```
[[Image:Gnome-tiff.png‎|frame|The GNOME Foundation represents the monopolies that sponsor it. It acts as an 'agent of occupation' against the '''actual''' Free Software Movement.]]

== Introduction ==

The GNOME Foundation was founded in 2000 and acts as [https://foundation.gnome.org/ "a guiding hand in the process and provides resources and infrastructure"] to the GNOME Project, whereas the community of GNOME contributors write code, fix bugs, write documentation and help users.

The GNOME Project was started by [[Miguel de Icaza]] who now [http://techrights.org/2011/09/29/miguel-de-icaza-linux-hater/ works for Microsoft]. Miguel was a former President of the GNOME Foundation and Vice President at [[Novell]].

[[Neil McGovern]] is the current Executive Director of the GNOME Foundation. Stormy Peters, a predecessor of his, joined Miguel de Icaza at Microsoft.

Despite its name, this so-called 'foundation' does not actually represent GNOME developers. GNOME has its own Board. For similarities, see [[Linux Foundation]].

Because of its name, many are led to (wrongly) believe that the GNOME Foundation is altruistic or at best benign. An element of nepotism merits further commentary as well.

== Promotion of Microsoft/Novell technologies ==

=== Mono (patent-encumbered technology) ===

In 2007, GNOME was embracing and integrating [[Mono]] (now officially Microsoft) into its software. Mono is a technology developed by Microsoft, and contributing to Mono requires assigning copyrights to [[Novell]]. According to the licensing FAQ at the time, [http://techrights.org/2007/11/29/mono-microsoft-license-patent/ "This allows Novell to re-distribute the Mono source code to parties that might not want to use the GPL or LGPL versions of the code."]. There were also possible [http://techrights.org/2007/11/29/mono-microsoft-license-patent/ trademark, patent and other legal issues]. In fact, it was later found that free software developers who want to use Microsoft's documentation [http://techrights.org/2008/02/28/patent-pill-is-in-openness-pledge/ "still require a patent license from Redmond if the work is for commercial distribution"], and according to a former Microsoft employee and evangelist, [http://twitter.com/Scobleizer/statuses/764673949 "I saw that internally inside Microsoft many times when I was told to stay away from supporting Mono in public. They reserve the right to sue"]. According to Richard Stallman (RMS of the GNU Project), [http://www.mail-archive.com/foundation-list@gnome.org/msg02666.html “The more “cool stuff” depends on Mono, the closer we get to a situation where a Microsoft attack on Mono would put GNOME in a vice."]. Jamie from the GNOME Foundation has [http://www.mail-archive.com/foundation-list@gnome.org/msg02675.html stated]: "With Novell’s customers getting exclusive patent protection for mono, it seems unfair for everyone else who have a heightened risk. Increasing mono adoption combined with MS FUD tactics would give Novell an unfair advantage over its competitors (as Ms tech is more likely to be tainted with patents obviously)". These concerns and other similar ones were [http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/29/attacking-the-messenger/ dismissed using all sorts of excuses and ad hominem attacks]. In 2008, GNOME was [http://techrights.org/2008/04/27/novell-gnome-against-java/ favoring C# over Java (OpenJDK)], a similar technology that was released as free software licensed under GPLv2.

Thanks to GNOME software depending on Mono, several GNU/Linux distributions that include GNOME software, like Fedora and Ubuntu, naively started to depend on it as well. In fact, Mark Shuttleworth of Ubuntu stated that [http://techrights.org/2008/02/22/mark-shuttleworth-on-patents/ "we see no significant issues with patents and Mono"]. Later, however, it emerged that [http://techrights.org/2008/06/20/fedora-live-cd-no-mono/ Fedora's Live CD had removed Tomboy] in its latest iteration at the time (later proceeding to [http://techrights.org/2008/06/02/fedora-no-moonlight/ remove Moonlight] as well). Tomboy is a Mono application and that is part of GNOME. As a sidenote, Gnote, a [http://techrights.org/2009/05/27/gnote-submitters-up-sharply/ successful] Mono-free version of Tomboy which was adopted by distros (such as [https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_12_Alpha_release_notes#GNOME_2.28 Fedora]) as a replacement of Tomboy was released by Hubert Figuiere, who also later [http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-May/msg00035.html ran for the GNOME Foundation Board of Directors]. He also rejected Mono for [http://techrights.org/2009/05/27/gnotes-objection-to-mono/ technical reasons].

