Software in the Public Interest (SPI) is Not a Friend of Freedom
As noted earlier today, 2 years ago a WIPO panel was assembled to enable censorship of a "debian" domain that didn't even claim to be affiliated with Debian directly (it just used the word "Debian). Compare to Red Hat, Inc. v. Daniel Pocock / Software Freedom Institute SA (Claim Number: FA2201001980642) where Pocock won on all grounds. "In light of these circumstances the Panel finds that Complainant brought this proceeding despite having clear knowledge of Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and that the proceeding was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder," they said. "Complainant having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED and declares that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."
They used even stronger words.
Today we'll show that Debian's misuse of trademarks (for censorship) predates the above by at least a decade and this misuse of trademarks has turned into a large-scale attack on the Internet (very broad namespace targeted).
Debian (or SPI) needs to lose this latest battle because otherwise many activists - including environmentalists - will suffer.
SPI, which even raises money from Microsoft (no kidding!), is not a friend of freedom of speech or of Internet freedom for that matter.
We'll shortly reproduce two older articles from disguised.work. We need to illuminate the nature of this issue. We do not enjoy the "outreach" of Debian.org and we're not in social control media, but we can reach out to enough people, who otherwise cannot or would not see "both sides". █