All posts by Bradley M. Kuhn

Open Source AI Definition Erodes the Meaning of “Open Source”

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2024/10/31/open-source-ai-osaid-osi.html

[ This is
a crosspost
from my professional blog at Software Freedom Conservancy
(SFC). I encourage you
to use
that copy of the post as the canonical linkage for this essay — I
crossposted here merely for posterity and to reach a wider
audience. ]

This week, the Open Source Initiative (OSI) made their new Open
Source Artificial Intelligence Definition (OSAID) official with its 1.0 release. With this
announcement, we have reached the moment that software freedom advocates have
feared for decades: the definition of “open source” —
with which OSI was entrusted — now differs in significant
ways from the views of most software freedom advocates.

There has been substantial acrimony during the drafting process of OSAID, and this blog post does not summarize all the
community complaints about the OSAID and its drafting
process. Other
bloggers
and the
press have covered those. The
TLDR here,
IMO is simply stated: the OSAID fails to
require reproducibility by the
public of the scientific process of building these systems, because the OSAID fails to place sufficient
requirements on the licensing and public disclosure of training sets for so-called “Open Source” systems. The
OSI refused to add this requirement because of a fundamental flaw in their process; they decided that “there
was no point in publishing a definition that no existing AI system could
currently meet”. This fundamental compromise undermined the community process, and amplified the role of stakeholders who would financially benefit from OSI’s retroactive declaration that their systems are “open source”. The OSI should have refrained from publishing a definition yet, and instead
labeled this document as ”recommendations” for now.

As the publication date of the OSAID approached, I could not help but
remember a fascinating statement that Donald E. Knuth, one of the founders
of the field of computer
science, once
said: [M]y role is to be on the bottom of things. … I try to
digest … knowledge into a form that is accessible to people who don’t
have time for such study. If we wish to engage in the
highly philosophical (and easily politically corruptible) task
of defining what terms like “software freedom” and
“open source” mean, we must learn to be on the “bottom of
things”. OSI made an unforced error in this regard. While they could
have humbly announced this as “recommendations” or “guidelines”,
they instead formalized it as a “definition” — with equivalent authority to their
OSD.

Yet, OSI itself only turned its attention to AI only recently, when they
announced their “deep dive” — for which Microsoft’s GitHub was OSI’s “Thought Leader”.
OSI has responded too rapidly to this industry ballyhoo. Their celerity of response made OSI
an easy target for regulatory capture.

By comparison, the original OSD was first published in February 1999.
That was at least twelve years after the widespread industry adoption of
various FOSS programs (such as the GNU C Compiler and BSD). The concept was explored and discussed publicly (under the moniker “Free Software”)
for decades before it was officially “defined”.
The OSI announced itself as the “marketing department for Free Software” and
based the OSD in large part on the independently
developed Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). The OSD was thus the
culmination of decades of thought and consideration, and primarily developed
by a third-party (Debian) — which provided a balance on OSI’s authority.
(Interestingly, some folks from Debian are attempting to check OSI’s authority again due to the premature publication of the OSAID.)

OSI claims that they must move quickly so that they can
counter the software companies from coopting
the term “open source” for their own aims. But
OSI failed to pursue trademark protection for “open source” in the early days, so the OSI can’t stop Mark Zuckerberg and his
cronies in any event from using the “open source”
moniker for his Facebook and Instagram products — let alone his
new Llama product.
Furthermore, OSI’s insistence
that the definition was urgently needed and that the definition
be engineered as a retrofit to apply to an existing, available system has yielded troublesome results.
Simply put, OSI has a tiny sample set to examine, in 2024,
of what LLM-backed generative AI systems look like. To make a final decision
about the software freedom and rights implications of such a nascent field led to
an automatic bias to accept the actions of first movers as legitimate.
By making this definition official too soon, OSI has endorsed demonstrably bad LLM-backed generative AI systems
as “open source” by definition!

OSI also disenfranchised the users and content creators in this process.
FOSS activists should
be engaging with
the larger discussions with
impacted communities of content creators about what “open
source” means to them, and how they feel about incorporation of
their data in the training sets into these third-party systems. The line between data and code is so easily crossed with
these systems that we cannot rely on old, rote conclusions that the
“data is separate and can be proprietary (or even unavailable), and yet the system remains ‘open
source’”. That adage fails us when analyzing this technology,
and we must take careful steps — free from the for-profit corporate
interest of AI fervor — as we decide how our well-established
philosophies apply to these changes.

FOSS activists err when we unilaterally dictate and define what is
ethical, moral, open and Free in areas outside of software. Software rights
theorists can (and should) make meaningful contributions in these
other areas, but not without substantial collaboration with those creative
individuals who produce the source material. Where were the painters, the
novelists, the actors, the playwrights, the musicians, and the poets in the
OSAID drafting process? The OSD was (of course) easier because our
community is mostly programmers and developers (or folks adjacent
to those fields); software creators knew best how to consider philosophical implications of pure software products.
The OSI, and the folks in its leadership, definitely
know software well, but I wouldn’t name any of them (or myself) as great
thinkers in these many areas outside software that are noticeably impacted by the promulgation of
LLMs that are trained on those creative works. The Open Source community remains
consistently in danger of excessive insularity, and the OSAID is an
unfortunate example of how insular we can be.

Meanwhile, I have spent literally months of time over the last 30 years trying to make sure the
coalition of software freedom & rights activists remained in basic
congruence (at least publicly) with those (like OSI) who are oriented towards a more
for-profit and corporate open source approach. Until today, I was always able to say:
“I believe that anything the OSI calls ‘open source’
gives you all the rights and freedoms that you deserve”. I now cannot
say that again unless/until the OSI revokes the OSAID. Unfortunately, that
Rubicon may have now been permanently crossed! OSI
has purposely made it politically unviable for them to
revoke the OSAID. Instead, they plan only incremental updates to the OSAID. Once
entities begin to rely on this definition as written, OSI will find it nearly impossible to
later declare systems that were “open source” under 1.0 as no longer so (under later versions). So, we are likely stuck
with OSAID’s key problems forever. OSI undermines its position as a philosophical leader in Open Source as long as OSAID 1.0 stands as a formal defintion.

I truly don’t know for sure (yet) if the only way to respect user rights in an LLM-backed
generative AI system is to only use training sets that are publicly
available and licensed under Free Software licenses. I do believe
that’s the ideal and preferred form for modification of those systems. Nevertheless,
a generally useful technical system that is built by collapsing data (in essence, via highly lossy compression) into a table of floating point numbers
is philosophically much more complicated than binary software and its Corresponding Source. So, having
studied the issue myself, I believe the Socratic Epiphany currently applies. Perhaps there is an acceptable
spot for compromise
regarding the issues of training set licensing, availability and similar reproducibility issues.
My instincts, after 25
years as a software rights philosopher, lead me to believe that it will
take at least a decade for our best minds to find a reasonable answer on where the bright line is of
acceptable behavior with regard to these AI systems. While OSI claims their OSAID is humble, I beg
to differ. The humble act now is to admit that it was just too soon to publish a “definition” and
rebrand these the OSAID 1.0 as “current recommendations”. That might not grab as many
headlines or raise as much money as the OSAID did, but it’s the moral and ethical way out of this bad situation.

Finally, rather than merely be a pundit on this matter, I am instead today putting myself forward
to try to be part of the solution. I plan to run for the OSI Board of Directors at the next elections on a single-issue
platform: I will work arduously for my entire term to see the OSAID repealed, and republished
not as a definition, but merely recommendations, and to also issue a statement
that OSI published the definition sooner than was appropriate. I’ll write further about the matter as the
next OSI Board election approaches. I also call on other software rights activists to run with me on a similar platform; the OSI has myriad seats that are elected by different constituents, so there is opportunity to run as a ticket on this issue. (Please contact me privately if you’d like to be involved with this ticket at the next OSI Board election. Note, though, that election results
are not actually binding, as OSI’s by-laws allow the current Board to reject results of the elections.)

Open Source AI Definition Erodes the Meaning of “Open Source”

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2024/10/31/open-source-ai-osaid-osi.html

[ This is
a crosspost
from my professional blog at Software Freedom Conservancy
(SFC). I encourage you
to use
that copy of the post as the canonical linkage for this essay — I
crossposted here merely for posterity and to reach a wider
audience. ]

This week, the Open Source Initiative (OSI) made their new Open
Source Artificial Intelligence Definition (OSAID) official with its 1.0 release. With this
announcement, we have reached the moment that software freedom advocates have
feared for decades: the definition of “open source” —
with which OSI was entrusted — now differs in significant
ways from the views of most software freedom advocates.

There has been substantial acrimony during the drafting process of OSAID, and this blog post does not summarize all the
community complaints about the OSAID and its drafting
process. Other
bloggers
and the
press have covered those. The
TLDR here,
IMO is simply stated: the OSAID fails to
require reproducibility by the
public of the scientific process of building these systems, because the OSAID fails to place sufficient
requirements on the licensing and public disclosure of training sets for so-called “Open Source” systems. The
OSI refused to add this requirement because of a fundamental flaw in their process; they decided that “there
was no point in publishing a definition that no existing AI system could
currently meet”. This fundamental compromise undermined the community process, and amplified the role of stakeholders who would financially benefit from OSI’s retroactive declaration that their systems are “open source”. The OSI should have refrained from publishing a definition yet, and instead
labeled this document as ”recommendations” for now.

As the publication date of the OSAID approached, I could not help but
remember a fascinating statement that Donald E. Knuth, one of the founders
of the field of computer
science, once
said: [M]y role is to be on the bottom of things. … I try to
digest … knowledge into a form that is accessible to people who don’t
have time for such study. If we wish to engage in the
highly philosophical (and easily politically corruptible) task
of defining what terms like “software freedom” and
“open source” mean, we must learn to be on the “bottom of
things”. OSI made an unforced error in this regard. While they could
have humbly announced this as “recommendations” or “guidelines”,
they instead formalized it as a “definition” — with equivalent authority to their
OSD.

Yet, OSI itself only turned its attention to AI only recently, when they
announced their “deep dive” — for which Microsoft’s GitHub was OSI’s “Thought Leader”.
OSI has responded too rapidly to this industry ballyhoo. Their celerity of response made OSI
an easy target for regulatory capture.

By comparison, the original OSD was first published in February 1999.
That was at least twelve years after the widespread industry adoption of
various FOSS programs (such as the GNU C Compiler and BSD). The concept was explored and discussed publicly (under the moniker “Free Software”)
for decades before it was officially “defined”.
The OSI announced itself as the “marketing department for Free Software” and
based the OSD in large part on the independently
developed Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). The OSD was thus the
culmination of decades of thought and consideration, and primarily developed
by a third-party (Debian) — which provided a balance on OSI’s authority.
(Interestingly, some folks from Debian are attempting to check OSI’s authority again due to the premature publication of the OSAID.)

OSI claims that they must move quickly so that they can
counter the software companies from coopting
the term “open source” for their own aims. But
OSI failed to pursue trademark protection for “open source” in the early days, so the OSI can’t stop Mark Zuckerberg and his
cronies in any event from using the “open source”
moniker for his Facebook and Instagram products — let alone his
new Llama product.
Furthermore, OSI’s insistence
that the definition was urgently needed and that the definition
be engineered as a retrofit to apply to an existing, available system has yielded troublesome results.
Simply put, OSI has a tiny sample set to examine, in 2024,
of what LLM-backed generative AI systems look like. To make a final decision
about the software freedom and rights implications of such a nascent field led to
an automatic bias to accept the actions of first movers as legitimate.
By making this definition official too soon, OSI has endorsed demonstrably bad LLM-backed generative AI systems
as “open source” by definition!

OSI also disenfranchised the users and content creators in this process.
FOSS activists should
be engaging with
the larger discussions with
impacted communities of content creators about what “open
source” means to them, and how they feel about incorporation of
their data in the training sets into these third-party systems. The line between data and code is so easily crossed with
these systems that we cannot rely on old, rote conclusions that the
“data is separate and can be proprietary (or even unavailable), and yet the system remains ‘open
source’”. That adage fails us when analyzing this technology,
and we must take careful steps — free from the for-profit corporate
interest of AI fervor — as we decide how our well-established
philosophies apply to these changes.

FOSS activists err when we unilaterally dictate and define what is
ethical, moral, open and Free in areas outside of software. Software rights
theorists can (and should) make meaningful contributions in these
other areas, but not without substantial collaboration with those creative
individuals who produce the source material. Where were the painters, the
novelists, the actors, the playwrights, the musicians, and the poets in the
OSAID drafting process? The OSD was (of course) easier because our
community is mostly programmers and developers (or folks adjacent
to those fields); software creators knew best how to consider philosophical implications of pure software products.
The OSI, and the folks in its leadership, definitely
know software well, but I wouldn’t name any of them (or myself) as great
thinkers in these many areas outside software that are noticeably impacted by the promulgation of
LLMs that are trained on those creative works. The Open Source community remains
consistently in danger of excessive insularity, and the OSAID is an
unfortunate example of how insular we can be.

Meanwhile, I have spent literally months of time over the last 30 years trying to make sure the
coalition of software freedom & rights activists remained in basic
congruence (at least publicly) with those (like OSI) who are oriented towards a more
for-profit and corporate open source approach. Until today, I was always able to say:
“I believe that anything the OSI calls ‘open source’
gives you all the rights and freedoms that you deserve”. I now cannot
say that again unless/until the OSI revokes the OSAID. Unfortunately, that
Rubicon may have now been permanently crossed! OSI
has purposely made it politically unviable for them to
revoke the OSAID. Instead, they plan only incremental updates to the OSAID. Once
entities begin to rely on this definition as written, OSI will find it nearly impossible to
later declare systems that were “open source” under 1.0 as no longer so (under later versions). So, we are likely stuck
with OSAID’s key problems forever. OSI undermines its position as a philosophical leader in Open Source as long as OSAID 1.0 stands as a formal defintion.

I truly don’t know for sure (yet) if the only way to respect user rights in an LLM-backed
generative AI system is to only use training sets that are publicly
available and licensed under Free Software licenses. I do believe
that’s the ideal and preferred form for modification of those systems. Nevertheless,
a generally useful technical system that is built by collapsing data (in essence, via highly lossy compression) into a table of floating point numbers
is philosophically much more complicated than binary software and its Corresponding Source. So, having
studied the issue myself, I believe the Socratic Epiphany currently applies. Perhaps there is an acceptable
spot for compromise
regarding the issues of training set licensing, availability and similar reproducibility issues.
My instincts, after 25
years as a software rights philosopher, lead me to believe that it will
take at least a decade for our best minds to find a reasonable answer on where the bright line is of
acceptable behavior with regard to these AI systems. While OSI claims their OSAID is humble, I beg
to differ. The humble act now is to admit that it was just too soon to publish a “definition” and
rebrand these the OSAID 1.0 as “current recommendations”. That might not grab as many
headlines or raise as much money as the OSAID did, but it’s the moral and ethical way out of this bad situation.

Finally, rather than merely be a pundit on this matter, I am instead today putting myself forward
to try to be part of the solution. I plan to run for the OSI Board of Directors at the next elections on a single-issue
platform: I will work arduously for my entire term to see the OSAID repealed, and republished
not as a definition, but merely recommendations, and to also issue a statement
that OSI published the definition sooner than was appropriate. I’ll write further about the matter as the
next OSI Board election approaches. I also call on other software rights activists to run with me on a similar platform; the OSI has myriad seats that are elected by different constituents, so there is opportunity to run as a ticket on this issue. (Please contact me privately if you’d like to be involved with this ticket at the next OSI Board election. Note, though, that election results
are not actually binding, as OSI’s by-laws allow the current Board to reject results of the elections.)

Open Source AI Definition Erodes the Meaning of “Open Source”

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2024/10/31/open-source-ai-osaid-osi.html

[ This is
a crosspost
from my professional blog at Software Freedom Conservancy
(SFC). I encourage you
to use
that copy of the post as the canonical linkage for this essay — I
crossposted here merely for posterity and to reach a wider
audience. ]

This week, the Open Source Initiative (OSI) made their new Open
Source Artificial Intelligence Definition (OSAID) official with its 1.0 release. With this
announcement, we have reached the moment that software freedom advocates have
feared for decades: the definition of “open source” —
with which OSI was entrusted — now differs in significant
ways from the views of most software freedom advocates.

There has been substantial acrimony during the drafting process of OSAID, and this blog post does not summarize all the
community complaints about the OSAID and its drafting
process. Other
bloggers
and the
press have covered those. The
TLDR here,
IMO is simply stated: the OSAID fails to
require reproducibility by the
public of the scientific process of building these systems, because the OSAID fails to place sufficient
requirements on the licensing and public disclosure of training sets for so-called “Open Source” systems. The
OSI refused to add this requirement because of a fundamental flaw in their process; they decided that “there
was no point in publishing a definition that no existing AI system could
currently meet”. This fundamental compromise undermined the community process, and amplified the role of stakeholders who would financially benefit from OSI’s retroactive declaration that their systems are “open source”. The OSI should have refrained from publishing a definition yet, and instead
labeled this document as ”recommendations” for now.

As the publication date of the OSAID approached, I could not help but
remember a fascinating statement that Donald E. Knuth, one of the founders
of the field of computer
science, once
said: [M]y role is to be on the bottom of things. … I try to
digest … knowledge into a form that is accessible to people who don’t
have time for such study. If we wish to engage in the
highly philosophical (and easily politically corruptible) task
of defining what terms like “software freedom” and
“open source” mean, we must learn to be on the “bottom of
things”. OSI made an unforced error in this regard. While they could
have humbly announced this as “recommendations” or “guidelines”,
they instead formalized it as a “definition” — with equivalent authority to their
OSD.

Yet, OSI itself only turned its attention to AI only recently, when they
announced their “deep dive” — for which Microsoft’s GitHub was OSI’s “Thought Leader”.
OSI has responded too rapidly to this industry ballyhoo. Their celerity of response made OSI
an easy target for regulatory capture.

By comparison, the original OSD was first published in February 1999.
That was at least twelve years after the widespread industry adoption of
various FOSS programs (such as the GNU C Compiler and BSD). The concept was explored and discussed publicly (under the moniker “Free Software”)
for decades before it was officially “defined”.
The OSI announced itself as the “marketing department for Free Software” and
based the OSD in large part on the independently
developed Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG). The OSD was thus the
culmination of decades of thought and consideration, and primarily developed
by a third-party (Debian) — which provided a balance on OSI’s authority.
(Interestingly, some folks from Debian are attempting to check OSI’s authority again due to the premature publication of the OSAID.)

OSI claims that they must move quickly so that they can
counter the software companies from coopting
the term “open source” for their own aims. But
OSI failed to pursue trademark protection for “open source” in the early days, so the OSI can’t stop Mark Zuckerberg and his
cronies in any event from using the “open source”
moniker for his Facebook and Instagram products — let alone his
new Llama product.
Furthermore, OSI’s insistence
that the definition was urgently needed and that the definition
be engineered as a retrofit to apply to an existing, available system has yielded troublesome results.
Simply put, OSI has a tiny sample set to examine, in 2024,
of what LLM-backed generative AI systems look like. To make a final decision
about the software freedom and rights implications of such a nascent field led to
an automatic bias to accept the actions of first movers as legitimate.
By making this definition official too soon, OSI has endorsed demonstrably bad LLM-backed generative AI systems
as “open source” by definition!

OSI also disenfranchised the users and content creators in this process.
FOSS activists should
be engaging with
the larger discussions with
impacted communities of content creators about what “open
source” means to them, and how they feel about incorporation of
their data in the training sets into these third-party systems. The line between data and code is so easily crossed with
these systems that we cannot rely on old, rote conclusions that the
“data is separate and can be proprietary (or even unavailable), and yet the system remains ‘open
source’”. That adage fails us when analyzing this technology,
and we must take careful steps — free from the for-profit corporate
interest of AI fervor — as we decide how our well-established
philosophies apply to these changes.

FOSS activists err when we unilaterally dictate and define what is
ethical, moral, open and Free in areas outside of software. Software rights
theorists can (and should) make meaningful contributions in these
other areas, but not without substantial collaboration with those creative
individuals who produce the source material. Where were the painters, the
novelists, the actors, the playwrights, the musicians, and the poets in the
OSAID drafting process? The OSD was (of course) easier because our
community is mostly programmers and developers (or folks adjacent
to those fields); software creators knew best how to consider philosophical implications of pure software products.
The OSI, and the folks in its leadership, definitely
know software well, but I wouldn’t name any of them (or myself) as great
thinkers in these many areas outside software that are noticeably impacted by the promulgation of
LLMs that are trained on those creative works. The Open Source community remains
consistently in danger of excessive insularity, and the OSAID is an
unfortunate example of how insular we can be.

Meanwhile, I have spent literally months of time over the last 30 years trying to make sure the
coalition of software freedom & rights activists remained in basic
congruence (at least publicly) with those (like OSI) who are oriented towards a more
for-profit and corporate open source approach. Until today, I was always able to say:
“I believe that anything the OSI calls ‘open source’
gives you all the rights and freedoms that you deserve”. I now cannot
say that again unless/until the OSI revokes the OSAID. Unfortunately, that
Rubicon may have now been permanently crossed! OSI
has purposely made it politically unviable for them to
revoke the OSAID. Instead, they plan only incremental updates to the OSAID. Once
entities begin to rely on this definition as written, OSI will find it nearly impossible to
later declare systems that were “open source” under 1.0 as no longer so (under later versions). So, we are likely stuck
with OSAID’s key problems forever. OSI undermines its position as a philosophical leader in Open Source as long as OSAID 1.0 stands as a formal defintion.

I truly don’t know for sure (yet) if the only way to respect user rights in an LLM-backed
generative AI system is to only use training sets that are publicly
available and licensed under Free Software licenses. I do believe
that’s the ideal and preferred form for modification of those systems. Nevertheless,
a generally useful technical system that is built by collapsing data (in essence, via highly lossy compression) into a table of floating point numbers
is philosophically much more complicated than binary software and its Corresponding Source. So, having
studied the issue myself, I believe the Socratic Epiphany currently applies. Perhaps there is an acceptable
spot for compromise
regarding the issues of training set licensing, availability and similar reproducibility issues.
My instincts, after 25
years as a software rights philosopher, lead me to believe that it will
take at least a decade for our best minds to find a reasonable answer on where the bright line is of
acceptable behavior with regard to these AI systems. While OSI claims their OSAID is humble, I beg
to differ. The humble act now is to admit that it was just too soon to publish a “definition” and
rebrand these the OSAID 1.0 as “current recommendations”. That might not grab as many
headlines or raise as much money as the OSAID did, but it’s the moral and ethical way out of this bad situation.

Finally, rather than merely be a pundit on this matter, I am instead today putting myself forward
to try to be part of the solution. I plan to run for the OSI Board of Directors at the next elections on a single-issue
platform: I will work arduously for my entire term to see the OSAID repealed, and republished
not as a definition, but merely recommendations, and to also issue a statement
that OSI published the definition sooner than was appropriate. I’ll write further about the matter as the
next OSI Board election approaches. I also call on other software rights activists to run with me on a similar platform; the OSI has myriad seats that are elected by different constituents, so there is opportunity to run as a ticket on this issue. (Please contact me privately if you’d like to be involved with this ticket at the next OSI Board election. Note, though, that election results
are not actually binding, as OSI’s by-laws allow the current Board to reject results of the elections.)

Eben Moglen & SFLC — abusive employer & LGBTQIA+ unfriendly

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2023/10/11/moglen-sflc.html

[ The below is a personal statement that I make on my own behalf. While
my statement’s release coincides with a release of an unrelated statement
on similar topics made
by my
employer, Software Freedom Conservancy, and
the Free
Software Foundation Europe, please keep in mind that this statement is
my own, personal opinion — written exclusively by me — and not
necessarily the opinion of either of those organizations. I did not consult
nor coordinate with either organization on this statement. ]

With great trepidation, I have decided to make this public statement
regarding the psychological abuse, including menacing, that I suffered,
perpetrated by Eben Moglen, both while I was employed at his Software
Freedom Law Center (SFLC) from 2005-2010, and in the years after he fired
me. No one revels in having psychological injuries and mistreatment
they’ve suffered paraded to the public. I’ll be frank that if it were not
for Moglen’s use of the USA Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) as a
method to perpetrate further abusive behavior, I wouldn’t have written this
post. Furthermore, sadly, Moglen has threatened in recent TTAB filings his
intention to use the proceeding to release personal details about my life
to the public (using the litigation itself as a lever). I have decided to
preemptively make public the facts herein first myself — so that I
can at least control the timing and framing of the information.

This post is long; the issues discussed in it are complicated, nuanced,
and cannot be summed up easily. Nevertheless, I’m realistic that most
people will stop reading soon, so I’ll summarize now as best I can in a few
sentences: I worked initially with, and then for, Eben Moglen for
nearly a decade — during which time he was psychologically abusive and
gaslighted me (under the guise of training and mentoring me). I thought
for many years that he was one of my best friends (— in retrospect, I
believe that he tricked me into believing that he was). As such, I shared
extremely personal details about myself to him — which he has used
both contemporaneously and in years hence to attempt to discredit me with
my colleagues and peers. Recently, Moglen declared his plans to use
current TTAB proceedings to force me to answer questions about my mental
health in
deposition0. Long
ago, I disclosed key personal information to Moglen, I therefore have a
pretty good idea of what his next move will be during that deposition
questioning. Specifically, I believe Moglen was hoping to out me as
omni/bisexual1 as part of my deposition
in this proceeding. As such, I’m outing myself here first (primarily) to
disarm his ability to use what he knows about my sexual orientation against
me. Since that last sentence makes me already out, Moglen will be unable
to use the biggest “secret” that Moglen “has on me”
in his future psychological and legal attacks.

I suspect some folks will stop reading here, but I really urge that you
keep reading this post, and also to read the unrelated statement made by
Conservancy
and FSFE.
The details are important and matter. I am admittedly embarrassed to talk
publicly about how Moglen exacerbated, expanded, and caused new symptoms of
my Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) — which I already suffered
from when I met him. But, I feel it is important to talk about these
issues publicly for many reasons — including that Moglen seeks to
expose these personal facts about me as an attempt to stigmatize what is
actually a positive thing: I seek ongoing treatment for my PTSD (which
Moglen himself, in part, caused) and to simultaneously process and reduce
my (painful and stubborn) internalized shame about my LGBTQIA+
status. (Like many proud LGBTQIA+ folks, I struggle with this because
living in a society unfriendly to LGBTQIA+ folks can lead to difficult
shame issues — this is a well-documented phenomena that LGBTQIA+
folks like myself suffer from.)

The primary recent catalyst for this situation is as follows: Moglen has
insisted that, as part of the
ongoing trademark
cancellation petition that SFLC filed against my employer, Software Freedom
Conservancy in
the TTAB,
that Moglen both personally be allowed to be present at, and to
actually take the depositions3 of me and
my colleague, Karen Sandler.

This kind of behavior is typical of how abusers use litigation to
perpetuate their abuse. The USA legal system is designed to give everyone
“their day in Court”. Frankly, many of the rules established
for Court proceedings did not contemplate that the process could be
manipulated by abusers, and it remains an open problem on how to repair the
rules that both preserve the egalitarian nature of our legal system, but
also does not make it easy for abusers to misuse those same rules.
Depositions, in particular, are a key tool in abusers’ arsenals.
Depositions allow Plaintiffs (in the TTAB, BTW, the Plaintiff is called
“the Petitioner”) to gather evidence. Generally speaking, most
Courts have no good default rules to prevent abusers from using these
depositions to get themselves in the room with their victims and harass
those victims further with off-topic haranguing. The only method (which is
quite clunky as a legal tool) to curtail the harassment somewhat is called
a protective order. However, Moglen has been smart enough to use
the very process of the protective order application to further perpetuate
abusive behavior.

To understand all this in context, I ask that you first
read Conservancy’s
public response to the initial filing of the trademark cancellation
proceeding (six years ago). In short, SFLC is seeking to
“cancel” the trademark on the name “Software Freedom
Conservancy”. Ostensibly, that’s all this case is (or, rather should
be) about.

The problem is that, upon reading
the docket in
detail, it’s easily seen that at nearly every step, Moglen has
attempted to use the proceeding as a method to harass and attack me and my
colleague, Karen Sandler — regarding issues wholly unrelated to the
trademarks. The recent arguments have been about our depositions4 —
mine and Karen’s2.

After some complex legal back-and-forth,
Judge Elgin
ordered that I was legally required to sit for a deposition with and by
Moglen. This is the point where a catch-22 began for me.

  • Option 0: Sit in a room for 8+ hours with a person who had spent
    years verbally abusing me and let him ask me any question he
    wants    5 —
    under penalty of perjury and contempt of Court if I refuse.
  • Option
    1: Give Conservancy’s lawyers permission to talk openly, in public
    documents, about the details of the abuse I suffered from Moglen and the
    psychological harm that it caused me (which is the necessary backup
    document for a protective order motion).

IOW, the only way to
get a protective order that would prevent me from being legally required to
suffer further psychological abuse from Moglen was to publicly talk about
the past abuse 😩. I reluctantly chose Option 1. I encourage you to read
in
full
my first sworn testimony on the issue. That document explains many of the
psychological abusive examples I suffered from Moglen — both as an
employee at SFLC and since.

Fortunately, that aforementioned sworn testimony was sufficient to
convince Judge Elgin to at least entertain reconsidering her decision that
I have to sit8 for a deposition with Moglen. However, submitting the
official motion then required that I give even more
information about why the deposition with Moglen will be psychologically
harmful. In particular, I had little choice but to add a letter from my
(highly qualified) mental health provider speaking to the psychological
dangers that I would face if deposed by Moglen personally and/or in his
presence. I reluctantly asked my therapist
to provide
such a letter. It was really tough for me to publicly identify who my
therapist is, but it was, again, my best option out of that catch-22. I
admittedly didn’t anticipate that Moglen might use this knowledge as a
method to further his abuse against me publicly in his response filing.

As can be seen in Moglen’s response
filing, Moglen
directly attacks my therapist’s credentials — claiming she is not
credible nor qualified. Moglen’s argument is that because my therapist
is a licensed, AASECT-certified sex therapist, she is not qualified to
diagnose PTSD. Of course, Moglen’s argument is without merit: my
therapist’s sex therapy credentials are in addition to her many other
credentials and certifications — all of which is explained on her
website that Moglen admits in his filing he has reviewed.

As I mentioned, at one time, I foolishly and erroneously considered Moglen
a good friend. As such, I told Moglen a lot about my personal life,
including that I was omni/bisexual, and that I was (at the time) closeted. So,
Moglen already knows full well the reason that I would select a therapist
who held among her credentials a certification to give therapy relating to
sexuality. Moglen’s filing is, in my view, a veiled threat to me that he’s
going to disclose publicly what he knows about my sexuality as part of this
proceeding. So, I’ve decided — after much thought — that I
should simply disarm him on this and say it first: I have identified as
bisexual/omnisexual6 since 1993, but I have
never been “out” in my professional community — until
now. Moglen knows full well (because I told him on more than one occasion)
that I struggled with whether or not to come out for decades. Thus, I
chose a therapist who was both qualified to give treatment for PTSD as
well as for sexual orientation challenges because I’ve lived much of
my life with internalized shame about my sexual orientation. (I was (and
still am, a bit) afraid that it would hurt my career opportunities in the
FOSS community and technology generally if I came out; more on that below.)
I was still working through these issues with my therapist when all these
recent events occurred.

Despite the serious psychological abuse I’ve suffered from Moglen, until
this recent filing, I wouldn’t have imagined that Moglen would attempt to
use the secrecy about my LGBTQIA+ status as a way to further terrorize me.
All I can think to say to Moglen in response is to quote
what Joe Welch
said to Senator Joe McCarthy on 1954-06-09: “Have you no sense of
decency, sir — at long last? Have you left no sense of
decency?”.

It’s hard to express coherently the difficult realization of the stark
political reality of our world. There are people you might meet (and/or
work for) who, if they have a policy disagreement8 with you later, will use
every single fact about you to their advantage to prevail in that
disagreement. There is truly no reason that Moglen needed to draw
attention to the fact that I see a therapist who specializes (in part) in
issues with sexuality. The fact that he
goes
on to further claim that the mere fact that she has such certification
makes her unqualified to treat my other mental health illness —
some of which Moglen himself (in part) personally caused — is
unconscionable. I expect that even most of my worst political rivals who
work for proprietary software companies and violate copyleft licenses on a
daily basis would not stoop as low to what Moglen has in this
situation.

At this point, I really have no choice but to come out as
omnisexual7 — even though I
wasn’t really ready to do so. Moglen has insisted now that my therapy has
been brought up in the proceeding,
that he
has a legal right to force me to be evaluated by a therapist of his
choosing (as if I were a criminal
defendant). Moglen
has also indicated that, during my deposition, he will interrogate me about
my therapy and my reasons for choosing this particular therapist (see, for
example, footnote 2 on page 11 (PDF-Page 27) of Moglen’s declaration in support of the
motion). Now, even if the judge grants Conservancy’s motion
to exclude Moglen from my deposition, Moglen will instruct his attorneys to
ask me those questions about my therapy and my sexual orientation —
with the obvious goal of seeking to embarrass me by forcing me to reveal
such things publicly. Like those folks who sat before McCarthy in those
HUAC
hearings, I know
that none of my
secrets will survive Moglen’s deposition. By outing myself here first,
I am, at least, disarming Moglen from attempting to use my shame about my
sexual orientation against me.

