SFLC Files Bizarre Legal Action Against Its Former Client, Conservancy

This boggles the mind, and the lack of communication makes it feel like the work of a new lawyer used to corporate law, where the rules are to strike first and communicate later.

Outside of new counsel, we might be able to get more insight into the issue when the SFLC's fall conference [0] recordings are posted next week [1]. It does include mention of trademark squatting, after all.

The naming of SFC / SFLC was always a bit confusing, but that's a reason for better marketing, not a shot across the bow. I've met some of the SFLC folks, and the LF angle seems ridiculous on the face of it, as I don't see Eben Moglen (previously RMS's lawyer), selling out to the LF.

0: http://softwarefreedom.org/events/2017/conference/

1: https://softwarefreedom.org/events/2017/conference/live/

There's some discussion at https://lwn.net/Articles/738046/#Comments .

One angle: a few weeks ago SFLC announced that it's starting a programme to support individual free software projects creating their own legal entity, rather than using an umbrella organisation like SFC or SPI, and strongly implying that it believes the time for such umbrella organisations is past: https://www.softwarefreedom.org/blog/2017/sep/21/new-era-non...

Someone on the LWN thread suggests that this means they're treating SFC as competition, explaining the trademark action.

It occurs to me that it's also possible that SFLC wants SFC to stop existing for some other reason, and this new programme and the trademark action might be independent steps taken towards that end.

There is clearly more to this story then just a trademark dispute. Can anyone shed some light on this?