In 2009, at a time when it was obvious that Mono was losing the battle of adoption by GNU/Linux distros and apps (and was [http://techrights.org/2009/08/19/mono-still-negligible/ largely rejected by the free software development community] - even the FSF [http://techrights.org/2009/07/17/fsf-vs-microsoft-community-promises/ expressed its opposition to dependence on it]), Dave Neary, a GNOME Foundation member, [http://techrights.org/2009/06/29/gnome-mono-as-planned/ noted that upcoming GNOME 3.0 may have more Mono apps].

Some [http://techrights.org/2009/07/15/mono-moonlight-novell-intersection/ related facts] as of July 2009:
* Mono is a [[ Novell ]] project.
* Novell is on the GNOME Foundation’s Advisory Board.
* Mono is lead at Novell by the founder of GNOME, Miguel de Icaza.
* Mr. de Icaza has said in the past, “Gnome 4.0 should be based on .NET“
* Mr. de Icaza claims to be “in charge of Novell’s Linux Desktop Strategy” along with Nat Friedman.

Related reading:
* [http://boycottnovell.com/2007/07/23/gnome-mono-dep/ GNOME/Mono (.NET) entanglements]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/10/28/odf-ooxml-mono-gnome-openoffice/ Anti-symbiosis: ODF, OOXML, Mono, GNOME, and OpenOffice.org]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/11/07/gnome-corrections/ Clarifications About GNOME]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/11/29/attacking-the-messenger/ GNOME Foundation, Please Stop Attacking the Messenger and Please Listen]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/12/11/ooxml-mono-ubuntu/ Mono and OOXML Unwanted in the Free Desktop]
* [http://techrights.org/2008/01/26/monoization-beagle-novell/ On Beagle’s Increasing Mono-ization and Novell’s Role]
* [http://techrights.org/2008/01/30/mono-gnome-slashdot-comments/ Quote of the Day: Slashdot Users on Novell’s Mono in GNOME]
* [http://techrights.org/2008/01/31/gnome-mono-depenency-dbus/ Wake Up Already, GNOME, Please Wake Up]
* [http://techrights.org/2008/02/15/mono-contamination-in-ubuntu/ How GNU/Linux Gets Contaminated with Software Patents from the Back Door]
* [http://techrights.org/2008/02/27/evolution-mono-extensions/ Quick Mention: Novell’s Mono Evolves and Approaches Evolution]
* [http://techrights.org/2008/02/28/novell-microsoft-assimilation/ Novell-Microsoft Assimilation, Phase II]
* [http://techrights.org/2008/02/28/patent-pill-is-in-openness-pledge/ Microsoft-funded Analysts Firm Pretty Much Confirms Software Patent Pill is in ‘Openness’ Pledge]
* [http://techrights.org/2008/03/14/gnome-foundation-on-tomboy/ Member of the GNOME Foundation on Tomboy, Mono, GNOME]
* [http://techrights.org/2008/03/16/novell-mono-dot-net-internet/ Novell’s Mono and Microsoft’s Plot to Use Mono/.NET to ‘Punish’ GNU/Linux]
* [http://techrights.org/2008/03/24/mono-danger-to-linux/ Summary of Mono’s Danger to GNU/Linux and the Free Desktop]
* [http://techrights.org/2008/04/23/speculation-gnome-mono/ SpeC#ulation: Tipping Point for GNOME?]
* [http://techrights.org/2008/04/25/gnome-functionality-wo-csharp/ Mono-free GNOME: “Roughly the Same Functionality”]
* [http://techrights.org/2008/04/27/novell-gnome-against-java/ Novell and GNOME Help Microsoft and .NET’s Fight Against Sun and Java]
* [http://techrights.org/2008/05/27/mono-and-rand-for-gnome/ Reader’s Article: Novell, Mono and RAND]
* [http://techrights.org/2008/05/30/mono-gnome-and-moonlight/ http://techrights.org/2008/05/30/mono-gnome-and-moonlight/]
* [http://techrights.org/2008/06/02/mono-deals-trojan/ Software Patent Deals, Mono, and Other Legal Timebombs]
* [http://techrights.org/2008/07/14/embracing-and-extending-with-x11/ Embracing and Extending Open Source from the Inside — Yes, Again]
* [http://techrights.org/2008/08/04/giving-gnu-to-dot-net/ Novuel’s de Icaza: The Man Who Gives GNU/Linux to Microsoft]
* [http://techrights.org/2008/08/15/no-mono-in-fedora-10/ No Mono in Fedora 10 (“Cambridge”) Live CD]
* [http://techrights.org/2008/08/29/substitution-of-ownership/ Interlude: What Mono Could be All About]
* [http://techrights.org/2008/10/11/mono-2-beyond-the-hype/ Novell’s Linux Poison® (Mono) Reaches 2.0, Contains Extra Cyanide (WinForms)]
* [http://techrights.org/2009/05/26/gnote-positive-reviews/ Gnote Gets Positive Reviews, Its Developer Runs for GNOME Foundation’s Board of Directors]
* [http://techrights.org/2009/07/14/personal-attacks-from-mono/ Another Angle on Personal Attacks from Mono]
* [http://techrights.org/2009/07/15/mono-moonlight-novell-intersection/ Mono Applications Get Integrated with Microsoft Moonlight]
* [http://techrights.org/2009/10/22/disinformation-about-banshee/ Banshee is Novell, Mono, and ‘Forbidden’ Microsoft Software Patents]
* [http://techrights.org/2009/11/12/gnome-staff-novell/ Can GNOME 3.0 Avoid Mono Despite GNOME Foundation Director Being Novell Employee?]
