Talk:Linux Foundation

Break out foundation projects list into its own page?

The list of the projects is 150+ at last count. Not sure if it might be useful to declutter the Foundation page and break out the whole list of projects as a table with fields for date started, etc. The better to search, sort, and refer to projects with their own Wikipedia pages. Disclaimer: I volunteered on a two foundation projects over the years. Phil Wolff (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, the list is far too long. – K4rolB (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

There is too many Projects to keep track of, and it's nearly impossible to find detailed information on some of them. Tri Comment (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Address

What is physical location of foundation HQ ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marekmosiewicz (talk • contribs) 20:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Income

They get massives of money, 43 of 47 members of it pay, something likr 8 of them pay half a million a year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.46.253 (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Who funds and makes decisions?

Who pays what, and who's on their board?

Since this is an encyclopaedia rather than some advertising space, these are the first questions to ask. Gronky (talk) 11:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. This is a good start - there's plenty of material there for basic article-padding, although locating secondary sources for some of the more intricate details may be tricky. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Article needs a History section

With details. Those who are ignorant of history ... CountMacula (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Intro reads like an ad

The intro should state facts instead of repeating LF's public statements about itself. If LF wrote this article, the intro would probably be exactly as it is now.

Facts are: who funds it, who has decision power, and what do they do (concrete stuff, not "we protect Linux"). Gronky (talk) 12:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

@Gronky: I noticed the same thing. I reworked the intro to address our shared concerns based on the following information:

• Name: The Linux Foundation
• What: is a non-profit technology consortium
• When: founded on January (21? 22?), 2007,
• Who: as a merger between the Open Source Development Labs and the Free Standards Group
• Why: to standardize Linux, and to promote and support its growth.
• It also no longer brags about the LF being "the largest" and supporting the "greatest shared technology resources in history," which is vague and not useful.

Talib1101 (talk) 03:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The article praises the Linux Foundation and it's projects which give it that advertisement feel. Tri Comment (talk) 00:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Taking money from Microsoft

Just leaving this here for now. It's not currently mentioned in the article:

• Linux Foundation Sponsors Now Includes Microsoft?

. Gronky (talk) 13:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how this is relevant to the talk page; Microsoft uses Linux in some of its products or services. This section should probably be deleted.

You really don't see why it is relevant?! Microsoft makes a great deal of money from selling Microsoft Windows, which is a direct competitor to Linux. If the Linux Foundation were successful in its claimed aim of supporting Linux's growth, that would drastically reduce Microsoft's income. Microsoft has now bought a say in what the Linux Foundation does and who runs it. I suggest you google for the phrase "embrace, extend, extinguish" (Microsoft's own description of its strategy for dealing with standards-based competition). Sayitclearly (talk) 08:51, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Images

Hi! The Linux Foundation is interested in providing resources to help make this page more current and factual. As a contractor of the foundation, I have a conflict of interest, but will be happy to propose changes backed by third-party verifiable sources for editors to consider. I am also available to help research and provide verification for topics you’d like to update. I much appreciate your feedback and consideration. To start, here are several images for use that might be of interest. All are available under creative commons:

- The Linux Foundation’s logo - A photo of Linux foundation fellows Linus Torvalds and Greg Kroah-Hartman, taken at a 2012 Linux Foundation event. http://www.flickr.com/photos/13825348@N03/7939081134/in/set-72157631425904278

- A video, produced by The Linux Foundation that explains how Linux is built and the foundation’s role in the project. http://video.linux.com/videos/how-linux-is-built

LibbyMClark (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)LClark, 05/30/13

Board Reorganization

• Linux Foundation causes uproar by quietly removing community representation from its board published by Information Age
• The Linux Foundation No Longer Allows Community Representation published by Softpedia

– Conrad T. Pino (talk) 00:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Zephyr Project

Just thinking that the page might be updated for the new Zephyr Project. Any thoughts?

http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-linux-foundations-zephyr-project-building-an-operating-system-for-iot-devices/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by NoPolymath (talk • contribs) 00:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Linux Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120927021800/http://www.redhat.com/magazine/004feb05/features/patents/ to http://www.redhat.com/magazine/004feb05/features/patents/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Info on Linux Foundation History and Formation

@Mbolzern: I'd like to provide links to resources explaining how The Linux Foundation initially came to be.