Regarding LGBTQIA+ Acceptance and FOSS

I would like to leave Moglen and his abusive behavior there, and spend the
rest of this post talking about related issues of much greater importance.
First, I want to explain why it was so difficult for me to come out in my
professional community. Being somewhat older than most folks in FOSS
today, I really need to paint the picture of the USA when my career in
technology and FOSS got started. I was in my sophomore year of my Computer
Science undergraduate program when Clinton implemented
the Don’t
ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy for military in the USA. Now, as a
pacifist, I had no desire to join the military, but the DADT approach was
widely accepted in all areas of life.
The whole sarcastic “Not that there’s anything wrong with that
…” attitude (made famous contemporaneously to DADT on an
episode of the TV
show, Seinfeld) made it clear in culture that the world,
including those who ostensibly supported LGBTQIA+ rights, wanted queer
folks to remain, at best, “quiet and proud”, not “loud
and proud”. As a clincher, note that three years after DADT
was put in effect, overwhelming bipartisan support came forward for the
so-called
“Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA)”. An overwhelming majority of
everyone in Congress and the Presidency (regardless of party affiliation)
was in 1996 anti-LGBTQIA+. Folks who supported and voted yes for DOMA
include: Earl Blumenauer (still a senator from my current
state), Joe Biden (now POTUS (!)), Barbara Mikulski (a
senator until 2017 from my home state), and Chuck Schumer (still Senate
majority leader today). DADT didn’t end until 2011, and
while SCOTUS
ruled parts of DOMA unconstitutional in 2015,
Congress didn’t
actually repeal DOMA until last year! Hopefully, that gives a
clear sense of what the climate for LGBTQIA+ folks was like in the 1990s,
and why I felt was terrified to be outed — even as the 1990s became
the 2000s.

I also admit that my own shame about my sexual orientation grew as I got
older and began my professional career. I “pass” as straight
— particularly in our heteronormative culture that auto-casts
everyone as cishet until proven otherwise. It was just easier to not bring
it up. Why bother, I thought? It was off-topic (so I felt), and there
were plenty of people around the tech world in the 1990s and early 2000s
who were not particularly LGBTQIA+-friendly, or who feigned that they were
but were still “weird” about it.

I do think tech in general and FOSS in particular are much more
LGBTQIA+-friendly than they once were. However, there has been a huge
anti-LGBTQIA+ backlash in certain areas of the USA in recent years, so even
as I became more comfortable with the idea of being “out”, I
also felt (and do feel) that the world has recently gotten a lot more
dangerous for LGBTQIA+ folks. Folks like Moglen who wage “total
war” against their political opponents know this, and it is precisely
why they try to cast phrases like bisexual, gay, queer, and “sex
therapist” as salacious.

Also, PTSD has this way of making you believe you’re vulnerable in every
situation. When you’re suffering from the worst of PTSD’s symptoms, you
believe that you can never be safe anywhere — ever again. But,
logically I know that I’m safe being a queer person (at least in the small
FOSS world) — for two big reasons. First, the FOSS community of
today is (in most cases) very welcoming to LGBTQIA+ folks and most of the
cishet folks in FOSS identify as LGBTQIA+ allies. Second, I sheepishly
admit that as I’ve reached my 0x32’nd year of life this year, I have a 20+
year credentialed career that has left me in a position of authority and
privilege as a FOSS leader. I gain inherent safety from my position of
power in the community to just be who I am.

While this is absolutely not the manner and time in which I wanted to come
out, I’ll try to make some proverbial lemonade out of the lemons. By now
being out as LGBTQIA+ and already being a FOSS leader, I’d like to
offer to anyone who is new to FOSS and faces fear and worry about LGBTQIA+
issues in FOSS to contact me if they think I can help. I can’t promise to
write back to everyone, but I will do my very best to try to either help or
route you to someone else in FOSS who might be able to.

Also, I want to state something in direct contrast to Moglen’s claims that
the mere fact that a therapist who is qualified for treating people with
issues related to sexual orientation is ipso facto unqualified to treat any
other mental condition. I want to share publicly how valuable it has been
for me in finding a therapist who “gets it” with regard to
living queer in the world while also suffering from other conditions (such as PTSD).
So many LGBTQIA+ youth are bullied due to their orientation, and sustained
bullying commonly causes PTSD. I think we should all be so lucky to have a
mental health provider, as I do,
that
is extensively qualified to treat the whole person and not just a
single condition or issue. We should stand against people like Moglen who,
upon seeing that someone’s therapist specializes in helping people with
their sexual orientation, would use that fact as a way to shame both the
individual and the therapist. Doing that is wrong, and people who do that
are failing to create safe spaces for the LGBTQIA+ community.

I am aghast that Moglen is trying to shame me for seeking help from a
mental health provider who could help me overcome my internalized shame
regarding my sexual orientation. I also want people to know that I did not
feel safe as a queer person when I worked for Eben Moglen at SFLC. But I
also know Moglen doesn’t represent what our FOSS community and software
freedom is about. I felt I needed to make this post not only to disarm the
power Moglen held to “out me” before I was ready, but also to
warn others that, in my opinion, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) as an
organization that is not a safe space for LGBTQIA+ folks.
Finally, I do know that Moglen is also a tenured professor at Columbia Law
School. I have so often worried about his students — who may, as I
did, erroneously believe they can trust Moglen with private information as
important as their LGBTQIA+ status. I simply felt I couldn’t stay silent
about my experiences in good conscience any longer.

0, 4

A deposition is a form of testimony done during litigation before trial
begins. Each party in a legal dispute can subpoena witnesses. Rules vary
from venue to venue, but typically, a deposition is taken for eight hours,
and opposing attorneys can ask as many questions as they want —
including leading questions.

5In most
depositions, there is a time limit, but the scope of what questions
can be asked are not bounded. Somewhat strangely, one’s own lawyer
is not usually permitted to object on grounds of relevancy to the
case, so the questions can be as off-topic as the opposing counsel
wants.

3, 8 The
opposing attorney who asks the question is said to be “taking
the deposition”. The witness is said to be “sitting for
a deposition”. (IIUC, these are terms of art in
litigation).

1,
6,
7
From 1993-2018, I identified as “bisexual”. That term,
unfortunately, is, in my opinion, not friendly to non-binary people,
since the “bi” part (at least to me, I know others
disagree) assumes binary gender. The more common term used today is
“pansexual”, but, personally I prefer the term
“omnisexual” to “pansexual” for reasons that
are beyond the scope of this particular post. I am, however, not
offended if you use any of the three terms to refer to my sexual
orientation.

2Note, BTW: when
you read the docket, Judge Elgin (about 75% of the time) calls Karen
by the name “Ms. Bradley” (using my first name as if it
were Karen’s surname). It’s a bit confusing, so watch for it while
you’re reading so you don’t get confused.

8
Footnote added 2023-10-12, 19:00 US/Eastern: Since I
posted this about 30 hours ago, I’ve gotten so many statements of
support emailed to me that I can’t possibly respond to them all, but
I’ll try. Meanwhile, a few people have hinted at and/or outright
asked what policy disagreements Moglen actually has with me. I was
reluctant to answer because the point I’m making in this post is
that even if Moglen thought every last thing I’ve ever done
in my career was harmful policy-wise, it still would not
justify these abusive behaviors. Nevertheless, I admit that
if this post were made by someone else, I’d be curious about what the
policy disagreements were, so I decided to answer the question. I
think that my overarching policy disagreement with Eben Moglen is
with regard to how and when to engage in enforcement of the GPL and
other copyleft licenses through litigation. I think Moglen explains
this policy disagreement best
in his
talk that the Linux Foundation contemporaneously promoted (and
continues to regularly reference)
entitled “Whither (Not Wither) Copyleft”. In this
talk, Moglen states that I (among others) are “on a jihad for
free software” (his words, direct quote) because we continued
to pursue GPL enforcement through litigation. While I agree that
litigation
should still remain the last resort, I do think it remains a
necessary step often. Moglen argues that even though litigation was
needed in the past, it should never be used again for copyleft and
GPL enforcement. As Moglen outlines in his talk, he supports the
concept of “spontaneous compliance” — a system
whereby there is no regulatory regime and firms simply chose to
follow the rules of copyleft because it’s so obviously in their own
best interest. I’ve not seen this approach work in practice, which is
why I think we must still sometimes file GPL (and LGPL) lawsuits
— even today.
Moglen and I have plenty of other smaller policy disagreements: from
appropriate copyright assignment structures for FOSS, to finer points
of how GPLv3 should have been drafted, to tactics and strategy with
regard to copyleft advocacy, to how non-profits and charities should
be structured for the betterment of FOSS. However, I suspect all
these smaller policy disagreements stem from our fundamental policy
disagreement about GPL enforcement. However, I conclude by (a)
saying again no policy disagreement with anyone justifies
abusive behavior toward that person — not ever, and
(b) please do note the irony that, in that 2016-11-02 speech,
Moglen took the position that lawsuits should no longer be used to
settle disputes in FOSS, and yet — less than 10 months later
— Moglen
sued Conservancy (his former client) in the TTAB.

Eben Moglen & SFLC — abusive employer & LGBTQIA+ unfriendly

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2023/10/11/moglen-sflc.html

[ The below is a personal statement that I make on my own behalf. While
my statement’s release coincides with a release of an unrelated statement
on similar topics made
by my
employer, Software Freedom Conservancy, and
the Free
Software Foundation Europe, please keep in mind that this statement is
my own, personal opinion — written exclusively by me — and not
necessarily the opinion of either of those organizations. I did not consult
nor coordinate with either organization on this statement. ]

With great trepidation, I have decided to make this public statement
regarding the psychological abuse, including menacing, that I suffered,
perpetrated by Eben Moglen, both while I was employed at his Software
Freedom Law Center (SFLC) from 2005-2010, and in the years after he fired
me. No one revels in having psychological injuries and mistreatment
they’ve suffered paraded to the public. I’ll be frank that if it were not
for Moglen’s use of the USA Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) as a
method to perpetrate further abusive behavior, I wouldn’t have written this
post. Furthermore, sadly, Moglen has threatened in recent TTAB filings his
intention to use the proceeding to release personal details about my life
to the public (using the litigation itself as a lever). I have decided to
preemptively make public the facts herein first myself — so that I
can at least control the timing and framing of the information.

This post is long; the issues discussed in it are complicated, nuanced,
and cannot be summed up easily. Nevertheless, I’m realistic that most
people will stop reading soon, so I’ll summarize now as best I can in a few
sentences: I worked initially with, and then for, Eben Moglen for
nearly a decade — during which time he was psychologically abusive and
gaslighted me (under the guise of training and mentoring me). I thought
for many years that he was one of my best friends (— in retrospect, I
believe that he tricked me into believing that he was). As such, I shared
extremely personal details about myself to him — which he has used
both contemporaneously and in years hence to attempt to discredit me with
my colleagues and peers. Recently, Moglen declared his plans to use
current TTAB proceedings to force me to answer questions about my mental
health in
deposition0. Long
ago, I disclosed key personal information to Moglen, I therefore have a
pretty good idea of what his next move will be during that deposition
questioning. Specifically, I believe Moglen was hoping to out me as
omni/bisexual1 as part of my deposition
in this proceeding. As such, I’m outing myself here first (primarily) to
disarm his ability to use what he knows about my sexual orientation against
me. Since that last sentence makes me already out, Moglen will be unable
to use the biggest “secret” that Moglen “has on me”
in his future psychological and legal attacks.

I suspect some folks will stop reading here, but I really urge that you
keep reading this post, and also to read the unrelated statement made by
Conservancy
and FSFE.
The details are important and matter. I am admittedly embarrassed to talk
publicly about how Moglen exacerbated, expanded, and caused new symptoms of
my Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) — which I already suffered
from when I met him. But, I feel it is important to talk about these
issues publicly for many reasons — including that Moglen seeks to
expose these personal facts about me as an attempt to stigmatize what is
actually a positive thing: I seek ongoing treatment for my PTSD (which
Moglen himself, in part, caused) and to simultaneously process and reduce
my (painful and stubborn) internalized shame about my LGBTQIA+
status. (Like many proud LGBTQIA+ folks, I struggle with this because
living in a society unfriendly to LGBTQIA+ folks can lead to difficult
shame issues — this is a well-documented phenomena that LGBTQIA+
folks like myself suffer from.)

The primary recent catalyst for this situation is as follows: Moglen has
insisted that, as part of the
ongoing trademark
cancellation petition that SFLC filed against my employer, Software Freedom
Conservancy in
the TTAB,
that Moglen both personally be allowed to be present at, and to
actually take the depositions3 of me and
my colleague, Karen Sandler.

This kind of behavior is typical of how abusers use litigation to
perpetuate their abuse. The USA legal system is designed to give everyone
“their day in Court”. Frankly, many of the rules established
for Court proceedings did not contemplate that the process could be
manipulated by abusers, and it remains an open problem on how to repair the
rules that both preserve the egalitarian nature of our legal system, but
also does not make it easy for abusers to misuse those same rules.
Depositions, in particular, are a key tool in abusers’ arsenals.
Depositions allow Plaintiffs (in the TTAB, BTW, the Plaintiff is called
“the Petitioner”) to gather evidence. Generally speaking, most
Courts have no good default rules to prevent abusers from using these
depositions to get themselves in the room with their victims and harass
those victims further with off-topic haranguing. The only method (which is
quite clunky as a legal tool) to curtail the harassment somewhat is called
a protective order. However, Moglen has been smart enough to use
the very process of the protective order application to further perpetuate
abusive behavior.

To understand all this in context, I ask that you first
read Conservancy’s
public response to the initial filing of the trademark cancellation
proceeding (six years ago). In short, SFLC is seeking to
“cancel” the trademark on the name “Software Freedom
Conservancy”. Ostensibly, that’s all this case is (or, rather should
be) about.

The problem is that, upon reading
the docket in
detail, it’s easily seen that at nearly every step, Moglen has
attempted to use the proceeding as a method to harass and attack me and my
colleague, Karen Sandler — regarding issues wholly unrelated to the
trademarks. The recent arguments have been about our depositions4 —
mine and Karen’s2.

After some complex legal back-and-forth,
Judge Elgin
ordered that I was legally required to sit for a deposition with and by
Moglen. This is the point where a catch-22 began for me.

  • Option 0: Sit in a room for 8+ hours with a person who had spent
    years verbally abusing me and let him ask me any question he
    wants    5 —
    under penalty of perjury and contempt of Court if I refuse.
  • Option
    1: Give Conservancy’s lawyers permission to talk openly, in public
    documents, about the details of the abuse I suffered from Moglen and the
    psychological harm that it caused me (which is the necessary backup
    document for a protective order motion).

IOW, the only way to
get a protective order that would prevent me from being legally required to
suffer further psychological abuse from Moglen was to publicly talk about
the past abuse 😩. I reluctantly chose Option 1. I encourage you to read
in
full
my first sworn testimony on the issue. That document explains many of the
psychological abusive examples I suffered from Moglen — both as an
employee at SFLC and since.

Fortunately, that aforementioned sworn testimony was sufficient to
convince Judge Elgin to at least entertain reconsidering her decision that
I have to sit8 for a deposition with Moglen. However, submitting the
official motion then required that I give even more
information about why the deposition with Moglen will be psychologically
harmful. In particular, I had little choice but to add a letter from my
(highly qualified) mental health provider speaking to the psychological
dangers that I would face if deposed by Moglen personally and/or in his
presence. I reluctantly asked my therapist
to provide
such a letter. It was really tough for me to publicly identify who my
therapist is, but it was, again, my best option out of that catch-22. I
admittedly didn’t anticipate that Moglen might use this knowledge as a
method to further his abuse against me publicly in his response filing.

As can be seen in Moglen’s response
filing, Moglen
directly attacks my therapist’s credentials — claiming she is not
credible nor qualified. Moglen’s argument is that because my therapist
is a licensed, AASECT-certified sex therapist, she is not qualified to
diagnose PTSD. Of course, Moglen’s argument is without merit: my
therapist’s sex therapy credentials are in addition to her many other
credentials and certifications — all of which is explained on her
website that Moglen admits in his filing he has reviewed.

As I mentioned, at one time, I foolishly and erroneously considered Moglen
a good friend. As such, I told Moglen a lot about my personal life,
including that I was omni/bisexual, and that I was (at the time) closeted. So,
Moglen already knows full well the reason that I would select a therapist
who held among her credentials a certification to give therapy relating to
sexuality. Moglen’s filing is, in my view, a veiled threat to me that he’s
going to disclose publicly what he knows about my sexuality as part of this
proceeding. So, I’ve decided — after much thought — that I
should simply disarm him on this and say it first: I have identified as
bisexual/omnisexual6 since 1993, but I have
never been “out” in my professional community — until
now. Moglen knows full well (because I told him on more than one occasion)
that I struggled with whether or not to come out for decades. Thus, I
chose a therapist who was both qualified to give treatment for PTSD as
well as for sexual orientation challenges because I’ve lived much of
my life with internalized shame about my sexual orientation. (I was (and
still am, a bit) afraid that it would hurt my career opportunities in the
FOSS community and technology generally if I came out; more on that below.)
I was still working through these issues with my therapist when all these
recent events occurred.

Despite the serious psychological abuse I’ve suffered from Moglen, until
this recent filing, I wouldn’t have imagined that Moglen would attempt to
use the secrecy about my LGBTQIA+ status as a way to further terrorize me.
All I can think to say to Moglen in response is to quote
what Joe Welch
said to Senator Joe McCarthy on 1954-06-09: “Have you no sense of
decency, sir — at long last? Have you left no sense of
decency?”.

It’s hard to express coherently the difficult realization of the stark
political reality of our world. There are people you might meet (and/or
work for) who, if they have a policy disagreement8 with you later, will use
every single fact about you to their advantage to prevail in that
disagreement. There is truly no reason that Moglen needed to draw
attention to the fact that I see a therapist who specializes (in part) in
issues with sexuality. The fact that he
goes
on to further claim that the mere fact that she has such certification
makes her unqualified to treat my other mental health illness —
some of which Moglen himself (in part) personally caused — is
unconscionable. I expect that even most of my worst political rivals who
work for proprietary software companies and violate copyleft licenses on a
daily basis would not stoop as low to what Moglen has in this
situation.

At this point, I really have no choice but to come out as
omnisexual7 — even though I
wasn’t really ready to do so. Moglen has insisted now that my therapy has
been brought up in the proceeding,
that he
has a legal right to force me to be evaluated by a therapist of his
choosing (as if I were a criminal
defendant). Moglen
has also indicated that, during my deposition, he will interrogate me about
my therapy and my reasons for choosing this particular therapist (see, for
example, footnote 2 on page 11 (PDF-Page 27) of Moglen’s declaration in support of the
motion). Now, even if the judge grants Conservancy’s motion
to exclude Moglen from my deposition, Moglen will instruct his attorneys to
ask me those questions about my therapy and my sexual orientation —
with the obvious goal of seeking to embarrass me by forcing me to reveal
such things publicly. Like those folks who sat before McCarthy in those
HUAC
hearings, I know
that none of my
secrets will survive Moglen’s deposition. By outing myself here first,
I am, at least, disarming Moglen from attempting to use my shame about my
sexual orientation against me.

Regarding LGBTQIA+ Acceptance and FOSS

I would like to leave Moglen and his abusive behavior there, and spend the
rest of this post talking about related issues of much greater importance.
First, I want to explain why it was so difficult for me to come out in my
professional community. Being somewhat older than most folks in FOSS
today, I really need to paint the picture of the USA when my career in
technology and FOSS got started. I was in my sophomore year of my Computer
Science undergraduate program when Clinton implemented
the Don’t
ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy for military in the USA. Now, as a
pacifist, I had no desire to join the military, but the DADT approach was
widely accepted in all areas of life.
The whole sarcastic “Not that there’s anything wrong with that
…” attitude (made famous contemporaneously to DADT on an
episode of the TV
show, Seinfeld) made it clear in culture that the world,
including those who ostensibly supported LGBTQIA+ rights, wanted queer
folks to remain, at best, “quiet and proud”, not “loud
and proud”. As a clincher, note that three years after DADT
was put in effect, overwhelming bipartisan support came forward for the
so-called
“Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA)”. An overwhelming majority of
everyone in Congress and the Presidency (regardless of party affiliation)
was in 1996 anti-LGBTQIA+. Folks who supported and voted yes for DOMA
include: Earl Blumenauer (still a senator from my current
state), Joe Biden (now POTUS (!)), Barbara Mikulski (a
senator until 2017 from my home state), and Chuck Schumer (still Senate
majority leader today). DADT didn’t end until 2011, and
while SCOTUS
ruled parts of DOMA unconstitutional in 2015,
Congress didn’t
actually repeal DOMA until last year! Hopefully, that gives a
clear sense of what the climate for LGBTQIA+ folks was like in the 1990s,
and why I felt was terrified to be outed — even as the 1990s became
the 2000s.

I also admit that my own shame about my sexual orientation grew as I got
older and began my professional career. I “pass” as straight
— particularly in our heteronormative culture that auto-casts
everyone as cishet until proven otherwise. It was just easier to not bring
it up. Why bother, I thought? It was off-topic (so I felt), and there
were plenty of people around the tech world in the 1990s and early 2000s
who were not particularly LGBTQIA+-friendly, or who feigned that they were
but were still “weird” about it.

I do think tech in general and FOSS in particular are much more
LGBTQIA+-friendly than they once were. However, there has been a huge
anti-LGBTQIA+ backlash in certain areas of the USA in recent years, so even
as I became more comfortable with the idea of being “out”, I
also felt (and do feel) that the world has recently gotten a lot more
dangerous for LGBTQIA+ folks. Folks like Moglen who wage “total
war” against their political opponents know this, and it is precisely
why they try to cast phrases like bisexual, gay, queer, and “sex
therapist” as salacious.

Also, PTSD has this way of making you believe you’re vulnerable in every
situation. When you’re suffering from the worst of PTSD’s symptoms, you
believe that you can never be safe anywhere — ever again. But,
logically I know that I’m safe being a queer person (at least in the small
FOSS world) — for two big reasons. First, the FOSS community of
today is (in most cases) very welcoming to LGBTQIA+ folks and most of the
cishet folks in FOSS identify as LGBTQIA+ allies. Second, I sheepishly
admit that as I’ve reached my 0x32’nd year of life this year, I have a 20+
year credentialed career that has left me in a position of authority and
privilege as a FOSS leader. I gain inherent safety from my position of
power in the community to just be who I am.

While this is absolutely not the manner and time in which I wanted to come
out, I’ll try to make some proverbial lemonade out of the lemons. By now
being out as LGBTQIA+ and already being a FOSS leader, I’d like to
offer to anyone who is new to FOSS and faces fear and worry about LGBTQIA+
issues in FOSS to contact me if they think I can help. I can’t promise to
write back to everyone, but I will do my very best to try to either help or
route you to someone else in FOSS who might be able to.

Also, I want to state something in direct contrast to Moglen’s claims that
the mere fact that a therapist who is qualified for treating people with
issues related to sexual orientation is ipso facto unqualified to treat any
other mental condition. I want to share publicly how valuable it has been
for me in finding a therapist who “gets it” with regard to
living queer in the world while also suffering from other conditions (such as PTSD).
So many LGBTQIA+ youth are bullied due to their orientation, and sustained
bullying commonly causes PTSD. I think we should all be so lucky to have a
mental health provider, as I do,
that
is extensively qualified to treat the whole person and not just a
single condition or issue. We should stand against people like Moglen who,
upon seeing that someone’s therapist specializes in helping people with
their sexual orientation, would use that fact as a way to shame both the
individual and the therapist. Doing that is wrong, and people who do that
are failing to create safe spaces for the LGBTQIA+ community.

I am aghast that Moglen is trying to shame me for seeking help from a
mental health provider who could help me overcome my internalized shame
regarding my sexual orientation. I also want people to know that I did not
feel safe as a queer person when I worked for Eben Moglen at SFLC. But I
also know Moglen doesn’t represent what our FOSS community and software
freedom is about. I felt I needed to make this post not only to disarm the
power Moglen held to “out me” before I was ready, but also to
warn others that, in my opinion, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) as an
organization that is not a safe space for LGBTQIA+ folks.
Finally, I do know that Moglen is also a tenured professor at Columbia Law
School. I have so often worried about his students — who may, as I
did, erroneously believe they can trust Moglen with private information as
important as their LGBTQIA+ status. I simply felt I couldn’t stay silent
about my experiences in good conscience any longer.

0, 4

A deposition is a form of testimony done during litigation before trial
begins. Each party in a legal dispute can subpoena witnesses. Rules vary
from venue to venue, but typically, a deposition is taken for eight hours,
and opposing attorneys can ask as many questions as they want —
including leading questions.

5In most
depositions, there is a time limit, but the scope of what questions
can be asked are not bounded. Somewhat strangely, one’s own lawyer
is not usually permitted to object on grounds of relevancy to the
case, so the questions can be as off-topic as the opposing counsel
wants.

3, 8 The
opposing attorney who asks the question is said to be “taking
the deposition”. The witness is said to be “sitting for
a deposition”. (IIUC, these are terms of art in
litigation).

1,
6,
7
From 1993-2018, I identified as “bisexual”. That term,
unfortunately, is, in my opinion, not friendly to non-binary people,
since the “bi” part (at least to me, I know others
disagree) assumes binary gender. The more common term used today is
“pansexual”, but, personally I prefer the term
“omnisexual” to “pansexual” for reasons that
are beyond the scope of this particular post. I am, however, not
offended if you use any of the three terms to refer to my sexual
orientation.

2Note, BTW: when
you read the docket, Judge Elgin (about 75% of the time) calls Karen
by the name “Ms. Bradley” (using my first name as if it
were Karen’s surname). It’s a bit confusing, so watch for it while
you’re reading so you don’t get confused.

8
Footnote added 2023-10-12, 19:00 US/Eastern: Since I
posted this about 30 hours ago, I’ve gotten so many statements of
support emailed to me that I can’t possibly respond to them all, but
I’ll try. Meanwhile, a few people have hinted at and/or outright
asked what policy disagreements Moglen actually has with me. I was
reluctant to answer because the point I’m making in this post is
that even if Moglen thought every last thing I’ve ever done
in my career was harmful policy-wise, it still would not
justify these abusive behaviors. Nevertheless, I admit that
if this post were made by someone else, I’d be curious about what the
policy disagreements were, so I decided to answer the question. I
think that my overarching policy disagreement with Eben Moglen is
with regard to how and when to engage in enforcement of the GPL and
other copyleft licenses through litigation. I think Moglen explains
this policy disagreement best
in his
talk that the Linux Foundation contemporaneously promoted (and
continues to regularly reference)
entitled “Whither (Not Wither) Copyleft”. In this
talk, Moglen states that I (among others) are “on a jihad for
free software” (his words, direct quote) because we continued
to pursue GPL enforcement through litigation. While I agree that
litigation
should still remain the last resort, I do think it remains a
necessary step often. Moglen argues that even though litigation was
needed in the past, it should never be used again for copyleft and
GPL enforcement. As Moglen outlines in his talk, he supports the
concept of “spontaneous compliance” — a system
whereby there is no regulatory regime and firms simply chose to
follow the rules of copyleft because it’s so obviously in their own
best interest. I’ve not seen this approach work in practice, which is
why I think we must still sometimes file GPL (and LGPL) lawsuits
— even today.
Moglen and I have plenty of other smaller policy disagreements: from
appropriate copyright assignment structures for FOSS, to finer points
of how GPLv3 should have been drafted, to tactics and strategy with
regard to copyleft advocacy, to how non-profits and charities should
be structured for the betterment of FOSS. However, I suspect all
these smaller policy disagreements stem from our fundamental policy
disagreement about GPL enforcement. However, I conclude by (a)
saying again no policy disagreement with anyone justifies
abusive behavior toward that person — not ever, and
(b) please do note the irony that, in that 2016-11-02 speech,
Moglen took the position that lawsuits should no longer be used to
settle disputes in FOSS, and yet — less than 10 months later
— Moglen
sued Conservancy (his former client) in the TTAB.

Eben Moglen & SFLC — abusive employer & LGBTQIA+ unfriendly

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2023/10/11/moglen-sflc.html

[ The below is a personal statement that I make on my own behalf. While
my statement’s release coincides with a release of an unrelated statement
on similar topics made
by my
employer, Software Freedom Conservancy, and
the Free
Software Foundation Europe, please keep in mind that this statement is
my own, personal opinion — written exclusively by me — and not
necessarily the opinion of either of those organizations. I did not consult
nor coordinate with either organization on this statement. ]

With great trepidation, I have decided to make this public statement
regarding the psychological abuse, including menacing, that I suffered,
perpetrated by Eben Moglen, both while I was employed at his Software
Freedom Law Center (SFLC) from 2005-2010, and in the years after he fired
me. No one revels in having psychological injuries and mistreatment
they’ve suffered paraded to the public. I’ll be frank that if it were not
for Moglen’s use of the USA Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) as a
method to perpetrate further abusive behavior, I wouldn’t have written this
post. Furthermore, sadly, Moglen has threatened in recent TTAB filings his
intention to use the proceeding to release personal details about my life
to the public (using the litigation itself as a lever). I have decided to
preemptively make public the facts herein first myself — so that I
can at least control the timing and framing of the information.

This post is long; the issues discussed in it are complicated, nuanced,
and cannot be summed up easily. Nevertheless, I’m realistic that most
people will stop reading soon, so I’ll summarize now as best I can in a few
sentences: I worked initially with, and then for, Eben Moglen for
nearly a decade — during which time he was psychologically abusive and
gaslighted me (under the guise of training and mentoring me). I thought
for many years that he was one of my best friends (— in retrospect, I
believe that he tricked me into believing that he was). As such, I shared
extremely personal details about myself to him — which he has used
both contemporaneously and in years hence to attempt to discredit me with
my colleagues and peers. Recently, Moglen declared his plans to use
current TTAB proceedings to force me to answer questions about my mental
health in
deposition0. Long
ago, I disclosed key personal information to Moglen, I therefore have a
pretty good idea of what his next move will be during that deposition
questioning. Specifically, I believe Moglen was hoping to out me as
omni/bisexual1 as part of my deposition
in this proceeding. As such, I’m outing myself here first (primarily) to
disarm his ability to use what he knows about my sexual orientation against
me. Since that last sentence makes me already out, Moglen will be unable
to use the biggest “secret” that Moglen “has on me”
in his future psychological and legal attacks.

I suspect some folks will stop reading here, but I really urge that you
keep reading this post, and also to read the unrelated statement made by
Conservancy
and FSFE.
The details are important and matter. I am admittedly embarrassed to talk
publicly about how Moglen exacerbated, expanded, and caused new symptoms of
my Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) — which I already suffered
from when I met him. But, I feel it is important to talk about these
issues publicly for many reasons — including that Moglen seeks to
expose these personal facts about me as an attempt to stigmatize what is
actually a positive thing: I seek ongoing treatment for my PTSD (which
Moglen himself, in part, caused) and to simultaneously process and reduce
my (painful and stubborn) internalized shame about my LGBTQIA+
status. (Like many proud LGBTQIA+ folks, I struggle with this because
living in a society unfriendly to LGBTQIA+ folks can lead to difficult
shame issues — this is a well-documented phenomena that LGBTQIA+
folks like myself suffer from.)

The primary recent catalyst for this situation is as follows: Moglen has
insisted that, as part of the
ongoing trademark
cancellation petition that SFLC filed against my employer, Software Freedom
Conservancy in
the TTAB,
that Moglen both personally be allowed to be present at, and to
actually take the depositions3 of me and
my colleague, Karen Sandler.

This kind of behavior is typical of how abusers use litigation to
perpetuate their abuse. The USA legal system is designed to give everyone
“their day in Court”. Frankly, many of the rules established
for Court proceedings did not contemplate that the process could be
manipulated by abusers, and it remains an open problem on how to repair the
rules that both preserve the egalitarian nature of our legal system, but
also does not make it easy for abusers to misuse those same rules.
Depositions, in particular, are a key tool in abusers’ arsenals.
Depositions allow Plaintiffs (in the TTAB, BTW, the Plaintiff is called
“the Petitioner”) to gather evidence. Generally speaking, most
Courts have no good default rules to prevent abusers from using these
depositions to get themselves in the room with their victims and harass
those victims further with off-topic haranguing. The only method (which is
quite clunky as a legal tool) to curtail the harassment somewhat is called
a protective order. However, Moglen has been smart enough to use
the very process of the protective order application to further perpetuate
abusive behavior.

To understand all this in context, I ask that you first
read Conservancy’s
public response to the initial filing of the trademark cancellation
proceeding (six years ago). In short, SFLC is seeking to
“cancel” the trademark on the name “Software Freedom
Conservancy”. Ostensibly, that’s all this case is (or, rather should
be) about.

The problem is that, upon reading
the docket in
detail, it’s easily seen that at nearly every step, Moglen has
attempted to use the proceeding as a method to harass and attack me and my
colleague, Karen Sandler — regarding issues wholly unrelated to the
trademarks. The recent arguments have been about our depositions4 —
mine and Karen’s2.

After some complex legal back-and-forth,
Judge Elgin
ordered that I was legally required to sit for a deposition with and by
Moglen. This is the point where a catch-22 began for me.

  • Option 0: Sit in a room for 8+ hours with a person who had spent
    years verbally abusing me and let him ask me any question he
    wants    5 —
    under penalty of perjury and contempt of Court if I refuse.
  • Option
    1: Give Conservancy’s lawyers permission to talk openly, in public
    documents, about the details of the abuse I suffered from Moglen and the
    psychological harm that it caused me (which is the necessary backup
    document for a protective order motion).

IOW, the only way to
get a protective order that would prevent me from being legally required to
suffer further psychological abuse from Moglen was to publicly talk about
the past abuse 😩. I reluctantly chose Option 1. I encourage you to read
in
full
my first sworn testimony on the issue. That document explains many of the
psychological abusive examples I suffered from Moglen — both as an
employee at SFLC and since.

Fortunately, that aforementioned sworn testimony was sufficient to
convince Judge Elgin to at least entertain reconsidering her decision that
I have to sit8 for a deposition with Moglen. However, submitting the
official motion then required that I give even more
information about why the deposition with Moglen will be psychologically
harmful. In particular, I had little choice but to add a letter from my
(highly qualified) mental health provider speaking to the psychological
dangers that I would face if deposed by Moglen personally and/or in his
presence. I reluctantly asked my therapist
to provide
such a letter. It was really tough for me to publicly identify who my
therapist is, but it was, again, my best option out of that catch-22. I
admittedly didn’t anticipate that Moglen might use this knowledge as a
method to further his abuse against me publicly in his response filing.