* [http://techrights.org/2009/12/18/moonlight-latest-pr/ Microsoft Gave Moonlight “Blessings” in 2007]
* [http://techrights.org/2010/03/16/incorporation-of-mono-gnome/ Mono Influence Increases in the GNOME Foundation]
* [http://techrights.org/2010/04/02/gnome-2-30-with-gnote/ Red Hat/Fedora Deliver GNOME Without the Mono]
* [http://techrights.org/2010/05/19/mono-lobby-gnome/ The Microsoft/Novell Mono Lobby]
* [http://techrights.org/2010/06/29/netrunner-2-excludes-mono/ Netrunner 2 (Codenamed “Blacklight”) is Released – Ubuntu Without Mono]
* [http://techrights.org/2010/08/29/mono-latest-news/ Mono Accessibility for Microsoft]
* [http://techrights.org/2010/09/16/nokia-gets-the-mono-treatment/ Nokia, Zeitgeist, MeeGo/Maemo, and Moonlight/Mono Threat]
* [http://techrights.org/2010/10/25/zeitgeist-bindings/ GNOME and Mono Meet Through Zeitgeist]
* [http://techrights.org/2010/11/02/zeitgeist-sharp/ Zeitgeist-Sharp Brings Mono to GNOME]
* [http://techrights.org/2012/06/05/microsoft-stings-gnome/ Microsoft Adopts Mono, Uses It to Take Over GNOME]

=== OOXML (Microsoft-led competing standard to ODF) ===

While OpenDocument Format (ODF) adoption was rising, [http://techrights.org/2007/10/28/odf-ooxml-mono-gnome-openoffice/ GNOME was promoting, participating in and implementing the competing Office Open XML (OOXML) format developed by Microsoft]. RMS has said [http://www.mail-archive.com/foundation-list@gnome.org/msg02667.html “Microsoft is trying to spin the apparent “support” of GNOME into proof that OOXML is not bad for free software.”], which [http://techrights.org/2007/11/30/gnome-ooxml-impact/ Microsoft actually did by listing GNOME Gnumeric as an application that implements it]. Miguel de Icaza has repeatedly defended Microsoft's OOXML. He now receives a very large salary from Microsoft and his partner (since the older days; former Microsoft employee, then Novell and Xamarin) was rewarded with a CEO position at Microsoft's GitHub. He has [http://techrights.org/2020/10/11/nat-friedman-proprietary-software/ become the public face] of [http://techrights.org/2020/06/15/confessions-of-scott-guthrie/ the occupation against software freedom], for instance spinning the success of GNU/Linux in Mars as a Microsoft accomplishment (2021).