LF was actually formed in 2007 and was indeed due to the merging of the Open Source Development Labs (OSDL) and Free Standards Group (FSG). Starting the section with the 4th paragraph would best convey this fact. A press release of that announcement provides background on both OSDL & FSG, explaining that both groups began six years before The Linux Foundation was established in 2007: https://web.archive.org/web/20070702180852/http://www.linux-foundation.org/wordpress/?p=286

Here is the announcement of Open Source Development Labs' formation in Santa Clara circa 2000: https://web.archive.org/web/20030607050006/http://osdl.org:80/osdlpress/2000_aug_30_santa_clara.html

This is why the formation date on this page is listed as 2000.

@Greg9892: I applaud your motive, it is a motive that we share, and I believe that including the history prior to 2000 is important. Why? The 2000 forming of OSDL and especially the 2002 continuation (as you note, in a different State)would not have been possible without it. Continuity of the relevant projects made OSDL, and then LF in turn possible.

The first three paragraphs say that the origins of The Linux Foundation are linked to Linux International (LI). LI was actually never part of The Linux Foundation's history. OSDL was started in 2002 as an Oregon nonprofit. Here is the Business Registry Info: http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_web_name_srch_inq.show_detl?p_be_rsn=924540&p_srce=BR_INQ&p_print=FALSE

Linux International is a New Hampshire nonprofit and its legal entities aren't from the same state as OSDL; LI should not be associated with The Linux Foundation's origin.

@Greg9892: With all due respect, I believe strongly that LI should be part of LF's official history, and I believe I have explained adequately below why that is.

OSDL was only able to form because it had lobbied to gain critical projects from Linux International, and also received a significant amount of Linux International's board and vendor sponsorship in the process. Key among those were the LSB, and especially the Linux Mark & relationship with Linus among others. These projects and intellectual property is what interested OSDL's sponsors most. I believe in the face of this, the fact that one entity was a New Hampshire Organization, and the other a California Organization is irrelevant to that issue. OSDL took on LI's history in that process, plain and simple. To not include it as part of LF's history is to ignore very significant information that when present gives a much more accurate perspective. Especially since LF now fulfills that vision from 1993, which dates to nearly the inception of Linux itself.

Any facts about Linux International should be added to its own Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_International

@Greg9892: facts about Linux International, yes, I agree... but not facts about LF which the above are, since LF is the recipient of these crucial projects which in turn (even now) make LF possible in the first place. LI was only left to go it's own separate way because that was what maddog wanted. Otherwise LI would probably have folded into OSDL outright.

Thanks! Greg9892 (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mbolzern: Do you have any references to cite for this other than your own submitted text? I have confirmed with multiple people who founded the LF that LI was never part of any discussion in creating the LF. I was involved at IBM working with Jim Zemlin when the LF was formed and never witnessed any involvement with LI, as it was a separately running organization from OSDL. If it was part of the early days of OSDL as you claim, I suggest you contribute your references to the OSDL and LI Wikipedia pages as those would be the proper pages to cite. Even if the text you submitted were true, it has no relevance other than to promote your own supposed involvement and there are no references.MdolanLF (talk) 02:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Greg9892: @MdolanLF: Yes, I have references.

Of course LI was not discussed in 2007 when LF was set up. By then OSDL already owned the projects LI had created… To validate the history (which is your point right?) we need to be looking at 2000 and earlier for the origins of what is now LF. Being prior to legal filings doesn't make it moot as part of LF's history because of those crucial projects.

"Supposed Involvement?" Am I being accused of something?

Just who did you check with? Were they personally there pre-2000?

If not, I submit they are speaking from anecdotes and ignorance resulting from not being present, I mean, who can remember what they were not there to see? There was a also substantial time lag between 2000 when OSDL was being founded and when 2007 LF was being founded, LI had already handed off the projects to OSDL before then, followed by LI repurposing itself without me due to my letting go voluntarily to tend to my wife's cancer.

Much of the work that LF does today is based upon formational work that occurred well before 2007 in the 90s even as Linux and OpenSource were proving themselves worthy of attention. In companies and organizations when people switch out roles in favor of newer people, organizational memory is nearly always lost by that organization. That is the case here. More often than not in all of humankind's history there has been the "legal trail" and overwhelming official oral tradition of "HIS story" (The victor's) rather than the "TRUE story" of what really happened that is told.