As can be seen in Moglen’s response
filing, Moglen
directly attacks my therapist’s credentials — claiming she is not
credible nor qualified. Moglen’s argument is that because my therapist
is a licensed, AASECT-certified sex therapist, she is not qualified to
diagnose PTSD. Of course, Moglen’s argument is without merit: my
therapist’s sex therapy credentials are in addition to her many other
credentials and certifications — all of which is explained on her
website that Moglen admits in his filing he has reviewed.

As I mentioned, at one time, I foolishly and erroneously considered Moglen
a good friend. As such, I told Moglen a lot about my personal life,
including that I was omni/bisexual, and that I was (at the time) closeted. So,
Moglen already knows full well the reason that I would select a therapist
who held among her credentials a certification to give therapy relating to
sexuality. Moglen’s filing is, in my view, a veiled threat to me that he’s
going to disclose publicly what he knows about my sexuality as part of this
proceeding. So, I’ve decided — after much thought — that I
should simply disarm him on this and say it first: I have identified as
bisexual/omnisexual6 since 1993, but I have
never been “out” in my professional community — until
now. Moglen knows full well (because I told him on more than one occasion)
that I struggled with whether or not to come out for decades. Thus, I
chose a therapist who was both qualified to give treatment for PTSD as
well as for sexual orientation challenges because I’ve lived much of
my life with internalized shame about my sexual orientation. (I was (and
still am, a bit) afraid that it would hurt my career opportunities in the
FOSS community and technology generally if I came out; more on that below.)
I was still working through these issues with my therapist when all these
recent events occurred.

Despite the serious psychological abuse I’ve suffered from Moglen, until
this recent filing, I wouldn’t have imagined that Moglen would attempt to
use the secrecy about my LGBTQIA+ status as a way to further terrorize me.
All I can think to say to Moglen in response is to quote
what Joe Welch
said to Senator Joe McCarthy on 1954-06-09: “Have you no sense of
decency, sir — at long last? Have you left no sense of
decency?”.

It’s hard to express coherently the difficult realization of the stark
political reality of our world. There are people you might meet (and/or
work for) who, if they have a policy disagreement8 with you later, will use
every single fact about you to their advantage to prevail in that
disagreement. There is truly no reason that Moglen needed to draw
attention to the fact that I see a therapist who specializes (in part) in
issues with sexuality. The fact that he
goes
on to further claim that the mere fact that she has such certification
makes her unqualified to treat my other mental health illness —
some of which Moglen himself (in part) personally caused — is
unconscionable. I expect that even most of my worst political rivals who
work for proprietary software companies and violate copyleft licenses on a
daily basis would not stoop as low to what Moglen has in this
situation.

At this point, I really have no choice but to come out as
omnisexual7 — even though I
wasn’t really ready to do so. Moglen has insisted now that my therapy has
been brought up in the proceeding,
that he
has a legal right to force me to be evaluated by a therapist of his
choosing (as if I were a criminal
defendant). Moglen
has also indicated that, during my deposition, he will interrogate me about
my therapy and my reasons for choosing this particular therapist (see, for
example, footnote 2 on page 11 (PDF-Page 27) of Moglen’s declaration in support of the
motion). Now, even if the judge grants Conservancy’s motion
to exclude Moglen from my deposition, Moglen will instruct his attorneys to
ask me those questions about my therapy and my sexual orientation —
with the obvious goal of seeking to embarrass me by forcing me to reveal
such things publicly. Like those folks who sat before McCarthy in those
HUAC
hearings, I know
that none of my
secrets will survive Moglen’s deposition. By outing myself here first,
I am, at least, disarming Moglen from attempting to use my shame about my
sexual orientation against me.

Regarding LGBTQIA+ Acceptance and FOSS

I would like to leave Moglen and his abusive behavior there, and spend the
rest of this post talking about related issues of much greater importance.
First, I want to explain why it was so difficult for me to come out in my
professional community. Being somewhat older than most folks in FOSS
today, I really need to paint the picture of the USA when my career in
technology and FOSS got started. I was in my sophomore year of my Computer
Science undergraduate program when Clinton implemented
the Don’t
ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy for military in the USA. Now, as a
pacifist, I had no desire to join the military, but the DADT approach was
widely accepted in all areas of life.
The whole sarcastic “Not that there’s anything wrong with that
…” attitude (made famous contemporaneously to DADT on an
episode of the TV
show, Seinfeld) made it clear in culture that the world,
including those who ostensibly supported LGBTQIA+ rights, wanted queer
folks to remain, at best, “quiet and proud”, not “loud
and proud”. As a clincher, note that three years after DADT
was put in effect, overwhelming bipartisan support came forward for the
so-called
“Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA)”. An overwhelming majority of
everyone in Congress and the Presidency (regardless of party affiliation)
was in 1996 anti-LGBTQIA+. Folks who supported and voted yes for DOMA
include: Earl Blumenauer (still a senator from my current
state), Joe Biden (now POTUS (!)), Barbara Mikulski (a
senator until 2017 from my home state), and Chuck Schumer (still Senate
majority leader today). DADT didn’t end until 2011, and
while SCOTUS
ruled parts of DOMA unconstitutional in 2015,
Congress didn’t
actually repeal DOMA until last year! Hopefully, that gives a
clear sense of what the climate for LGBTQIA+ folks was like in the 1990s,
and why I felt was terrified to be outed — even as the 1990s became
the 2000s.

I also admit that my own shame about my sexual orientation grew as I got
older and began my professional career. I “pass” as straight
— particularly in our heteronormative culture that auto-casts
everyone as cishet until proven otherwise. It was just easier to not bring
it up. Why bother, I thought? It was off-topic (so I felt), and there
were plenty of people around the tech world in the 1990s and early 2000s
who were not particularly LGBTQIA+-friendly, or who feigned that they were
but were still “weird” about it.

I do think tech in general and FOSS in particular are much more
LGBTQIA+-friendly than they once were. However, there has been a huge
anti-LGBTQIA+ backlash in certain areas of the USA in recent years, so even
as I became more comfortable with the idea of being “out”, I
also felt (and do feel) that the world has recently gotten a lot more
dangerous for LGBTQIA+ folks. Folks like Moglen who wage “total
war” against their political opponents know this, and it is precisely
why they try to cast phrases like bisexual, gay, queer, and “sex
therapist” as salacious.

Also, PTSD has this way of making you believe you’re vulnerable in every
situation. When you’re suffering from the worst of PTSD’s symptoms, you
believe that you can never be safe anywhere — ever again. But,
logically I know that I’m safe being a queer person (at least in the small
FOSS world) — for two big reasons. First, the FOSS community of
today is (in most cases) very welcoming to LGBTQIA+ folks and most of the
cishet folks in FOSS identify as LGBTQIA+ allies. Second, I sheepishly
admit that as I’ve reached my 0x32’nd year of life this year, I have a 20+
year credentialed career that has left me in a position of authority and
privilege as a FOSS leader. I gain inherent safety from my position of
power in the community to just be who I am.

While this is absolutely not the manner and time in which I wanted to come
out, I’ll try to make some proverbial lemonade out of the lemons. By now
being out as LGBTQIA+ and already being a FOSS leader, I’d like to
offer to anyone who is new to FOSS and faces fear and worry about LGBTQIA+
issues in FOSS to contact me if they think I can help. I can’t promise to
write back to everyone, but I will do my very best to try to either help or
route you to someone else in FOSS who might be able to.

Also, I want to state something in direct contrast to Moglen’s claims that
the mere fact that a therapist who is qualified for treating people with
issues related to sexual orientation is ipso facto unqualified to treat any
other mental condition. I want to share publicly how valuable it has been
for me in finding a therapist who “gets it” with regard to
living queer in the world while also suffering from other conditions (such as PTSD).
So many LGBTQIA+ youth are bullied due to their orientation, and sustained
bullying commonly causes PTSD. I think we should all be so lucky to have a
mental health provider, as I do,
that
is extensively qualified to treat the whole person and not just a
single condition or issue. We should stand against people like Moglen who,
upon seeing that someone’s therapist specializes in helping people with
their sexual orientation, would use that fact as a way to shame both the
individual and the therapist. Doing that is wrong, and people who do that
are failing to create safe spaces for the LGBTQIA+ community.

I am aghast that Moglen is trying to shame me for seeking help from a
mental health provider who could help me overcome my internalized shame
regarding my sexual orientation. I also want people to know that I did not
feel safe as a queer person when I worked for Eben Moglen at SFLC. But I
also know Moglen doesn’t represent what our FOSS community and software
freedom is about. I felt I needed to make this post not only to disarm the
power Moglen held to “out me” before I was ready, but also to
warn others that, in my opinion, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) as an
organization that is not a safe space for LGBTQIA+ folks.
Finally, I do know that Moglen is also a tenured professor at Columbia Law
School. I have so often worried about his students — who may, as I
did, erroneously believe they can trust Moglen with private information as
important as their LGBTQIA+ status. I simply felt I couldn’t stay silent
about my experiences in good conscience any longer.

0, 4

A deposition is a form of testimony done during litigation before trial
begins. Each party in a legal dispute can subpoena witnesses. Rules vary
from venue to venue, but typically, a deposition is taken for eight hours,
and opposing attorneys can ask as many questions as they want —
including leading questions.

5In most
depositions, there is a time limit, but the scope of what questions
can be asked are not bounded. Somewhat strangely, one’s own lawyer
is not usually permitted to object on grounds of relevancy to the
case, so the questions can be as off-topic as the opposing counsel
wants.

3, 8 The
opposing attorney who asks the question is said to be “taking
the deposition”. The witness is said to be “sitting for
a deposition”. (IIUC, these are terms of art in
litigation).

1,
6,
7
From 1993-2018, I identified as “bisexual”. That term,
unfortunately, is, in my opinion, not friendly to non-binary people,
since the “bi” part (at least to me, I know others
disagree) assumes binary gender. The more common term used today is
“pansexual”, but, personally I prefer the term
“omnisexual” to “pansexual” for reasons that
are beyond the scope of this particular post. I am, however, not
offended if you use any of the three terms to refer to my sexual
orientation.

2Note, BTW: when
you read the docket, Judge Elgin (about 75% of the time) calls Karen
by the name “Ms. Bradley” (using my first name as if it
were Karen’s surname). It’s a bit confusing, so watch for it while
you’re reading so you don’t get confused.

8
Footnote added 2023-10-12, 19:00 US/Eastern: Since I
posted this about 30 hours ago, I’ve gotten so many statements of
support emailed to me that I can’t possibly respond to them all, but
I’ll try. Meanwhile, a few people have hinted at and/or outright
asked what policy disagreements Moglen actually has with me. I was
reluctant to answer because the point I’m making in this post is
that even if Moglen thought every last thing I’ve ever done
in my career was harmful policy-wise, it still would not
justify these abusive behaviors. Nevertheless, I admit that
if this post were made by someone else, I’d be curious about what the
policy disagreements were, so I decided to answer the question. I
think that my overarching policy disagreement with Eben Moglen is
with regard to how and when to engage in enforcement of the GPL and
other copyleft licenses through litigation. I think Moglen explains
this policy disagreement best
in his
talk that the Linux Foundation contemporaneously promoted (and
continues to regularly reference)
entitled “Whither (Not Wither) Copyleft”. In this
talk, Moglen states that I (among others) are “on a jihad for
free software” (his words, direct quote) because we continued
to pursue GPL enforcement through litigation. While I agree that
litigation
should still remain the last resort, I do think it remains a
necessary step often. Moglen argues that even though litigation was
needed in the past, it should never be used again for copyleft and
GPL enforcement. As Moglen outlines in his talk, he supports the
concept of “spontaneous compliance” — a system
whereby there is no regulatory regime and firms simply chose to
follow the rules of copyleft because it’s so obviously in their own
best interest. I’ve not seen this approach work in practice, which is
why I think we must still sometimes file GPL (and LGPL) lawsuits
— even today.
Moglen and I have plenty of other smaller policy disagreements: from
appropriate copyright assignment structures for FOSS, to finer points
of how GPLv3 should have been drafted, to tactics and strategy with
regard to copyleft advocacy, to how non-profits and charities should
be structured for the betterment of FOSS. However, I suspect all
these smaller policy disagreements stem from our fundamental policy
disagreement about GPL enforcement. However, I conclude by (a)
saying again no policy disagreement with anyone justifies
abusive behavior toward that person — not ever, and
(b) please do note the irony that, in that 2016-11-02 speech,
Moglen took the position that lawsuits should no longer be used to
settle disputes in FOSS, and yet — less than 10 months later
— Moglen
sued Conservancy (his former client) in the TTAB.

Eben Moglen & SFLC — abusive employer & LGBTQIA+ unfriendly

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2023/10/11/moglen-sflc.html

[ The below is a personal statement that I make on my own behalf. While
my statement’s release coincides with a release of an unrelated statement
on similar topics made
by my
employer, Software Freedom Conservancy, and
the Free
Software Foundation Europe, please keep in mind that this statement is
my own, personal opinion — written exclusively by me — and not
necessarily the opinion of either of those organizations. I did not consult
nor coordinate with either organization on this statement. ]

With great trepidation, I have decided to make this public statement
regarding the psychological abuse, including menacing, that I suffered,
perpetrated by Eben Moglen, both while I was employed at his Software
Freedom Law Center (SFLC) from 2005-2010, and in the years after he fired
me. No one revels in having psychological injuries and mistreatment
they’ve suffered paraded to the public. I’ll be frank that if it were not
for Moglen’s use of the USA Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) as a
method to perpetrate further abusive behavior, I wouldn’t have written this
post. Furthermore, sadly, Moglen has threatened in recent TTAB filings his
intention to use the proceeding to release personal details about my life
to the public (using the litigation itself as a lever). I have decided to
preemptively make public the facts herein first myself — so that I
can at least control the timing and framing of the information.

This post is long; the issues discussed in it are complicated, nuanced,
and cannot be summed up easily. Nevertheless, I’m realistic that most
people will stop reading soon, so I’ll summarize now as best I can in a few
sentences: I worked initially with, and then for, Eben Moglen for
nearly a decade — during which time he was psychologically abusive and
gaslighted me (under the guise of training and mentoring me). I thought
for many years that he was one of my best friends (— in retrospect, I
believe that he tricked me into believing that he was). As such, I shared
extremely personal details about myself to him — which he has used
both contemporaneously and in years hence to attempt to discredit me with
my colleagues and peers. Recently, Moglen declared his plans to use
current TTAB proceedings to force me to answer questions about my mental
health in
deposition0. Long
ago, I disclosed key personal information to Moglen, I therefore have a
pretty good idea of what his next move will be during that deposition
questioning. Specifically, I believe Moglen was hoping to out me as
omni/bisexual1 as part of my deposition
in this proceeding. As such, I’m outing myself here first (primarily) to
disarm his ability to use what he knows about my sexual orientation against
me. Since that last sentence makes me already out, Moglen will be unable
to use the biggest “secret” that Moglen “has on me”
in his future psychological and legal attacks.

I suspect some folks will stop reading here, but I really urge that you
keep reading this post, and also to read the unrelated statement made by
Conservancy
and FSFE.
The details are important and matter. I am admittedly embarrassed to talk
publicly about how Moglen exacerbated, expanded, and caused new symptoms of
my Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) — which I already suffered
from when I met him. But, I feel it is important to talk about these
issues publicly for many reasons — including that Moglen seeks to
expose these personal facts about me as an attempt to stigmatize what is
actually a positive thing: I seek ongoing treatment for my PTSD (which
Moglen himself, in part, caused) and to simultaneously process and reduce
my (painful and stubborn) internalized shame about my LGBTQIA+
status. (Like many proud LGBTQIA+ folks, I struggle with this because
living in a society unfriendly to LGBTQIA+ folks can lead to difficult
shame issues — this is a well-documented phenomena that LGBTQIA+
folks like myself suffer from.)

The primary recent catalyst for this situation is as follows: Moglen has
insisted that, as part of the
ongoing trademark
cancellation petition that SFLC filed against my employer, Software Freedom
Conservancy in
the TTAB,
that Moglen both personally be allowed to be present at, and to
actually take the depositions3 of me and
my colleague, Karen Sandler.

This kind of behavior is typical of how abusers use litigation to
perpetuate their abuse. The USA legal system is designed to give everyone
“their day in Court”. Frankly, many of the rules established
for Court proceedings did not contemplate that the process could be
manipulated by abusers, and it remains an open problem on how to repair the
rules that both preserve the egalitarian nature of our legal system, but
also does not make it easy for abusers to misuse those same rules.
Depositions, in particular, are a key tool in abusers’ arsenals.
Depositions allow Plaintiffs (in the TTAB, BTW, the Plaintiff is called
“the Petitioner”) to gather evidence. Generally speaking, most
Courts have no good default rules to prevent abusers from using these
depositions to get themselves in the room with their victims and harass
those victims further with off-topic haranguing. The only method (which is
quite clunky as a legal tool) to curtail the harassment somewhat is called
a protective order. However, Moglen has been smart enough to use
the very process of the protective order application to further perpetuate
abusive behavior.

To understand all this in context, I ask that you first
read Conservancy’s
public response to the initial filing of the trademark cancellation
proceeding (six years ago). In short, SFLC is seeking to
“cancel” the trademark on the name “Software Freedom
Conservancy”. Ostensibly, that’s all this case is (or, rather should
be) about.

The problem is that, upon reading
the docket in
detail, it’s easily seen that at nearly every step, Moglen has
attempted to use the proceeding as a method to harass and attack me and my
colleague, Karen Sandler — regarding issues wholly unrelated to the
trademarks. The recent arguments have been about our depositions4 —
mine and Karen’s2.

After some complex legal back-and-forth,
Judge Elgin
ordered that I was legally required to sit for a deposition with and by
Moglen. This is the point where a catch-22 began for me.

  • Option 0: Sit in a room for 8+ hours with a person who had spent
    years verbally abusing me and let him ask me any question he
    wants    5 —
    under penalty of perjury and contempt of Court if I refuse.
  • Option
    1: Give Conservancy’s lawyers permission to talk openly, in public
    documents, about the details of the abuse I suffered from Moglen and the
    psychological harm that it caused me (which is the necessary backup
    document for a protective order motion).

IOW, the only way to
get a protective order that would prevent me from being legally required to
suffer further psychological abuse from Moglen was to publicly talk about
the past abuse 😩. I reluctantly chose Option 1. I encourage you to read
in
full
my first sworn testimony on the issue. That document explains many of the
psychological abusive examples I suffered from Moglen — both as an
employee at SFLC and since.

Fortunately, that aforementioned sworn testimony was sufficient to
convince Judge Elgin to at least entertain reconsidering her decision that
I have to sit8 for a deposition with Moglen. However, submitting the
official motion then required that I give even more
information about why the deposition with Moglen will be psychologically
harmful. In particular, I had little choice but to add a letter from my
(highly qualified) mental health provider speaking to the psychological
dangers that I would face if deposed by Moglen personally and/or in his
presence. I reluctantly asked my therapist
to provide
such a letter. It was really tough for me to publicly identify who my
therapist is, but it was, again, my best option out of that catch-22. I
admittedly didn’t anticipate that Moglen might use this knowledge as a
method to further his abuse against me publicly in his response filing.

As can be seen in Moglen’s response
filing, Moglen
directly attacks my therapist’s credentials — claiming she is not
credible nor qualified. Moglen’s argument is that because my therapist
is a licensed, AASECT-certified sex therapist, she is not qualified to
diagnose PTSD. Of course, Moglen’s argument is without merit: my
therapist’s sex therapy credentials are in addition to her many other
credentials and certifications — all of which is explained on her
website that Moglen admits in his filing he has reviewed.

As I mentioned, at one time, I foolishly and erroneously considered Moglen
a good friend. As such, I told Moglen a lot about my personal life,
including that I was omni/bisexual, and that I was (at the time) closeted. So,
Moglen already knows full well the reason that I would select a therapist
who held among her credentials a certification to give therapy relating to
sexuality. Moglen’s filing is, in my view, a veiled threat to me that he’s
going to disclose publicly what he knows about my sexuality as part of this
proceeding. So, I’ve decided — after much thought — that I
should simply disarm him on this and say it first: I have identified as
bisexual/omnisexual6 since 1993, but I have
never been “out” in my professional community — until
now. Moglen knows full well (because I told him on more than one occasion)
that I struggled with whether or not to come out for decades. Thus, I
chose a therapist who was both qualified to give treatment for PTSD as
well as for sexual orientation challenges because I’ve lived much of
my life with internalized shame about my sexual orientation. (I was (and
still am, a bit) afraid that it would hurt my career opportunities in the
FOSS community and technology generally if I came out; more on that below.)
I was still working through these issues with my therapist when all these
recent events occurred.

Despite the serious psychological abuse I’ve suffered from Moglen, until
this recent filing, I wouldn’t have imagined that Moglen would attempt to
use the secrecy about my LGBTQIA+ status as a way to further terrorize me.
All I can think to say to Moglen in response is to quote
what Joe Welch
said to Senator Joe McCarthy on 1954-06-09: “Have you no sense of
decency, sir — at long last? Have you left no sense of
decency?”.

It’s hard to express coherently the difficult realization of the stark
political reality of our world. There are people you might meet (and/or
work for) who, if they have a policy disagreement8 with you later, will use
every single fact about you to their advantage to prevail in that
disagreement. There is truly no reason that Moglen needed to draw
attention to the fact that I see a therapist who specializes (in part) in
issues with sexuality. The fact that he
goes
on to further claim that the mere fact that she has such certification
makes her unqualified to treat my other mental health illness —
some of which Moglen himself (in part) personally caused — is
unconscionable. I expect that even most of my worst political rivals who
work for proprietary software companies and violate copyleft licenses on a
daily basis would not stoop as low to what Moglen has in this
situation.

At this point, I really have no choice but to come out as
omnisexual7 — even though I
wasn’t really ready to do so. Moglen has insisted now that my therapy has
been brought up in the proceeding,
that he
has a legal right to force me to be evaluated by a therapist of his
choosing (as if I were a criminal
defendant). Moglen
has also indicated that, during my deposition, he will interrogate me about
my therapy and my reasons for choosing this particular therapist (see, for
example, footnote 2 on page 11 (PDF-Page 27) of Moglen’s declaration in support of the
motion). Now, even if the judge grants Conservancy’s motion
to exclude Moglen from my deposition, Moglen will instruct his attorneys to
ask me those questions about my therapy and my sexual orientation —
with the obvious goal of seeking to embarrass me by forcing me to reveal
such things publicly. Like those folks who sat before McCarthy in those
HUAC
hearings, I know
that none of my
secrets will survive Moglen’s deposition. By outing myself here first,
I am, at least, disarming Moglen from attempting to use my shame about my
sexual orientation against me.

Regarding LGBTQIA+ Acceptance and FOSS

I would like to leave Moglen and his abusive behavior there, and spend the
rest of this post talking about related issues of much greater importance.
First, I want to explain why it was so difficult for me to come out in my
professional community. Being somewhat older than most folks in FOSS
today, I really need to paint the picture of the USA when my career in
technology and FOSS got started. I was in my sophomore year of my Computer
Science undergraduate program when Clinton implemented
the Don’t
ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy for military in the USA. Now, as a
pacifist, I had no desire to join the military, but the DADT approach was
widely accepted in all areas of life.
The whole sarcastic “Not that there’s anything wrong with that
…” attitude (made famous contemporaneously to DADT on an
episode of the TV
show, Seinfeld) made it clear in culture that the world,
including those who ostensibly supported LGBTQIA+ rights, wanted queer
folks to remain, at best, “quiet and proud”, not “loud
and proud”. As a clincher, note that three years after DADT
was put in effect, overwhelming bipartisan support came forward for the
so-called
“Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA)”. An overwhelming majority of
everyone in Congress and the Presidency (regardless of party affiliation)
was in 1996 anti-LGBTQIA+. Folks who supported and voted yes for DOMA
include: Earl Blumenauer (still a senator from my current
state), Joe Biden (now POTUS (!)), Barbara Mikulski (a
senator until 2017 from my home state), and Chuck Schumer (still Senate
majority leader today). DADT didn’t end until 2011, and
while SCOTUS
ruled parts of DOMA unconstitutional in 2015,
Congress didn’t
actually repeal DOMA until last year! Hopefully, that gives a
clear sense of what the climate for LGBTQIA+ folks was like in the 1990s,
and why I felt was terrified to be outed — even as the 1990s became
the 2000s.

I also admit that my own shame about my sexual orientation grew as I got
older and began my professional career. I “pass” as straight
— particularly in our heteronormative culture that auto-casts
everyone as cishet until proven otherwise. It was just easier to not bring
it up. Why bother, I thought? It was off-topic (so I felt), and there
were plenty of people around the tech world in the 1990s and early 2000s
who were not particularly LGBTQIA+-friendly, or who feigned that they were
but were still “weird” about it.

I do think tech in general and FOSS in particular are much more
LGBTQIA+-friendly than they once were. However, there has been a huge
anti-LGBTQIA+ backlash in certain areas of the USA in recent years, so even
as I became more comfortable with the idea of being “out”, I
also felt (and do feel) that the world has recently gotten a lot more
dangerous for LGBTQIA+ folks. Folks like Moglen who wage “total
war” against their political opponents know this, and it is precisely
why they try to cast phrases like bisexual, gay, queer, and “sex
therapist” as salacious.

Also, PTSD has this way of making you believe you’re vulnerable in every
situation. When you’re suffering from the worst of PTSD’s symptoms, you
believe that you can never be safe anywhere — ever again. But,
logically I know that I’m safe being a queer person (at least in the small
FOSS world) — for two big reasons. First, the FOSS community of
today is (in most cases) very welcoming to LGBTQIA+ folks and most of the
cishet folks in FOSS identify as LGBTQIA+ allies. Second, I sheepishly
admit that as I’ve reached my 0x32’nd year of life this year, I have a 20+
year credentialed career that has left me in a position of authority and
privilege as a FOSS leader. I gain inherent safety from my position of
power in the community to just be who I am.

While this is absolutely not the manner and time in which I wanted to come
out, I’ll try to make some proverbial lemonade out of the lemons. By now
being out as LGBTQIA+ and already being a FOSS leader, I’d like to
offer to anyone who is new to FOSS and faces fear and worry about LGBTQIA+
issues in FOSS to contact me if they think I can help. I can’t promise to
write back to everyone, but I will do my very best to try to either help or
route you to someone else in FOSS who might be able to.

Also, I want to state something in direct contrast to Moglen’s claims that
the mere fact that a therapist who is qualified for treating people with
issues related to sexual orientation is ipso facto unqualified to treat any
other mental condition. I want to share publicly how valuable it has been
for me in finding a therapist who “gets it” with regard to
living queer in the world while also suffering from other conditions (such as PTSD).
So many LGBTQIA+ youth are bullied due to their orientation, and sustained
bullying commonly causes PTSD. I think we should all be so lucky to have a
mental health provider, as I do,
that
is extensively qualified to treat the whole person and not just a
single condition or issue. We should stand against people like Moglen who,
upon seeing that someone’s therapist specializes in helping people with
their sexual orientation, would use that fact as a way to shame both the
individual and the therapist. Doing that is wrong, and people who do that
are failing to create safe spaces for the LGBTQIA+ community.

I am aghast that Moglen is trying to shame me for seeking help from a
mental health provider who could help me overcome my internalized shame
regarding my sexual orientation. I also want people to know that I did not
feel safe as a queer person when I worked for Eben Moglen at SFLC. But I
also know Moglen doesn’t represent what our FOSS community and software
freedom is about. I felt I needed to make this post not only to disarm the
power Moglen held to “out me” before I was ready, but also to
warn others that, in my opinion, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) as an
organization that is not a safe space for LGBTQIA+ folks.
Finally, I do know that Moglen is also a tenured professor at Columbia Law
School. I have so often worried about his students — who may, as I
did, erroneously believe they can trust Moglen with private information as
important as their LGBTQIA+ status. I simply felt I couldn’t stay silent
about my experiences in good conscience any longer.

0, 4

A deposition is a form of testimony done during litigation before trial
begins. Each party in a legal dispute can subpoena witnesses. Rules vary
from venue to venue, but typically, a deposition is taken for eight hours,
and opposing attorneys can ask as many questions as they want —
including leading questions.

5In most
depositions, there is a time limit, but the scope of what questions
can be asked are not bounded. Somewhat strangely, one’s own lawyer
is not usually permitted to object on grounds of relevancy to the
case, so the questions can be as off-topic as the opposing counsel
wants.

3, 8 The
opposing attorney who asks the question is said to be “taking
the deposition”. The witness is said to be “sitting for
a deposition”. (IIUC, these are terms of art in
litigation).

1,
6,
7
From 1993-2018, I identified as “bisexual”. That term,
unfortunately, is, in my opinion, not friendly to non-binary people,
since the “bi” part (at least to me, I know others
disagree) assumes binary gender. The more common term used today is
“pansexual”, but, personally I prefer the term
“omnisexual” to “pansexual” for reasons that
are beyond the scope of this particular post. I am, however, not
offended if you use any of the three terms to refer to my sexual
orientation.

2Note, BTW: when
you read the docket, Judge Elgin (about 75% of the time) calls Karen
by the name “Ms. Bradley” (using my first name as if it
were Karen’s surname). It’s a bit confusing, so watch for it while
you’re reading so you don’t get confused.

8
Footnote added 2023-10-12, 19:00 US/Eastern: Since I
posted this about 30 hours ago, I’ve gotten so many statements of
support emailed to me that I can’t possibly respond to them all, but
I’ll try. Meanwhile, a few people have hinted at and/or outright
asked what policy disagreements Moglen actually has with me. I was
reluctant to answer because the point I’m making in this post is
that even if Moglen thought every last thing I’ve ever done
in my career was harmful policy-wise, it still would not
justify these abusive behaviors. Nevertheless, I admit that
if this post were made by someone else, I’d be curious about what the
policy disagreements were, so I decided to answer the question. I
think that my overarching policy disagreement with Eben Moglen is
with regard to how and when to engage in enforcement of the GPL and
other copyleft licenses through litigation. I think Moglen explains
this policy disagreement best
in his
talk that the Linux Foundation contemporaneously promoted (and
continues to regularly reference)
entitled “Whither (Not Wither) Copyleft”. In this
talk, Moglen states that I (among others) are “on a jihad for
free software” (his words, direct quote) because we continued
to pursue GPL enforcement through litigation. While I agree that
litigation
should still remain the last resort, I do think it remains a
necessary step often. Moglen argues that even though litigation was
needed in the past, it should never be used again for copyleft and
GPL enforcement. As Moglen outlines in his talk, he supports the
concept of “spontaneous compliance” — a system
whereby there is no regulatory regime and firms simply chose to
follow the rules of copyleft because it’s so obviously in their own
best interest. I’ve not seen this approach work in practice, which is
why I think we must still sometimes file GPL (and LGPL) lawsuits
— even today.
Moglen and I have plenty of other smaller policy disagreements: from
appropriate copyright assignment structures for FOSS, to finer points
of how GPLv3 should have been drafted, to tactics and strategy with
regard to copyleft advocacy, to how non-profits and charities should
be structured for the betterment of FOSS. However, I suspect all
these smaller policy disagreements stem from our fundamental policy
disagreement about GPL enforcement. However, I conclude by (a)
saying again no policy disagreement with anyone justifies
abusive behavior toward that person — not ever, and
(b) please do note the irony that, in that 2016-11-02 speech,
Moglen took the position that lawsuits should no longer be used to
settle disputes in FOSS, and yet — less than 10 months later
— Moglen
sued Conservancy (his former client) in the TTAB.

Eben Moglen & SFLC — abusive employer & LGBTQIA+ unfriendly

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2023/10/11/moglen-sflc.html

[ The below is a personal statement that I make on my own behalf. While
my statement’s release coincides with a release of an unrelated statement
on similar topics made
by my
employer, Software Freedom Conservancy, and
the Free
Software Foundation Europe, please keep in mind that this statement is
my own, personal opinion — written exclusively by me — and not
necessarily the opinion of either of those organizations. I did not consult
nor coordinate with either organization on this statement. ]

With great trepidation, I have decided to make this public statement
regarding the psychological abuse, including menacing, that I suffered,
perpetrated by Eben Moglen, both while I was employed at his Software
Freedom Law Center (SFLC) from 2005-2010, and in the years after he fired
me. No one revels in having psychological injuries and mistreatment
they’ve suffered paraded to the public. I’ll be frank that if it were not
for Moglen’s use of the USA Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) as a
method to perpetrate further abusive behavior, I wouldn’t have written this
post. Furthermore, sadly, Moglen has threatened in recent TTAB filings his
intention to use the proceeding to release personal details about my life
to the public (using the litigation itself as a lever). I have decided to
preemptively make public the facts herein first myself — so that I
can at least control the timing and framing of the information.

This post is long; the issues discussed in it are complicated, nuanced,
and cannot be summed up easily. Nevertheless, I’m realistic that most
people will stop reading soon, so I’ll summarize now as best I can in a few
sentences: I worked initially with, and then for, Eben Moglen for
nearly a decade — during which time he was psychologically abusive and
gaslighted me (under the guise of training and mentoring me). I thought
for many years that he was one of my best friends (— in retrospect, I
believe that he tricked me into believing that he was). As such, I shared
extremely personal details about myself to him — which he has used
both contemporaneously and in years hence to attempt to discredit me with
my colleagues and peers. Recently, Moglen declared his plans to use
current TTAB proceedings to force me to answer questions about my mental
health in
deposition0. Long
ago, I disclosed key personal information to Moglen, I therefore have a
pretty good idea of what his next move will be during that deposition
questioning. Specifically, I believe Moglen was hoping to out me as
omni/bisexual1 as part of my deposition
in this proceeding. As such, I’m outing myself here first (primarily) to
disarm his ability to use what he knows about my sexual orientation against
me. Since that last sentence makes me already out, Moglen will be unable
to use the biggest “secret” that Moglen “has on me”
in his future psychological and legal attacks.

