Buongiorno, mi sono distratto (consapevolmente) un po' e non ero a conoscenza degli ultimi sviluppi di questo capitolo del mega-drama che stiamo vivendo. A prima vista, ma anche a seconda, potrebbe sembrare OT ma unendo i puntini credo di intravedere una specie di trama che avvolge il mondo del software libero. Brevissima (ehrm) nota di contesto: il 3 Nov 2017 Software Freedom Conservancy [1] (SFC) annuncia [2] che Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) [3] ha avviato il procedimento 92066968 al United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) per richiedere la cancellazione del marchio di SFC [4]. La cosa creò non poco scompiglio [5] perché SFC è stata avviata da SFLC nel 2006 e le due hanno tagliato i ponti all'inizio del 2011. Tre giorni dopo SFLC risponde [5] dicendo che avrebbero volentieri conciliato prima di avviare quel procedimento ma che per tre anni i vertici di SFC si sono rifuitati di discutere quella e altre questioni. Il 22 Dic dello stesso anno SFLC propone pubblicamente un accordo a SFC che prevede l'uso gratuito del marchio a patto di un accordo di mutua non denigrazione (non-disparagement), aggiungendo che le dichiarazioni rese nella richiesta di registrazione del marchio SFC sono false e il marchio ottenuto in modo fraudolento [7], concludendo con la reiterazione di un invito a conciliare nei termini indicati. Sono passati più di sei anni all'avvio del procedimento e ancora USPTO non è arrivata al dunque, nel frattempo la faccenda è montata a tal punto da diventare non una montagna ma un'intera catena montuosa. Finalmente, ecco l'ultimo episodio (articolo lunghissimo, estraggo i punti a mio avviso salienti): https://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2023/10/11/moglen-sflc.html «Eben Moglen & SFLC — abusive employer & LGBTQIA+ unfriendly» Wednesday 11 October 2023 by Bradley M. Kuhn --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- [...] With great trepidation, I have decided to make this public statement regarding the psychological abuse, including menacing, that I suffered, perpetrated by Eben Moglen, both while I was employed at his Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) from 2005-2010, and in the years after he fired me. No one revels in having psychological injuries and mistreatment they've suffered paraded to the public. I'll be frank that if it were not for Moglen's use of the USA Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) as a method to perpetrate further abusive behavior, I wouldn't have written this post. Furthermore, sadly, Moglen has threatened in recent TTAB filings his intention to use the proceeding to release personal details about my life to the public (using the litigation itself as a lever). I have decided to preemptively make public the facts herein first myself — so that I can at least control the timing and framing of the information. This post is long; the issues discussed in it are complicated, nuanced, and cannot be summed up easily. Nevertheless, I'm realistic that most people will stop reading soon, so I'll summarize now as best I can in a few sentences: I worked initially with, and then /for/, Eben Moglen for nearly a decade — during which time he was psychologically abusive and gaslighted me (under the guise of training and mentoring me). I thought for many years that he was one of my best friends (— in retrospect, I believe that he tricked me into believing that he was). As such, I shared extremely personal details about myself to him — which he has used both contemporaneously and in years hence to attempt to discredit me with my colleagues and peers. Recently, Moglen declared his plans to use current TTAB proceedings to force me to answer questions about my mental health in deposition. Long ago, I disclosed key personal information to Moglen, I therefore have a pretty good idea of what his next move will be during that deposition questioning. Specifically, I believe Moglen was hoping to out me as omni/bisexual as part of my deposition in this proceeding. As such, I'm outing myself here first (primarily) to disarm his ability to use what he knows about my sexual orientation against me. Since that last sentence makes me already out, Moglen will be unable to use the biggest “secret” that Moglen “has on me” in his future psychological and legal attacks. I suspect some folks will stop reading here, but I really urge that you keep reading this post, and also to read the unrelated statement made by [Conservancy] and [FSFE]. The details are important and matter. I am admittedly embarrassed to talk publicly about how Moglen exacerbated, expanded, and caused new symptoms of my Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) — which I already suffered from when I met him. But, I feel it is important to talk about these issues publicly for many reasons [...] The primary recent catalyst