It is often possible for motivated historians to piece together the true story by assembling many different pieces of evidence as they are located. This is something I could do given sufficient time and effort. The truth is available to someone willing to dig. I am not a glory hound, nor someone who misrepresents happenings or I would long ago have gone to court with this. At the same time, I vehemently resist having my role, and that of others in history intentionally, or due to neglect deprecated from the record.

There is still much I can contribute, if people were also aware of past contributions. To validate what I am saying, I'd start by the investigating crucial projects without which the LF could not claim, nor hold its role in the Linux & OpenSource communities.

First is the fact that LF manages the Linux Trademark on behalf of Linus. Just how did that happen to come about if it wasn't done by a coalition lead by LI & Linux Journal, after William Della Croche registered it contrary to Linus' wishes? And Yes I provide some links below. Beware the community was much smaller, and the web not nearly as pervasive back then, plus I have other documents and electronic files (not easily produced) which would be even more useful. I still have the physical letter in a box somewhere with the date on it showing that my company was the first attacked by Della Croche (provided an electronic version), and backup tapes (among cases of them) with the email logs that include organizing other vendors in the name of LI, and ending with creating the Linux Mark Institute as a separate entity, which COULD later be handed to OSDL/LF to manage with Linus' permission. These logs, backups and physical documents could prove many other things given time and incentive to dig them out.

Second, the industry organization, vendor member model very much follows LI's organizational structure, and even inherited member companies directly from LI. This was my original idea, and started being implemented in 1993/94. maddog did not come up with the model, or found LI by himself.

Third, the LSB, what are the origins of that if not at a meeting in Raleigh where I insisted it not be called LBS? etc, etc... In each case you'll find my hand involved behind the scenes, working, guiding and funding. Since I wasn't working as a coder I didn't have the advantage of branding my work in the source. And it isn't just me being left out. I've long resented that other significant early players are also left out when they are not there to defend their legacy.

There are more.

You need only look at the LI history to see that LF must have inherited these projects from LI via OSDL. If not, then just how did OSDL come by them? That, not the trail of legal organizational filing documents is the REAL history.

Yes, I have boxes of relevant and non-relevant documents and can find links on both the Web and Archive.Org (I’ve provided a sample below) which together can be some of the puzzle pieces for any rational person with sufficient patience to really see the truth. There are also witnesses to various parts of what occurred whose memory may retain more, or less of it. Must they be chased down and interrogated? What facts do you have to disprove any of what I've related? I had already included a number of relevant links and proofs in a prior studiously assembled version of text that was quickly deleted by someone besides myself, perhaps that is still in the revision control system somewhere?

When I discovered I'd have to rewrite, I instead submitted the current much shortened version, since I didn't have the time to do the research over again. Were you the person that deleted those?

What advantage is there to LF to suppress the real history?

It's not like they owe me money or something... I would think it would be even more credible to date back further and give credit where credit is due.

Here as a sample is something for you to chew on as to whether I can prove my statements or not:

http://www.ru.j-npcs.org/usoft/WWW/www_li.org/About/Who/Welcome.html The agreement at the time was to order these by MERIT, rather than the traditional Alphabetical. This list was from AFTER maddog had been recruited because I could not publicly be seen as simultaneously the head of both a for-profit and a non-profit as had been the case to date. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbolzern (talk • contribs) 03:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

http://tech-insider.org/linux/research/1996/0808.html

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/4037?page=0,1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbolzern (talk • contribs) 03:28, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

http://www.gbnet.net/net/Linux/docs/cola/960822.02

http://tech-insider.org/linux/research/1997/0207.html

https://web.archive.org/web/19980526174129/http://www.li.org:80/News/trademark.html

https://www.infoworld.com/article/2671387/operating-systems/linus-gets-tough-on-linux-trademark.html

https://web.archive.org/web/20010609192809/http://marc.merlins.org:80/linux/comdexfall98/

https://web.archive.org/web/20010604032717/

http://marc.merlins.org:80/linux/comdexfall99/

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/9065?page=0,0&quicktabs_1=2 BTW: LJ was wrong, and I didn’t bother to correct them. Does that sound like a GloryHound? maddog did file the incorporation papers for LI on behalf of the group as they state, but it was already an existing project led by me when he joined, recruited by Bob Young and myself.