I suspect some folks will stop reading here, but I really urge that you
keep reading this post, and also to read the unrelated statement made by
Conservancy
and FSFE.
The details are important and matter. I am admittedly embarrassed to talk
publicly about how Moglen exacerbated, expanded, and caused new symptoms of
my Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) — which I already suffered
from when I met him. But, I feel it is important to talk about these
issues publicly for many reasons — including that Moglen seeks to
expose these personal facts about me as an attempt to stigmatize what is
actually a positive thing: I seek ongoing treatment for my PTSD (which
Moglen himself, in part, caused) and to simultaneously process and reduce
my (painful and stubborn) internalized shame about my LGBTQIA+
status. (Like many proud LGBTQIA+ folks, I struggle with this because
living in a society unfriendly to LGBTQIA+ folks can lead to difficult
shame issues — this is a well-documented phenomena that LGBTQIA+
folks like myself suffer from.)

The primary recent catalyst for this situation is as follows: Moglen has
insisted that, as part of the
ongoing trademark
cancellation petition that SFLC filed against my employer, Software Freedom
Conservancy in
the TTAB,
that Moglen both personally be allowed to be present at, and to
actually take the depositions3 of me and
my colleague, Karen Sandler.

This kind of behavior is typical of how abusers use litigation to
perpetuate their abuse. The USA legal system is designed to give everyone
“their day in Court”. Frankly, many of the rules established
for Court proceedings did not contemplate that the process could be
manipulated by abusers, and it remains an open problem on how to repair the
rules that both preserve the egalitarian nature of our legal system, but
also does not make it easy for abusers to misuse those same rules.
Depositions, in particular, are a key tool in abusers’ arsenals.
Depositions allow Plaintiffs (in the TTAB, BTW, the Plaintiff is called
“the Petitioner”) to gather evidence. Generally speaking, most
Courts have no good default rules to prevent abusers from using these
depositions to get themselves in the room with their victims and harass
those victims further with off-topic haranguing. The only method (which is
quite clunky as a legal tool) to curtail the harassment somewhat is called
a protective order. However, Moglen has been smart enough to use
the very process of the protective order application to further perpetuate
abusive behavior.

To understand all this in context, I ask that you first
read Conservancy’s
public response to the initial filing of the trademark cancellation
proceeding (six years ago). In short, SFLC is seeking to
“cancel” the trademark on the name “Software Freedom
Conservancy”. Ostensibly, that’s all this case is (or, rather should
be) about.

The problem is that, upon reading
the docket in
detail, it’s easily seen that at nearly every step, Moglen has
attempted to use the proceeding as a method to harass and attack me and my
colleague, Karen Sandler — regarding issues wholly unrelated to the
trademarks. The recent arguments have been about our depositions4 —
mine and Karen’s2.

After some complex legal back-and-forth,
Judge Elgin
ordered that I was legally required to sit for a deposition with and by
Moglen. This is the point where a catch-22 began for me.

  • Option 0: Sit in a room for 8+ hours with a person who had spent
    years verbally abusing me and let him ask me any question he
    wants    5 —
    under penalty of perjury and contempt of Court if I refuse.
  • Option
    1: Give Conservancy’s lawyers permission to talk openly, in public
    documents, about the details of the abuse I suffered from Moglen and the
    psychological harm that it caused me (which is the necessary backup
    document for a protective order motion).

IOW, the only way to
get a protective order that would prevent me from being legally required to
suffer further psychological abuse from Moglen was to publicly talk about
the past abuse 😩. I reluctantly chose Option 1. I encourage you to read
in
full
my first sworn testimony on the issue. That document explains many of the
psychological abusive examples I suffered from Moglen — both as an
employee at SFLC and since.

Fortunately, that aforementioned sworn testimony was sufficient to
convince Judge Elgin to at least entertain reconsidering her decision that
I have to sit8 for a deposition with Moglen. However, submitting the
official motion then required that I give even more
information about why the deposition with Moglen will be psychologically
harmful. In particular, I had little choice but to add a letter from my
(highly qualified) mental health provider speaking to the psychological
dangers that I would face if deposed by Moglen personally and/or in his
presence. I reluctantly asked my therapist
to provide
such a letter. It was really tough for me to publicly identify who my
therapist is, but it was, again, my best option out of that catch-22. I
admittedly didn’t anticipate that Moglen might use this knowledge as a
method to further his abuse against me publicly in his response filing.

As can be seen in Moglen’s response
filing, Moglen
directly attacks my therapist’s credentials — claiming she is not
credible nor qualified. Moglen’s argument is that because my therapist
is a licensed, AASECT-certified sex therapist, she is not qualified to
diagnose PTSD. Of course, Moglen’s argument is without merit: my
therapist’s sex therapy credentials are in addition to her many other
credentials and certifications — all of which is explained on her
website that Moglen admits in his filing he has reviewed.

As I mentioned, at one time, I foolishly and erroneously considered Moglen
a good friend. As such, I told Moglen a lot about my personal life,
including that I was omni/bisexual, and that I was (at the time) closeted. So,
Moglen already knows full well the reason that I would select a therapist
who held among her credentials a certification to give therapy relating to
sexuality. Moglen’s filing is, in my view, a veiled threat to me that he’s
going to disclose publicly what he knows about my sexuality as part of this
proceeding. So, I’ve decided — after much thought — that I
should simply disarm him on this and say it first: I have identified as
bisexual/omnisexual6 since 1993, but I have
never been “out” in my professional community — until
now. Moglen knows full well (because I told him on more than one occasion)
that I struggled with whether or not to come out for decades. Thus, I
chose a therapist who was both qualified to give treatment for PTSD as
well as for sexual orientation challenges because I’ve lived much of
my life with internalized shame about my sexual orientation. (I was (and
still am, a bit) afraid that it would hurt my career opportunities in the
FOSS community and technology generally if I came out; more on that below.)
I was still working through these issues with my therapist when all these
recent events occurred.

Despite the serious psychological abuse I’ve suffered from Moglen, until
this recent filing, I wouldn’t have imagined that Moglen would attempt to
use the secrecy about my LGBTQIA+ status as a way to further terrorize me.
All I can think to say to Moglen in response is to quote
what Joe Welch
said to Senator Joe McCarthy on 1954-06-09: “Have you no sense of
decency, sir — at long last? Have you left no sense of
decency?”.

It’s hard to express coherently the difficult realization of the stark
political reality of our world. There are people you might meet (and/or
work for) who, if they have a policy disagreement8 with you later, will use
every single fact about you to their advantage to prevail in that
disagreement. There is truly no reason that Moglen needed to draw
attention to the fact that I see a therapist who specializes (in part) in
issues with sexuality. The fact that he
goes
on to further claim that the mere fact that she has such certification
makes her unqualified to treat my other mental health illness —
some of which Moglen himself (in part) personally caused — is
unconscionable. I expect that even most of my worst political rivals who
work for proprietary software companies and violate copyleft licenses on a
daily basis would not stoop as low to what Moglen has in this
situation.

At this point, I really have no choice but to come out as
omnisexual7 — even though I
wasn’t really ready to do so. Moglen has insisted now that my therapy has
been brought up in the proceeding,
that he
has a legal right to force me to be evaluated by a therapist of his
choosing (as if I were a criminal
defendant). Moglen
has also indicated that, during my deposition, he will interrogate me about
my therapy and my reasons for choosing this particular therapist (see, for
example, footnote 2 on page 11 (PDF-Page 27) of Moglen’s declaration in support of the
motion). Now, even if the judge grants Conservancy’s motion
to exclude Moglen from my deposition, Moglen will instruct his attorneys to
ask me those questions about my therapy and my sexual orientation —
with the obvious goal of seeking to embarrass me by forcing me to reveal
such things publicly. Like those folks who sat before McCarthy in those
HUAC
hearings, I know
that none of my
secrets will survive Moglen’s deposition. By outing myself here first,
I am, at least, disarming Moglen from attempting to use my shame about my
sexual orientation against me.

Regarding LGBTQIA+ Acceptance and FOSS

I would like to leave Moglen and his abusive behavior there, and spend the
rest of this post talking about related issues of much greater importance.
First, I want to explain why it was so difficult for me to come out in my
professional community. Being somewhat older than most folks in FOSS
today, I really need to paint the picture of the USA when my career in
technology and FOSS got started. I was in my sophomore year of my Computer
Science undergraduate program when Clinton implemented
the Don’t
ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy for military in the USA. Now, as a
pacifist, I had no desire to join the military, but the DADT approach was
widely accepted in all areas of life.
The whole sarcastic “Not that there’s anything wrong with that
…” attitude (made famous contemporaneously to DADT on an
episode of the TV
show, Seinfeld) made it clear in culture that the world,
including those who ostensibly supported LGBTQIA+ rights, wanted queer
folks to remain, at best, “quiet and proud”, not “loud
and proud”. As a clincher, note that three years after DADT
was put in effect, overwhelming bipartisan support came forward for the
so-called
“Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA)”. An overwhelming majority of
everyone in Congress and the Presidency (regardless of party affiliation)
was in 1996 anti-LGBTQIA+. Folks who supported and voted yes for DOMA
include: Earl Blumenauer (still a senator from my current
state), Joe Biden (now POTUS (!)), Barbara Mikulski (a
senator until 2017 from my home state), and Chuck Schumer (still Senate
majority leader today). DADT didn’t end until 2011, and
while SCOTUS
ruled parts of DOMA unconstitutional in 2015,
Congress didn’t
actually repeal DOMA until last year! Hopefully, that gives a
clear sense of what the climate for LGBTQIA+ folks was like in the 1990s,
and why I felt was terrified to be outed — even as the 1990s became
the 2000s.

I also admit that my own shame about my sexual orientation grew as I got
older and began my professional career. I “pass” as straight
— particularly in our heteronormative culture that auto-casts
everyone as cishet until proven otherwise. It was just easier to not bring
it up. Why bother, I thought? It was off-topic (so I felt), and there
were plenty of people around the tech world in the 1990s and early 2000s
who were not particularly LGBTQIA+-friendly, or who feigned that they were
but were still “weird” about it.

I do think tech in general and FOSS in particular are much more
LGBTQIA+-friendly than they once were. However, there has been a huge
anti-LGBTQIA+ backlash in certain areas of the USA in recent years, so even
as I became more comfortable with the idea of being “out”, I
also felt (and do feel) that the world has recently gotten a lot more
dangerous for LGBTQIA+ folks. Folks like Moglen who wage “total
war” against their political opponents know this, and it is precisely
why they try to cast phrases like bisexual, gay, queer, and “sex
therapist” as salacious.

Also, PTSD has this way of making you believe you’re vulnerable in every
situation. When you’re suffering from the worst of PTSD’s symptoms, you
believe that you can never be safe anywhere — ever again. But,
logically I know that I’m safe being a queer person (at least in the small
FOSS world) — for two big reasons. First, the FOSS community of
today is (in most cases) very welcoming to LGBTQIA+ folks and most of the
cishet folks in FOSS identify as LGBTQIA+ allies. Second, I sheepishly
admit that as I’ve reached my 0x32’nd year of life this year, I have a 20+
year credentialed career that has left me in a position of authority and
privilege as a FOSS leader. I gain inherent safety from my position of
power in the community to just be who I am.

While this is absolutely not the manner and time in which I wanted to come
out, I’ll try to make some proverbial lemonade out of the lemons. By now
being out as LGBTQIA+ and already being a FOSS leader, I’d like to
offer to anyone who is new to FOSS and faces fear and worry about LGBTQIA+
issues in FOSS to contact me if they think I can help. I can’t promise to
write back to everyone, but I will do my very best to try to either help or
route you to someone else in FOSS who might be able to.

Also, I want to state something in direct contrast to Moglen’s claims that
the mere fact that a therapist who is qualified for treating people with
issues related to sexual orientation is ipso facto unqualified to treat any
other mental condition. I want to share publicly how valuable it has been
for me in finding a therapist who “gets it” with regard to
living queer in the world while also suffering from other conditions (such as PTSD).
So many LGBTQIA+ youth are bullied due to their orientation, and sustained
bullying commonly causes PTSD. I think we should all be so lucky to have a
mental health provider, as I do,
that
is extensively qualified to treat the whole person and not just a
single condition or issue. We should stand against people like Moglen who,
upon seeing that someone’s therapist specializes in helping people with
their sexual orientation, would use that fact as a way to shame both the
individual and the therapist. Doing that is wrong, and people who do that
are failing to create safe spaces for the LGBTQIA+ community.

I am aghast that Moglen is trying to shame me for seeking help from a
mental health provider who could help me overcome my internalized shame
regarding my sexual orientation. I also want people to know that I did not
feel safe as a queer person when I worked for Eben Moglen at SFLC. But I
also know Moglen doesn’t represent what our FOSS community and software
freedom is about. I felt I needed to make this post not only to disarm the
power Moglen held to “out me” before I was ready, but also to
warn others that, in my opinion, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) as an
organization that is not a safe space for LGBTQIA+ folks.
Finally, I do know that Moglen is also a tenured professor at Columbia Law
School. I have so often worried about his students — who may, as I
did, erroneously believe they can trust Moglen with private information as
important as their LGBTQIA+ status. I simply felt I couldn’t stay silent
about my experiences in good conscience any longer.

0, 4

A deposition is a form of testimony done during litigation before trial
begins. Each party in a legal dispute can subpoena witnesses. Rules vary
from venue to venue, but typically, a deposition is taken for eight hours,
and opposing attorneys can ask as many questions as they want —
including leading questions.

5In most
depositions, there is a time limit, but the scope of what questions
can be asked are not bounded. Somewhat strangely, one’s own lawyer
is not usually permitted to object on grounds of relevancy to the
case, so the questions can be as off-topic as the opposing counsel
wants.

3, 8 The
opposing attorney who asks the question is said to be “taking
the deposition”. The witness is said to be “sitting for
a deposition”. (IIUC, these are terms of art in
litigation).

1,
6,
7
From 1993-2018, I identified as “bisexual”. That term,
unfortunately, is, in my opinion, not friendly to non-binary people,
since the “bi” part (at least to me, I know others
disagree) assumes binary gender. The more common term used today is
“pansexual”, but, personally I prefer the term
“omnisexual” to “pansexual” for reasons that
are beyond the scope of this particular post. I am, however, not
offended if you use any of the three terms to refer to my sexual
orientation.

2Note, BTW: when
you read the docket, Judge Elgin (about 75% of the time) calls Karen
by the name “Ms. Bradley” (using my first name as if it
were Karen’s surname). It’s a bit confusing, so watch for it while
you’re reading so you don’t get confused.

8
Footnote added 2023-10-12, 19:00 US/Eastern: Since I
posted this about 30 hours ago, I’ve gotten so many statements of
support emailed to me that I can’t possibly respond to them all, but
I’ll try. Meanwhile, a few people have hinted at and/or outright
asked what policy disagreements Moglen actually has with me. I was
reluctant to answer because the point I’m making in this post is
that even if Moglen thought every last thing I’ve ever done
in my career was harmful policy-wise, it still would not
justify these abusive behaviors. Nevertheless, I admit that
if this post were made by someone else, I’d be curious about what the
policy disagreements were, so I decided to answer the question. I
think that my overarching policy disagreement with Eben Moglen is
with regard to how and when to engage in enforcement of the GPL and
other copyleft licenses through litigation. I think Moglen explains
this policy disagreement best
in his
talk that the Linux Foundation contemporaneously promoted (and
continues to regularly reference)
entitled “Whither (Not Wither) Copyleft”. In this
talk, Moglen states that I (among others) are “on a jihad for
free software” (his words, direct quote) because we continued
to pursue GPL enforcement through litigation. While I agree that
litigation
should still remain the last resort, I do think it remains a
necessary step often. Moglen argues that even though litigation was
needed in the past, it should never be used again for copyleft and
GPL enforcement. As Moglen outlines in his talk, he supports the
concept of “spontaneous compliance” — a system
whereby there is no regulatory regime and firms simply chose to
follow the rules of copyleft because it’s so obviously in their own
best interest. I’ve not seen this approach work in practice, which is
why I think we must still sometimes file GPL (and LGPL) lawsuits
— even today.
Moglen and I have plenty of other smaller policy disagreements: from
appropriate copyright assignment structures for FOSS, to finer points
of how GPLv3 should have been drafted, to tactics and strategy with
regard to copyleft advocacy, to how non-profits and charities should
be structured for the betterment of FOSS. However, I suspect all
these smaller policy disagreements stem from our fundamental policy
disagreement about GPL enforcement. However, I conclude by (a)
saying again no policy disagreement with anyone justifies
abusive behavior toward that person — not ever, and
(b) please do note the irony that, in that 2016-11-02 speech,
Moglen took the position that lawsuits should no longer be used to
settle disputes in FOSS, and yet — less than 10 months later
— Moglen
sued Conservancy (his former client) in the TTAB.

Eben Moglen & SFLC — abusive employer & LGBTQIA+ unfriendly

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2023/10/11/moglen-sflc.html

[ The below is a personal statement that I make on my own behalf. While
my statement’s release coincides with a release of an unrelated statement
on similar topics made
by my
employer, Software Freedom Conservancy, and
the Free
Software Foundation Europe, please keep in mind that this statement is
my own, personal opinion — written exclusively by me — and not
necessarily the opinion of either of those organizations. I did not consult
nor coordinate with either organization on this statement. ]

With great trepidation, I have decided to make this public statement
regarding the psychological abuse, including menacing, that I suffered,
perpetrated by Eben Moglen, both while I was employed at his Software
Freedom Law Center (SFLC) from 2005-2010, and in the years after he fired
me. No one revels in having psychological injuries and mistreatment
they’ve suffered paraded to the public. I’ll be frank that if it were not
for Moglen’s use of the USA Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) as a
method to perpetrate further abusive behavior, I wouldn’t have written this
post. Furthermore, sadly, Moglen has threatened in recent TTAB filings his
intention to use the proceeding to release personal details about my life
to the public (using the litigation itself as a lever). I have decided to
preemptively make public the facts herein first myself — so that I
can at least control the timing and framing of the information.

This post is long; the issues discussed in it are complicated, nuanced,
and cannot be summed up easily. Nevertheless, I’m realistic that most
people will stop reading soon, so I’ll summarize now as best I can in a few
sentences: I worked initially with, and then for, Eben Moglen for
nearly a decade — during which time he was psychologically abusive and
gaslighted me (under the guise of training and mentoring me). I thought
for many years that he was one of my best friends (— in retrospect, I
believe that he tricked me into believing that he was). As such, I shared
extremely personal details about myself to him — which he has used
both contemporaneously and in years hence to attempt to discredit me with
my colleagues and peers. Recently, Moglen declared his plans to use
current TTAB proceedings to force me to answer questions about my mental
health in
deposition0. Long
ago, I disclosed key personal information to Moglen, I therefore have a
pretty good idea of what his next move will be during that deposition
questioning. Specifically, I believe Moglen was hoping to out me as
omni/bisexual1 as part of my deposition
in this proceeding. As such, I’m outing myself here first (primarily) to
disarm his ability to use what he knows about my sexual orientation against
me. Since that last sentence makes me already out, Moglen will be unable
to use the biggest “secret” that Moglen “has on me”
in his future psychological and legal attacks.

I suspect some folks will stop reading here, but I really urge that you
keep reading this post, and also to read the unrelated statement made by
Conservancy
and FSFE.
The details are important and matter. I am admittedly embarrassed to talk
publicly about how Moglen exacerbated, expanded, and caused new symptoms of
my Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) — which I already suffered
from when I met him. But, I feel it is important to talk about these
issues publicly for many reasons — including that Moglen seeks to
expose these personal facts about me as an attempt to stigmatize what is
actually a positive thing: I seek ongoing treatment for my PTSD (which
Moglen himself, in part, caused) and to simultaneously process and reduce
my (painful and stubborn) internalized shame about my LGBTQIA+
status. (Like many proud LGBTQIA+ folks, I struggle with this because
living in a society unfriendly to LGBTQIA+ folks can lead to difficult
shame issues — this is a well-documented phenomena that LGBTQIA+
folks like myself suffer from.)

The primary recent catalyst for this situation is as follows: Moglen has
insisted that, as part of the
ongoing trademark
cancellation petition that SFLC filed against my employer, Software Freedom
Conservancy in
the TTAB,
that Moglen both personally be allowed to be present at, and to
actually take the depositions3 of me and
my colleague, Karen Sandler.

This kind of behavior is typical of how abusers use litigation to
perpetuate their abuse. The USA legal system is designed to give everyone
“their day in Court”. Frankly, many of the rules established
for Court proceedings did not contemplate that the process could be
manipulated by abusers, and it remains an open problem on how to repair the
rules that both preserve the egalitarian nature of our legal system, but
also does not make it easy for abusers to misuse those same rules.
Depositions, in particular, are a key tool in abusers’ arsenals.
Depositions allow Plaintiffs (in the TTAB, BTW, the Plaintiff is called
“the Petitioner”) to gather evidence. Generally speaking, most
Courts have no good default rules to prevent abusers from using these
depositions to get themselves in the room with their victims and harass
those victims further with off-topic haranguing. The only method (which is
quite clunky as a legal tool) to curtail the harassment somewhat is called
a protective order. However, Moglen has been smart enough to use
the very process of the protective order application to further perpetuate
abusive behavior.

To understand all this in context, I ask that you first
read Conservancy’s
public response to the initial filing of the trademark cancellation
proceeding (six years ago). In short, SFLC is seeking to
“cancel” the trademark on the name “Software Freedom
Conservancy”. Ostensibly, that’s all this case is (or, rather should
be) about.

The problem is that, upon reading
the docket in
detail, it’s easily seen that at nearly every step, Moglen has
attempted to use the proceeding as a method to harass and attack me and my
colleague, Karen Sandler — regarding issues wholly unrelated to the
trademarks. The recent arguments have been about our depositions4 —
mine and Karen’s2.

After some complex legal back-and-forth,
Judge Elgin
ordered that I was legally required to sit for a deposition with and by
Moglen. This is the point where a catch-22 began for me.

  • Option 0: Sit in a room for 8+ hours with a person who had spent
    years verbally abusing me and let him ask me any question he
    wants    5 —
    under penalty of perjury and contempt of Court if I refuse.
  • Option
    1: Give Conservancy’s lawyers permission to talk openly, in public
    documents, about the details of the abuse I suffered from Moglen and the
    psychological harm that it caused me (which is the necessary backup
    document for a protective order motion).

IOW, the only way to
get a protective order that would prevent me from being legally required to
suffer further psychological abuse from Moglen was to publicly talk about
the past abuse 😩. I reluctantly chose Option 1. I encourage you to read
in
full
my first sworn testimony on the issue. That document explains many of the
psychological abusive examples I suffered from Moglen — both as an
employee at SFLC and since.

Fortunately, that aforementioned sworn testimony was sufficient to
convince Judge Elgin to at least entertain reconsidering her decision that
I have to sit8 for a deposition with Moglen. However, submitting the
official motion then required that I give even more
information about why the deposition with Moglen will be psychologically
harmful. In particular, I had little choice but to add a letter from my
(highly qualified) mental health provider speaking to the psychological
dangers that I would face if deposed by Moglen personally and/or in his
presence. I reluctantly asked my therapist
to provide
such a letter. It was really tough for me to publicly identify who my
therapist is, but it was, again, my best option out of that catch-22. I
admittedly didn’t anticipate that Moglen might use this knowledge as a
method to further his abuse against me publicly in his response filing.

As can be seen in Moglen’s response
filing, Moglen
directly attacks my therapist’s credentials — claiming she is not
credible nor qualified. Moglen’s argument is that because my therapist
is a licensed, AASECT-certified sex therapist, she is not qualified to
diagnose PTSD. Of course, Moglen’s argument is without merit: my
therapist’s sex therapy credentials are in addition to her many other
credentials and certifications — all of which is explained on her
website that Moglen admits in his filing he has reviewed.

As I mentioned, at one time, I foolishly and erroneously considered Moglen
a good friend. As such, I told Moglen a lot about my personal life,
including that I was omni/bisexual, and that I was (at the time) closeted. So,
Moglen already knows full well the reason that I would select a therapist
who held among her credentials a certification to give therapy relating to
sexuality. Moglen’s filing is, in my view, a veiled threat to me that he’s
going to disclose publicly what he knows about my sexuality as part of this
proceeding. So, I’ve decided — after much thought — that I
should simply disarm him on this and say it first: I have identified as
bisexual/omnisexual6 since 1993, but I have
never been “out” in my professional community — until
now. Moglen knows full well (because I told him on more than one occasion)
that I struggled with whether or not to come out for decades. Thus, I
chose a therapist who was both qualified to give treatment for PTSD as
well as for sexual orientation challenges because I’ve lived much of
my life with internalized shame about my sexual orientation. (I was (and
still am, a bit) afraid that it would hurt my career opportunities in the
FOSS community and technology generally if I came out; more on that below.)
I was still working through these issues with my therapist when all these
recent events occurred.

Despite the serious psychological abuse I’ve suffered from Moglen, until
this recent filing, I wouldn’t have imagined that Moglen would attempt to
use the secrecy about my LGBTQIA+ status as a way to further terrorize me.
All I can think to say to Moglen in response is to quote
what Joe Welch
said to Senator Joe McCarthy on 1954-06-09: “Have you no sense of
decency, sir — at long last? Have you left no sense of
decency?”.

It’s hard to express coherently the difficult realization of the stark
political reality of our world. There are people you might meet (and/or
work for) who, if they have a policy disagreement8 with you later, will use
every single fact about you to their advantage to prevail in that
disagreement. There is truly no reason that Moglen needed to draw
attention to the fact that I see a therapist who specializes (in part) in
issues with sexuality. The fact that he
goes
on to further claim that the mere fact that she has such certification
makes her unqualified to treat my other mental health illness —
some of which Moglen himself (in part) personally caused — is
unconscionable. I expect that even most of my worst political rivals who
work for proprietary software companies and violate copyleft licenses on a
daily basis would not stoop as low to what Moglen has in this
situation.

At this point, I really have no choice but to come out as
omnisexual7 — even though I
wasn’t really ready to do so. Moglen has insisted now that my therapy has
been brought up in the proceeding,
that he
has a legal right to force me to be evaluated by a therapist of his
choosing (as if I were a criminal
defendant). Moglen
has also indicated that, during my deposition, he will interrogate me about
my therapy and my reasons for choosing this particular therapist (see, for
example, footnote 2 on page 11 (PDF-Page 27) of Moglen’s declaration in support of the
motion). Now, even if the judge grants Conservancy’s motion
to exclude Moglen from my deposition, Moglen will instruct his attorneys to
ask me those questions about my therapy and my sexual orientation —
with the obvious goal of seeking to embarrass me by forcing me to reveal
such things publicly. Like those folks who sat before McCarthy in those
HUAC
hearings, I know
that none of my
secrets will survive Moglen’s deposition. By outing myself here first,
I am, at least, disarming Moglen from attempting to use my shame about my
sexual orientation against me.

Regarding LGBTQIA+ Acceptance and FOSS

I would like to leave Moglen and his abusive behavior there, and spend the
rest of this post talking about related issues of much greater importance.
First, I want to explain why it was so difficult for me to come out in my
professional community. Being somewhat older than most folks in FOSS
today, I really need to paint the picture of the USA when my career in
technology and FOSS got started. I was in my sophomore year of my Computer
Science undergraduate program when Clinton implemented
the Don’t
ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy for military in the USA. Now, as a
pacifist, I had no desire to join the military, but the DADT approach was
widely accepted in all areas of life.
The whole sarcastic “Not that there’s anything wrong with that
…” attitude (made famous contemporaneously to DADT on an
episode of the TV
show, Seinfeld) made it clear in culture that the world,
including those who ostensibly supported LGBTQIA+ rights, wanted queer
folks to remain, at best, “quiet and proud”, not “loud
and proud”. As a clincher, note that three years after DADT
was put in effect, overwhelming bipartisan support came forward for the
so-called
“Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA)”. An overwhelming majority of
everyone in Congress and the Presidency (regardless of party affiliation)
was in 1996 anti-LGBTQIA+. Folks who supported and voted yes for DOMA
include: Earl Blumenauer (still a senator from my current
state), Joe Biden (now POTUS (!)), Barbara Mikulski (a
senator until 2017 from my home state), and Chuck Schumer (still Senate
majority leader today). DADT didn’t end until 2011, and
while SCOTUS
ruled parts of DOMA unconstitutional in 2015,
Congress didn’t
actually repeal DOMA until last year! Hopefully, that gives a
clear sense of what the climate for LGBTQIA+ folks was like in the 1990s,
and why I felt was terrified to be outed — even as the 1990s became
the 2000s.

I also admit that my own shame about my sexual orientation grew as I got
older and began my professional career. I “pass” as straight
— particularly in our heteronormative culture that auto-casts
everyone as cishet until proven otherwise. It was just easier to not bring
it up. Why bother, I thought? It was off-topic (so I felt), and there
were plenty of people around the tech world in the 1990s and early 2000s
who were not particularly LGBTQIA+-friendly, or who feigned that they were
but were still “weird” about it.

I do think tech in general and FOSS in particular are much more
LGBTQIA+-friendly than they once were. However, there has been a huge
anti-LGBTQIA+ backlash in certain areas of the USA in recent years, so even
as I became more comfortable with the idea of being “out”, I
also felt (and do feel) that the world has recently gotten a lot more
dangerous for LGBTQIA+ folks. Folks like Moglen who wage “total
war” against their political opponents know this, and it is precisely
why they try to cast phrases like bisexual, gay, queer, and “sex
therapist” as salacious.

Also, PTSD has this way of making you believe you’re vulnerable in every
situation. When you’re suffering from the worst of PTSD’s symptoms, you
believe that you can never be safe anywhere — ever again. But,
logically I know that I’m safe being a queer person (at least in the small
FOSS world) — for two big reasons. First, the FOSS community of
today is (in most cases) very welcoming to LGBTQIA+ folks and most of the
cishet folks in FOSS identify as LGBTQIA+ allies. Second, I sheepishly
admit that as I’ve reached my 0x32’nd year of life this year, I have a 20+
year credentialed career that has left me in a position of authority and
privilege as a FOSS leader. I gain inherent safety from my position of
power in the community to just be who I am.

While this is absolutely not the manner and time in which I wanted to come
out, I’ll try to make some proverbial lemonade out of the lemons. By now
being out as LGBTQIA+ and already being a FOSS leader, I’d like to
offer to anyone who is new to FOSS and faces fear and worry about LGBTQIA+
issues in FOSS to contact me if they think I can help. I can’t promise to
write back to everyone, but I will do my very best to try to either help or
route you to someone else in FOSS who might be able to.

Also, I want to state something in direct contrast to Moglen’s claims that
the mere fact that a therapist who is qualified for treating people with
issues related to sexual orientation is ipso facto unqualified to treat any
other mental condition. I want to share publicly how valuable it has been
for me in finding a therapist who “gets it” with regard to
living queer in the world while also suffering from other conditions (such as PTSD).
So many LGBTQIA+ youth are bullied due to their orientation, and sustained
bullying commonly causes PTSD. I think we should all be so lucky to have a
mental health provider, as I do,
that
is extensively qualified to treat the whole person and not just a
single condition or issue. We should stand against people like Moglen who,
upon seeing that someone’s therapist specializes in helping people with
their sexual orientation, would use that fact as a way to shame both the
individual and the therapist. Doing that is wrong, and people who do that
are failing to create safe spaces for the LGBTQIA+ community.

I am aghast that Moglen is trying to shame me for seeking help from a
mental health provider who could help me overcome my internalized shame
regarding my sexual orientation. I also want people to know that I did not
feel safe as a queer person when I worked for Eben Moglen at SFLC. But I
also know Moglen doesn’t represent what our FOSS community and software
freedom is about. I felt I needed to make this post not only to disarm the
power Moglen held to “out me” before I was ready, but also to
warn others that, in my opinion, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) as an
organization that is not a safe space for LGBTQIA+ folks.
Finally, I do know that Moglen is also a tenured professor at Columbia Law
School. I have so often worried about his students — who may, as I
did, erroneously believe they can trust Moglen with private information as
important as their LGBTQIA+ status. I simply felt I couldn’t stay silent
about my experiences in good conscience any longer.

0, 4

A deposition is a form of testimony done during litigation before trial
begins. Each party in a legal dispute can subpoena witnesses. Rules vary
from venue to venue, but typically, a deposition is taken for eight hours,
and opposing attorneys can ask as many questions as they want —
including leading questions.

5In most
depositions, there is a time limit, but the scope of what questions
can be asked are not bounded. Somewhat strangely, one’s own lawyer
is not usually permitted to object on grounds of relevancy to the
case, so the questions can be as off-topic as the opposing counsel
wants.

3, 8 The
opposing attorney who asks the question is said to be “taking
the deposition”. The witness is said to be “sitting for
a deposition”. (IIUC, these are terms of art in
litigation).

1,
6,
7
From 1993-2018, I identified as “bisexual”. That term,
unfortunately, is, in my opinion, not friendly to non-binary people,
since the “bi” part (at least to me, I know others
disagree) assumes binary gender. The more common term used today is
“pansexual”, but, personally I prefer the term
“omnisexual” to “pansexual” for reasons that
are beyond the scope of this particular post. I am, however, not
offended if you use any of the three terms to refer to my sexual
orientation.

2Note, BTW: when
you read the docket, Judge Elgin (about 75% of the time) calls Karen
by the name “Ms. Bradley” (using my first name as if it
were Karen’s surname). It’s a bit confusing, so watch for it while
you’re reading so you don’t get confused.

