Thread 🧵 of 501(c)(3) public charities you can support instead of the FSF, if you care about its mission:

The Software Freedom Conservancy (@conservancy) provides a fiscal home for community-governed projects like git, sponsors Outreachy, and is the only organization doing GPL enforcement:

Show thread

Software in the Public Interest provides a fiscal home for a number of FOSS projects like Debian and FFmpeg:

Show thread

The Open Source Initiative [disclosure: I recently served on its board] maintains the Open Source Definition, a list of approved open source licenses, educates about open source, and much more:

Show thread

The Electronic Frontier Foundation advocates for privacy, security, and digital liberties:

Show thread

The Freedom of the Press Foundation protects whistleblowers and journalists with free software like SecureDrop
and education and advocacy:

Show thread

There are many more, but I have focused this thread on umbrella organizations that overlap with certain functions of the FSF: digital rights, anti-surveillance, education, fiscal sponsorship, approved software licenses.

Please reply with awesome orgs I've missed!

Show thread

@JordiGH I think I covered them in my Conservancy toot :D

@ehashman there's @fsfe
Free software Foundation Europe who clearly distanced themselves from the Fsf standpoints.

@ehashman Have gladly donated to @conservancy in the past, should definitely do so again, they do really good work, often that nobody else is doing :)


I see that you signed the open letter to "remove RMS". Are you aware that the open letter spreads some severe accusations that are known to be false?

Please read here:

For me it is hard to understand how people could sign that. Whatever your goal is, spreading false accusations is not an acceptable method. How do you justify signing something like that?

@eliasr The accusations are not false. We directly quoted his blog.

@ehashman Look at the appendix of the open letter, the very first link there, the link called "0". That leads directly to the false accusations.

Again, please read where the problems are explained in some detail.

I think when you have signed such a thing, you cannot reasonably look away and pretend like nothing when it turns out that you have contributed to the spread of severe false accusations. Please read and think about it, it's important.

@eliasr I've read the article in detail. Just because you disagree with it doesn't make the accusations false.

It shows bad faith for you to accuse me of having neither read nor thought about this. I request that you provide the benefit of the doubt to the people you're demanding it from.

@ehashman I'm trying to understand your thinking here.

The appendix of the open letter directly links to something false. This is a fact, it is not a matter of opinion.

Look at the reference "2" in the appendix. It is the Vice article with title "Famed Computer Scientist Richard Stallman Described Epstein Victims As 'Entirely Willing'". That is false.

Do you understand that the statement in the title of that Vice article is false?

@ehashman @eliasr "RMS ( is not a valid source for the views of RMS" Is such an obviously crap take.


> ( is not a valid
> source for the views of RMS"
> Is such an obviously crap take.

What do you mean? Who has such a take?

I recommend reading this:

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!