Am I being accused of something? Perhaps Self Aggrandizement? the lack of which ironically is a major reason why there isn't more obvious proof online of what I am saying. I haven’t been keeping track of proof for things that I felt were already obvious… the above links are the result of a few quick searches. I’m sure there is more online, and I know that there is still plenty that can be assembled into a more complete picture, if I make the effort to dig in boxes & backup tapes. Especially if relevant players of the time are included in the discussion.

Bear in mind the community was much smaller in the 90s, and thus far less visible to the world. Archive.org didn’t yet do what they do now. Many servers were not never scanned by Archive.org, and their content hasn't lasted over the years. This is compounded further in that much of what you request is pre-web (HTML was still maturing), and never made it to a website. Linux and the Internet developed side by side, and the web matured later.

Put me in a room with Linus Torvalds, Maddog, Joe Brockmeier, Larry Augustin, Kit Cosper, Jon Corbett, Don Marti, Patrick Volkerding, Adam Richter, Alan Cox, Ted Cook, Alan Fedder, Ted T'so, Michael K Johnson, Mark Merlin, Oleg Dulin and Bob Young, then let me give some memory prompts and anecdotes the OSDL Pre-History story will become come clear to you very quickly as it would if I chose to subpoena if this were a court case..

They each have parts of the complete picture, but none has the whole picture on their own, and therefore if anyone asked without also presenting relevant facts they'll recognize, they probably won't remember. Note that I'm not saying I have the complete picture either... but I certainly know what my role was and how I interfaced with these others that I have named. I would be interested in helping to compile a more complete picture, which was a major reason for the following letter which was written to LF in an effort to helpfully re-engage after my wife and the worst of the Grief had passed. The result was that I felt thoroughly snubbed in LF's lack of interest in their past, how they became what they are today:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/18lr_bFou1VNyk_M1QIBaBIHVlC5FwWD0Oe2o61caHWM

Given time and resources, proof can be pulled from the li.org email list transmission logs, as well as old backup tapes I have in storage. Please don't push me there to defend my life's work.

If LI would have any interest in the project I proposed in that letter, which would create great, positive PR.... You’d more readily see how I worked largely behind the scenes enabling others, as opposed to "Glory Hounding". I nearly always promoted others before myself. This however was not reciprocated. Do you have a clue how much that hurts a collaborative soul such as myself?

mbolzern (talk)

References

Proposal to add a sub page for Cloud Native

I would like to suggest making a sub page for more detail on the various projects involved with CNCF

The complete landscape survey is summarized in the here in this CNCF GitHub project: https://github.com/cncf/landscape

I have made a draft page here if anyone wants to use it as a starting point - ATM just a copy of the CNCF part of Linux Foundation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cloud_Native_Computing_Foundation

I would be willing to help with the ongoing maintenance of such a page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10Dev (talk • contribs) 05:23, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea--thank you. We will add a few proposed updates to the draft page soon for review. Feliz2916 (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

It seems that the former proposed draft was taken down. I would like to resurface the request to create a dedicated page for CNCF. It would be straightforward to do, given all the organized components of the CNCF section within this page. The word count alone of the CNCF page (over 15,000) is well over the average of 1,123. I will propose a draft in the coming days. In the meantime, please share your thoughts. PDX5354 (talk) 04:44, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Draft of new page available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cloud_Native_Computing_Foundation_(CNCF) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Linux Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090715171638/http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Certification to http://www.linuxfoundation.org/en/Certification

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Major change in focus?

There is speculation, for example: http://techrights.org/2019/06/05/linux-com-future-uncertain/ , that the Linux Foundation now has commercial goals incompatible with its stated aim of supporting the growth of Linux. I don't have a reference meeting Wikipedia standards, but it wouldn't be surprising since Microsoft became a financial supporter of the Linux Foundation.