8
Footnote added 2023-10-12, 19:00 US/Eastern: Since I
posted this about 30 hours ago, I’ve gotten so many statements of
support emailed to me that I can’t possibly respond to them all, but
I’ll try. Meanwhile, a few people have hinted at and/or outright
asked what policy disagreements Moglen actually has with me. I was
reluctant to answer because the point I’m making in this post is
that even if Moglen thought every last thing I’ve ever done
in my career was harmful policy-wise, it still would not
justify these abusive behaviors. Nevertheless, I admit that
if this post were made by someone else, I’d be curious about what the
policy disagreements were, so I decided to answer the question. I
think that my overarching policy disagreement with Eben Moglen is
with regard to how and when to engage in enforcement of the GPL and
other copyleft licenses through litigation. I think Moglen explains
this policy disagreement best
in his
talk that the Linux Foundation contemporaneously promoted (and
continues to regularly reference)
entitled “Whither (Not Wither) Copyleft”. In this
talk, Moglen states that I (among others) are “on a jihad for
free software” (his words, direct quote) because we continued
to pursue GPL enforcement through litigation. While I agree that
litigation
should still remain the last resort, I do think it remains a
necessary step often. Moglen argues that even though litigation was
needed in the past, it should never be used again for copyleft and
GPL enforcement. As Moglen outlines in his talk, he supports the
concept of “spontaneous compliance” — a system
whereby there is no regulatory regime and firms simply chose to
follow the rules of copyleft because it’s so obviously in their own
best interest. I’ve not seen this approach work in practice, which is
why I think we must still sometimes file GPL (and LGPL) lawsuits
— even today.
Moglen and I have plenty of other smaller policy disagreements: from
appropriate copyright assignment structures for FOSS, to finer points
of how GPLv3 should have been drafted, to tactics and strategy with
regard to copyleft advocacy, to how non-profits and charities should
be structured for the betterment of FOSS. However, I suspect all
these smaller policy disagreements stem from our fundamental policy
disagreement about GPL enforcement. However, I conclude by (a)
saying again no policy disagreement with anyone justifies
abusive behavior toward that person — not ever, and
(b) please do note the irony that, in that 2016-11-02 speech,
Moglen took the position that lawsuits should no longer be used to
settle disputes in FOSS, and yet — less than 10 months later
— Moglen
sued Conservancy (his former client) in the TTAB.

Eben Moglen & SFLC — abusive employer & LGBTQIA+ unfriendly

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2023/10/11/moglen-sflc.html

[ The below is a personal statement that I make on my own behalf. While
my statement’s release coincides with a release of an unrelated statement
on similar topics made
by my
employer, Software Freedom Conservancy, and
the Free
Software Foundation Europe, please keep in mind that this statement is
my own, personal opinion — written exclusively by me — and not
necessarily the opinion of either of those organizations. I did not consult
nor coordinate with either organization on this statement. ]

With great trepidation, I have decided to make this public statement
regarding the psychological abuse, including menacing, that I suffered,
perpetrated by Eben Moglen, both while I was employed at his Software
Freedom Law Center (SFLC) from 2005-2010, and in the years after he fired
me. No one revels in having psychological injuries and mistreatment
they’ve suffered paraded to the public. I’ll be frank that if it were not
for Moglen’s use of the USA Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) as a
method to perpetrate further abusive behavior, I wouldn’t have written this
post. Furthermore, sadly, Moglen has threatened in recent TTAB filings his
intention to use the proceeding to release personal details about my life
to the public (using the litigation itself as a lever). I have decided to
preemptively make public the facts herein first myself — so that I
can at least control the timing and framing of the information.

This post is long; the issues discussed in it are complicated, nuanced,
and cannot be summed up easily. Nevertheless, I’m realistic that most
people will stop reading soon, so I’ll summarize now as best I can in a few
sentences: I worked initially with, and then for, Eben Moglen for
nearly a decade — during which time he was psychologically abusive and
gaslighted me (under the guise of training and mentoring me). I thought
for many years that he was one of my best friends (— in retrospect, I
believe that he tricked me into believing that he was). As such, I shared
extremely personal details about myself to him — which he has used
both contemporaneously and in years hence to attempt to discredit me with
my colleagues and peers. Recently, Moglen declared his plans to use
current TTAB proceedings to force me to answer questions about my mental
health in
deposition0. Long
ago, I disclosed key personal information to Moglen, I therefore have a
pretty good idea of what his next move will be during that deposition
questioning. Specifically, I believe Moglen was hoping to out me as
omni/bisexual1 as part of my deposition
in this proceeding. As such, I’m outing myself here first (primarily) to
disarm his ability to use what he knows about my sexual orientation against
me. Since that last sentence makes me already out, Moglen will be unable
to use the biggest “secret” that Moglen “has on me”
in his future psychological and legal attacks.

I suspect some folks will stop reading here, but I really urge that you
keep reading this post, and also to read the unrelated statement made by
Conservancy
and FSFE.
The details are important and matter. I am admittedly embarrassed to talk
publicly about how Moglen exacerbated, expanded, and caused new symptoms of
my Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) — which I already suffered
from when I met him. But, I feel it is important to talk about these
issues publicly for many reasons — including that Moglen seeks to
expose these personal facts about me as an attempt to stigmatize what is
actually a positive thing: I seek ongoing treatment for my PTSD (which
Moglen himself, in part, caused) and to simultaneously process and reduce
my (painful and stubborn) internalized shame about my LGBTQIA+
status. (Like many proud LGBTQIA+ folks, I struggle with this because
living in a society unfriendly to LGBTQIA+ folks can lead to difficult
shame issues — this is a well-documented phenomena that LGBTQIA+
folks like myself suffer from.)

The primary recent catalyst for this situation is as follows: Moglen has
insisted that, as part of the
ongoing trademark
cancellation petition that SFLC filed against my employer, Software Freedom
Conservancy in
the TTAB,
that Moglen both personally be allowed to be present at, and to
actually take the depositions3 of me and
my colleague, Karen Sandler.

This kind of behavior is typical of how abusers use litigation to
perpetuate their abuse. The USA legal system is designed to give everyone
“their day in Court”. Frankly, many of the rules established
for Court proceedings did not contemplate that the process could be
manipulated by abusers, and it remains an open problem on how to repair the
rules that both preserve the egalitarian nature of our legal system, but
also does not make it easy for abusers to misuse those same rules.
Depositions, in particular, are a key tool in abusers’ arsenals.
Depositions allow Plaintiffs (in the TTAB, BTW, the Plaintiff is called
“the Petitioner”) to gather evidence. Generally speaking, most
Courts have no good default rules to prevent abusers from using these
depositions to get themselves in the room with their victims and harass
those victims further with off-topic haranguing. The only method (which is
quite clunky as a legal tool) to curtail the harassment somewhat is called
a protective order. However, Moglen has been smart enough to use
the very process of the protective order application to further perpetuate
abusive behavior.

To understand all this in context, I ask that you first
read Conservancy’s
public response to the initial filing of the trademark cancellation
proceeding (six years ago). In short, SFLC is seeking to
“cancel” the trademark on the name “Software Freedom
Conservancy”. Ostensibly, that’s all this case is (or, rather should
be) about.

The problem is that, upon reading
the docket in
detail, it’s easily seen that at nearly every step, Moglen has
attempted to use the proceeding as a method to harass and attack me and my
colleague, Karen Sandler — regarding issues wholly unrelated to the
trademarks. The recent arguments have been about our depositions4 —
mine and Karen’s2.

After some complex legal back-and-forth,
Judge Elgin
ordered that I was legally required to sit for a deposition with and by
Moglen. This is the point where a catch-22 began for me.

  • Option 0: Sit in a room for 8+ hours with a person who had spent
    years verbally abusing me and let him ask me any question he
    wants    5 —
    under penalty of perjury and contempt of Court if I refuse.
  • Option
    1: Give Conservancy’s lawyers permission to talk openly, in public
    documents, about the details of the abuse I suffered from Moglen and the
    psychological harm that it caused me (which is the necessary backup
    document for a protective order motion).

IOW, the only way to
get a protective order that would prevent me from being legally required to
suffer further psychological abuse from Moglen was to publicly talk about
the past abuse 😩. I reluctantly chose Option 1. I encourage you to read
in
full
my first sworn testimony on the issue. That document explains many of the
psychological abusive examples I suffered from Moglen — both as an
employee at SFLC and since.

Fortunately, that aforementioned sworn testimony was sufficient to
convince Judge Elgin to at least entertain reconsidering her decision that
I have to sit8 for a deposition with Moglen. However, submitting the
official motion then required that I give even more
information about why the deposition with Moglen will be psychologically
harmful. In particular, I had little choice but to add a letter from my
(highly qualified) mental health provider speaking to the psychological
dangers that I would face if deposed by Moglen personally and/or in his
presence. I reluctantly asked my therapist
to provide
such a letter. It was really tough for me to publicly identify who my
therapist is, but it was, again, my best option out of that catch-22. I
admittedly didn’t anticipate that Moglen might use this knowledge as a
method to further his abuse against me publicly in his response filing.

As can be seen in Moglen’s response
filing, Moglen
directly attacks my therapist’s credentials — claiming she is not
credible nor qualified. Moglen’s argument is that because my therapist
is a licensed, AASECT-certified sex therapist, she is not qualified to
diagnose PTSD. Of course, Moglen’s argument is without merit: my
therapist’s sex therapy credentials are in addition to her many other
credentials and certifications — all of which is explained on her
website that Moglen admits in his filing he has reviewed.

As I mentioned, at one time, I foolishly and erroneously considered Moglen
a good friend. As such, I told Moglen a lot about my personal life,
including that I was omni/bisexual, and that I was (at the time) closeted. So,
Moglen already knows full well the reason that I would select a therapist
who held among her credentials a certification to give therapy relating to
sexuality. Moglen’s filing is, in my view, a veiled threat to me that he’s
going to disclose publicly what he knows about my sexuality as part of this
proceeding. So, I’ve decided — after much thought — that I
should simply disarm him on this and say it first: I have identified as
bisexual/omnisexual6 since 1993, but I have
never been “out” in my professional community — until
now. Moglen knows full well (because I told him on more than one occasion)
that I struggled with whether or not to come out for decades. Thus, I
chose a therapist who was both qualified to give treatment for PTSD as
well as for sexual orientation challenges because I’ve lived much of
my life with internalized shame about my sexual orientation. (I was (and
still am, a bit) afraid that it would hurt my career opportunities in the
FOSS community and technology generally if I came out; more on that below.)
I was still working through these issues with my therapist when all these
recent events occurred.

Despite the serious psychological abuse I’ve suffered from Moglen, until
this recent filing, I wouldn’t have imagined that Moglen would attempt to
use the secrecy about my LGBTQIA+ status as a way to further terrorize me.
All I can think to say to Moglen in response is to quote
what Joe Welch
said to Senator Joe McCarthy on 1954-06-09: “Have you no sense of
decency, sir — at long last? Have you left no sense of
decency?”.

It’s hard to express coherently the difficult realization of the stark
political reality of our world. There are people you might meet (and/or
work for) who, if they have a policy disagreement8 with you later, will use
every single fact about you to their advantage to prevail in that
disagreement. There is truly no reason that Moglen needed to draw
attention to the fact that I see a therapist who specializes (in part) in
issues with sexuality. The fact that he
goes
on to further claim that the mere fact that she has such certification
makes her unqualified to treat my other mental health illness —
some of which Moglen himself (in part) personally caused — is
unconscionable. I expect that even most of my worst political rivals who
work for proprietary software companies and violate copyleft licenses on a
daily basis would not stoop as low to what Moglen has in this
situation.

At this point, I really have no choice but to come out as
omnisexual7 — even though I
wasn’t really ready to do so. Moglen has insisted now that my therapy has
been brought up in the proceeding,
that he
has a legal right to force me to be evaluated by a therapist of his
choosing (as if I were a criminal
defendant). Moglen
has also indicated that, during my deposition, he will interrogate me about
my therapy and my reasons for choosing this particular therapist (see, for
example, footnote 2 on page 11 (PDF-Page 27) of Moglen’s declaration in support of the
motion). Now, even if the judge grants Conservancy’s motion
to exclude Moglen from my deposition, Moglen will instruct his attorneys to
ask me those questions about my therapy and my sexual orientation —
with the obvious goal of seeking to embarrass me by forcing me to reveal
such things publicly. Like those folks who sat before McCarthy in those
HUAC
hearings, I know
that none of my
secrets will survive Moglen’s deposition. By outing myself here first,
I am, at least, disarming Moglen from attempting to use my shame about my
sexual orientation against me.

Regarding LGBTQIA+ Acceptance and FOSS

I would like to leave Moglen and his abusive behavior there, and spend the
rest of this post talking about related issues of much greater importance.
First, I want to explain why it was so difficult for me to come out in my
professional community. Being somewhat older than most folks in FOSS
today, I really need to paint the picture of the USA when my career in
technology and FOSS got started. I was in my sophomore year of my Computer
Science undergraduate program when Clinton implemented
the Don’t
ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy for military in the USA. Now, as a
pacifist, I had no desire to join the military, but the DADT approach was
widely accepted in all areas of life.
The whole sarcastic “Not that there’s anything wrong with that
…” attitude (made famous contemporaneously to DADT on an
episode of the TV
show, Seinfeld) made it clear in culture that the world,
including those who ostensibly supported LGBTQIA+ rights, wanted queer
folks to remain, at best, “quiet and proud”, not “loud
and proud”. As a clincher, note that three years after DADT
was put in effect, overwhelming bipartisan support came forward for the
so-called
“Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA)”. An overwhelming majority of
everyone in Congress and the Presidency (regardless of party affiliation)
was in 1996 anti-LGBTQIA+. Folks who supported and voted yes for DOMA
include: Earl Blumenauer (still a senator from my current
state), Joe Biden (now POTUS (!)), Barbara Mikulski (a
senator until 2017 from my home state), and Chuck Schumer (still Senate
majority leader today). DADT didn’t end until 2011, and
while SCOTUS
ruled parts of DOMA unconstitutional in 2015,
Congress didn’t
actually repeal DOMA until last year! Hopefully, that gives a
clear sense of what the climate for LGBTQIA+ folks was like in the 1990s,
and why I felt was terrified to be outed — even as the 1990s became
the 2000s.

I also admit that my own shame about my sexual orientation grew as I got
older and began my professional career. I “pass” as straight
— particularly in our heteronormative culture that auto-casts
everyone as cishet until proven otherwise. It was just easier to not bring
it up. Why bother, I thought? It was off-topic (so I felt), and there
were plenty of people around the tech world in the 1990s and early 2000s
who were not particularly LGBTQIA+-friendly, or who feigned that they were
but were still “weird” about it.

I do think tech in general and FOSS in particular are much more
LGBTQIA+-friendly than they once were. However, there has been a huge
anti-LGBTQIA+ backlash in certain areas of the USA in recent years, so even
as I became more comfortable with the idea of being “out”, I
also felt (and do feel) that the world has recently gotten a lot more
dangerous for LGBTQIA+ folks. Folks like Moglen who wage “total
war” against their political opponents know this, and it is precisely
why they try to cast phrases like bisexual, gay, queer, and “sex
therapist” as salacious.

Also, PTSD has this way of making you believe you’re vulnerable in every
situation. When you’re suffering from the worst of PTSD’s symptoms, you
believe that you can never be safe anywhere — ever again. But,
logically I know that I’m safe being a queer person (at least in the small
FOSS world) — for two big reasons. First, the FOSS community of
today is (in most cases) very welcoming to LGBTQIA+ folks and most of the
cishet folks in FOSS identify as LGBTQIA+ allies. Second, I sheepishly
admit that as I’ve reached my 0x32’nd year of life this year, I have a 20+
year credentialed career that has left me in a position of authority and
privilege as a FOSS leader. I gain inherent safety from my position of
power in the community to just be who I am.

While this is absolutely not the manner and time in which I wanted to come
out, I’ll try to make some proverbial lemonade out of the lemons. By now
being out as LGBTQIA+ and already being a FOSS leader, I’d like to
offer to anyone who is new to FOSS and faces fear and worry about LGBTQIA+
issues in FOSS to contact me if they think I can help. I can’t promise to
write back to everyone, but I will do my very best to try to either help or
route you to someone else in FOSS who might be able to.

Also, I want to state something in direct contrast to Moglen’s claims that
the mere fact that a therapist who is qualified for treating people with
issues related to sexual orientation is ipso facto unqualified to treat any
other mental condition. I want to share publicly how valuable it has been
for me in finding a therapist who “gets it” with regard to
living queer in the world while also suffering from other conditions (such as PTSD).
So many LGBTQIA+ youth are bullied due to their orientation, and sustained
bullying commonly causes PTSD. I think we should all be so lucky to have a
mental health provider, as I do,
that
is extensively qualified to treat the whole person and not just a
single condition or issue. We should stand against people like Moglen who,
upon seeing that someone’s therapist specializes in helping people with
their sexual orientation, would use that fact as a way to shame both the
individual and the therapist. Doing that is wrong, and people who do that
are failing to create safe spaces for the LGBTQIA+ community.

I am aghast that Moglen is trying to shame me for seeking help from a
mental health provider who could help me overcome my internalized shame
regarding my sexual orientation. I also want people to know that I did not
feel safe as a queer person when I worked for Eben Moglen at SFLC. But I
also know Moglen doesn’t represent what our FOSS community and software
freedom is about. I felt I needed to make this post not only to disarm the
power Moglen held to “out me” before I was ready, but also to
warn others that, in my opinion, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) as an
organization that is not a safe space for LGBTQIA+ folks.
Finally, I do know that Moglen is also a tenured professor at Columbia Law
School. I have so often worried about his students — who may, as I
did, erroneously believe they can trust Moglen with private information as
important as their LGBTQIA+ status. I simply felt I couldn’t stay silent
about my experiences in good conscience any longer.

0, 4

A deposition is a form of testimony done during litigation before trial
begins. Each party in a legal dispute can subpoena witnesses. Rules vary
from venue to venue, but typically, a deposition is taken for eight hours,
and opposing attorneys can ask as many questions as they want —
including leading questions.

5In most
depositions, there is a time limit, but the scope of what questions
can be asked are not bounded. Somewhat strangely, one’s own lawyer
is not usually permitted to object on grounds of relevancy to the
case, so the questions can be as off-topic as the opposing counsel
wants.

3, 8 The
opposing attorney who asks the question is said to be “taking
the deposition”. The witness is said to be “sitting for
a deposition”. (IIUC, these are terms of art in
litigation).

1,
6,
7
From 1993-2018, I identified as “bisexual”. That term,
unfortunately, is, in my opinion, not friendly to non-binary people,
since the “bi” part (at least to me, I know others
disagree) assumes binary gender. The more common term used today is
“pansexual”, but, personally I prefer the term
“omnisexual” to “pansexual” for reasons that
are beyond the scope of this particular post. I am, however, not
offended if you use any of the three terms to refer to my sexual
orientation.

2Note, BTW: when
you read the docket, Judge Elgin (about 75% of the time) calls Karen
by the name “Ms. Bradley” (using my first name as if it
were Karen’s surname). It’s a bit confusing, so watch for it while
you’re reading so you don’t get confused.

8
Footnote added 2023-10-12, 19:00 US/Eastern: Since I
posted this about 30 hours ago, I’ve gotten so many statements of
support emailed to me that I can’t possibly respond to them all, but
I’ll try. Meanwhile, a few people have hinted at and/or outright
asked what policy disagreements Moglen actually has with me. I was
reluctant to answer because the point I’m making in this post is
that even if Moglen thought every last thing I’ve ever done
in my career was harmful policy-wise, it still would not
justify these abusive behaviors. Nevertheless, I admit that
if this post were made by someone else, I’d be curious about what the
policy disagreements were, so I decided to answer the question. I
think that my overarching policy disagreement with Eben Moglen is
with regard to how and when to engage in enforcement of the GPL and
other copyleft licenses through litigation. I think Moglen explains
this policy disagreement best
in his
talk that the Linux Foundation contemporaneously promoted (and
continues to regularly reference)
entitled “Whither (Not Wither) Copyleft”. In this
talk, Moglen states that I (among others) are “on a jihad for
free software” (his words, direct quote) because we continued
to pursue GPL enforcement through litigation. While I agree that
litigation
should still remain the last resort, I do think it remains a
necessary step often. Moglen argues that even though litigation was
needed in the past, it should never be used again for copyleft and
GPL enforcement. As Moglen outlines in his talk, he supports the
concept of “spontaneous compliance” — a system
whereby there is no regulatory regime and firms simply chose to
follow the rules of copyleft because it’s so obviously in their own
best interest. I’ve not seen this approach work in practice, which is
why I think we must still sometimes file GPL (and LGPL) lawsuits
— even today.
Moglen and I have plenty of other smaller policy disagreements: from
appropriate copyright assignment structures for FOSS, to finer points
of how GPLv3 should have been drafted, to tactics and strategy with
regard to copyleft advocacy, to how non-profits and charities should
be structured for the betterment of FOSS. However, I suspect all
these smaller policy disagreements stem from our fundamental policy
disagreement about GPL enforcement. However, I conclude by (a)
saying again no policy disagreement with anyone justifies
abusive behavior toward that person — not ever, and
(b) please do note the irony that, in that 2016-11-02 speech,
Moglen took the position that lawsuits should no longer be used to
settle disputes in FOSS, and yet — less than 10 months later
— Moglen
sued Conservancy (his former client) in the TTAB.

Eben Moglen & SFLC — abusive employer & LGBTQIA+ unfriendly

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2023/10/11/moglen-sflc.html

[ The below is a personal statement that I make on my own behalf. While
my statement’s release coincides with a release of an unrelated statement
on similar topics made
by my
employer, Software Freedom Conservancy, and
the Free
Software Foundation Europe, please keep in mind that this statement is
my own, personal opinion — written exclusively by me — and not
necessarily the opinion of either of those organizations. I did not consult
nor coordinate with either organization on this statement. ]

With great trepidation, I have decided to make this public statement
regarding the psychological abuse, including menacing, that I suffered,
perpetrated by Eben Moglen, both while I was employed at his Software
Freedom Law Center (SFLC) from 2005-2010, and in the years after he fired
me. No one revels in having psychological injuries and mistreatment
they’ve suffered paraded to the public. I’ll be frank that if it were not
for Moglen’s use of the USA Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) as a
method to perpetrate further abusive behavior, I wouldn’t have written this
post. Furthermore, sadly, Moglen has threatened in recent TTAB filings his
intention to use the proceeding to release personal details about my life
to the public (using the litigation itself as a lever). I have decided to
preemptively make public the facts herein first myself — so that I
can at least control the timing and framing of the information.

This post is long; the issues discussed in it are complicated, nuanced,
and cannot be summed up easily. Nevertheless, I’m realistic that most
people will stop reading soon, so I’ll summarize now as best I can in a few
sentences: I worked initially with, and then for, Eben Moglen for
nearly a decade — during which time he was psychologically abusive and
gaslighted me (under the guise of training and mentoring me). I thought
for many years that he was one of my best friends (— in retrospect, I
believe that he tricked me into believing that he was). As such, I shared
extremely personal details about myself to him — which he has used
both contemporaneously and in years hence to attempt to discredit me with
my colleagues and peers. Recently, Moglen declared his plans to use
current TTAB proceedings to force me to answer questions about my mental
health in
deposition0. Long
ago, I disclosed key personal information to Moglen, I therefore have a
pretty good idea of what his next move will be during that deposition
questioning. Specifically, I believe Moglen was hoping to out me as
omni/bisexual1 as part of my deposition
in this proceeding. As such, I’m outing myself here first (primarily) to
disarm his ability to use what he knows about my sexual orientation against
me. Since that last sentence makes me already out, Moglen will be unable
to use the biggest “secret” that Moglen “has on me”
in his future psychological and legal attacks.

I suspect some folks will stop reading here, but I really urge that you
keep reading this post, and also to read the unrelated statement made by
Conservancy
and FSFE.
The details are important and matter. I am admittedly embarrassed to talk
publicly about how Moglen exacerbated, expanded, and caused new symptoms of
my Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) — which I already suffered
from when I met him. But, I feel it is important to talk about these
issues publicly for many reasons — including that Moglen seeks to
expose these personal facts about me as an attempt to stigmatize what is
actually a positive thing: I seek ongoing treatment for my PTSD (which
Moglen himself, in part, caused) and to simultaneously process and reduce
my (painful and stubborn) internalized shame about my LGBTQIA+
status. (Like many proud LGBTQIA+ folks, I struggle with this because
living in a society unfriendly to LGBTQIA+ folks can lead to difficult
shame issues — this is a well-documented phenomena that LGBTQIA+
folks like myself suffer from.)

The primary recent catalyst for this situation is as follows: Moglen has
insisted that, as part of the
ongoing trademark
cancellation petition that SFLC filed against my employer, Software Freedom
Conservancy in
the TTAB,
that Moglen both personally be allowed to be present at, and to
actually take the depositions3 of me and
my colleague, Karen Sandler.

This kind of behavior is typical of how abusers use litigation to
perpetuate their abuse. The USA legal system is designed to give everyone
“their day in Court”. Frankly, many of the rules established
for Court proceedings did not contemplate that the process could be
manipulated by abusers, and it remains an open problem on how to repair the
rules that both preserve the egalitarian nature of our legal system, but
also does not make it easy for abusers to misuse those same rules.
Depositions, in particular, are a key tool in abusers’ arsenals.
Depositions allow Plaintiffs (in the TTAB, BTW, the Plaintiff is called
“the Petitioner”) to gather evidence. Generally speaking, most
Courts have no good default rules to prevent abusers from using these
depositions to get themselves in the room with their victims and harass
those victims further with off-topic haranguing. The only method (which is
quite clunky as a legal tool) to curtail the harassment somewhat is called
a protective order. However, Moglen has been smart enough to use
the very process of the protective order application to further perpetuate
abusive behavior.

To understand all this in context, I ask that you first
read Conservancy’s
public response to the initial filing of the trademark cancellation
proceeding (six years ago). In short, SFLC is seeking to
“cancel” the trademark on the name “Software Freedom
Conservancy”. Ostensibly, that’s all this case is (or, rather should
be) about.

The problem is that, upon reading
the docket in
detail, it’s easily seen that at nearly every step, Moglen has
attempted to use the proceeding as a method to harass and attack me and my
colleague, Karen Sandler — regarding issues wholly unrelated to the
trademarks. The recent arguments have been about our depositions4 —
mine and Karen’s2.

After some complex legal back-and-forth,
Judge Elgin
ordered that I was legally required to sit for a deposition with and by
Moglen. This is the point where a catch-22 began for me.

  • Option 0: Sit in a room for 8+ hours with a person who had spent
    years verbally abusing me and let him ask me any question he
    wants    5 —
    under penalty of perjury and contempt of Court if I refuse.
  • Option
    1: Give Conservancy’s lawyers permission to talk openly, in public
    documents, about the details of the abuse I suffered from Moglen and the
    psychological harm that it caused me (which is the necessary backup
    document for a protective order motion).

IOW, the only way to
get a protective order that would prevent me from being legally required to
suffer further psychological abuse from Moglen was to publicly talk about
the past abuse 😩. I reluctantly chose Option 1. I encourage you to read
in
full
my first sworn testimony on the issue. That document explains many of the
psychological abusive examples I suffered from Moglen — both as an
employee at SFLC and since.

Fortunately, that aforementioned sworn testimony was sufficient to
convince Judge Elgin to at least entertain reconsidering her decision that
I have to sit8 for a deposition with Moglen. However, submitting the
official motion then required that I give even more
information about why the deposition with Moglen will be psychologically
harmful. In particular, I had little choice but to add a letter from my
(highly qualified) mental health provider speaking to the psychological
dangers that I would face if deposed by Moglen personally and/or in his
presence. I reluctantly asked my therapist
to provide
such a letter. It was really tough for me to publicly identify who my
therapist is, but it was, again, my best option out of that catch-22. I
admittedly didn’t anticipate that Moglen might use this knowledge as a
method to further his abuse against me publicly in his response filing.

As can be seen in Moglen’s response
filing, Moglen
directly attacks my therapist’s credentials — claiming she is not
credible nor qualified. Moglen’s argument is that because my therapist
is a licensed, AASECT-certified sex therapist, she is not qualified to
diagnose PTSD. Of course, Moglen’s argument is without merit: my
therapist’s sex therapy credentials are in addition to her many other
credentials and certifications — all of which is explained on her
website that Moglen admits in his filing he has reviewed.

As I mentioned, at one time, I foolishly and erroneously considered Moglen
a good friend. As such, I told Moglen a lot about my personal life,
including that I was omni/bisexual, and that I was (at the time) closeted. So,
Moglen already knows full well the reason that I would select a therapist
who held among her credentials a certification to give therapy relating to
sexuality. Moglen’s filing is, in my view, a veiled threat to me that he’s
going to disclose publicly what he knows about my sexuality as part of this
proceeding. So, I’ve decided — after much thought — that I
should simply disarm him on this and say it first: I have identified as
bisexual/omnisexual6 since 1993, but I have
never been “out” in my professional community — until
now. Moglen knows full well (because I told him on more than one occasion)
that I struggled with whether or not to come out for decades. Thus, I
chose a therapist who was both qualified to give treatment for PTSD as
well as for sexual orientation challenges because I’ve lived much of
my life with internalized shame about my sexual orientation. (I was (and
still am, a bit) afraid that it would hurt my career opportunities in the
FOSS community and technology generally if I came out; more on that below.)
I was still working through these issues with my therapist when all these
recent events occurred.

Despite the serious psychological abuse I’ve suffered from Moglen, until
this recent filing, I wouldn’t have imagined that Moglen would attempt to
use the secrecy about my LGBTQIA+ status as a way to further terrorize me.
All I can think to say to Moglen in response is to quote
what Joe Welch
said to Senator Joe McCarthy on 1954-06-09: “Have you no sense of
decency, sir — at long last? Have you left no sense of
decency?”.

It’s hard to express coherently the difficult realization of the stark
political reality of our world. There are people you might meet (and/or
work for) who, if they have a policy disagreement8 with you later, will use
every single fact about you to their advantage to prevail in that
disagreement. There is truly no reason that Moglen needed to draw
attention to the fact that I see a therapist who specializes (in part) in
issues with sexuality. The fact that he
goes
on to further claim that the mere fact that she has such certification
makes her unqualified to treat my other mental health illness —
some of which Moglen himself (in part) personally caused — is
unconscionable. I expect that even most of my worst political rivals who
work for proprietary software companies and violate copyleft licenses on a
daily basis would not stoop as low to what Moglen has in this
situation.

At this point, I really have no choice but to come out as
omnisexual7 — even though I
wasn’t really ready to do so. Moglen has insisted now that my therapy has
been brought up in the proceeding,
that he
has a legal right to force me to be evaluated by a therapist of his
choosing (as if I were a criminal
defendant). Moglen
has also indicated that, during my deposition, he will interrogate me about
my therapy and my reasons for choosing this particular therapist (see, for
example, footnote 2 on page 11 (PDF-Page 27) of Moglen’s declaration in support of the
motion). Now, even if the judge grants Conservancy’s motion
to exclude Moglen from my deposition, Moglen will instruct his attorneys to
ask me those questions about my therapy and my sexual orientation —
with the obvious goal of seeking to embarrass me by forcing me to reveal
such things publicly. Like those folks who sat before McCarthy in those
HUAC
hearings, I know
that none of my
secrets will survive Moglen’s deposition. By outing myself here first,
I am, at least, disarming Moglen from attempting to use my shame about my
sexual orientation against me.

Regarding LGBTQIA+ Acceptance and FOSS

I would like to leave Moglen and his abusive behavior there, and spend the
rest of this post talking about related issues of much greater importance.
First, I want to explain why it was so difficult for me to come out in my
professional community. Being somewhat older than most folks in FOSS
today, I really need to paint the picture of the USA when my career in
technology and FOSS got started. I was in my sophomore year of my Computer
Science undergraduate program when Clinton implemented
the Don’t
ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy for military in the USA. Now, as a
pacifist, I had no desire to join the military, but the DADT approach was
widely accepted in all areas of life.
The whole sarcastic “Not that there’s anything wrong with that
…” attitude (made famous contemporaneously to DADT on an
episode of the TV
show, Seinfeld) made it clear in culture that the world,
including those who ostensibly supported LGBTQIA+ rights, wanted queer
folks to remain, at best, “quiet and proud”, not “loud
and proud”. As a clincher, note that three years after DADT
was put in effect, overwhelming bipartisan support came forward for the
so-called
“Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA)”. An overwhelming majority of
everyone in Congress and the Presidency (regardless of party affiliation)
was in 1996 anti-LGBTQIA+. Folks who supported and voted yes for DOMA
include: Earl Blumenauer (still a senator from my current
state), Joe Biden (now POTUS (!)), Barbara Mikulski (a
senator until 2017 from my home state), and Chuck Schumer (still Senate
majority leader today). DADT didn’t end until 2011, and
while SCOTUS
ruled parts of DOMA unconstitutional in 2015,
Congress didn’t
actually repeal DOMA until last year! Hopefully, that gives a
clear sense of what the climate for LGBTQIA+ folks was like in the 1990s,
and why I felt was terrified to be outed — even as the 1990s became
the 2000s.

I also admit that my own shame about my sexual orientation grew as I got
older and began my professional career. I “pass” as straight
— particularly in our heteronormative culture that auto-casts
everyone as cishet until proven otherwise. It was just easier to not bring
it up. Why bother, I thought? It was off-topic (so I felt), and there
were plenty of people around the tech world in the 1990s and early 2000s
who were not particularly LGBTQIA+-friendly, or who feigned that they were
but were still “weird” about it.

I do think tech in general and FOSS in particular are much more
LGBTQIA+-friendly than they once were. However, there has been a huge
anti-LGBTQIA+ backlash in certain areas of the USA in recent years, so even
as I became more comfortable with the idea of being “out”, I
also felt (and do feel) that the world has recently gotten a lot more
dangerous for LGBTQIA+ folks. Folks like Moglen who wage “total
war” against their political opponents know this, and it is precisely
why they try to cast phrases like bisexual, gay, queer, and “sex
therapist” as salacious.

