They should accept the donation but perhaps think twice about giving away board seats for them

They should not grant membership to companies that have a demonstrated history of being hostile to FLOSS. But hey, who would say no to more money, amirite?

>But hey, who would say no to more money, amirite?

Yes, you are, and luckily those in charge of the foundation are capable of understanding that inclusion (and money) serve a greater good than does being spiteful.

Much like the UN security council, it helps to bring all players to the table rather than ignoring them, as you say, out of spite.

Would you say they should go as far as appending license that would prevent companies from using their software if they have a history of hostility towards them? Or only when it comes to receiving donations?

> appending license that would prevent companies from using their software

No, that would defeat the purpose of FLOSS entirely.

They should aggressively defend FLOSS licenses, which would include prosecuting some of their current members. If they allow members to take, for example, the Linux kernel, modify it, and not redistribute modifications to customers (as required by the GPL), then what exactly is the LF doing other than collecting membership dues from literally anyone that can afford it, and using funds to help members promote their 'we love open source' initiatives/marketing campaigns?

> and not redistribute modifications to customers (as required by the GPL)

Upon request the code should be made available, specifically if it's been modified and you are running the software. But yeah they should be at least open towards customers about it (those who have a right to said source, but also they can redistribute it legally under the GPL license terms).

The point is, at least two of the 'platinum members' of the Linux Foundation have publicly violated this. And yet, there they are.

GPL and other libre licenses have termination clauses. Eg,

> 8. Termination.

> You may not propagate or modify a covered work except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to propagate or modify it is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License (including any patent licenses granted under the third paragraph of section 11).

> However, if you cease all violation of this License, then your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated (a) provisionally, unless and until the copyright holder explicitly and finally terminates your license, and (b) permanently, if the copyright holder fails to notify you of the violation by some reasonable means prior to 60 days after the cessation.

> Moreover, your license from a particular copyright holder is reinstated permanently if the copyright holder notifies you of the violation by some reasonable means, this is the first time you have received notice of violation of this License (for any work) from that copyright holder, and you cure the violation prior to 30 days after your receipt of the notice.

> Termination of your rights under this section does not terminate the licenses of parties who have received copies or rights from you under this License. If your rights have been terminated and not permanently reinstated, you do not qualify to receive new licenses for the same material under section 10.

Why should the Linux foundation be full of FLOSS sticklers? Not even Linus cares that much about freedom, as his refusal to licence Linux under the GPL3 shows

Linus explains his reasoning on that here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKIZ7gJlRU

Relicensing Linux as GPLv3, even if actually possible (GPL is incompatible with everything that's not a subset of GPL, including other versions of GPL: GPLv2 is not compatible with GPLv3) would be unacceptable to many commercial players. It wouldn't be end of the world - most big customers, from RedHat to Android folks already have to maintain their own forks anyway - but it would hurt in the long run.

Taking their money means they have less money to be "hostile to FLOSS".

You're operating off the assumption that open source foundations aren't mainly a racket themselves.

So are you saying it's wrong for a company who had a history of being hostile to want to support open source now? Isn't a company that used to be hostile towards FLOSS switching to investing half a million a year into it... a good thing?