Does anyone here have definite evidence either for or against this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayitclearly (talk • contribs) 12:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The Linux Foundation website seems sufficiently active to me: "Copyright © 2019 The Linux Foundation®." An up-to-date copyright is a good sign. Another sign of activity is Linux Foundation Events, which lists recent events and scheduled events that have yet to occur. The Linux Foundation does not have "commercial goals incompatible with its stated aim of supporting the growth of Linux" because it is not commercial. Foundation is in the name, it uses a .org rather than a .com domain, much like Wikipedia. It also accepts [www.linuxfoundation.org/about/donate donations]. It is also stated in its bylaws that it is an "an Oregon nonprofit mutual benefit corporation". kernel.org, which is the source of the Linux Kernel, and which is "operated by the Linux Kernel Organization, Inc., a 501(c)3 nonprofit corporation", links to the Linux Foundation under "Other Resources", indicating the the organizations are connected, and are not likely in conflict with each other Talib1101 (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Stating that the Linux Foundation does not have commercial goals because of what it calls itself seems a trifle naive to me. The goals of the Linux Foundation are the goals of the people who run it, who are appointed by the people who pay for it. The Linux Foundation is not operated for profit, but significant growth of Linux would negatively impact the profits of Microsoft Corporation. Microsoft has, and always has had, a direct commercial interest in stopping the growth of Linux (and has spent a lot of money to that end in the past). Now it has a say in how the Linux Foundation is run. Sayitclearly (talk) 09:07, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Factual accuracy of History section?

Is this still in dispute? Can the marker be removed? The article is beginning to approach GA in my opnion. Is that shared by others? —¿philoserf? (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello! I propose that we delete the initial 4 paragraphs of the History section (and do some light editing from there to ensure the section is logical), as they are not cited and rely on external links that don't seem to pass Wikipedia's independent/3rd party regulations. Everything I've seen from reputable sources says that the Linux Foundation began in 2000. The purported origins of the foundation as they are written here don't seem to be verifiable or truly relevant. I am happy to make this edit but I want to get some kind of consensus or gut-check that this is the right approach, as the history of editing this section appears to be somewhat contentious. 2601:1C2:1380:1DC0:397C:600D:5AF1:3FE2 (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

OS-Climate

I am guessing that Linux Foundation § LF Climate Finance Foundation project had morphed into the OS-Climate initiative. Perhaps that information could be resolved and worked in? RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

LF Edge umbrella

The LF Edge umbrella needs to be worked in. See the following. I am afraid I haven't got the time to do so. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

• wiki.lfedge.org
• thenewstack.io/sharpening-the-edge-the-linux-foundation-edge-framework-and-taxonomy/

"Key people" in infobox

Could someone expand this list with (short) descriptions of what each of these people do? That is, instead of just listing, say, "Marvin Acme", list "Marvin Acme (CEO)", etc. Thanks! 188.108.187.63 (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Cover Diversity and Inclusion efforts

• Inclusive Naming initiative
• Open Hardware Diversity Alliance
• Software Developer Diversity and Inclusion

I think these should be mentioned somewhere in the article as they are important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.89.91 (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Edit request for intro

• Specific text to be added or removed:

Remove the "Background" section and replace the intro with the following:

The Linux Foundation (LF) is a non-profit technology consortium that hosts and promotes the collaborative development of open source software projects. Initially founded to standardize and promote the open source operating system Linux as Open Source Development Labs in 2000, the LF was formed as a merger with Free Standards Group in 2007. The foundation has since evolved beyond Linux to become a "foundation of foundations" that hosts a variety of projects spanning topics such as cloud, networking, blockchain, and hardware. Projects hosted at the Linux Foundation include the Linux kernel project, Kubernetes, Automotive Grade Linux, ONAP (Open Network Automation Platform), Hyperledger, Cloud Native Computing Foundation, Cloud Foundry Foundation, Xen project, and many others.

The Linux Foundation is a 501(c)(6) organization that consists of corporate members such as AT&T, Cisco, Fujitsu, Google, Hitachi, Huawei, IBM, Intel, Meta, Microsoft, NEC, Oracle, Orange S.A., Qualcomm, Samsung, Tencent, and VMware. The Linux Foundation also sponsors the work of Linux creator Linus Torvalds and lead maintainer Greg Kroah-Hartman. In recent years, the Linux Foundation has expanded its support programs through events, training and certification, as well as open-source projects.

