making would look like.
Is that close to what you intend?
Sincerely,
--
Jonas Öberg, Executive Director
Free Software Foundation Europe | jonas@fsfe.org
Your support enables our work (fsfe.org/join)
Here is one of the particularly stubborn and obstinate responses from
the FSFE inner circle:
Subject: Re: FSF asking us to change our name II
Date: Tue, 30 May 2017 15:01:52 +0200
From: Bernhard Reiter <bernhard@intevation.de>
To: ga@fsfeurope.org
Hello,
Am Dienstag 23 Mai 2017 10:39:00 schrieb Matthias Kirschner:
> It is longer than I wished for
thanks for the long writeup, it took me the reminder to actually read it, because the topic is long lasting and unpleasing.
> In line with previous discussions in the GA, we believe a name change is
> not something to be entered into fast or with external pressure the only
> factor to account for. Still, we would like to be prepared and plan to
> run such a process at a time suitable for us. We would also like to place
> some distance between us and the FSF and prepare both organisations for
> moving forward independently of each other.
After reading my tendency is to not put much efforts into this and just keep the full name and the spirit.
Why? Because it is very likely that our negociation partner has already become unreliable. So we will have to wait until the situation becomes more stable again. Chances may be that we cannot gain much for us and Free Software.
> * To again raise our questions which we sent to the FSF last time, but
> which were not answered (this time we will also make sure Richard gets
> them).
That is good. The central question stays: What is good for Free Software (and its positive effect on society)?
> * To work with the abbreviation "FSFE" and not communicate the full name
> from around the half year mark 2017 (A little bit like with the change
> from "FSF Europe" to FSFE).
My suggestion is to keep the full name.
If there is anything happening we still have to tell our story no matter what name we have by then. So we might as well tell them as Free Software Foundation Europe.
> * We plan the process for a potential "Organisational brand", including
> working out the costs involved in this (now).
> * We communicate our overall process and the timelines to the FSF and
> negotiate with them regarding potential funding for these processes.
Both may send a signal that we believe that there is a good chance that us giving up the "Free Software Foundation" namespace could actually be good for Free Software. And I don't believe that. It would be way better if we kept the spirit of cooperation and they leave parts of the world be. It seems we may prepare to resist some of FSF's future actions.
And they might get the wrong impression that their pressure is having and effect. (Of course it has some effect, but an unequal one.)
> * Together with the FSF, we agree to terminate the framework agreement
> sometime later this year or as soon as possible.
I don't see why. We should ask them to establish the agreed cooperation.
(And wait until they are able to again.)
And we can keep saying that we are sister organisations (for 15 years) anyway.
> * Safeguard 3: We intensified communication about our work in relation
> with FSFE 15 years (we hired a dedicated PR person for that).
Sounds good to me.
Best Regards,
Bernhard
--
www.intevation.de/~bernhard +49 541 33 508 3-3
Intevation GmbH, Osnabrück, DE; Amtsgericht Osnabrück, HRB 18998
Geschäftsführer Frank Koormann, Bernhard Reiter, Dr. Jan-Oliver Wagner
Subject: FSF asking us to change our name II
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 08:39:00 +0000
From: Matthias Kirschner <mk@fsfe.org>
To: ga@fsfeurope.org
Dear members,
as we wrote in our last mail we have again been approached by the FSF to
change our name. Below there is a summary of the situation as well as
the proposed next steps. Please let us know if you have any questions.
It is longer than I wished for, but we had several new people join the
GA since the last time we discussed this.
**Last weekend at the Legal Workshop in Barcelona, John from the FSF again
asked the FSFE to change its name. As discussed before, we will not take
such a step on request of the FSF, however we might at some point decide to
change our brand for other reasons, of which one could be that it may
become a risk to be too closely connected to the FSF.**
# Proposed way forward
In line with previous discussions in the GA, we believe a name change is
not something to be entered into fast or with external pressure the only
factor to account for. Still, we would like to be prepared and plan to
run such a process at a time suitable for us. We would also like to place
some distance between us and the FSF and prepare both organisations for
moving forward independently of each other.