Also, PTSD has this way of making you believe you’re vulnerable in every
situation. When you’re suffering from the worst of PTSD’s symptoms, you
believe that you can never be safe anywhere — ever again. But,
logically I know that I’m safe being a queer person (at least in the small
FOSS world) — for two big reasons. First, the FOSS community of
today is (in most cases) very welcoming to LGBTQIA+ folks and most of the
cishet folks in FOSS identify as LGBTQIA+ allies. Second, I sheepishly
admit that as I’ve reached my 0x32’nd year of life this year, I have a 20+
year credentialed career that has left me in a position of authority and
privilege as a FOSS leader. I gain inherent safety from my position of
power in the community to just be who I am.

While this is absolutely not the manner and time in which I wanted to come
out, I’ll try to make some proverbial lemonade out of the lemons. By now
being out as LGBTQIA+ and already being a FOSS leader, I’d like to
offer to anyone who is new to FOSS and faces fear and worry about LGBTQIA+
issues in FOSS to contact me if they think I can help. I can’t promise to
write back to everyone, but I will do my very best to try to either help or
route you to someone else in FOSS who might be able to.

Also, I want to state something in direct contrast to Moglen’s claims that
the mere fact that a therapist who is qualified for treating people with
issues related to sexual orientation is ipso facto unqualified to treat any
other mental condition. I want to share publicly how valuable it has been
for me in finding a therapist who “gets it” with regard to
living queer in the world while also suffering from other conditions (such as PTSD).
So many LGBTQIA+ youth are bullied due to their orientation, and sustained
bullying commonly causes PTSD. I think we should all be so lucky to have a
mental health provider, as I do,
that
is extensively qualified to treat the whole person and not just a
single condition or issue. We should stand against people like Moglen who,
upon seeing that someone’s therapist specializes in helping people with
their sexual orientation, would use that fact as a way to shame both the
individual and the therapist. Doing that is wrong, and people who do that
are failing to create safe spaces for the LGBTQIA+ community.

I am aghast that Moglen is trying to shame me for seeking help from a
mental health provider who could help me overcome my internalized shame
regarding my sexual orientation. I also want people to know that I did not
feel safe as a queer person when I worked for Eben Moglen at SFLC. But I
also know Moglen doesn’t represent what our FOSS community and software
freedom is about. I felt I needed to make this post not only to disarm the
power Moglen held to “out me” before I was ready, but also to
warn others that, in my opinion, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) as an
organization that is not a safe space for LGBTQIA+ folks.
Finally, I do know that Moglen is also a tenured professor at Columbia Law
School. I have so often worried about his students — who may, as I
did, erroneously believe they can trust Moglen with private information as
important as their LGBTQIA+ status. I simply felt I couldn’t stay silent
about my experiences in good conscience any longer.

0, 4

A deposition is a form of testimony done during litigation before trial
begins. Each party in a legal dispute can subpoena witnesses. Rules vary
from venue to venue, but typically, a deposition is taken for eight hours,
and opposing attorneys can ask as many questions as they want —
including leading questions.

5In most
depositions, there is a time limit, but the scope of what questions
can be asked are not bounded. Somewhat strangely, one’s own lawyer
is not usually permitted to object on grounds of relevancy to the
case, so the questions can be as off-topic as the opposing counsel
wants.

3, 8 The
opposing attorney who asks the question is said to be “taking
the deposition”. The witness is said to be “sitting for
a deposition”. (IIUC, these are terms of art in
litigation).

1,
6,
7
From 1993-2018, I identified as “bisexual”. That term,
unfortunately, is, in my opinion, not friendly to non-binary people,
since the “bi” part (at least to me, I know others
disagree) assumes binary gender. The more common term used today is
“pansexual”, but, personally I prefer the term
“omnisexual” to “pansexual” for reasons that
are beyond the scope of this particular post. I am, however, not
offended if you use any of the three terms to refer to my sexual
orientation.

2Note, BTW: when
you read the docket, Judge Elgin (about 75% of the time) calls Karen
by the name “Ms. Bradley” (using my first name as if it
were Karen’s surname). It’s a bit confusing, so watch for it while
you’re reading so you don’t get confused.

8
Footnote added 2023-10-12, 19:00 US/Eastern: Since I
posted this about 30 hours ago, I’ve gotten so many statements of
support emailed to me that I can’t possibly respond to them all, but
I’ll try. Meanwhile, a few people have hinted at and/or outright
asked what policy disagreements Moglen actually has with me. I was
reluctant to answer because the point I’m making in this post is
that even if Moglen thought every last thing I’ve ever done
in my career was harmful policy-wise, it still would not
justify these abusive behaviors. Nevertheless, I admit that
if this post were made by someone else, I’d be curious about what the
policy disagreements were, so I decided to answer the question. I
think that my overarching policy disagreement with Eben Moglen is
with regard to how and when to engage in enforcement of the GPL and
other copyleft licenses through litigation. I think Moglen explains
this policy disagreement best
in his
talk that the Linux Foundation contemporaneously promoted (and
continues to regularly reference)
entitled “Whither (Not Wither) Copyleft”. In this
talk, Moglen states that I (among others) are “on a jihad for
free software” (his words, direct quote) because we continued
to pursue GPL enforcement through litigation. While I agree that
litigation
should still remain the last resort, I do think it remains a
necessary step often. Moglen argues that even though litigation was
needed in the past, it should never be used again for copyleft and
GPL enforcement. As Moglen outlines in his talk, he supports the
concept of “spontaneous compliance” — a system
whereby there is no regulatory regime and firms simply chose to
follow the rules of copyleft because it’s so obviously in their own
best interest. I’ve not seen this approach work in practice, which is
why I think we must still sometimes file GPL (and LGPL) lawsuits
— even today.
Moglen and I have plenty of other smaller policy disagreements: from
appropriate copyright assignment structures for FOSS, to finer points
of how GPLv3 should have been drafted, to tactics and strategy with
regard to copyleft advocacy, to how non-profits and charities should
be structured for the betterment of FOSS. However, I suspect all
these smaller policy disagreements stem from our fundamental policy
disagreement about GPL enforcement. However, I conclude by (a)
saying again no policy disagreement with anyone justifies
abusive behavior toward that person — not ever, and
(b) please do note the irony that, in that 2016-11-02 speech,
Moglen took the position that lawsuits should no longer be used to
settle disputes in FOSS, and yet — less than 10 months later
— Moglen
sued Conservancy (his former client) in the TTAB.

Eben Moglen & SFLC — abusive employer & LGBTQIA+ unfriendly

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2023/10/11/moglen-sflc.html

[ The below is a personal statement that I make on my own behalf. While
my statement’s release coincides with a release of an unrelated statement
on similar topics made
by my
employer, Software Freedom Conservancy, and
the Free
Software Foundation Europe, please keep in mind that this statement is
my own, personal opinion — written exclusively by me — and not
necessarily the opinion of either of those organizations. I did not consult
nor coordinate with either organization on this statement. ]

With great trepidation, I have decided to make this public statement
regarding the psychological abuse, including menacing, that I suffered,
perpetrated by Eben Moglen, both while I was employed at his Software
Freedom Law Center (SFLC) from 2005-2010, and in the years after he fired
me. No one revels in having psychological injuries and mistreatment
they’ve suffered paraded to the public. I’ll be frank that if it were not
for Moglen’s use of the USA Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) as a
method to perpetrate further abusive behavior, I wouldn’t have written this
post. Furthermore, sadly, Moglen has threatened in recent TTAB filings his
intention to use the proceeding to release personal details about my life
to the public (using the litigation itself as a lever). I have decided to
preemptively make public the facts herein first myself — so that I
can at least control the timing and framing of the information.

This post is long; the issues discussed in it are complicated, nuanced,
and cannot be summed up easily. Nevertheless, I’m realistic that most
people will stop reading soon, so I’ll summarize now as best I can in a few
sentences: I worked initially with, and then for, Eben Moglen for
nearly a decade — during which time he was psychologically abusive and
gaslighted me (under the guise of training and mentoring me). I thought
for many years that he was one of my best friends (— in retrospect, I
believe that he tricked me into believing that he was). As such, I shared
extremely personal details about myself to him — which he has used
both contemporaneously and in years hence to attempt to discredit me with
my colleagues and peers. Recently, Moglen declared his plans to use
current TTAB proceedings to force me to answer questions about my mental
health in
deposition0. Long
ago, I disclosed key personal information to Moglen, I therefore have a
pretty good idea of what his next move will be during that deposition
questioning. Specifically, I believe Moglen was hoping to out me as
omni/bisexual1 as part of my deposition
in this proceeding. As such, I’m outing myself here first (primarily) to
disarm his ability to use what he knows about my sexual orientation against
me. Since that last sentence makes me already out, Moglen will be unable
to use the biggest “secret” that Moglen “has on me”
in his future psychological and legal attacks.

I suspect some folks will stop reading here, but I really urge that you
keep reading this post, and also to read the unrelated statement made by
Conservancy
and FSFE.
The details are important and matter. I am admittedly embarrassed to talk
publicly about how Moglen exacerbated, expanded, and caused new symptoms of
my Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) — which I already suffered
from when I met him. But, I feel it is important to talk about these
issues publicly for many reasons — including that Moglen seeks to
expose these personal facts about me as an attempt to stigmatize what is
actually a positive thing: I seek ongoing treatment for my PTSD (which
Moglen himself, in part, caused) and to simultaneously process and reduce
my (painful and stubborn) internalized shame about my LGBTQIA+
status. (Like many proud LGBTQIA+ folks, I struggle with this because
living in a society unfriendly to LGBTQIA+ folks can lead to difficult
shame issues — this is a well-documented phenomena that LGBTQIA+
folks like myself suffer from.)

The primary recent catalyst for this situation is as follows: Moglen has
insisted that, as part of the
ongoing trademark
cancellation petition that SFLC filed against my employer, Software Freedom
Conservancy in
the TTAB,
that Moglen both personally be allowed to be present at, and to
actually take the depositions3 of me and
my colleague, Karen Sandler.

This kind of behavior is typical of how abusers use litigation to
perpetuate their abuse. The USA legal system is designed to give everyone
“their day in Court”. Frankly, many of the rules established
for Court proceedings did not contemplate that the process could be
manipulated by abusers, and it remains an open problem on how to repair the
rules that both preserve the egalitarian nature of our legal system, but
also does not make it easy for abusers to misuse those same rules.
Depositions, in particular, are a key tool in abusers’ arsenals.
Depositions allow Plaintiffs (in the TTAB, BTW, the Plaintiff is called
“the Petitioner”) to gather evidence. Generally speaking, most
Courts have no good default rules to prevent abusers from using these
depositions to get themselves in the room with their victims and harass
those victims further with off-topic haranguing. The only method (which is
quite clunky as a legal tool) to curtail the harassment somewhat is called
a protective order. However, Moglen has been smart enough to use
the very process of the protective order application to further perpetuate
abusive behavior.

To understand all this in context, I ask that you first
read Conservancy’s
public response to the initial filing of the trademark cancellation
proceeding (six years ago). In short, SFLC is seeking to
“cancel” the trademark on the name “Software Freedom
Conservancy”. Ostensibly, that’s all this case is (or, rather should
be) about.

The problem is that, upon reading
the docket in
detail, it’s easily seen that at nearly every step, Moglen has
attempted to use the proceeding as a method to harass and attack me and my
colleague, Karen Sandler — regarding issues wholly unrelated to the
trademarks. The recent arguments have been about our depositions4 —
mine and Karen’s2.

After some complex legal back-and-forth,
Judge Elgin
ordered that I was legally required to sit for a deposition with and by
Moglen. This is the point where a catch-22 began for me.

  • Option 0: Sit in a room for 8+ hours with a person who had spent
    years verbally abusing me and let him ask me any question he
    wants    5 —
    under penalty of perjury and contempt of Court if I refuse.
  • Option
    1: Give Conservancy’s lawyers permission to talk openly, in public
    documents, about the details of the abuse I suffered from Moglen and the
    psychological harm that it caused me (which is the necessary backup
    document for a protective order motion).

IOW, the only way to
get a protective order that would prevent me from being legally required to
suffer further psychological abuse from Moglen was to publicly talk about
the past abuse 😩. I reluctantly chose Option 1. I encourage you to read
in
full
my first sworn testimony on the issue. That document explains many of the
psychological abusive examples I suffered from Moglen — both as an
employee at SFLC and since.

Fortunately, that aforementioned sworn testimony was sufficient to
convince Judge Elgin to at least entertain reconsidering her decision that
I have to sit8 for a deposition with Moglen. However, submitting the
official motion then required that I give even more
information about why the deposition with Moglen will be psychologically
harmful. In particular, I had little choice but to add a letter from my
(highly qualified) mental health provider speaking to the psychological
dangers that I would face if deposed by Moglen personally and/or in his
presence. I reluctantly asked my therapist
to provide
such a letter. It was really tough for me to publicly identify who my
therapist is, but it was, again, my best option out of that catch-22. I
admittedly didn’t anticipate that Moglen might use this knowledge as a
method to further his abuse against me publicly in his response filing.

As can be seen in Moglen’s response
filing, Moglen
directly attacks my therapist’s credentials — claiming she is not
credible nor qualified. Moglen’s argument is that because my therapist
is a licensed, AASECT-certified sex therapist, she is not qualified to
diagnose PTSD. Of course, Moglen’s argument is without merit: my
therapist’s sex therapy credentials are in addition to her many other
credentials and certifications — all of which is explained on her
website that Moglen admits in his filing he has reviewed.

As I mentioned, at one time, I foolishly and erroneously considered Moglen
a good friend. As such, I told Moglen a lot about my personal life,
including that I was omni/bisexual, and that I was (at the time) closeted. So,
Moglen already knows full well the reason that I would select a therapist
who held among her credentials a certification to give therapy relating to
sexuality. Moglen’s filing is, in my view, a veiled threat to me that he’s
going to disclose publicly what he knows about my sexuality as part of this
proceeding. So, I’ve decided — after much thought — that I
should simply disarm him on this and say it first: I have identified as
bisexual/omnisexual6 since 1993, but I have
never been “out” in my professional community — until
now. Moglen knows full well (because I told him on more than one occasion)
that I struggled with whether or not to come out for decades. Thus, I
chose a therapist who was both qualified to give treatment for PTSD as
well as for sexual orientation challenges because I’ve lived much of
my life with internalized shame about my sexual orientation. (I was (and
still am, a bit) afraid that it would hurt my career opportunities in the
FOSS community and technology generally if I came out; more on that below.)
I was still working through these issues with my therapist when all these
recent events occurred.

Despite the serious psychological abuse I’ve suffered from Moglen, until
this recent filing, I wouldn’t have imagined that Moglen would attempt to
use the secrecy about my LGBTQIA+ status as a way to further terrorize me.
All I can think to say to Moglen in response is to quote
what Joe Welch
said to Senator Joe McCarthy on 1954-06-09: “Have you no sense of
decency, sir — at long last? Have you left no sense of
decency?”.

It’s hard to express coherently the difficult realization of the stark
political reality of our world. There are people you might meet (and/or
work for) who, if they have a policy disagreement8 with you later, will use
every single fact about you to their advantage to prevail in that
disagreement. There is truly no reason that Moglen needed to draw
attention to the fact that I see a therapist who specializes (in part) in
issues with sexuality. The fact that he
goes
on to further claim that the mere fact that she has such certification
makes her unqualified to treat my other mental health illness —
some of which Moglen himself (in part) personally caused — is
unconscionable. I expect that even most of my worst political rivals who
work for proprietary software companies and violate copyleft licenses on a
daily basis would not stoop as low to what Moglen has in this
situation.

At this point, I really have no choice but to come out as
omnisexual7 — even though I
wasn’t really ready to do so. Moglen has insisted now that my therapy has
been brought up in the proceeding,
that he
has a legal right to force me to be evaluated by a therapist of his
choosing (as if I were a criminal
defendant). Moglen
has also indicated that, during my deposition, he will interrogate me about
my therapy and my reasons for choosing this particular therapist (see, for
example, footnote 2 on page 11 (PDF-Page 27) of Moglen’s declaration in support of the
motion). Now, even if the judge grants Conservancy’s motion
to exclude Moglen from my deposition, Moglen will instruct his attorneys to
ask me those questions about my therapy and my sexual orientation —
with the obvious goal of seeking to embarrass me by forcing me to reveal
such things publicly. Like those folks who sat before McCarthy in those
HUAC
hearings, I know
that none of my
secrets will survive Moglen’s deposition. By outing myself here first,
I am, at least, disarming Moglen from attempting to use my shame about my
sexual orientation against me.

Regarding LGBTQIA+ Acceptance and FOSS

I would like to leave Moglen and his abusive behavior there, and spend the
rest of this post talking about related issues of much greater importance.
First, I want to explain why it was so difficult for me to come out in my
professional community. Being somewhat older than most folks in FOSS
today, I really need to paint the picture of the USA when my career in
technology and FOSS got started. I was in my sophomore year of my Computer
Science undergraduate program when Clinton implemented
the Don’t
ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy for military in the USA. Now, as a
pacifist, I had no desire to join the military, but the DADT approach was
widely accepted in all areas of life.
The whole sarcastic “Not that there’s anything wrong with that
…” attitude (made famous contemporaneously to DADT on an
episode of the TV
show, Seinfeld) made it clear in culture that the world,
including those who ostensibly supported LGBTQIA+ rights, wanted queer
folks to remain, at best, “quiet and proud”, not “loud
and proud”. As a clincher, note that three years after DADT
was put in effect, overwhelming bipartisan support came forward for the
so-called
“Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA)”. An overwhelming majority of
everyone in Congress and the Presidency (regardless of party affiliation)
was in 1996 anti-LGBTQIA+. Folks who supported and voted yes for DOMA
include: Earl Blumenauer (still a senator from my current
state), Joe Biden (now POTUS (!)), Barbara Mikulski (a
senator until 2017 from my home state), and Chuck Schumer (still Senate
majority leader today). DADT didn’t end until 2011, and
while SCOTUS
ruled parts of DOMA unconstitutional in 2015,
Congress didn’t
actually repeal DOMA until last year! Hopefully, that gives a
clear sense of what the climate for LGBTQIA+ folks was like in the 1990s,
and why I felt was terrified to be outed — even as the 1990s became
the 2000s.

I also admit that my own shame about my sexual orientation grew as I got
older and began my professional career. I “pass” as straight
— particularly in our heteronormative culture that auto-casts
everyone as cishet until proven otherwise. It was just easier to not bring
it up. Why bother, I thought? It was off-topic (so I felt), and there
were plenty of people around the tech world in the 1990s and early 2000s
who were not particularly LGBTQIA+-friendly, or who feigned that they were
but were still “weird” about it.

I do think tech in general and FOSS in particular are much more
LGBTQIA+-friendly than they once were. However, there has been a huge
anti-LGBTQIA+ backlash in certain areas of the USA in recent years, so even
as I became more comfortable with the idea of being “out”, I
also felt (and do feel) that the world has recently gotten a lot more
dangerous for LGBTQIA+ folks. Folks like Moglen who wage “total
war” against their political opponents know this, and it is precisely
why they try to cast phrases like bisexual, gay, queer, and “sex
therapist” as salacious.

Also, PTSD has this way of making you believe you’re vulnerable in every
situation. When you’re suffering from the worst of PTSD’s symptoms, you
believe that you can never be safe anywhere — ever again. But,
logically I know that I’m safe being a queer person (at least in the small
FOSS world) — for two big reasons. First, the FOSS community of
today is (in most cases) very welcoming to LGBTQIA+ folks and most of the
cishet folks in FOSS identify as LGBTQIA+ allies. Second, I sheepishly
admit that as I’ve reached my 0x32’nd year of life this year, I have a 20+
year credentialed career that has left me in a position of authority and
privilege as a FOSS leader. I gain inherent safety from my position of
power in the community to just be who I am.

While this is absolutely not the manner and time in which I wanted to come
out, I’ll try to make some proverbial lemonade out of the lemons. By now
being out as LGBTQIA+ and already being a FOSS leader, I’d like to
offer to anyone who is new to FOSS and faces fear and worry about LGBTQIA+
issues in FOSS to contact me if they think I can help. I can’t promise to
write back to everyone, but I will do my very best to try to either help or
route you to someone else in FOSS who might be able to.

Also, I want to state something in direct contrast to Moglen’s claims that
the mere fact that a therapist who is qualified for treating people with
issues related to sexual orientation is ipso facto unqualified to treat any
other mental condition. I want to share publicly how valuable it has been
for me in finding a therapist who “gets it” with regard to
living queer in the world while also suffering from other conditions (such as PTSD).
So many LGBTQIA+ youth are bullied due to their orientation, and sustained
bullying commonly causes PTSD. I think we should all be so lucky to have a
mental health provider, as I do,
that
is extensively qualified to treat the whole person and not just a
single condition or issue. We should stand against people like Moglen who,
upon seeing that someone’s therapist specializes in helping people with
their sexual orientation, would use that fact as a way to shame both the
individual and the therapist. Doing that is wrong, and people who do that
are failing to create safe spaces for the LGBTQIA+ community.

I am aghast that Moglen is trying to shame me for seeking help from a
mental health provider who could help me overcome my internalized shame
regarding my sexual orientation. I also want people to know that I did not
feel safe as a queer person when I worked for Eben Moglen at SFLC. But I
also know Moglen doesn’t represent what our FOSS community and software
freedom is about. I felt I needed to make this post not only to disarm the
power Moglen held to “out me” before I was ready, but also to
warn others that, in my opinion, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) as an
organization that is not a safe space for LGBTQIA+ folks.
Finally, I do know that Moglen is also a tenured professor at Columbia Law
School. I have so often worried about his students — who may, as I
did, erroneously believe they can trust Moglen with private information as
important as their LGBTQIA+ status. I simply felt I couldn’t stay silent
about my experiences in good conscience any longer.

0, 4

A deposition is a form of testimony done during litigation before trial
begins. Each party in a legal dispute can subpoena witnesses. Rules vary
from venue to venue, but typically, a deposition is taken for eight hours,
and opposing attorneys can ask as many questions as they want —
including leading questions.

5In most
depositions, there is a time limit, but the scope of what questions
can be asked are not bounded. Somewhat strangely, one’s own lawyer
is not usually permitted to object on grounds of relevancy to the
case, so the questions can be as off-topic as the opposing counsel
wants.

3, 8 The
opposing attorney who asks the question is said to be “taking
the deposition”. The witness is said to be “sitting for
a deposition”. (IIUC, these are terms of art in
litigation).

1,
6,
7
From 1993-2018, I identified as “bisexual”. That term,
unfortunately, is, in my opinion, not friendly to non-binary people,
since the “bi” part (at least to me, I know others
disagree) assumes binary gender. The more common term used today is
“pansexual”, but, personally I prefer the term
“omnisexual” to “pansexual” for reasons that
are beyond the scope of this particular post. I am, however, not
offended if you use any of the three terms to refer to my sexual
orientation.

2Note, BTW: when
you read the docket, Judge Elgin (about 75% of the time) calls Karen
by the name “Ms. Bradley” (using my first name as if it
were Karen’s surname). It’s a bit confusing, so watch for it while
you’re reading so you don’t get confused.

8
Footnote added 2023-10-12, 19:00 US/Eastern: Since I
posted this about 30 hours ago, I’ve gotten so many statements of
support emailed to me that I can’t possibly respond to them all, but
I’ll try. Meanwhile, a few people have hinted at and/or outright
asked what policy disagreements Moglen actually has with me. I was
reluctant to answer because the point I’m making in this post is
that even if Moglen thought every last thing I’ve ever done
in my career was harmful policy-wise, it still would not
justify these abusive behaviors. Nevertheless, I admit that
if this post were made by someone else, I’d be curious about what the
policy disagreements were, so I decided to answer the question. I
think that my overarching policy disagreement with Eben Moglen is
with regard to how and when to engage in enforcement of the GPL and
other copyleft licenses through litigation. I think Moglen explains
this policy disagreement best
in his
talk that the Linux Foundation contemporaneously promoted (and
continues to regularly reference)
entitled “Whither (Not Wither) Copyleft”. In this
talk, Moglen states that I (among others) are “on a jihad for
free software” (his words, direct quote) because we continued
to pursue GPL enforcement through litigation. While I agree that
litigation
should still remain the last resort, I do think it remains a
necessary step often. Moglen argues that even though litigation was
needed in the past, it should never be used again for copyleft and
GPL enforcement. As Moglen outlines in his talk, he supports the
concept of “spontaneous compliance” — a system
whereby there is no regulatory regime and firms simply chose to
follow the rules of copyleft because it’s so obviously in their own
best interest. I’ve not seen this approach work in practice, which is
why I think we must still sometimes file GPL (and LGPL) lawsuits
— even today.
Moglen and I have plenty of other smaller policy disagreements: from
appropriate copyright assignment structures for FOSS, to finer points
of how GPLv3 should have been drafted, to tactics and strategy with
regard to copyleft advocacy, to how non-profits and charities should
be structured for the betterment of FOSS. However, I suspect all
these smaller policy disagreements stem from our fundamental policy
disagreement about GPL enforcement. However, I conclude by (a)
saying again no policy disagreement with anyone justifies
abusive behavior toward that person — not ever, and
(b) please do note the irony that, in that 2016-11-02 speech,
Moglen took the position that lawsuits should no longer be used to
settle disputes in FOSS, and yet — less than 10 months later
— Moglen
sued Conservancy (his former client) in the TTAB.

Eben Moglen & SFLC — abusive employer & LGBTQIA+ unfriendly

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2023/10/11/moglen-sflc.html

[ The below is a personal statement that I make on my own behalf. While
my statement’s release coincides with a release of an unrelated statement
on similar topics made
by my
employer, Software Freedom Conservancy, and
the Free
Software Foundation Europe, please keep in mind that this statement is
my own, personal opinion — written exclusively by me — and not
necessarily the opinion of either of those organizations. I did not consult
nor coordinate with either organization on this statement. ]

With great trepidation, I have decided to make this public statement
regarding the psychological abuse, including menacing, that I suffered,
perpetrated by Eben Moglen, both while I was employed at his Software
Freedom Law Center (SFLC) from 2005-2010, and in the years after he fired
me. No one revels in having psychological injuries and mistreatment
they’ve suffered paraded to the public. I’ll be frank that if it were not
for Moglen’s use of the USA Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) as a
method to perpetrate further abusive behavior, I wouldn’t have written this
post. Furthermore, sadly, Moglen has threatened in recent TTAB filings his
intention to use the proceeding to release personal details about my life
to the public (using the litigation itself as a lever). I have decided to
preemptively make public the facts herein first myself — so that I
can at least control the timing and framing of the information.

This post is long; the issues discussed in it are complicated, nuanced,
and cannot be summed up easily. Nevertheless, I’m realistic that most
people will stop reading soon, so I’ll summarize now as best I can in a few
sentences: I worked initially with, and then for, Eben Moglen for
nearly a decade — during which time he was psychologically abusive and
gaslighted me (under the guise of training and mentoring me). I thought
for many years that he was one of my best friends (— in retrospect, I
believe that he tricked me into believing that he was). As such, I shared
extremely personal details about myself to him — which he has used
both contemporaneously and in years hence to attempt to discredit me with
my colleagues and peers. Recently, Moglen declared his plans to use
current TTAB proceedings to force me to answer questions about my mental
health in
deposition0. Long
ago, I disclosed key personal information to Moglen, I therefore have a
pretty good idea of what his next move will be during that deposition
questioning. Specifically, I believe Moglen was hoping to out me as
omni/bisexual1 as part of my deposition
in this proceeding. As such, I’m outing myself here first (primarily) to
disarm his ability to use what he knows about my sexual orientation against
me. Since that last sentence makes me already out, Moglen will be unable
to use the biggest “secret” that Moglen “has on me”
in his future psychological and legal attacks.

I suspect some folks will stop reading here, but I really urge that you
keep reading this post, and also to read the unrelated statement made by
Conservancy
and FSFE.
The details are important and matter. I am admittedly embarrassed to talk
publicly about how Moglen exacerbated, expanded, and caused new symptoms of
my Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) — which I already suffered
from when I met him. But, I feel it is important to talk about these
issues publicly for many reasons — including that Moglen seeks to
expose these personal facts about me as an attempt to stigmatize what is
actually a positive thing: I seek ongoing treatment for my PTSD (which
Moglen himself, in part, caused) and to simultaneously process and reduce
my (painful and stubborn) internalized shame about my LGBTQIA+
status. (Like many proud LGBTQIA+ folks, I struggle with this because
living in a society unfriendly to LGBTQIA+ folks can lead to difficult
shame issues — this is a well-documented phenomena that LGBTQIA+
folks like myself suffer from.)

The primary recent catalyst for this situation is as follows: Moglen has
insisted that, as part of the
ongoing trademark
cancellation petition that SFLC filed against my employer, Software Freedom
Conservancy in
the TTAB,
that Moglen both personally be allowed to be present at, and to
actually take the depositions3 of me and
my colleague, Karen Sandler.

This kind of behavior is typical of how abusers use litigation to
perpetuate their abuse. The USA legal system is designed to give everyone
“their day in Court”. Frankly, many of the rules established
for Court proceedings did not contemplate that the process could be
manipulated by abusers, and it remains an open problem on how to repair the
rules that both preserve the egalitarian nature of our legal system, but
also does not make it easy for abusers to misuse those same rules.
Depositions, in particular, are a key tool in abusers’ arsenals.
Depositions allow Plaintiffs (in the TTAB, BTW, the Plaintiff is called
“the Petitioner”) to gather evidence. Generally speaking, most
Courts have no good default rules to prevent abusers from using these
depositions to get themselves in the room with their victims and harass
those victims further with off-topic haranguing. The only method (which is
quite clunky as a legal tool) to curtail the harassment somewhat is called
a protective order. However, Moglen has been smart enough to use
the very process of the protective order application to further perpetuate
abusive behavior.

To understand all this in context, I ask that you first
read Conservancy’s
public response to the initial filing of the trademark cancellation
proceeding (six years ago). In short, SFLC is seeking to
“cancel” the trademark on the name “Software Freedom
Conservancy”. Ostensibly, that’s all this case is (or, rather should
be) about.

The problem is that, upon reading
the docket in
detail, it’s easily seen that at nearly every step, Moglen has
attempted to use the proceeding as a method to harass and attack me and my
colleague, Karen Sandler — regarding issues wholly unrelated to the
trademarks. The recent arguments have been about our depositions4 —
mine and Karen’s2.

After some complex legal back-and-forth,
Judge Elgin
ordered that I was legally required to sit for a deposition with and by
Moglen. This is the point where a catch-22 began for me.

  • Option 0: Sit in a room for 8+ hours with a person who had spent
    years verbally abusing me and let him ask me any question he
    wants    5 —
    under penalty of perjury and contempt of Court if I refuse.
  • Option
    1: Give Conservancy’s lawyers permission to talk openly, in public
    documents, about the details of the abuse I suffered from Moglen and the
    psychological harm that it caused me (which is the necessary backup
    document for a protective order motion).

IOW, the only way to
get a protective order that would prevent me from being legally required to
suffer further psychological abuse from Moglen was to publicly talk about
the past abuse 😩. I reluctantly chose Option 1. I encourage you to read
in
full
my first sworn testimony on the issue. That document explains many of the
psychological abusive examples I suffered from Moglen — both as an
employee at SFLC and since.

Fortunately, that aforementioned sworn testimony was sufficient to
convince Judge Elgin to at least entertain reconsidering her decision that
I have to sit8 for a deposition with Moglen. However, submitting the
official motion then required that I give even more
information about why the deposition with Moglen will be psychologically
harmful. In particular, I had little choice but to add a letter from my
(highly qualified) mental health provider speaking to the psychological
dangers that I would face if deposed by Moglen personally and/or in his
presence. I reluctantly asked my therapist
to provide
such a letter. It was really tough for me to publicly identify who my
therapist is, but it was, again, my best option out of that catch-22. I
admittedly didn’t anticipate that Moglen might use this knowledge as a
method to further his abuse against me publicly in his response filing.

As can be seen in Moglen’s response
filing, Moglen
directly attacks my therapist’s credentials — claiming she is not
credible nor qualified. Moglen’s argument is that because my therapist
is a licensed, AASECT-certified sex therapist, she is not qualified to
diagnose PTSD. Of course, Moglen’s argument is without merit: my
therapist’s sex therapy credentials are in addition to her many other
credentials and certifications — all of which is explained on her
website that Moglen admits in his filing he has reviewed.

As I mentioned, at one time, I foolishly and erroneously considered Moglen
a good friend. As such, I told Moglen a lot about my personal life,
including that I was omni/bisexual, and that I was (at the time) closeted. So,
Moglen already knows full well the reason that I would select a therapist
who held among her credentials a certification to give therapy relating to
sexuality. Moglen’s filing is, in my view, a veiled threat to me that he’s
going to disclose publicly what he knows about my sexuality as part of this
proceeding. So, I’ve decided — after much thought — that I
should simply disarm him on this and say it first: I have identified as
bisexual/omnisexual6 since 1993, but I have
never been “out” in my professional community — until
now. Moglen knows full well (because I told him on more than one occasion)
that I struggled with whether or not to come out for decades. Thus, I
chose a therapist who was both qualified to give treatment for PTSD as
well as for sexual orientation challenges because I’ve lived much of
my life with internalized shame about my sexual orientation. (I was (and
still am, a bit) afraid that it would hurt my career opportunities in the
FOSS community and technology generally if I came out; more on that below.)
I was still working through these issues with my therapist when all these
recent events occurred.

Despite the serious psychological abuse I’ve suffered from Moglen, until
this recent filing, I wouldn’t have imagined that Moglen would attempt to
use the secrecy about my LGBTQIA+ status as a way to further terrorize me.
All I can think to say to Moglen in response is to quote
what Joe Welch
said to Senator Joe McCarthy on 1954-06-09: “Have you no sense of
decency, sir — at long last? Have you left no sense of
decency?”.