• Reason for the change: The intro should talk more about what the LF does and its history, like most Wikipedia article intros. The information already in "Background" is better placed to be in the intro to give an overview of the LF's activities. (Note that much of this content was not written by me! It was already there in earlier versions of the article. The main sentences I wrote were "The Linux Foundation (LF) is a non-profit technology consortium that hosts and promotes the collaborative development of open source software projects" and "The foundation has since evolved beyond Linux to become a "foundation of foundations" that hosts a variety of projects spanning topics such as cloud, networking, blockchain, and hardware" and "The Linux Foundation is a 501(c)(6) organization that consists of corporate members")

• References supporting change: See some of the refs above, also see https://www.linuxfoundation.org/about

Llightex (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

cc @Graywalls as you were interested in this Llightex (talk) 13:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Llightex:, any other editors in this article that did so in coordination with the Foundation or on behalf of the Foundation? If so, which user names? This article was tagged as promotional fluff in March 2021 and rightly so. My note to neutral editors: The article subject company had already moved contents around to control the presentation of contents in the positions they desire. I've moved stuff aside to somewhere more appropriate than lede and basically, the request sought by the company is to revert my recent edit which undid their PR editing and asking to essentially reinstate the edit they did to the article on their own. Since lede is the only section that is visible by default on the mobile version and with readership from mobile representing a significant fraction, it's important that the presentation in lede is not controlled directly by the company. One of the things that certainly do not belong in lede (or even anywhere in article) is dropping names of clients/members/customers. Graywalls (talk) 18:39, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

@Graywalls all the edits I've done to this article (see edits under "Llightex" from June 4 - July 2023 at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linux_Foundation&action=history&offset=&limit=250) were through disclosed editing paid by the Linux Foundation. I don't know if there was any editing by others on behalf of the Foundation in the past. I do agree that there's a lot of promotional fluff in the article and the intention of my edits is to reduce that and make the article more in line with less promotional, more neutral articles on Wikipedia.

Do note that the original lead (before I edited it) said, "The Linux Foundation (LF) is a non-profit technology consortium founded in 2000 as a merger between Open Source Development Labs and the Free Standards Group. Its primary objectives are to standardize Linux, support its growth, and promote its commercial adoption. Additionally, it hosts and promotes the collaborative development of open source software projects"

> it's important that the presentation in lede is not controlled directly by the company.

Agreed with this, that's why I'm making an edit request and open to your feedback.

> One of the things that certainly do not belong in lede (or even anywhere in article) is dropping names of clients/members/customers

I'm not quite sure if that is the case, for example, see Entertainment Software Association. I think it might be important for transparency to know which companies / interests an organization represents. But it certainly should be done in a WP:NPOV and non-promotional manner. Let me know what you think. Llightex (talk) 19:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the community stewardship section is massively undue given the amount of coverage devoted to this section with respect to overall size of the article. The article needs to be informative and devoid of contents designed to appeal to donors to entice membership expansion or donations. The presence of table showing various levels of donor was absurd. It looked like the banner you find at the entrance of museums intended to recognize donors. Graywalls (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Agreed -- I didn't add either of the content that you mention. My edits mainly converted a lot of the headers to a single table, which has been suggested earlier in this talk page (Talk:Linux_Foundation#Break_out_foundation_projects_list_into_its_own_page?). I also moved some of the headers around in preparation for adding them to the table. Here was the original page before my edits, for reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Linux_Foundation&oldid=1165502628.

In my opinion, it's ultimately in article subjects' interest not to have the article read like a massive low-quality advertisement and have tons of warnings; instead it should be informative and NPOV like a regular Wikipedia article. I made this case to LF and took on paid editing to improve the article in this way. Not all paid editing is intended at adding promotional fluff -- only poor paid editing. But I will ensure I propose changes through edit requests going forward! Llightex (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit request: Update statistic under "Projects"

Under "Projects", replace:

As of September 2015, the total economic value of development costs of Linux Foundation Collaborative Projects was estimated at $5 billion. Through continued investment in open source projects and growth in the number of projects hosted, this number rose to $15.6 billion by September 2017.

with:

As of September 2015, the total economic value of development costs of Linux Foundation Collaborative Projects was estimated at $5 billion.

Reason for edit: I couldn't find a good source for the $15.6 billion quote. All I could find is the LF's press release that says $16 billion (https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/blog/facebooks-long-history-of-open-source-investments-deepens-with-platinum-level-linux-foundation-membership) but that is far from the source for the $5 billion quote (which was an actual report with details). So probably best to remove this sentence. Llightex (talk) 13:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

 Implemented  Spintendo  17:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Llightex (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

References

I am highly opposed to member directory

It is a common practice among non-profit organizations to name out benefactors and actually, many benefactors often donate to notable companies for publicity of being recognized prominently. Such information belongs on the organization's website. I'm opposed to display of select donor names in the article as selected by level of importance as seen by the organization. I do not see encyclopedic value and I have removed it again for the second time. Graywalls (talk) 02:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)