With your support, we therefore start planing:
* To again raise our questions which we sent to the FSF last time, but
which were not answered (this time we will also make sure Richard gets
them).
* To work with the abbreviation "FSFE" and not communicate the full name
from around the half year mark 2017 (A little bit like with the change
from "FSF Europe" to FSFE).
* We plan the process for a potential "Organisational brand", including
working out the costs involved in this (now). * We communicate our overall process and the timelines to the FSF and
negotiate with them regarding potential funding for these processes.
* Together with the FSF, we agree to terminate the framework agreement
sometime later this year or as soon as possible.
* We run the organisational brand process after the organisational
identity one, possibly slightly overlapping but not much. Most likely
this would start towards the end of the second half of 2017.
* In 2018, if the agreement from our brand process is still that we
change our name (keeping the abbreviation FSFE or finding a completely
new name), we introduce that name as soon as possible, and then
gradually shift into it. The other outcome is that we continue to
communicate as "Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE)".
# Preconditions
Our first option is still to find a solution so that the FSF and the
FSFE can have joint decision making on some aspects of Free Software,
then we would prefer this over separating the organisations.
While the FSF currently adds external pressure, this is not *the* reason
why we want to look into the options of a name change below. Beside that
whatever we will work on about our identity, our brand, and our
structure; the council's main goal is to primarily focus on our "normal
work" which will reach people outside our organisation and let the other
discussion have as little disturbance for that work as possible.
# History
At FOSDEM 2016 we had a meeting with the FSF. Participants were John
Sullivan (FSF) and from our side Alessandro, Jonas, any Matthias. John
told us there is just one agenda point from their side: their board
firmly suggest we should rename ourselves and not use the name "Free
Software Foundation" anymore.
John explained they want to setup a structure like Wikimedia with a
central body and local chapters. FSF believes from the message we have
given them in the past that we would not see ourselves fitting into that
structure. John said they could help us with the renaming and they would
work with us on a joint announcement.
After the meeting we had longer discussions in the GA and wrote a
follow-up e-mail to John Sullivan asking them to provide us good reasons
why we should change our name and how that will benefit the Free
Software movement. The questions at that time were:
- How will Free Software and the Free Software movement benefit from a
name change?
- What are the problems you currently see for Free Software by us using
a similar name?
- Will those problems be fixed by us changing the name?
- Furthermore what disadvantages did FSF see when FSFE would use another
name?
- Which advantages did you see in comparison to the disadvantages?
But we never got answers to those questions, as John replied several
times that he did not yet manage to do that. Instead there were some
several 1:1 talks between Jonas, Matthias, John, and some FSF board
members on this.
# Meeting during LLW 2017
Now at our Legal and Licensing workshop in Barcelona John again
approached Jonas and Matthias about when we will change our name.
First of all the FSF were unhappy about our press announcement we joined
with the Linux Foundation, which announced some compliance tools
including Shane and Armijn's recent book on GPL compliance which was
released at our licensing workshop.
According to John, they feel this is a violation of the framework
agreement, specifically the part about the FSF-NA alone setting policy
for free software licensing. They also find it troublesome because the
FSF is trying to build a new relationship with the Linux Foundation in
which they hope to get the Linux Foundation to agree to some policies or
principles, and they feel FSFE having a better relationship with the LF
lowers their chances of getting the LF to agree to their terms.
We told John we disagreed with that assessment, and that on the subject
of changing our name, we talked with the GA, and if we were to put this
to a vote or discussion right now, the answer would be "No". Our
preferred option is still that we can work together. But if he would
like another answer, he will only get it if we, after a more lengthy
process determine that is the right course of action for the FSFE and
Free Software generally. John expressed his concern about that answer.
