Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,

[Will Hill]

You might remember the "RMS is a sexist" fiasco, where all sorts of articles 
poured out misrepresenting the Virgin of Emacs as the thing it parodies.  
That's a minor but nasty example.  Software owners are constantly staging 
these things while their advertising and other messages are completely 
degraded.  

This is a systematic thing and your question has encouraged me to finish up a 
few essays I've been working on.  Some suggested reading includes,

http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958
http://techrights.org/2009/02/08/microsoft-evilness-galore/
http://techrights.org/2008/12/27/microsoft-shills-aka-te-secrets/
http://www.catb.org/esr/halloween/halloween1.html
http://archive09.linux.com/articles/38081
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20100312150121798
http://techrights.org/2009/03/16/smear-campaigns-against-foss-proponents/
http://techrights.org/2008/03/17/manufacturing-abuse/
http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/03/enough_about_me.html
http://techrights.org/2009/05/02/perception-management-at-microsoft/
http://www.cypherpunks.to/~peter/zdnet.html



On Friday 22 May 2015, streondj@gmail.com wrote:
> will hill" easy to observe pattern of publishers missrepresenting GNU
> and the FSF by all means at their disposal"
>
> examples?