It’s hard to express coherently the difficult realization of the stark
political reality of our world. There are people you might meet (and/or
work for) who, if they have a policy disagreement8 with you later, will use
every single fact about you to their advantage to prevail in that
disagreement. There is truly no reason that Moglen needed to draw
attention to the fact that I see a therapist who specializes (in part) in
issues with sexuality. The fact that he
goes
on to further claim that the mere fact that she has such certification
makes her unqualified to treat my other mental health illness —
some of which Moglen himself (in part) personally caused — is
unconscionable. I expect that even most of my worst political rivals who
work for proprietary software companies and violate copyleft licenses on a
daily basis would not stoop as low to what Moglen has in this
situation.

At this point, I really have no choice but to come out as
omnisexual7 — even though I
wasn’t really ready to do so. Moglen has insisted now that my therapy has
been brought up in the proceeding,
that he
has a legal right to force me to be evaluated by a therapist of his
choosing (as if I were a criminal
defendant). Moglen
has also indicated that, during my deposition, he will interrogate me about
my therapy and my reasons for choosing this particular therapist (see, for
example, footnote 2 on page 11 (PDF-Page 27) of Moglen’s declaration in support of the
motion). Now, even if the judge grants Conservancy’s motion
to exclude Moglen from my deposition, Moglen will instruct his attorneys to
ask me those questions about my therapy and my sexual orientation —
with the obvious goal of seeking to embarrass me by forcing me to reveal
such things publicly. Like those folks who sat before McCarthy in those
HUAC
hearings, I know
that none of my
secrets will survive Moglen’s deposition. By outing myself here first,
I am, at least, disarming Moglen from attempting to use my shame about my
sexual orientation against me.

Regarding LGBTQIA+ Acceptance and FOSS

I would like to leave Moglen and his abusive behavior there, and spend the
rest of this post talking about related issues of much greater importance.
First, I want to explain why it was so difficult for me to come out in my
professional community. Being somewhat older than most folks in FOSS
today, I really need to paint the picture of the USA when my career in
technology and FOSS got started. I was in my sophomore year of my Computer
Science undergraduate program when Clinton implemented
the Don’t
ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy for military in the USA. Now, as a
pacifist, I had no desire to join the military, but the DADT approach was
widely accepted in all areas of life.
The whole sarcastic “Not that there’s anything wrong with that
…” attitude (made famous contemporaneously to DADT on an
episode of the TV
show, Seinfeld) made it clear in culture that the world,
including those who ostensibly supported LGBTQIA+ rights, wanted queer
folks to remain, at best, “quiet and proud”, not “loud
and proud”. As a clincher, note that three years after DADT
was put in effect, overwhelming bipartisan support came forward for the
so-called
“Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA)”. An overwhelming majority of
everyone in Congress and the Presidency (regardless of party affiliation)
was in 1996 anti-LGBTQIA+. Folks who supported and voted yes for DOMA
include: Earl Blumenauer (still a senator from my current
state), Joe Biden (now POTUS (!)), Barbara Mikulski (a
senator until 2017 from my home state), and Chuck Schumer (still Senate
majority leader today). DADT didn’t end until 2011, and
while SCOTUS
ruled parts of DOMA unconstitutional in 2015,
Congress didn’t
actually repeal DOMA until last year! Hopefully, that gives a
clear sense of what the climate for LGBTQIA+ folks was like in the 1990s,
and why I felt was terrified to be outed — even as the 1990s became
the 2000s.

I also admit that my own shame about my sexual orientation grew as I got
older and began my professional career. I “pass” as straight
— particularly in our heteronormative culture that auto-casts
everyone as cishet until proven otherwise. It was just easier to not bring
it up. Why bother, I thought? It was off-topic (so I felt), and there
were plenty of people around the tech world in the 1990s and early 2000s
who were not particularly LGBTQIA+-friendly, or who feigned that they were
but were still “weird” about it.

I do think tech in general and FOSS in particular are much more
LGBTQIA+-friendly than they once were. However, there has been a huge
anti-LGBTQIA+ backlash in certain areas of the USA in recent years, so even
as I became more comfortable with the idea of being “out”, I
also felt (and do feel) that the world has recently gotten a lot more
dangerous for LGBTQIA+ folks. Folks like Moglen who wage “total
war” against their political opponents know this, and it is precisely
why they try to cast phrases like bisexual, gay, queer, and “sex
therapist” as salacious.

Also, PTSD has this way of making you believe you’re vulnerable in every
situation. When you’re suffering from the worst of PTSD’s symptoms, you
believe that you can never be safe anywhere — ever again. But,
logically I know that I’m safe being a queer person (at least in the small
FOSS world) — for two big reasons. First, the FOSS community of
today is (in most cases) very welcoming to LGBTQIA+ folks and most of the
cishet folks in FOSS identify as LGBTQIA+ allies. Second, I sheepishly
admit that as I’ve reached my 0x32’nd year of life this year, I have a 20+
year credentialed career that has left me in a position of authority and
privilege as a FOSS leader. I gain inherent safety from my position of
power in the community to just be who I am.

While this is absolutely not the manner and time in which I wanted to come
out, I’ll try to make some proverbial lemonade out of the lemons. By now
being out as LGBTQIA+ and already being a FOSS leader, I’d like to
offer to anyone who is new to FOSS and faces fear and worry about LGBTQIA+
issues in FOSS to contact me if they think I can help. I can’t promise to
write back to everyone, but I will do my very best to try to either help or
route you to someone else in FOSS who might be able to.

Also, I want to state something in direct contrast to Moglen’s claims that
the mere fact that a therapist who is qualified for treating people with
issues related to sexual orientation is ipso facto unqualified to treat any
other mental condition. I want to share publicly how valuable it has been
for me in finding a therapist who “gets it” with regard to
living queer in the world while also suffering from other conditions (such as PTSD).
So many LGBTQIA+ youth are bullied due to their orientation, and sustained
bullying commonly causes PTSD. I think we should all be so lucky to have a
mental health provider, as I do,
that
is extensively qualified to treat the whole person and not just a
single condition or issue. We should stand against people like Moglen who,
upon seeing that someone’s therapist specializes in helping people with
their sexual orientation, would use that fact as a way to shame both the
individual and the therapist. Doing that is wrong, and people who do that
are failing to create safe spaces for the LGBTQIA+ community.

I am aghast that Moglen is trying to shame me for seeking help from a
mental health provider who could help me overcome my internalized shame
regarding my sexual orientation. I also want people to know that I did not
feel safe as a queer person when I worked for Eben Moglen at SFLC. But I
also know Moglen doesn’t represent what our FOSS community and software
freedom is about. I felt I needed to make this post not only to disarm the
power Moglen held to “out me” before I was ready, but also to
warn others that, in my opinion, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) as an
organization that is not a safe space for LGBTQIA+ folks.
Finally, I do know that Moglen is also a tenured professor at Columbia Law
School. I have so often worried about his students — who may, as I
did, erroneously believe they can trust Moglen with private information as
important as their LGBTQIA+ status. I simply felt I couldn’t stay silent
about my experiences in good conscience any longer.

0, 4

A deposition is a form of testimony done during litigation before trial
begins. Each party in a legal dispute can subpoena witnesses. Rules vary
from venue to venue, but typically, a deposition is taken for eight hours,
and opposing attorneys can ask as many questions as they want —
including leading questions.

5In most
depositions, there is a time limit, but the scope of what questions
can be asked are not bounded. Somewhat strangely, one’s own lawyer
is not usually permitted to object on grounds of relevancy to the
case, so the questions can be as off-topic as the opposing counsel
wants.

3, 8 The
opposing attorney who asks the question is said to be “taking
the deposition”. The witness is said to be “sitting for
a deposition”. (IIUC, these are terms of art in
litigation).

1,
6,
7
From 1993-2018, I identified as “bisexual”. That term,
unfortunately, is, in my opinion, not friendly to non-binary people,
since the “bi” part (at least to me, I know others
disagree) assumes binary gender. The more common term used today is
“pansexual”, but, personally I prefer the term
“omnisexual” to “pansexual” for reasons that
are beyond the scope of this particular post. I am, however, not
offended if you use any of the three terms to refer to my sexual
orientation.

2Note, BTW: when
you read the docket, Judge Elgin (about 75% of the time) calls Karen
by the name “Ms. Bradley” (using my first name as if it
were Karen’s surname). It’s a bit confusing, so watch for it while
you’re reading so you don’t get confused.

8
Footnote added 2023-10-12, 19:00 US/Eastern: Since I
posted this about 30 hours ago, I’ve gotten so many statements of
support emailed to me that I can’t possibly respond to them all, but
I’ll try. Meanwhile, a few people have hinted at and/or outright
asked what policy disagreements Moglen actually has with me. I was
reluctant to answer because the point I’m making in this post is
that even if Moglen thought every last thing I’ve ever done
in my career was harmful policy-wise, it still would not
justify these abusive behaviors. Nevertheless, I admit that
if this post were made by someone else, I’d be curious about what the
policy disagreements were, so I decided to answer the question. I
think that my overarching policy disagreement with Eben Moglen is
with regard to how and when to engage in enforcement of the GPL and
other copyleft licenses through litigation. I think Moglen explains
this policy disagreement best
in his
talk that the Linux Foundation contemporaneously promoted (and
continues to regularly reference)
entitled “Whither (Not Wither) Copyleft”. In this
talk, Moglen states that I (among others) are “on a jihad for
free software” (his words, direct quote) because we continued
to pursue GPL enforcement through litigation. While I agree that
litigation
should still remain the last resort, I do think it remains a
necessary step often. Moglen argues that even though litigation was
needed in the past, it should never be used again for copyleft and
GPL enforcement. As Moglen outlines in his talk, he supports the
concept of “spontaneous compliance” — a system
whereby there is no regulatory regime and firms simply chose to
follow the rules of copyleft because it’s so obviously in their own
best interest. I’ve not seen this approach work in practice, which is
why I think we must still sometimes file GPL (and LGPL) lawsuits
— even today.
Moglen and I have plenty of other smaller policy disagreements: from
appropriate copyright assignment structures for FOSS, to finer points
of how GPLv3 should have been drafted, to tactics and strategy with
regard to copyleft advocacy, to how non-profits and charities should
be structured for the betterment of FOSS. However, I suspect all
these smaller policy disagreements stem from our fundamental policy
disagreement about GPL enforcement. However, I conclude by (a)
saying again no policy disagreement with anyone justifies
abusive behavior toward that person — not ever, and
(b) please do note the irony that, in that 2016-11-02 speech,
Moglen took the position that lawsuits should no longer be used to
settle disputes in FOSS, and yet — less than 10 months later
— Moglen
sued Conservancy (his former client) in the TTAB.

Eben Moglen & SFLC — abusive employer & LGBTQIA+ unfriendly

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2023/10/11/moglen-sflc.html

[ The below is a personal statement that I make on my own behalf. While
my statement’s release coincides with a release of an unrelated statement
on similar topics made
by my
employer, Software Freedom Conservancy, and
the Free
Software Foundation Europe, please keep in mind that this statement is
my own, personal opinion — written exclusively by me — and not
necessarily the opinion of either of those organizations. I did not consult
nor coordinate with either organization on this statement. ]

With great trepidation, I have decided to make this public statement
regarding the psychological abuse, including menacing, that I suffered,
perpetrated by Eben Moglen, both while I was employed at his Software
Freedom Law Center (SFLC) from 2005-2010, and in the years after he fired
me. No one revels in having psychological injuries and mistreatment
they’ve suffered paraded to the public. I’ll be frank that if it were not
for Moglen’s use of the USA Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) as a
method to perpetrate further abusive behavior, I wouldn’t have written this
post. Furthermore, sadly, Moglen has threatened in recent TTAB filings his
intention to use the proceeding to release personal details about my life
to the public (using the litigation itself as a lever). I have decided to
preemptively make public the facts herein first myself — so that I
can at least control the timing and framing of the information.

This post is long; the issues discussed in it are complicated, nuanced,
and cannot be summed up easily. Nevertheless, I’m realistic that most
people will stop reading soon, so I’ll summarize now as best I can in a few
sentences: I worked initially with, and then for, Eben Moglen for
nearly a decade — during which time he was psychologically abusive and
gaslighted me (under the guise of training and mentoring me). I thought
for many years that he was one of my best friends (— in retrospect, I
believe that he tricked me into believing that he was). As such, I shared
extremely personal details about myself to him — which he has used
both contemporaneously and in years hence to attempt to discredit me with
my colleagues and peers. Recently, Moglen declared his plans to use
current TTAB proceedings to force me to answer questions about my mental
health in
deposition0. Long
ago, I disclosed key personal information to Moglen, I therefore have a
pretty good idea of what his next move will be during that deposition
questioning. Specifically, I believe Moglen was hoping to out me as
omni/bisexual1 as part of my deposition
in this proceeding. As such, I’m outing myself here first (primarily) to
disarm his ability to use what he knows about my sexual orientation against
me. Since that last sentence makes me already out, Moglen will be unable
to use the biggest “secret” that Moglen “has on me”
in his future psychological and legal attacks.

I suspect some folks will stop reading here, but I really urge that you
keep reading this post, and also to read the unrelated statement made by
Conservancy
and FSFE.
The details are important and matter. I am admittedly embarrassed to talk
publicly about how Moglen exacerbated, expanded, and caused new symptoms of
my Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) — which I already suffered
from when I met him. But, I feel it is important to talk about these
issues publicly for many reasons — including that Moglen seeks to
expose these personal facts about me as an attempt to stigmatize what is
actually a positive thing: I seek ongoing treatment for my PTSD (which
Moglen himself, in part, caused) and to simultaneously process and reduce
my (painful and stubborn) internalized shame about my LGBTQIA+
status. (Like many proud LGBTQIA+ folks, I struggle with this because
living in a society unfriendly to LGBTQIA+ folks can lead to difficult
shame issues — this is a well-documented phenomena that LGBTQIA+
folks like myself suffer from.)

The primary recent catalyst for this situation is as follows: Moglen has
insisted that, as part of the
ongoing trademark
cancellation petition that SFLC filed against my employer, Software Freedom
Conservancy in
the TTAB,
that Moglen both personally be allowed to be present at, and to
actually take the depositions3 of me and
my colleague, Karen Sandler.

This kind of behavior is typical of how abusers use litigation to
perpetuate their abuse. The USA legal system is designed to give everyone
“their day in Court”. Frankly, many of the rules established
for Court proceedings did not contemplate that the process could be
manipulated by abusers, and it remains an open problem on how to repair the
rules that both preserve the egalitarian nature of our legal system, but
also does not make it easy for abusers to misuse those same rules.
Depositions, in particular, are a key tool in abusers’ arsenals.
Depositions allow Plaintiffs (in the TTAB, BTW, the Plaintiff is called
“the Petitioner”) to gather evidence. Generally speaking, most
Courts have no good default rules to prevent abusers from using these
depositions to get themselves in the room with their victims and harass
those victims further with off-topic haranguing. The only method (which is
quite clunky as a legal tool) to curtail the harassment somewhat is called
a protective order. However, Moglen has been smart enough to use
the very process of the protective order application to further perpetuate
abusive behavior.

To understand all this in context, I ask that you first
read Conservancy’s
public response to the initial filing of the trademark cancellation
proceeding (six years ago). In short, SFLC is seeking to
“cancel” the trademark on the name “Software Freedom
Conservancy”. Ostensibly, that’s all this case is (or, rather should
be) about.

The problem is that, upon reading
the docket in
detail, it’s easily seen that at nearly every step, Moglen has
attempted to use the proceeding as a method to harass and attack me and my
colleague, Karen Sandler — regarding issues wholly unrelated to the
trademarks. The recent arguments have been about our depositions4 —
mine and Karen’s2.

After some complex legal back-and-forth,
Judge Elgin
ordered that I was legally required to sit for a deposition with and by
Moglen. This is the point where a catch-22 began for me.

  • Option 0: Sit in a room for 8+ hours with a person who had spent
    years verbally abusing me and let him ask me any question he
    wants    5 —
    under penalty of perjury and contempt of Court if I refuse.
  • Option
    1: Give Conservancy’s lawyers permission to talk openly, in public
    documents, about the details of the abuse I suffered from Moglen and the
    psychological harm that it caused me (which is the necessary backup
    document for a protective order motion).

IOW, the only way to
get a protective order that would prevent me from being legally required to
suffer further psychological abuse from Moglen was to publicly talk about
the past abuse 😩. I reluctantly chose Option 1. I encourage you to read
in
full
my first sworn testimony on the issue. That document explains many of the
psychological abusive examples I suffered from Moglen — both as an
employee at SFLC and since.

Fortunately, that aforementioned sworn testimony was sufficient to
convince Judge Elgin to at least entertain reconsidering her decision that
I have to sit8 for a deposition with Moglen. However, submitting the
official motion then required that I give even more
information about why the deposition with Moglen will be psychologically
harmful. In particular, I had little choice but to add a letter from my
(highly qualified) mental health provider speaking to the psychological
dangers that I would face if deposed by Moglen personally and/or in his
presence. I reluctantly asked my therapist
to provide
such a letter. It was really tough for me to publicly identify who my
therapist is, but it was, again, my best option out of that catch-22. I
admittedly didn’t anticipate that Moglen might use this knowledge as a
method to further his abuse against me publicly in his response filing.

As can be seen in Moglen’s response
filing, Moglen
directly attacks my therapist’s credentials — claiming she is not
credible nor qualified. Moglen’s argument is that because my therapist
is a licensed, AASECT-certified sex therapist, she is not qualified to
diagnose PTSD. Of course, Moglen’s argument is without merit: my
therapist’s sex therapy credentials are in addition to her many other
credentials and certifications — all of which is explained on her
website that Moglen admits in his filing he has reviewed.

As I mentioned, at one time, I foolishly and erroneously considered Moglen
a good friend. As such, I told Moglen a lot about my personal life,
including that I was omni/bisexual, and that I was (at the time) closeted. So,
Moglen already knows full well the reason that I would select a therapist
who held among her credentials a certification to give therapy relating to
sexuality. Moglen’s filing is, in my view, a veiled threat to me that he’s
going to disclose publicly what he knows about my sexuality as part of this
proceeding. So, I’ve decided — after much thought — that I
should simply disarm him on this and say it first: I have identified as
bisexual/omnisexual6 since 1993, but I have
never been “out” in my professional community — until
now. Moglen knows full well (because I told him on more than one occasion)
that I struggled with whether or not to come out for decades. Thus, I
chose a therapist who was both qualified to give treatment for PTSD as
well as for sexual orientation challenges because I’ve lived much of
my life with internalized shame about my sexual orientation. (I was (and
still am, a bit) afraid that it would hurt my career opportunities in the
FOSS community and technology generally if I came out; more on that below.)
I was still working through these issues with my therapist when all these
recent events occurred.

Despite the serious psychological abuse I’ve suffered from Moglen, until
this recent filing, I wouldn’t have imagined that Moglen would attempt to
use the secrecy about my LGBTQIA+ status as a way to further terrorize me.
All I can think to say to Moglen in response is to quote
what Joe Welch
said to Senator Joe McCarthy on 1954-06-09: “Have you no sense of
decency, sir — at long last? Have you left no sense of
decency?”.

It’s hard to express coherently the difficult realization of the stark
political reality of our world. There are people you might meet (and/or
work for) who, if they have a policy disagreement8 with you later, will use
every single fact about you to their advantage to prevail in that
disagreement. There is truly no reason that Moglen needed to draw
attention to the fact that I see a therapist who specializes (in part) in
issues with sexuality. The fact that he
goes
on to further claim that the mere fact that she has such certification
makes her unqualified to treat my other mental health illness —
some of which Moglen himself (in part) personally caused — is
unconscionable. I expect that even most of my worst political rivals who
work for proprietary software companies and violate copyleft licenses on a
daily basis would not stoop as low to what Moglen has in this
situation.

At this point, I really have no choice but to come out as
omnisexual7 — even though I
wasn’t really ready to do so. Moglen has insisted now that my therapy has
been brought up in the proceeding,
that he
has a legal right to force me to be evaluated by a therapist of his
choosing (as if I were a criminal
defendant). Moglen
has also indicated that, during my deposition, he will interrogate me about
my therapy and my reasons for choosing this particular therapist (see, for
example, footnote 2 on page 11 (PDF-Page 27) of Moglen’s declaration in support of the
motion). Now, even if the judge grants Conservancy’s motion
to exclude Moglen from my deposition, Moglen will instruct his attorneys to
ask me those questions about my therapy and my sexual orientation —
with the obvious goal of seeking to embarrass me by forcing me to reveal
such things publicly. Like those folks who sat before McCarthy in those
HUAC
hearings, I know
that none of my
secrets will survive Moglen’s deposition. By outing myself here first,
I am, at least, disarming Moglen from attempting to use my shame about my
sexual orientation against me.

Regarding LGBTQIA+ Acceptance and FOSS

I would like to leave Moglen and his abusive behavior there, and spend the
rest of this post talking about related issues of much greater importance.
First, I want to explain why it was so difficult for me to come out in my
professional community. Being somewhat older than most folks in FOSS
today, I really need to paint the picture of the USA when my career in
technology and FOSS got started. I was in my sophomore year of my Computer
Science undergraduate program when Clinton implemented
the Don’t
ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy for military in the USA. Now, as a
pacifist, I had no desire to join the military, but the DADT approach was
widely accepted in all areas of life.
The whole sarcastic “Not that there’s anything wrong with that
…” attitude (made famous contemporaneously to DADT on an
episode of the TV
show, Seinfeld) made it clear in culture that the world,
including those who ostensibly supported LGBTQIA+ rights, wanted queer
folks to remain, at best, “quiet and proud”, not “loud
and proud”. As a clincher, note that three years after DADT
was put in effect, overwhelming bipartisan support came forward for the
so-called
“Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA)”. An overwhelming majority of
everyone in Congress and the Presidency (regardless of party affiliation)
was in 1996 anti-LGBTQIA+. Folks who supported and voted yes for DOMA
include: Earl Blumenauer (still a senator from my current
state), Joe Biden (now POTUS (!)), Barbara Mikulski (a
senator until 2017 from my home state), and Chuck Schumer (still Senate
majority leader today). DADT didn’t end until 2011, and
while SCOTUS
ruled parts of DOMA unconstitutional in 2015,
Congress didn’t
actually repeal DOMA until last year! Hopefully, that gives a
clear sense of what the climate for LGBTQIA+ folks was like in the 1990s,
and why I felt was terrified to be outed — even as the 1990s became
the 2000s.

I also admit that my own shame about my sexual orientation grew as I got
older and began my professional career. I “pass” as straight
— particularly in our heteronormative culture that auto-casts
everyone as cishet until proven otherwise. It was just easier to not bring
it up. Why bother, I thought? It was off-topic (so I felt), and there
were plenty of people around the tech world in the 1990s and early 2000s
who were not particularly LGBTQIA+-friendly, or who feigned that they were
but were still “weird” about it.

I do think tech in general and FOSS in particular are much more
LGBTQIA+-friendly than they once were. However, there has been a huge
anti-LGBTQIA+ backlash in certain areas of the USA in recent years, so even
as I became more comfortable with the idea of being “out”, I
also felt (and do feel) that the world has recently gotten a lot more
dangerous for LGBTQIA+ folks. Folks like Moglen who wage “total
war” against their political opponents know this, and it is precisely
why they try to cast phrases like bisexual, gay, queer, and “sex
therapist” as salacious.

Also, PTSD has this way of making you believe you’re vulnerable in every
situation. When you’re suffering from the worst of PTSD’s symptoms, you
believe that you can never be safe anywhere — ever again. But,
logically I know that I’m safe being a queer person (at least in the small
FOSS world) — for two big reasons. First, the FOSS community of
today is (in most cases) very welcoming to LGBTQIA+ folks and most of the
cishet folks in FOSS identify as LGBTQIA+ allies. Second, I sheepishly
admit that as I’ve reached my 0x32’nd year of life this year, I have a 20+
year credentialed career that has left me in a position of authority and
privilege as a FOSS leader. I gain inherent safety from my position of
power in the community to just be who I am.

While this is absolutely not the manner and time in which I wanted to come
out, I’ll try to make some proverbial lemonade out of the lemons. By now
being out as LGBTQIA+ and already being a FOSS leader, I’d like to
offer to anyone who is new to FOSS and faces fear and worry about LGBTQIA+
issues in FOSS to contact me if they think I can help. I can’t promise to
write back to everyone, but I will do my very best to try to either help or
route you to someone else in FOSS who might be able to.

Also, I want to state something in direct contrast to Moglen’s claims that
the mere fact that a therapist who is qualified for treating people with
issues related to sexual orientation is ipso facto unqualified to treat any
other mental condition. I want to share publicly how valuable it has been
for me in finding a therapist who “gets it” with regard to
living queer in the world while also suffering from other conditions (such as PTSD).
So many LGBTQIA+ youth are bullied due to their orientation, and sustained
bullying commonly causes PTSD. I think we should all be so lucky to have a
mental health provider, as I do,
that
is extensively qualified to treat the whole person and not just a
single condition or issue. We should stand against people like Moglen who,
upon seeing that someone’s therapist specializes in helping people with
their sexual orientation, would use that fact as a way to shame both the
individual and the therapist. Doing that is wrong, and people who do that
are failing to create safe spaces for the LGBTQIA+ community.

I am aghast that Moglen is trying to shame me for seeking help from a
mental health provider who could help me overcome my internalized shame
regarding my sexual orientation. I also want people to know that I did not
feel safe as a queer person when I worked for Eben Moglen at SFLC. But I
also know Moglen doesn’t represent what our FOSS community and software
freedom is about. I felt I needed to make this post not only to disarm the
power Moglen held to “out me” before I was ready, but also to
warn others that, in my opinion, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) as an
organization that is not a safe space for LGBTQIA+ folks.
Finally, I do know that Moglen is also a tenured professor at Columbia Law
School. I have so often worried about his students — who may, as I
did, erroneously believe they can trust Moglen with private information as
important as their LGBTQIA+ status. I simply felt I couldn’t stay silent
about my experiences in good conscience any longer.

0, 4

A deposition is a form of testimony done during litigation before trial
begins. Each party in a legal dispute can subpoena witnesses. Rules vary
from venue to venue, but typically, a deposition is taken for eight hours,
and opposing attorneys can ask as many questions as they want —
including leading questions.

5In most
depositions, there is a time limit, but the scope of what questions
can be asked are not bounded. Somewhat strangely, one’s own lawyer
is not usually permitted to object on grounds of relevancy to the
case, so the questions can be as off-topic as the opposing counsel
wants.

3, 8 The
opposing attorney who asks the question is said to be “taking
the deposition”. The witness is said to be “sitting for
a deposition”. (IIUC, these are terms of art in
litigation).

1,
6,
7
From 1993-2018, I identified as “bisexual”. That term,
unfortunately, is, in my opinion, not friendly to non-binary people,
since the “bi” part (at least to me, I know others
disagree) assumes binary gender. The more common term used today is
“pansexual”, but, personally I prefer the term
“omnisexual” to “pansexual” for reasons that
are beyond the scope of this particular post. I am, however, not
offended if you use any of the three terms to refer to my sexual
orientation.

2Note, BTW: when
you read the docket, Judge Elgin (about 75% of the time) calls Karen
by the name “Ms. Bradley” (using my first name as if it
were Karen’s surname). It’s a bit confusing, so watch for it while
you’re reading so you don’t get confused.

8
Footnote added 2023-10-12, 19:00 US/Eastern: Since I
posted this about 30 hours ago, I’ve gotten so many statements of
support emailed to me that I can’t possibly respond to them all, but
I’ll try. Meanwhile, a few people have hinted at and/or outright
asked what policy disagreements Moglen actually has with me. I was
reluctant to answer because the point I’m making in this post is
that even if Moglen thought every last thing I’ve ever done
in my career was harmful policy-wise, it still would not
justify these abusive behaviors. Nevertheless, I admit that
if this post were made by someone else, I’d be curious about what the
policy disagreements were, so I decided to answer the question. I
think that my overarching policy disagreement with Eben Moglen is
with regard to how and when to engage in enforcement of the GPL and
other copyleft licenses through litigation. I think Moglen explains
this policy disagreement best
in his
talk that the Linux Foundation contemporaneously promoted (and
continues to regularly reference)
entitled “Whither (Not Wither) Copyleft”. In this
talk, Moglen states that I (among others) are “on a jihad for
free software” (his words, direct quote) because we continued
to pursue GPL enforcement through litigation. While I agree that
litigation
should still remain the last resort, I do think it remains a
necessary step often. Moglen argues that even though litigation was
needed in the past, it should never be used again for copyleft and
GPL enforcement. As Moglen outlines in his talk, he supports the
concept of “spontaneous compliance” — a system
whereby there is no regulatory regime and firms simply chose to
follow the rules of copyleft because it’s so obviously in their own
best interest. I’ve not seen this approach work in practice, which is
why I think we must still sometimes file GPL (and LGPL) lawsuits
— even today.
Moglen and I have plenty of other smaller policy disagreements: from
appropriate copyright assignment structures for FOSS, to finer points
of how GPLv3 should have been drafted, to tactics and strategy with
regard to copyleft advocacy, to how non-profits and charities should
be structured for the betterment of FOSS. However, I suspect all
these smaller policy disagreements stem from our fundamental policy
disagreement about GPL enforcement. However, I conclude by (a)
saying again no policy disagreement with anyone justifies
abusive behavior toward that person — not ever, and
(b) please do note the irony that, in that 2016-11-02 speech,
Moglen took the position that lawsuits should no longer be used to
settle disputes in FOSS, and yet — less than 10 months later
— Moglen
sued Conservancy (his former client) in the TTAB.

Eben Moglen & SFLC — abusive employer & LGBTQIA+ unfriendly

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2023/10/11/moglen-sflc.html

[ The below is a personal statement that I make on my own behalf. While
my statement’s release coincides with a release of an unrelated statement
on similar topics made
by my
employer, Software Freedom Conservancy, and
the Free
Software Foundation Europe, please keep in mind that this statement is
my own, personal opinion — written exclusively by me — and not
necessarily the opinion of either of those organizations. I did not consult
nor coordinate with either organization on this statement. ]

With great trepidation, I have decided to make this public statement
regarding the psychological abuse, including menacing, that I suffered,
perpetrated by Eben Moglen, both while I was employed at his Software
Freedom Law Center (SFLC) from 2005-2010, and in the years after he fired
me. No one revels in having psychological injuries and mistreatment
they’ve suffered paraded to the public. I’ll be frank that if it were not
for Moglen’s use of the USA Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) as a
method to perpetrate further abusive behavior, I wouldn’t have written this
post. Furthermore, sadly, Moglen has threatened in recent TTAB filings his
intention to use the proceeding to release personal details about my life
to the public (using the litigation itself as a lever). I have decided to
preemptively make public the facts herein first myself — so that I
can at least control the timing and framing of the information.

This post is long; the issues discussed in it are complicated, nuanced,
and cannot be summed up easily. Nevertheless, I’m realistic that most
people will stop reading soon, so I’ll summarize now as best I can in a few
sentences: I worked initially with, and then for, Eben Moglen for
nearly a decade — during which time he was psychologically abusive and
gaslighted me (under the guise of training and mentoring me). I thought
for many years that he was one of my best friends (— in retrospect, I
believe that he tricked me into believing that he was). As such, I shared
extremely personal details about myself to him — which he has used
both contemporaneously and in years hence to attempt to discredit me with
my colleagues and peers. Recently, Moglen declared his plans to use
current TTAB proceedings to force me to answer questions about my mental
health in
deposition0. Long
ago, I disclosed key personal information to Moglen, I therefore have a
pretty good idea of what his next move will be during that deposition
questioning. Specifically, I believe Moglen was hoping to out me as
omni/bisexual1 as part of my deposition
in this proceeding. As such, I’m outing myself here first (primarily) to
disarm his ability to use what he knows about my sexual orientation against
me. Since that last sentence makes me already out, Moglen will be unable
to use the biggest “secret” that Moglen “has on me”
in his future psychological and legal attacks.

I suspect some folks will stop reading here, but I really urge that you
keep reading this post, and also to read the unrelated statement made by
Conservancy
and FSFE.
The details are important and matter. I am admittedly embarrassed to talk
publicly about how Moglen exacerbated, expanded, and caused new symptoms of
my Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) — which I already suffered
from when I met him. But, I feel it is important to talk about these
issues publicly for many reasons — including that Moglen seeks to
expose these personal facts about me as an attempt to stigmatize what is
actually a positive thing: I seek ongoing treatment for my PTSD (which
Moglen himself, in part, caused) and to simultaneously process and reduce
my (painful and stubborn) internalized shame about my LGBTQIA+
status. (Like many proud LGBTQIA+ folks, I struggle with this because
living in a society unfriendly to LGBTQIA+ folks can lead to difficult
shame issues — this is a well-documented phenomena that LGBTQIA+
folks like myself suffer from.)

The primary recent catalyst for this situation is as follows: Moglen has
insisted that, as part of the
ongoing trademark
cancellation petition that SFLC filed against my employer, Software Freedom
Conservancy in
the TTAB,
that Moglen both personally be allowed to be present at, and to
actually take the depositions3 of me and
my colleague, Karen Sandler.

This kind of behavior is typical of how abusers use litigation to
perpetuate their abuse. The USA legal system is designed to give everyone
“their day in Court”. Frankly, many of the rules established
for Court proceedings did not contemplate that the process could be
manipulated by abusers, and it remains an open problem on how to repair the
rules that both preserve the egalitarian nature of our legal system, but
also does not make it easy for abusers to misuse those same rules.
Depositions, in particular, are a key tool in abusers’ arsenals.
Depositions allow Plaintiffs (in the TTAB, BTW, the Plaintiff is called
“the Petitioner”) to gather evidence. Generally speaking, most
Courts have no good default rules to prevent abusers from using these
depositions to get themselves in the room with their victims and harass
those victims further with off-topic haranguing. The only method (which is
quite clunky as a legal tool) to curtail the harassment somewhat is called
a protective order. However, Moglen has been smart enough to use
the very process of the protective order application to further perpetuate
abusive behavior.