# Making an offer from our side
John Sullivan said he would like to prevent public fights, and said that
when he leaves the FSF he would like to leave it in good relationship
with us. He said he does not see any realistic chance that we can find
common ground to work together as organisations in the same namespace.
John asked us to submit a proposal how much a name change on our side
would costs he "if that is 1 million we should state that" though
although he does not know if we would get that (I have not calculated
any costs yet, but I do not think we will be able to achieve that with
anything less than 450.000€).
# Instability in the FSF
During the last months we learned about lots of power struggle inside
the FSF. Eben Moglen, who had to leave the FSF before is trying to
convince Richard that he should side with him; while Bradley seems to
push Richard in another -- more radical -- direction. We expect the
fight between Bradley and Eben to become very dirty. Furthermore in
Barcelona we learnt that Richard's mother recently died. That can most
likely cause more instability and unexpected decision making by Richard.
We were also told that most of the people who backed Richard in the past
meanwhile split and are not there for him anymore.
Beside that some people apparently would like to get rid of John
Sullivan as FSF's executive director. This would further harm our
relationship as he is our main contact and the most mediate decision
maker in the FSF, and in general destabilise the FSF as they loose a
mediator.
One person, involved a long time, said (s)he is very concerned about the
developments in the FSF and that we should expect a public outburst
soon. (S)he considers it important that there is "a home for people who
care about user freedoms" when the ugly public fighting in the FSF
starts. Several people Jonas and I talked to in the last months about a
possible name change were very positive about that, and said an
independent organisation like the FSFE would be needed globally.
So we expect that those internal FSF fights can become quite ugly and
it is not unlikely that parts of those fights will become public in the
next months.
The slight advantage for us, if we want to keep the name is, that they
might be busy with themselves and not be able to have a coordinated
position towards us. On the other hand, it can also mean that there will
never ever be a joint way out of the situation we currently are.
# Summary
There is no different evaluation in the legal threats, but a higher
likelyhood that a possible fight will get very dirty. The chances that
they are interested in any further cooperation without us changing our
name is very unlikely. Furthermore the FSF might soon take further
steps. Due to internal power struggles and instabilities it might be
better for every organisation caring about user freedom to be one step
away from the FSF in the next months. It will get more and more
difficult for us to "save the name of the Free Software Foundation" as
first envisioned when something happens to Richard or the FSF. Therefore
we suggest measures above to find a solution which would fit our needs
but also work for the FSF, including a possible name change and how the
FSF would contribute financially to it.
As I said, if you have any questions or thoughts, please let us know. We
know it is a difficult topic, and many of us feel emotionally attached
to our name. Still, we get more and more the feeling we should
reevaluate our former GA decision about how to act in this question.
Best Regards,
Matthias
# Summary from 2016
# What results would a name change have?
On the positive side changing our name could have some advantages. We
could use a name which might be easier to pronounce then our current
acronym. We could use a name which makes it easier for us to approach
people who are not that deep in technology. It might have some
advantages if we are not associated by name with the FSF, and we do not
have to explain we are a different organisation. So in general it would
be an option to do so.
But it will be a significant change. For 15 years we worked to build up
this name. People all over in Europe and around the world know us by
this name. Many of them associated solid and good work with it. Even if
they heard about us 10 years ago, whenever they would now hear about it
they associated it with our past work. It would take us many years to
build up a new name, and to make sure all the people who heard about us
will associate us with the new name. Changing our name has the
potential to throw back our political work for several years.
For 15 years, contributors feel connected with our organisations. You
and several other volunteers spent a significant time of their life to
work our association, for Free Software Foundation Europe. It will be a
challenge to build up such a feeling if we have a new name.
Beside the communication part it involves lots of administrative work:
we have to do the name change with banks, association register (who
might want to check our charitable status at that time), other
authorities, lobby registers, we have to communicate it to companies and
organisations with whom we have contracts, gift matching programs,
printer leasing, or other relationships. With the experience how much
we currently had to invest to move to a new bank (although there we will
have clear advantages later) this will be a significant time investment.