for this situation is as follows: Moglen has insisted that, as part of the ongoing [trademark cancellation petition that SFLC filed against my employer, Software Freedom Conservancy] in the [TTAB], that Moglen both personally be allowed to be present at, and to actually /take/ the depositions of me and my colleague, Karen Sandler. This kind of behavior is typical of how abusers use litigation to perpetuate their abuse. The USA legal system is designed to give everyone “their day in Court”. Frankly, many of the rules established for Court proceedings did not contemplate that the process could be manipulated by abusers, and it remains an open problem on how to repair the rules that both preserve the egalitarian nature of our legal system, but also does not make it easy for abusers to misuse those same rules. Depositions, in particular, are a key tool in abusers' arsenals. [...] The only method (which is quite clunky as a legal tool) to curtail the harassment somewhat is called a /protective order/. However, Moglen has been smart enough to use the very process of the protective order application to further perpetuate abusive behavior. [...] Moglen has attempted to use the proceeding as a method to harass and attack me and my colleague, Karen Sandler — regarding issues wholly unrelated to the trademarks. The recent arguments have been about our depositions — mine and Karen's. After some complex legal back-and-forth, Judge [Elgin ordered that I was legally required to sit for a deposition with and by Moglen]. This is the point where a catch-22 began for me. • Option 0: Sit in a room for 8+ hours with a person who had spent years verbally abusing me and let him ask me /any question he wants/ — under penalty of perjury and contempt of Court if I refuse. • Option 1: Give Conservancy's lawyers permission to talk openly, in public documents, about the details of the abuse I suffered from Moglen and the psychological harm that it caused me (which is the necessary backup document for a protective order motion). IOW, the only way to get a protective order that would prevent me from being legally required to suffer further psychological abuse from Moglen was to publicly talk about the past abuse 😩. I reluctantly chose Option 1. [...] Fortunately, that aforementioned sworn testimony was sufficient to convince Judge Elgin to at least entertain reconsidering her decision that I have to sit for a deposition with Moglen. However, submitting the official motion /then/ required that I give even /more/ information about why the deposition with Moglen will be psychologically harmful. In particular, I had little choice but to add a letter from my (highly qualified) mental health provider speaking to the psychological dangers that I would face if deposed by Moglen personally and/or in his presence. I reluctantly asked my therapist to [provide such a letter]. [...] As can be seen in Moglen's response filing, [Moglen directly attacks my therapist's credentials — claiming she is not credible nor qualified]. Moglen's argument is that because my therapist is a licensed, [AASECT]-certified sex therapist, she is not qualified to diagnose PTSD. Of course, Moglen's argument is without merit: my therapist's sex therapy credentials are in addition to her many other credentials and certifications — all of which is explained on her website that Moglen admits in his filing he has reviewed. As I mentioned, at one time, I foolishly and erroneously considered Moglen a good friend. As such, I told Moglen a lot about my personal life, including that I was omni/bisexual, and that I was (at the time) closeted. So, Moglen already knows full well the reason that I would select a therapist who held among her credentials a certification to give therapy relating to sexuality. Moglen's filing is, in my view, a veiled threat to me that he's going to disclose publicly what he knows about my sexuality as part of this proceeding. So, I've decided — after much thought — that I should simply disarm him on this and say it first: I have identified as bisexual/omnisexual since 1993 [...] Despite the serious psychological abuse I've suffered from Moglen, until this recent filing, I wouldn't have imagined that Moglen would attempt to use the secrecy about my LGBTQIA+ status as a way to further terrorize me. [...] The fact that he [goes on to further claim that the mere fact that she has such certification makes her unqualified] to treat my other mental health illness — some of which Moglen himself (in part) personally caused — is unconscionable. [...] Moglen has insisted now that my therapy has been brought up in the proceeding, that [he has a legal right to force me to be evaluated by a therapist of his choosing] (as if I were a criminal defendant). [...] Now, /even if/ the judge grants Conservancy's motion to exclude Moglen from my deposition, Moglen will