Related reading:
* [http://techrights.org/2007/11/23/novell-helps-ooxml-2/ Novell’s Dirty Little Secret: It Helps OOXML (Updated)]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/11/25/gnome-foundation-ooxml-ecma/ Responses to GNOME Foundation’s OOXML Statement]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/11/25/gnome-foundation-ooxml/ NOOOXML: GNOME Foundation in Kahoots? (Updated)]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/11/26/gnome-ooxml-clarification-opposition/ Clarification: GNOME Foundation Does Not Endorse OOXML as an ISO Standard (But Cannot Oppose It, Either)]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/11/26/lifetime-of-ooxml/ One Life, One App (Corrected)]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/11/26/the-novell-fud-never-existed/ GNOME and Novell: The FUD Never Existed (Updatedx2)]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/11/26/community-division-ooxml/ HOWTO: Divide a Community and Get OOXML Approved]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/11/27/novell-gnome-openoffice/ Quick Mention: Novell is Very Busy with GNOME’s OpenOffice.org (Corrected)]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/11/30/gnome-ooxml-impact/ GNOME’s Position on OOXML is Still Hurting OpenDocument Format]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/11/30/ooxml-dilemma-odf/ Another Gentle Introduction to the GNOME/OOXML Dilemma]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/12/04/novell-at-xml-2007/ Novell Vice President Again Defends Microsoft’s OOXML]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/12/06/ooxml-gnome-debate/ Quick Mention: OOXML/GNOME Podcast Finally Online, Text Summary Posted]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/12/07/cnr-and-ooxml/ Friends or Foes? Ubuntu+CNR (from Linspire), GNOME+OOXML (from Microsoft)]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/12/09/ooxml-internet-explorer-silverlight/ Suspicious OOXML Fanboyism, Clues About IE8′s New Engine]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/12/10/podcast-reaction-gnome-ooxml/ Most Recent Podcast Reactions (GNOME and OOXML)]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/12/12/ooxml-open-questions/ Some Unanswered Questions on OOXML]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/12/13/ooxml-ecma-scams/ OOXML and ECMA: Same Scandal, Different Day]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/12/17/microsoft-media-control-spamming/ Novell, OOXML, and Microsoft’s Control of Search Engines, Media]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/12/18/gnome-apologism-open-xml/ Bruce Byfield’s One-sided Piece on GNOME and OOXML]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/12/19/ooxml-novell-kde-gnome/ Is Microsoft Using OOXML and Novell to Further Divide the Communuity?]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/12/20/novell-against-odf/ From Fighting for Standards to Fighting Against Them (Novell)]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/12/21/ooxml-defective-by-design/ Open XML and Its Media Coverage Are Flawed by Design]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/12/21/the-ooxml-brigade/ Anti-standards Roundup: GNOvell and Microsoft OOXML]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/12/22/ooxml-influence-by-contract/ Novell/Microsoft Contract for OOXML Support May Still Have Influence in the GNOME Foundation]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/12/23/ooxml-headaches/ OOXML Causes Trouble in the Business World]
* [http://techrights.org/2007/12/26/gnumeric-ooxml-proprietary-formats/ The Reason Gnumeric+OOXML Misses the Point]
* [http://techrights.org/2008/01/23/ooxml-rejection-call/ Reminder: Support Standards, Reject a Single Company’s Format]
* [http://techrights.org/2010/02/12/msft-gameplay-vs-odf/ Alex Brown, Miguel de Icaza, and Full-time Microsoft Employee Smear ODF Again]
* [http://techrights.org/2011/01/26/implicit-endorsements-of-ooxml/ OOXML in Australia a Novell/GNOME Deja Vu]

== Promotion of proprietary software ==

In 2008, the GNOME Foundation [https://web.archive.org/web/20111223013856/http://www.gnome.org/press/2008/07/gnome-hires-stormy-peters-as-executive-director/ hired] Stormy Peters as Executive Director. Her role was in [https://web.archive.org/web/20120211235403/http://www.efytimes.com/e1/fullnews.asp?edid=27615 coordinating with sponsors, business development and marketing]. Prior to this, Stormy Peters worked at Hewlett Packard, the company that [http://techrights.org/2008/04/01/hp-and-microsoft-relationship-ooxml/ fought for Microsoft OOXML] and [http://techrights.org/2008/03/03/collusions-exposed/ participated in Vista collusions], and after that she was a Product Manager at [[ OpenLogic ]], a known openwashing company led by a former Microsoft manager, since December 2005. She has referred to free software advocates as [http://techrights.org/2008/05/21/stormy-peters-on-ms-novell-deal/ "purists” and “fanatics”], which tends to demonize the free software community (a tactic that, along with GPL FUD, is [http://techrights.org/2007/05/16/more-fud/ frequently used] by Microsoft shills in an attempt to discredit/alienate free software advocates), although she agreed that "the patent and open source issue is still a very real concern" when asked about the Novell/Microsoft patent deal. In the same interview, she implies that there is nothing wrong with businesses using proprietary software: "... the world is not black and white and business is not always evil. Also, businesses are using combinations of open source and proprietary software in very effective ways".

