The Stallman Report

Interesting to note that the A record for stallman-report.org was, up until a few days ago, the same as the A record for drewdevault.com:

https://i.ibb.co/RNBGcTJ/securitytrails-drewdevault.png

https://i.ibb.co/NYtTQnh/securitytrails-stallmanreport.png

So even though the report is anonymous, we can be almost certain that Drew is behind it, as he was for the previous hit piece.

Furthermore, while that same IP address (46.23.81.157) no longer hosts the stallman-report.org website, responding with "404 Site not found" if requested, it still has a certificate for stallman-report.org, which can be observed if a matching SNI record is sent during the TLS handshake:

https://i.ibb.co/S0fPvW3/ddv-sr-cert.png

Additional evidence has been uncovered linking Drew to this report, from Certificate Transparency data.

A search for all subdomains of drewdevault.com reveals rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com, which had certificates issued on 29th September 2024, a few days before stallman-report.org was registered:

https://crt.sh/?q=rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com

Helpfully, the Internet Archive monitors the Certificate Transparency logs and crawls all hostnames it finds. Which was done very soon after the certificate for rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault.com was logged:

https://web.archive.org/web/*/rms-draft-84eb252.drewdevault....

From this, we can see that it is an earlier copy of the document that currently exists on stallman-report.org:

https://web.archive.org/web/20240929110752/https://rms-draft...

https://archive.today/dPAb6

Drew popped up on this thread yesterday saying that he'd "read most of the report".

We can now ascertain that this was a lie and an attempt to mislead, because it's clear from the accumulation of evidence that he authored it. While writing and editing this document he would have read every word, not just "most of" it.

He is also keen to congratulate himself by not-so-humbly announcing that "the depth of this report is astonishing".

Knowing that the author has engaged in such deceptive sockpuppetry casts significant doubt on the document itself. How much of it has been written to mislead the reader and misrepresent the facts?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41838124

> I've read most of the report and it's got a lot more than "last time". Speaking as someone who has done a lot of my own research on Stallman's bullshit, the depth of this report is astonishing. The allegations it makes regarding the conduct of the rest of the FSF is particularly alarming.

> I think you should at least skim it before you comment.

Alright, that's hilarious.

"Wow guys this is such a well-written piece. I wonder who could've put this together..."

I used to enjoy reading Drew's writings, but he's become such a complete goober lately (or I've just noticed it more).

I don't know what RMS's opinions have to do with running a free software organization, nor why they necessitate his cancelling, but apparently some people are incapable of compartmentalizing. I hate how common this has become.