Even if we keep the acronym FSFE it would mean a lot of work to update
our websites, information materials like donation boxes, banners,
roll-ups, or stickers.
Changing our name we would also completely loose influence over the FSF
namespace. Although the FSF did not really coordinate with us, our
existence and our work influenced the way how they were able to work,
and I believe it balanced it in a way which was good for the Free
Software movement.
If we ever think our current name hinders us more than it helps us in
reaching our goal, we might decide to take all those steps, plus the one
to decide what this name would be which we do not expect to be a fast
process. But I want us to do such a process at a time we decide, and not
when someone else decided for us we should do so. And after spending
considerable resources in the last months to work on internal procedures
and the handover I would like us to focus on our core topics for the
next years.
## Can we legally be forced to change our name?
No. A potential name change was already on the table two years ago. At
that point Carlo already reviewed the situation, and I talked again with
Carlo about it after FOSDEM. Here is his short summary:
They could ask us to abandon the FSFE - Free Software Foundation
Europe name only based on trademark or passing off, or even unfair
competition. It would be a very long shot, since -- I have checked --
they have registered the trademark in Europe only way after our
establishment. Therefore, while they have the right to use the name
"Free Software Foundation" in Europe, they
a) cannot prohibit our use of the name, on preuse basis. They can say
we cannot expand our use of the name to other fields, which is hard to
be claimed.
b) they could attempt to establish another Free Software Foundation in
Europe, but hardly they could call it "Free Software Foundation
Europe", as that name has already be taken. FSFE is all the more
taken. I would investigate whether to register it, anyway.
So it would be a moot request by and large.
On unfair competition and passing off, I think there is very little
scope, and they should come to Germany to litigate it, where FSFE is
established, very welcome. But that would be stupid, we can just
settle for something more ambiguous.
The advice is "keep calm and carry on".
But we also got the advise that the legal aspect of the trademark is one
part, but we should consider that "you fight clean, they fight dirty".
## Is the framework agreement valid?
The FSF is using it to tell us that we are doing things wrong. But the
spirit of the agreement was not met for many years already. There was
almost no coordination on anything. Which would mean that the sub points
are irrelevant, too.
Still in 2016 we discussed that at there might be the situation in which
we want to officially tell them that we do not consider the framework
agreement valid. Especially if we have the impression they do not want
to have a discussion under equals but just want to dictate us what to
do. We can still cancel it without their agreement. The implications of
that would be that we cannot call ourselves "sister organisation of the
FSF" anymore. We would have to remove that from our websites.
The plan was to tell them this but also tell them that we still want to
talk with them about how to cooperate in future to work on our joint
goals, but that we don't see the agreement being the frame for such a
cooperation.
* see attachment 2-cancel-framework.mkdn * see attachment framework-agreement.txt
## What Safeguards did we work on?
As additional steps we worked to setup some safeguards:
* Safeguard 1: Prepare Emergency Plan for Public statement (currently in
SVN under /Team/Matthias/safeguard-1.mkdn in case the FSF attacks us
publicly [this might soon need an update].
* Safeguard 2: Brief community leaders. We reached out to some some
community leaders with whom we have a good relationship and talk with
them about this under four eyes. This way we briefed people with the
background and if it ever goes public, people can support us and our
reaction will not be seen as just defending ourselves.
* Safeguard 3: We intensified communication about our work in relation
with FSFE 15 years (we hired a dedicated PR person for that).
--
Matthias Kirschner - President - Free Software Foundation Europe
Schönhauser Allee 6/7, 10119 Berlin, Germany | t +49-30-27595290
Registered at Amtsgericht Hamburg, VR 17030 | (fsfe.org/join)
Contact (fsfe.org/about/kirschner) - Weblog (k7r.eu/blog.html)
More evidence about FSFE undermining software freedom