In November 2009, Lucas Rocha sent an email on behalf of the GNOME Foundation Board of Directors, [https://lwn.net/Articles/366903/ making the GNOME Code of Conduct an official document that new GNOME Foundation members are required to explicitly agree to before being accepted]. In that thread, RMS mentioned that people who work at VMware often post about their work and appear on Planet GNOME, and [http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-December/msg00037.html suggested that "GNOME should not provide proprietary software developers with a platform to present non-free software as a good or legitimate thing"]. Stormy Peters, in response, has [http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-December/msg00040.html defended the promotion of proprietary software on Planet GNOME]: "Planet GNOME is about people and we display everyone's full blog feed as it represents them. There are people that work on proprietary software as well as GNOME and that's who they are. I don't think we should reject people because they don't agree with us 100% of the time". 

In the same [https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-December/thread.html#00054 mailing list], after a few back and forths including more people defending proprietary software and with RMS mentioning that "GNOME is part of the GNU Project, and it ought to support the free software movement. The most minimal support for the free software movement is to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid presenting proprietary software as legitimate", one of the most rabid/outspoken fans of Mono, Philip Van Hoof (senior GNOME developer) [https://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-December/msg00054.html proposed to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project]. He was [http://techrights.org/2009/12/12/gnome-and-gnu/ seconded in this by GNOME Foundation advisory board member David Schlesinger]. After some more back-and-forths between RMS and a GNOME contributor discussing the promotion of proprietary software by GNOME Foundation, Dave Neary, a GNOME Foundation member, requested that they [http://techrights.org/2009/12/14/push-polling-vs-gnu/ refrain from posting in that thread again], highlighting the GNOME Foundation's disregard of the issue of software freedom.

Microsoft Silverlight [http://techrights.org/2010/01/11/mono-for-breakfast/ has also been promoted on Planet GNOME].

Related reading:
* [http://techrights.org/2009/12/11/gnome-poisonous-people/ GNOME Interests Seemingly Bought by Corporations]
* [http://techrights.org/2009/12/12/gnome-and-gnu/ GNOME at Risk of Losing Its GNU Status]

== Personal attacks on RMS after Mono criticism ==

RMS gave a keynote speech at Gran Canaria Desktop Summit in July 2009 where he did his usual St. IGNUcius/Church of Emacs comedy routine, a comical parody of other religions where he uses the Cult of the Virgin of Emacs to symbolize everyone (originally women, but RMS later changed it to include everyone) who has never used Emacs. According to the Church of Emacs, offering the Virgin (i.e., a person who has never used Emacs before) the opportunity to lose Emacs virginity (i.e., use Emacs for the first time) is a blessed act. Despite RMS telling the same joke "dozens of times" in the past with no reports of it being interpreted in such a way, the women in this particular audience were offended by it and accused him of sexism. While we don't have a transcript or video of the keynote at hand, it appears that [https://www.datamation.com/open-source/richard-stallman-leadership-and-sexism/ "two parts of it apparently generated controversy: Stallman’s remarks on why Mono and .NET (C#) should not be used in free software, and his “Saint Ignucius” comedy routine"]. This was a perfect opportunity for Microsoft shills to attack him personally in order to discredit him by labeling him as a sexist. Jason at the Mono Nono Web site [http://mono-nono.com/2009/07/12/and-the-knives-come-out/ correctly predicted that Stallman would suffer the wrath of Microsoft fans]: "Stallman is facing a concerted attack on his character and competence and stands little chance of coming through it unscathed. Such is the penalty for daring to critize Mono. This garbage is already all over Planet Gnome, Planet Debian, Monologue and spreading". It should be noted that [http://techrights.org/2009/11/18/richard-stallman-clarifies-a-joke/ RMS did clarify the joke on the foundation-list and gnome-women-list mailing lists] and mentioned he would change the joke to include everyone to avoid future misunderstandings.

It should come as no surprise that [http://techrights.org/2009/12/14/push-polling-vs-gnu/ the person seconding the call for the vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project is the same person that crafted “open letters”, published private correspondance and called for Stallman to be banned from speaking at future conferences]. It should also come as no surprise that Miguel de Icaza didn't miss the opportunity to join in and [http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2009-December/msg00102.html defend and promote proprietary Microsoft software again]: "Gnome supports both the free software movement as well as proprietary developers... Gnome is a general purpose desktop, but it also recognizes the need for proprietary applications to use these libraries and to build and integrate properly with it".

Related reading:
* [http://techrights.org/2009/07/13/mono-vs-richard-stallman-tactic/ Is Mono’s Latest Strategy to Vilify Richard Stallman?]
