You can see that they abandoned the Libreboot name and founded GNU Boot, that Leah is now trying to take over (the name) too.

Anyway, this drama is highly personal and Leah is not a trustworthy person.

According to this [1], the alleged takeover you mention not only didn't involve Adrien or Denis Carikli, it also happened two years before the creation of https://libreboot.at, which seems to be from 2023 [2]

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20210331005023/https://libreboot... or https://www.andrewrobbins.info/libreboot.html if you want a third-party

[2] https://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/libreboot-devel/2023-0...

Either way, it seems that if there was any problem around the usage of the GNU Boot name, it was solved by adding disclaimers galore: http://notgnuboot.vimuser.org/

To me the disclaimers above show enough good faith. Meanwhile https://libreboot.at continues up. I don't think we should be that harsh and accusatory to someone after they actually comply with the request of changing a page name and adding disclaimers.

This seems so weird to me. Why invest the energy? In the olden days we'd just fork and get to work.

As some of us already said multiple times, this is a completely different story and unrelated to this. Let's maybe lets this misunderstanding die?

Granted, the TLDR at the top would have helped haha, especially if it was a long post.

FWIW today is the first I’ve heard of Leah and I spent some time reading their website (vimuser.org) and they seem to be quite conscientious and thorough in explaining their work and the rationales behind it. This whole thing has kindled some interest in using a free boot loader on my system. Looking forward to trying it out.

Lib reboot.

Always have, but it took LibreOffice becoming mainstream to make the correction mostly unnoticeable.

Then I suspect Leah disagreed with that fork both on technical merits (it's based on old code) and with the stealing of the name, but she agreed with the need for a version without the binaries, so she made that and published it under the name GNUboot, intended for Denis and Adrien to base their work on, and now Denis and Adrien are complaining that she's misusing the GNU name.

Is that roughly a correct summary?

Because if it is, it sounds to me like both sides do have valid points, but handled the disagreement very poorly. Denis and Adrien complaining that Leah stole the GNU name when they just stole the Libreboot name, sounds very hypocritical. The whole thing would be a lot better if both sides stopped the drama and powergames and just worked together to create the best possible boot systems; one with the binaries and one without.

For example, a long email history on any of these people(and even if you don't use, people you email do use gmail), from a central store such as gmail, would provide immense insight into personality traits, etc.

Which means external motivaters could be used as handy leavers to drive dissent.

Little spats like this, erode project trust, and just divert energy.

Anyhow, no idea if this is happening. I guess if you really do want to destroy something, just let Oracle buy it, so maybe I'm off here.

But yeah, this does seem to happen painfully often. The particulars of this specific incident remind me a lot of the FFmpeg vs LibAV split (or the LibAV+Debian vs. FFmpeg+Everyone Else split).