instruct his attorneys to ask me those questions about my therapy and my sexual orientation — with the obvious goal of seeking to embarrass me by forcing me to reveal such things publicly. [...] I am aghast that Moglen is trying to shame me for seeking help from a mental health provider who could help me overcome my internalized shame regarding my sexual orientation. I also want people to know that I did not feel safe as a queer person when I worked for Eben Moglen at SFLC. But I also know Moglen doesn't represent what our FOSS community and software freedom is about. I felt I needed to make this post not only to disarm the power Moglen held to “out me” before I was ready, but also to warn others that, in my opinion, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) as an organization that is *not* a safe space for LGBTQIA+ folks. Finally, I do know that Moglen is also a tenured professor at Columbia Law School. I have so often worried about his students — who may, as I did, erroneously believe they can trust Moglen with private information as important as their LGBTQIA+ status. I simply felt I couldn't stay silent about my experiences in good conscience any longer. ―――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――― Footnote added *2023-10-12, 19:00 US/Eastern*: Since I posted this about 30 hours ago, I've gotten so many statements of support emailed to me that I can't possibly respond to them all, but I'll try. Meanwhile, a few people have hinted at and/or outright asked what policy disagreements Moglen actually has with me. I was reluctant to answer because the point I'm making in this post is that /even if/ Moglen thought every last thing I've ever done in my career was harmful policy-wise, it *still would not justify* these abusive behaviors. Nevertheless, I admit that if this post were made by someone else, I'd be curious about what the policy disagreements were, so I decided to answer the question. I think that my overarching policy disagreement with Eben Moglen is with regard to how and when to engage in enforcement of the GPL and other copyleft licenses through litigation. I think Moglen explains this policy disagreement best in [his talk that the Linux Foundation contemporaneously promoted (and continues to regularly reference) entitled “Whither (Not Wither) Copyleft”]. In this talk, Moglen states that I (among others) are “on a jihad for free software” (his words, direct quote) because we continued to pursue GPL enforcement through litigation. While I agree that [litigation should still remain the last resort], I do think it remains a necessary step often. Moglen argues that even though litigation was needed in the past, it should never be used again for copyleft and GPL enforcement. As Moglen outlines in his talk, he supports the concept of “spontaneous compliance” — a system whereby there is no regulatory regime and firms simply chose to follow the rules of copyleft because it's so obviously in their own best interest. I've not seen this approach work in practice, which is why I think we must still sometimes file GPL (and LGPL) lawsuits — [even today]. Moglen and I have plenty of other smaller policy disagreements: from appropriate copyright assignment structures for FOSS, to finer points of how GPLv3 should have been drafted, to tactics and strategy with regard to copyleft advocacy, to how non-profits and charities should be structured for the betterment of FOSS. However, I suspect all these smaller policy disagreements stem from our fundamental policy disagreement about GPL enforcement. However, I conclude by (a) saying again *no policy disagreement with anyone justifies abusive behavior toward that person — not ever*, and (b) please do note the irony that, in that 2016-11-02 speech, Moglen took the position that lawsuits should no longer be used to settle disputes in FOSS, and yet — less than 10 months later — [Moglen sued Conservancy (his former client) in the TTAB]. Posted on Wednesday 11 October 2023 at 13:15 by Bradley M. Kuhn. Submit comments on this post to [[<mailto:bkuhn@ebb.org>][]]. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Conservancy [2] https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2017/nov/03/sflc-legal-action/ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_Freedom_Law_Center [4] https://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?qt=adv&procstatus=All&pno=92066968 [5] https://www.theregister.com/2017/11/20/foss_sflc_sfc_gpl_trademark/ [6] https://softwarefreedom.org/blog/2017/nov/06/conservancy-stmt/ [7] https://softwarefreedom.org/blog/2017/dec/22/conservancy/ -- 380° (Giovanni Biscuolo public alter ego) «Noi, incompetenti come siamo, non abbiamo alcun titolo per suggerire alcunché» Disinformation flourishes because many people care deeply about injustice but very few check the facts. Ask me about <https://stallmansupport.org>.