* [http://techrights.org/2009/12/15/disinformation-freedom-is-not-religion/ Freedom is Not a Religion]
* [http://techrights.org/2009/12/16/gnu-inside-gnome-is-ok/ Recent Attacks on GNU and Richard Stallman Based on Distortions, Lies]

== Microsoft infiltration ==

In 2010, Microsoft infiltration at GNOME Foundation had [http://techrights.org/2010/01/16/planet-suse-dot-not/ started to deepen its roots], and the new GNOME Foundation Committee at the time had members like Jeff Schroeder, who [http://jeffsc.blogspot.com/ ran a blog about Microsoft SQL Server (blog name is “Jeff Schroeder – SQL Server and other interesting stuff”)] and Ke Wang, whose resume [http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~kewang/Kewang-resume.html includes an internship at Microsoft Research in Redmond and being "invited as university representative to the Microsoft Professional Developers' Conference (PDC) 2001 by Microsoft Corporation"].

* [http://techrights.org/2010/01/11/mono-for-breakfast/ Miguel de Icaza Groomed by Microsoft with MVP Award]
* [http://techrights.org/2010/01/16/planet-suse-dot-not/ GNOME Should Learn from Novell’s Mistakes]

== Corruption/conflict of interests ==

In February 2010, GNOME Journal was [http://techrights.org/2010/02/07/moonlight-boosted-by-microsoft-fans/ promoting a Novell-sponsored and Novell-run project] that uses Mono and [http://techrights.org/2009/07/17/fsf-vs-microsoft-community-promises/ only Novell customers can use]. [http://techrights.org/2009/11/12/gnome-staff-novell/ GNOME Foundation had a conflict of interests] because it was headed by a Novell employee.

In April 2010, Novel [http://techrights.org/2010/04/07/more-novell-staff-in-gnome/ increased its influence at GNOME Foundation], and held 2 out of 7 seats on the Foundation Board, including that of the GNOME Foundation Director. The Board a the time included the following people:
* Brian Cameron (Oracle)
* Jorge Castro (Canonical)
* Paul Cutler (Novell)
* Diego Escalante Urrelo (Igalia – Internship)
* Germán Póo-Caamaño (No affiliation)
* Srinivasa Ragavan (Intel)
* Vincent Untz (Novell)

* [http://techrights.org/2008/07/08/stormy-leadership/ Further Analysis of GNOME’s Leadership]
* [http://techrights.org/2010/04/03/swinging-novell-in-gnome/ Has Novell Exceeded Lobbying Power in GNOME?]
* [http://techrights.org/2010/04/07/more-novell-staff-in-gnome/ Novell Dominates Almost a Third of GNOME Foundation Board, Including the Director]

== Miscellaneous ==

=== GNOME Foundation's structure ===

Our reader Brandon says: “some idiot keeps going around saying FSF accepts corporate funding as well, however GNOME is set up in a way where if you fund them via businesses, you get onto the “advisory board” which makes suggestions to the executives. this is exactly like the congress – lobbying connection – whereas, in other projects such as Apache, they will take your funding but won’t let you dictate [anything]. Apache has funding from MSFT, but they’ve publicly said that doesn’t mean crap because they still make all the decisions. GNOME on the other hand, with the advisory board at least has to listen to these suggestions. They don’t have to act upon them, but they gotta listen still.”

“It’s probably better to keep funding and decision-making separate. Decide who gets to make decisions based on merit, not money,” says MinceR in response.

Brandon adds: “I can’t find an equivalent in FSF for a corporately paid subsection which gets to tell board members suggestions based on them paying tens of thousands of dollars. I don’t mind if an organization takes funding, but funding/decisions should be separate. The “advisory board” is just a euphemism for “lobbying board”, I can’t see how its different. They pay tens of thousands of dollars, and get to make suggestions. Lobbyists pay congresspeople tens of thousands of dollars, and get to make suggestions.”

As of December 2009, Novell [http://techrights.org/2009/11/12/gnome-staff-novell/ owned the "Director" position at GNOME Foundation].

Related reading:
* [http://techrights.org/2009/12/19/euphemism-for-lobbying/ Why GNOME Funding is Equivalent to Lobbying and Why Novell is Likely Against GPL Enforcement]

=== Other links ===

* [http://techrights.org/2007/12/08/gnome-desktop-favoritism/ Quote of the Day: Richard Stallman on the GNOME Desktop]
* [http://techrights.org/2010/06/16/access-as-rogue-lobbyist/ Harald Welte Supports Apple in Enforcement Against Apple and Freedom-Hostile Apple Sympathisers Withdraw From GNOME]
```