Heh - yeah. Henning does all the hard work of curating these. But I had the domain sitting around and figured that it was a good use of it. Sharing and learning through stories like this is how systems get better.
That doesn't preclude AWS (or anyone else) from trying to buy them. :)
I don't know how much control their external board members have, but if an offer came in, the board may be able to force acceptance instead of going public.
Otherwise i agree. Having just spent a week on-site at a client, you just notice a lot more problems (or start to understand the details of previously identified problems) that are in your capacity to fix.
I agree with everything you said, but this movement has been going on for a long time but and has been very bad at... hisss.. marketing.
These are complex topics and people don't want to put in the effort to understand them so this needs some top-shelf selling power. And there's no money to be made. Just freedom (as in speech).
The FSF has been wildly successful at marketing, its ideas have completely pervaded and transformed computing and tech, and its effects will be felt for centuries, if humans last that long.
In my experience, people who say the FSF have been bad at marketing have three types of criticism.
The first two are unbelievably shallow, and honestly obviated by the FSFs success while ignoring them: 1) fonts, and whatever web design trend is current, and 2) Richard Stallman's personal appearance and tone. Plenty of contenders for the group du jour of software freedom have concentrated on web design and being attractive TED Talk types, have gotten zero traction, and faded into the mist - turns out people prefer a complete and detailed philosophy, a track record of standing behind it, and a spokesperson who clearly has no ulterior motives.
The third is both far more intense and more telling: when Stallman would criticize the practices of specific companies, or the failure or more permissive licenses to require the users to share changes. IMO, this is the criticism of people who don't actually agree with the idea of software freedom at all but don't want to say it because they have strong feelings about property rights and the ability to control their code after it's left their physical or technical possession, that don't jibe with their visceral disgust at a license that would force you to share, or to behave in any sort of an altruistic way (like the unfree "don't be evil" or "don't be the military" licenses.) Forced altruism bothers them.
The people in the third category are obviously unqualified to carry the torch because they at best are bystanders, and at worst enemies of the idea of free software. The people in the first two, the "marketers," are not likely do do it because marketing (of an useful, positive idea) is essentially cynical; it's sugar on the pill. It's what you do to get children to do something that's good for them but they don't understand. Adults prefer better pills. not better sugar. Sugar is cheap, I can buy my own.
Sorry, but following a standard for federation is not a substitute for building a log in system, which is what most people want when building "a web app".