To understand all this in context, I ask that you first
read Conservancy’s
public response to the initial filing of the trademark cancellation
proceeding (six years ago). In short, SFLC is seeking to
“cancel” the trademark on the name “Software Freedom
Conservancy”. Ostensibly, that’s all this case is (or, rather should
be) about.

The problem is that, upon reading
the docket in
detail, it’s easily seen that at nearly every step, Moglen has
attempted to use the proceeding as a method to harass and attack me and my
colleague, Karen Sandler — regarding issues wholly unrelated to the
trademarks. The recent arguments have been about our depositions4 —
mine and Karen’s2.

After some complex legal back-and-forth,
Judge Elgin
ordered that I was legally required to sit for a deposition with and by
Moglen. This is the point where a catch-22 began for me.

  • Option 0: Sit in a room for 8+ hours with a person who had spent
    years verbally abusing me and let him ask me any question he
    wants    5 —
    under penalty of perjury and contempt of Court if I refuse.
  • Option
    1: Give Conservancy’s lawyers permission to talk openly, in public
    documents, about the details of the abuse I suffered from Moglen and the
    psychological harm that it caused me (which is the necessary backup
    document for a protective order motion).

IOW, the only way to
get a protective order that would prevent me from being legally required to
suffer further psychological abuse from Moglen was to publicly talk about
the past abuse 😩. I reluctantly chose Option 1. I encourage you to read
in
full
my first sworn testimony on the issue. That document explains many of the
psychological abusive examples I suffered from Moglen — both as an
employee at SFLC and since.

Fortunately, that aforementioned sworn testimony was sufficient to
convince Judge Elgin to at least entertain reconsidering her decision that
I have to sit8 for a deposition with Moglen. However, submitting the
official motion then required that I give even more
information about why the deposition with Moglen will be psychologically
harmful. In particular, I had little choice but to add a letter from my
(highly qualified) mental health provider speaking to the psychological
dangers that I would face if deposed by Moglen personally and/or in his
presence. I reluctantly asked my therapist
to provide
such a letter. It was really tough for me to publicly identify who my
therapist is, but it was, again, my best option out of that catch-22. I
admittedly didn’t anticipate that Moglen might use this knowledge as a
method to further his abuse against me publicly in his response filing.

As can be seen in Moglen’s response
filing, Moglen
directly attacks my therapist’s credentials — claiming she is not
credible nor qualified. Moglen’s argument is that because my therapist
is a licensed, AASECT-certified sex therapist, she is not qualified to
diagnose PTSD. Of course, Moglen’s argument is without merit: my
therapist’s sex therapy credentials are in addition to her many other
credentials and certifications — all of which is explained on her
website that Moglen admits in his filing he has reviewed.

As I mentioned, at one time, I foolishly and erroneously considered Moglen
a good friend. As such, I told Moglen a lot about my personal life,
including that I was omni/bisexual, and that I was (at the time) closeted. So,
Moglen already knows full well the reason that I would select a therapist
who held among her credentials a certification to give therapy relating to
sexuality. Moglen’s filing is, in my view, a veiled threat to me that he’s
going to disclose publicly what he knows about my sexuality as part of this
proceeding. So, I’ve decided — after much thought — that I
should simply disarm him on this and say it first: I have identified as
bisexual/omnisexual6 since 1993, but I have
never been “out” in my professional community — until
now. Moglen knows full well (because I told him on more than one occasion)
that I struggled with whether or not to come out for decades. Thus, I
chose a therapist who was both qualified to give treatment for PTSD as
well as for sexual orientation challenges because I’ve lived much of
my life with internalized shame about my sexual orientation. (I was (and
still am, a bit) afraid that it would hurt my career opportunities in the
FOSS community and technology generally if I came out; more on that below.)
I was still working through these issues with my therapist when all these
recent events occurred.

Despite the serious psychological abuse I’ve suffered from Moglen, until
this recent filing, I wouldn’t have imagined that Moglen would attempt to
use the secrecy about my LGBTQIA+ status as a way to further terrorize me.
All I can think to say to Moglen in response is to quote
what Joe Welch
said to Senator Joe McCarthy on 1954-06-09: “Have you no sense of
decency, sir — at long last? Have you left no sense of
decency?”.

It’s hard to express coherently the difficult realization of the stark
political reality of our world. There are people you might meet (and/or
work for) who, if they have a policy disagreement8 with you later, will use
every single fact about you to their advantage to prevail in that
disagreement. There is truly no reason that Moglen needed to draw
attention to the fact that I see a therapist who specializes (in part) in
issues with sexuality. The fact that he
goes
on to further claim that the mere fact that she has such certification
makes her unqualified to treat my other mental health illness —
some of which Moglen himself (in part) personally caused — is
unconscionable. I expect that even most of my worst political rivals who
work for proprietary software companies and violate copyleft licenses on a
daily basis would not stoop as low to what Moglen has in this
situation.

At this point, I really have no choice but to come out as
omnisexual7 — even though I
wasn’t really ready to do so. Moglen has insisted now that my therapy has
been brought up in the proceeding,
that he
has a legal right to force me to be evaluated by a therapist of his
choosing (as if I were a criminal
defendant). Moglen
has also indicated that, during my deposition, he will interrogate me about
my therapy and my reasons for choosing this particular therapist (see, for
example, footnote 2 on page 11 (PDF-Page 27) of Moglen’s declaration in support of the
motion). Now, even if the judge grants Conservancy’s motion
to exclude Moglen from my deposition, Moglen will instruct his attorneys to
ask me those questions about my therapy and my sexual orientation —
with the obvious goal of seeking to embarrass me by forcing me to reveal
such things publicly. Like those folks who sat before McCarthy in those
HUAC
hearings, I know
that none of my
secrets will survive Moglen’s deposition. By outing myself here first,
I am, at least, disarming Moglen from attempting to use my shame about my
sexual orientation against me.

Regarding LGBTQIA+ Acceptance and FOSS

I would like to leave Moglen and his abusive behavior there, and spend the
rest of this post talking about related issues of much greater importance.
First, I want to explain why it was so difficult for me to come out in my
professional community. Being somewhat older than most folks in FOSS
today, I really need to paint the picture of the USA when my career in
technology and FOSS got started. I was in my sophomore year of my Computer
Science undergraduate program when Clinton implemented
the Don’t
ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy for military in the USA. Now, as a
pacifist, I had no desire to join the military, but the DADT approach was
widely accepted in all areas of life.
The whole sarcastic “Not that there’s anything wrong with that
…” attitude (made famous contemporaneously to DADT on an
episode of the TV
show, Seinfeld) made it clear in culture that the world,
including those who ostensibly supported LGBTQIA+ rights, wanted queer
folks to remain, at best, “quiet and proud”, not “loud
and proud”. As a clincher, note that three years after DADT
was put in effect, overwhelming bipartisan support came forward for the
so-called
“Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA)”. An overwhelming majority of
everyone in Congress and the Presidency (regardless of party affiliation)
was in 1996 anti-LGBTQIA+. Folks who supported and voted yes for DOMA
include: Earl Blumenauer (still a senator from my current
state), Joe Biden (now POTUS (!)), Barbara Mikulski (a
senator until 2017 from my home state), and Chuck Schumer (still Senate
majority leader today). DADT didn’t end until 2011, and
while SCOTUS
ruled parts of DOMA unconstitutional in 2015,
Congress didn’t
actually repeal DOMA until last year! Hopefully, that gives a
clear sense of what the climate for LGBTQIA+ folks was like in the 1990s,
and why I felt was terrified to be outed — even as the 1990s became
the 2000s.

I also admit that my own shame about my sexual orientation grew as I got
older and began my professional career. I “pass” as straight
— particularly in our heteronormative culture that auto-casts
everyone as cishet until proven otherwise. It was just easier to not bring
it up. Why bother, I thought? It was off-topic (so I felt), and there
were plenty of people around the tech world in the 1990s and early 2000s
who were not particularly LGBTQIA+-friendly, or who feigned that they were
but were still “weird” about it.

I do think tech in general and FOSS in particular are much more
LGBTQIA+-friendly than they once were. However, there has been a huge
anti-LGBTQIA+ backlash in certain areas of the USA in recent years, so even
as I became more comfortable with the idea of being “out”, I
also felt (and do feel) that the world has recently gotten a lot more
dangerous for LGBTQIA+ folks. Folks like Moglen who wage “total
war” against their political opponents know this, and it is precisely
why they try to cast phrases like bisexual, gay, queer, and “sex
therapist” as salacious.

Also, PTSD has this way of making you believe you’re vulnerable in every
situation. When you’re suffering from the worst of PTSD’s symptoms, you
believe that you can never be safe anywhere — ever again. But,
logically I know that I’m safe being a queer person (at least in the small
FOSS world) — for two big reasons. First, the FOSS community of
today is (in most cases) very welcoming to LGBTQIA+ folks and most of the
cishet folks in FOSS identify as LGBTQIA+ allies. Second, I sheepishly
admit that as I’ve reached my 0x32’nd year of life this year, I have a 20+
year credentialed career that has left me in a position of authority and
privilege as a FOSS leader. I gain inherent safety from my position of
power in the community to just be who I am.

While this is absolutely not the manner and time in which I wanted to come
out, I’ll try to make some proverbial lemonade out of the lemons. By now
being out as LGBTQIA+ and already being a FOSS leader, I’d like to
offer to anyone who is new to FOSS and faces fear and worry about LGBTQIA+
issues in FOSS to contact me if they think I can help. I can’t promise to
write back to everyone, but I will do my very best to try to either help or
route you to someone else in FOSS who might be able to.

Also, I want to state something in direct contrast to Moglen’s claims that
the mere fact that a therapist who is qualified for treating people with
issues related to sexual orientation is ipso facto unqualified to treat any
other mental condition. I want to share publicly how valuable it has been
for me in finding a therapist who “gets it” with regard to
living queer in the world while also suffering from other conditions (such as PTSD).
So many LGBTQIA+ youth are bullied due to their orientation, and sustained
bullying commonly causes PTSD. I think we should all be so lucky to have a
mental health provider, as I do,
that
is extensively qualified to treat the whole person and not just a
single condition or issue. We should stand against people like Moglen who,
upon seeing that someone’s therapist specializes in helping people with
their sexual orientation, would use that fact as a way to shame both the
individual and the therapist. Doing that is wrong, and people who do that
are failing to create safe spaces for the LGBTQIA+ community.

I am aghast that Moglen is trying to shame me for seeking help from a
mental health provider who could help me overcome my internalized shame
regarding my sexual orientation. I also want people to know that I did not
feel safe as a queer person when I worked for Eben Moglen at SFLC. But I
also know Moglen doesn’t represent what our FOSS community and software
freedom is about. I felt I needed to make this post not only to disarm the
power Moglen held to “out me” before I was ready, but also to
warn others that, in my opinion, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) as an
organization that is not a safe space for LGBTQIA+ folks.
Finally, I do know that Moglen is also a tenured professor at Columbia Law
School. I have so often worried about his students — who may, as I
did, erroneously believe they can trust Moglen with private information as
important as their LGBTQIA+ status. I simply felt I couldn’t stay silent
about my experiences in good conscience any longer.

0, 4

A deposition is a form of testimony done during litigation before trial
begins. Each party in a legal dispute can subpoena witnesses. Rules vary
from venue to venue, but typically, a deposition is taken for eight hours,
and opposing attorneys can ask as many questions as they want —
including leading questions.

5In most
depositions, there is a time limit, but the scope of what questions
can be asked are not bounded. Somewhat strangely, one’s own lawyer
is not usually permitted to object on grounds of relevancy to the
case, so the questions can be as off-topic as the opposing counsel
wants.

3, 8 The
opposing attorney who asks the question is said to be “taking
the deposition”. The witness is said to be “sitting for
a deposition”. (IIUC, these are terms of art in
litigation).

1,
6,
7
From 1993-2018, I identified as “bisexual”. That term,
unfortunately, is, in my opinion, not friendly to non-binary people,
since the “bi” part (at least to me, I know others
disagree) assumes binary gender. The more common term used today is
“pansexual”, but, personally I prefer the term
“omnisexual” to “pansexual” for reasons that
are beyond the scope of this particular post. I am, however, not
offended if you use any of the three terms to refer to my sexual
orientation.

2Note, BTW: when
you read the docket, Judge Elgin (about 75% of the time) calls Karen
by the name “Ms. Bradley” (using my first name as if it
were Karen’s surname). It’s a bit confusing, so watch for it while
you’re reading so you don’t get confused.

8
Footnote added 2023-10-12, 19:00 US/Eastern: Since I
posted this about 30 hours ago, I’ve gotten so many statements of
support emailed to me that I can’t possibly respond to them all, but
I’ll try. Meanwhile, a few people have hinted at and/or outright
asked what policy disagreements Moglen actually has with me. I was
reluctant to answer because the point I’m making in this post is
that even if Moglen thought every last thing I’ve ever done
in my career was harmful policy-wise, it still would not
justify these abusive behaviors. Nevertheless, I admit that
if this post were made by someone else, I’d be curious about what the
policy disagreements were, so I decided to answer the question. I
think that my overarching policy disagreement with Eben Moglen is
with regard to how and when to engage in enforcement of the GPL and
other copyleft licenses through litigation. I think Moglen explains
this policy disagreement best
in his
talk that the Linux Foundation contemporaneously promoted (and
continues to regularly reference)
entitled “Whither (Not Wither) Copyleft”. In this
talk, Moglen states that I (among others) are “on a jihad for
free software” (his words, direct quote) because we continued
to pursue GPL enforcement through litigation. While I agree that
litigation
should still remain the last resort, I do think it remains a
necessary step often. Moglen argues that even though litigation was
needed in the past, it should never be used again for copyleft and
GPL enforcement. As Moglen outlines in his talk, he supports the
concept of “spontaneous compliance” — a system
whereby there is no regulatory regime and firms simply chose to
follow the rules of copyleft because it’s so obviously in their own
best interest. I’ve not seen this approach work in practice, which is
why I think we must still sometimes file GPL (and LGPL) lawsuits
— even today.
Moglen and I have plenty of other smaller policy disagreements: from
appropriate copyright assignment structures for FOSS, to finer points
of how GPLv3 should have been drafted, to tactics and strategy with
regard to copyleft advocacy, to how non-profits and charities should
be structured for the betterment of FOSS. However, I suspect all
these smaller policy disagreements stem from our fundamental policy
disagreement about GPL enforcement. However, I conclude by (a)
saying again no policy disagreement with anyone justifies
abusive behavior toward that person — not ever, and
(b) please do note the irony that, in that 2016-11-02 speech,
Moglen took the position that lawsuits should no longer be used to
settle disputes in FOSS, and yet — less than 10 months later
— Moglen
sued Conservancy (his former client) in the TTAB.

Eben Moglen & SFLC — abusive employer & LGBTQIA+ unfriendly

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2023/10/11/moglen-sflc.html

[ The below is a personal statement that I make on my own behalf. While
my statement’s release coincides with a release of an unrelated statement
on similar topics made
by my
employer, Software Freedom Conservancy, and
the Free
Software Foundation Europe, please keep in mind that this statement is
my own, personal opinion — written exclusively by me — and not
necessarily the opinion of either of those organizations. I did not consult
nor coordinate with either organization on this statement. ]

With great trepidation, I have decided to make this public statement
regarding the psychological abuse, including menacing, that I suffered,
perpetrated by Eben Moglen, both while I was employed at his Software
Freedom Law Center (SFLC) from 2005-2010, and in the years after he fired
me. No one revels in having psychological injuries and mistreatment
they’ve suffered paraded to the public. I’ll be frank that if it were not
for Moglen’s use of the USA Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) as a
method to perpetrate further abusive behavior, I wouldn’t have written this
post. Furthermore, sadly, Moglen has threatened in recent TTAB filings his
intention to use the proceeding to release personal details about my life
to the public (using the litigation itself as a lever). I have decided to
preemptively make public the facts herein first myself — so that I
can at least control the timing and framing of the information.

This post is long; the issues discussed in it are complicated, nuanced,
and cannot be summed up easily. Nevertheless, I’m realistic that most
people will stop reading soon, so I’ll summarize now as best I can in a few
sentences: I worked initially with, and then for, Eben Moglen for
nearly a decade — during which time he was psychologically abusive and
gaslighted me (under the guise of training and mentoring me). I thought
for many years that he was one of my best friends (— in retrospect, I
believe that he tricked me into believing that he was). As such, I shared
extremely personal details about myself to him — which he has used
both contemporaneously and in years hence to attempt to discredit me with
my colleagues and peers. Recently, Moglen declared his plans to use
current TTAB proceedings to force me to answer questions about my mental
health in
deposition0. Long
ago, I disclosed key personal information to Moglen, I therefore have a
pretty good idea of what his next move will be during that deposition
questioning. Specifically, I believe Moglen was hoping to out me as
omni/bisexual1 as part of my deposition
in this proceeding. As such, I’m outing myself here first (primarily) to
disarm his ability to use what he knows about my sexual orientation against
me. Since that last sentence makes me already out, Moglen will be unable
to use the biggest “secret” that Moglen “has on me”
in his future psychological and legal attacks.

I suspect some folks will stop reading here, but I really urge that you
keep reading this post, and also to read the unrelated statement made by
Conservancy
and FSFE.
The details are important and matter. I am admittedly embarrassed to talk
publicly about how Moglen exacerbated, expanded, and caused new symptoms of
my Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) — which I already suffered
from when I met him. But, I feel it is important to talk about these
issues publicly for many reasons — including that Moglen seeks to
expose these personal facts about me as an attempt to stigmatize what is
actually a positive thing: I seek ongoing treatment for my PTSD (which
Moglen himself, in part, caused) and to simultaneously process and reduce
my (painful and stubborn) internalized shame about my LGBTQIA+
status. (Like many proud LGBTQIA+ folks, I struggle with this because
living in a society unfriendly to LGBTQIA+ folks can lead to difficult
shame issues — this is a well-documented phenomena that LGBTQIA+
folks like myself suffer from.)

The primary recent catalyst for this situation is as follows: Moglen has
insisted that, as part of the
ongoing trademark
cancellation petition that SFLC filed against my employer, Software Freedom
Conservancy in
the TTAB,
that Moglen both personally be allowed to be present at, and to
actually take the depositions3 of me and
my colleague, Karen Sandler.

This kind of behavior is typical of how abusers use litigation to
perpetuate their abuse. The USA legal system is designed to give everyone
“their day in Court”. Frankly, many of the rules established
for Court proceedings did not contemplate that the process could be
manipulated by abusers, and it remains an open problem on how to repair the
rules that both preserve the egalitarian nature of our legal system, but
also does not make it easy for abusers to misuse those same rules.
Depositions, in particular, are a key tool in abusers’ arsenals.
Depositions allow Plaintiffs (in the TTAB, BTW, the Plaintiff is called
“the Petitioner”) to gather evidence. Generally speaking, most
Courts have no good default rules to prevent abusers from using these
depositions to get themselves in the room with their victims and harass
those victims further with off-topic haranguing. The only method (which is
quite clunky as a legal tool) to curtail the harassment somewhat is called
a protective order. However, Moglen has been smart enough to use
the very process of the protective order application to further perpetuate
abusive behavior.

To understand all this in context, I ask that you first
read Conservancy’s
public response to the initial filing of the trademark cancellation
proceeding (six years ago). In short, SFLC is seeking to
“cancel” the trademark on the name “Software Freedom
Conservancy”. Ostensibly, that’s all this case is (or, rather should
be) about.

The problem is that, upon reading
the docket in
detail, it’s easily seen that at nearly every step, Moglen has
attempted to use the proceeding as a method to harass and attack me and my
colleague, Karen Sandler — regarding issues wholly unrelated to the
trademarks. The recent arguments have been about our depositions4 —
mine and Karen’s2.

After some complex legal back-and-forth,
Judge Elgin
ordered that I was legally required to sit for a deposition with and by
Moglen. This is the point where a catch-22 began for me.

  • Option 0: Sit in a room for 8+ hours with a person who had spent
    years verbally abusing me and let him ask me any question he
    wants    5 —
    under penalty of perjury and contempt of Court if I refuse.
  • Option
    1: Give Conservancy’s lawyers permission to talk openly, in public
    documents, about the details of the abuse I suffered from Moglen and the
    psychological harm that it caused me (which is the necessary backup
    document for a protective order motion).

IOW, the only way to
get a protective order that would prevent me from being legally required to
suffer further psychological abuse from Moglen was to publicly talk about
the past abuse 😩. I reluctantly chose Option 1. I encourage you to read
in
full
my first sworn testimony on the issue. That document explains many of the
psychological abusive examples I suffered from Moglen — both as an
employee at SFLC and since.

Fortunately, that aforementioned sworn testimony was sufficient to
convince Judge Elgin to at least entertain reconsidering her decision that
I have to sit8 for a deposition with Moglen. However, submitting the
official motion then required that I give even more
information about why the deposition with Moglen will be psychologically
harmful. In particular, I had little choice but to add a letter from my
(highly qualified) mental health provider speaking to the psychological
dangers that I would face if deposed by Moglen personally and/or in his
presence. I reluctantly asked my therapist
to provide
such a letter. It was really tough for me to publicly identify who my
therapist is, but it was, again, my best option out of that catch-22. I
admittedly didn’t anticipate that Moglen might use this knowledge as a
method to further his abuse against me publicly in his response filing.

As can be seen in Moglen’s response
filing, Moglen
directly attacks my therapist’s credentials — claiming she is not
credible nor qualified. Moglen’s argument is that because my therapist
is a licensed, AASECT-certified sex therapist, she is not qualified to
diagnose PTSD. Of course, Moglen’s argument is without merit: my
therapist’s sex therapy credentials are in addition to her many other
credentials and certifications — all of which is explained on her
website that Moglen admits in his filing he has reviewed.

As I mentioned, at one time, I foolishly and erroneously considered Moglen
a good friend. As such, I told Moglen a lot about my personal life,
including that I was omni/bisexual, and that I was (at the time) closeted. So,
Moglen already knows full well the reason that I would select a therapist
who held among her credentials a certification to give therapy relating to
sexuality. Moglen’s filing is, in my view, a veiled threat to me that he’s
going to disclose publicly what he knows about my sexuality as part of this
proceeding. So, I’ve decided — after much thought — that I
should simply disarm him on this and say it first: I have identified as
bisexual/omnisexual6 since 1993, but I have
never been “out” in my professional community — until
now. Moglen knows full well (because I told him on more than one occasion)
that I struggled with whether or not to come out for decades. Thus, I
chose a therapist who was both qualified to give treatment for PTSD as
well as for sexual orientation challenges because I’ve lived much of
my life with internalized shame about my sexual orientation. (I was (and
still am, a bit) afraid that it would hurt my career opportunities in the
FOSS community and technology generally if I came out; more on that below.)
I was still working through these issues with my therapist when all these
recent events occurred.

Despite the serious psychological abuse I’ve suffered from Moglen, until
this recent filing, I wouldn’t have imagined that Moglen would attempt to
use the secrecy about my LGBTQIA+ status as a way to further terrorize me.
All I can think to say to Moglen in response is to quote
what Joe Welch
said to Senator Joe McCarthy on 1954-06-09: “Have you no sense of
decency, sir — at long last? Have you left no sense of
decency?”.

It’s hard to express coherently the difficult realization of the stark
political reality of our world. There are people you might meet (and/or
work for) who, if they have a policy disagreement8 with you later, will use
every single fact about you to their advantage to prevail in that
disagreement. There is truly no reason that Moglen needed to draw
attention to the fact that I see a therapist who specializes (in part) in
issues with sexuality. The fact that he
goes
on to further claim that the mere fact that she has such certification
makes her unqualified to treat my other mental health illness —
some of which Moglen himself (in part) personally caused — is
unconscionable. I expect that even most of my worst political rivals who
work for proprietary software companies and violate copyleft licenses on a
daily basis would not stoop as low to what Moglen has in this
situation.

At this point, I really have no choice but to come out as
omnisexual7 — even though I
wasn’t really ready to do so. Moglen has insisted now that my therapy has
been brought up in the proceeding,
that he
has a legal right to force me to be evaluated by a therapist of his
choosing (as if I were a criminal
defendant). Moglen
has also indicated that, during my deposition, he will interrogate me about
my therapy and my reasons for choosing this particular therapist (see, for
example, footnote 2 on page 11 (PDF-Page 27) of Moglen’s declaration in support of the
motion). Now, even if the judge grants Conservancy’s motion
to exclude Moglen from my deposition, Moglen will instruct his attorneys to
ask me those questions about my therapy and my sexual orientation —
with the obvious goal of seeking to embarrass me by forcing me to reveal
such things publicly. Like those folks who sat before McCarthy in those
HUAC
hearings, I know
that none of my
secrets will survive Moglen’s deposition. By outing myself here first,
I am, at least, disarming Moglen from attempting to use my shame about my
sexual orientation against me.

Regarding LGBTQIA+ Acceptance and FOSS

I would like to leave Moglen and his abusive behavior there, and spend the
rest of this post talking about related issues of much greater importance.
First, I want to explain why it was so difficult for me to come out in my
professional community. Being somewhat older than most folks in FOSS
today, I really need to paint the picture of the USA when my career in
technology and FOSS got started. I was in my sophomore year of my Computer
Science undergraduate program when Clinton implemented
the Don’t
ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy for military in the USA. Now, as a
pacifist, I had no desire to join the military, but the DADT approach was
widely accepted in all areas of life.
The whole sarcastic “Not that there’s anything wrong with that
…” attitude (made famous contemporaneously to DADT on an
episode of the TV
show, Seinfeld) made it clear in culture that the world,
including those who ostensibly supported LGBTQIA+ rights, wanted queer
folks to remain, at best, “quiet and proud”, not “loud
and proud”. As a clincher, note that three years after DADT
was put in effect, overwhelming bipartisan support came forward for the
so-called
“Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA)”. An overwhelming majority of
everyone in Congress and the Presidency (regardless of party affiliation)
was in 1996 anti-LGBTQIA+. Folks who supported and voted yes for DOMA
include: Earl Blumenauer (still a senator from my current
state), Joe Biden (now POTUS (!)), Barbara Mikulski (a
senator until 2017 from my home state), and Chuck Schumer (still Senate
majority leader today). DADT didn’t end until 2011, and
while SCOTUS
ruled parts of DOMA unconstitutional in 2015,
Congress didn’t
actually repeal DOMA until last year! Hopefully, that gives a
clear sense of what the climate for LGBTQIA+ folks was like in the 1990s,
and why I felt was terrified to be outed — even as the 1990s became
the 2000s.

I also admit that my own shame about my sexual orientation grew as I got
older and began my professional career. I “pass” as straight
— particularly in our heteronormative culture that auto-casts
everyone as cishet until proven otherwise. It was just easier to not bring
it up. Why bother, I thought? It was off-topic (so I felt), and there
were plenty of people around the tech world in the 1990s and early 2000s
who were not particularly LGBTQIA+-friendly, or who feigned that they were
but were still “weird” about it.

I do think tech in general and FOSS in particular are much more
LGBTQIA+-friendly than they once were. However, there has been a huge
anti-LGBTQIA+ backlash in certain areas of the USA in recent years, so even
as I became more comfortable with the idea of being “out”, I
also felt (and do feel) that the world has recently gotten a lot more
dangerous for LGBTQIA+ folks. Folks like Moglen who wage “total
war” against their political opponents know this, and it is precisely
why they try to cast phrases like bisexual, gay, queer, and “sex
therapist” as salacious.

Also, PTSD has this way of making you believe you’re vulnerable in every
situation. When you’re suffering from the worst of PTSD’s symptoms, you
believe that you can never be safe anywhere — ever again. But,
logically I know that I’m safe being a queer person (at least in the small
FOSS world) — for two big reasons. First, the FOSS community of
today is (in most cases) very welcoming to LGBTQIA+ folks and most of the
cishet folks in FOSS identify as LGBTQIA+ allies. Second, I sheepishly
admit that as I’ve reached my 0x32’nd year of life this year, I have a 20+
year credentialed career that has left me in a position of authority and
privilege as a FOSS leader. I gain inherent safety from my position of
power in the community to just be who I am.

While this is absolutely not the manner and time in which I wanted to come
out, I’ll try to make some proverbial lemonade out of the lemons. By now
being out as LGBTQIA+ and already being a FOSS leader, I’d like to
offer to anyone who is new to FOSS and faces fear and worry about LGBTQIA+
issues in FOSS to contact me if they think I can help. I can’t promise to
write back to everyone, but I will do my very best to try to either help or
route you to someone else in FOSS who might be able to.

Also, I want to state something in direct contrast to Moglen’s claims that
the mere fact that a therapist who is qualified for treating people with
issues related to sexual orientation is ipso facto unqualified to treat any
other mental condition. I want to share publicly how valuable it has been
for me in finding a therapist who “gets it” with regard to
living queer in the world while also suffering from other conditions (such as PTSD).
So many LGBTQIA+ youth are bullied due to their orientation, and sustained
bullying commonly causes PTSD. I think we should all be so lucky to have a
mental health provider, as I do,
that
is extensively qualified to treat the whole person and not just a
single condition or issue. We should stand against people like Moglen who,
upon seeing that someone’s therapist specializes in helping people with
their sexual orientation, would use that fact as a way to shame both the
individual and the therapist. Doing that is wrong, and people who do that
are failing to create safe spaces for the LGBTQIA+ community.

I am aghast that Moglen is trying to shame me for seeking help from a
mental health provider who could help me overcome my internalized shame
regarding my sexual orientation. I also want people to know that I did not
feel safe as a queer person when I worked for Eben Moglen at SFLC. But I
also know Moglen doesn’t represent what our FOSS community and software
freedom is about. I felt I needed to make this post not only to disarm the
power Moglen held to “out me” before I was ready, but also to
warn others that, in my opinion, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) as an
organization that is not a safe space for LGBTQIA+ folks.
Finally, I do know that Moglen is also a tenured professor at Columbia Law
School. I have so often worried about his students — who may, as I
did, erroneously believe they can trust Moglen with private information as
important as their LGBTQIA+ status. I simply felt I couldn’t stay silent
about my experiences in good conscience any longer.

0, 4

A deposition is a form of testimony done during litigation before trial
begins. Each party in a legal dispute can subpoena witnesses. Rules vary
from venue to venue, but typically, a deposition is taken for eight hours,
and opposing attorneys can ask as many questions as they want —
including leading questions.

5In most
depositions, there is a time limit, but the scope of what questions
can be asked are not bounded. Somewhat strangely, one’s own lawyer
is not usually permitted to object on grounds of relevancy to the
case, so the questions can be as off-topic as the opposing counsel
wants.

3, 8 The
opposing attorney who asks the question is said to be “taking
the deposition”. The witness is said to be “sitting for
a deposition”. (IIUC, these are terms of art in
litigation).

1,
6,
7
From 1993-2018, I identified as “bisexual”. That term,
unfortunately, is, in my opinion, not friendly to non-binary people,
since the “bi” part (at least to me, I know others
disagree) assumes binary gender. The more common term used today is
“pansexual”, but, personally I prefer the term
“omnisexual” to “pansexual” for reasons that
are beyond the scope of this particular post. I am, however, not
offended if you use any of the three terms to refer to my sexual
orientation.

2Note, BTW: when
you read the docket, Judge Elgin (about 75% of the time) calls Karen
by the name “Ms. Bradley” (using my first name as if it
were Karen’s surname). It’s a bit confusing, so watch for it while
you’re reading so you don’t get confused.

8
Footnote added 2023-10-12, 19:00 US/Eastern: Since I
posted this about 30 hours ago, I’ve gotten so many statements of
support emailed to me that I can’t possibly respond to them all, but
I’ll try. Meanwhile, a few people have hinted at and/or outright
asked what policy disagreements Moglen actually has with me. I was
reluctant to answer because the point I’m making in this post is
that even if Moglen thought every last thing I’ve ever done
in my career was harmful policy-wise, it still would not
justify these abusive behaviors. Nevertheless, I admit that
if this post were made by someone else, I’d be curious about what the
policy disagreements were, so I decided to answer the question. I
think that my overarching policy disagreement with Eben Moglen is
with regard to how and when to engage in enforcement of the GPL and
other copyleft licenses through litigation. I think Moglen explains
this policy disagreement best
in his
talk that the Linux Foundation contemporaneously promoted (and
continues to regularly reference)
entitled “Whither (Not Wither) Copyleft”. In this
talk, Moglen states that I (among others) are “on a jihad for
free software” (his words, direct quote) because we continued
to pursue GPL enforcement through litigation. While I agree that
litigation
should still remain the last resort, I do think it remains a
necessary step often. Moglen argues that even though litigation was
needed in the past, it should never be used again for copyleft and
GPL enforcement. As Moglen outlines in his talk, he supports the
concept of “spontaneous compliance” — a system
whereby there is no regulatory regime and firms simply chose to
follow the rules of copyleft because it’s so obviously in their own
best interest. I’ve not seen this approach work in practice, which is
why I think we must still sometimes file GPL (and LGPL) lawsuits
— even today.
Moglen and I have plenty of other smaller policy disagreements: from
appropriate copyright assignment structures for FOSS, to finer points
of how GPLv3 should have been drafted, to tactics and strategy with
regard to copyleft advocacy, to how non-profits and charities should
be structured for the betterment of FOSS. However, I suspect all
these smaller policy disagreements stem from our fundamental policy
disagreement about GPL enforcement. However, I conclude by (a)
saying again no policy disagreement with anyone justifies
abusive behavior toward that person — not ever, and
(b) please do note the irony that, in that 2016-11-02 speech,
Moglen took the position that lawsuits should no longer be used to
settle disputes in FOSS, and yet — less than 10 months later
— Moglen
sued Conservancy (his former client) in the TTAB.

Eben Moglen & SFLC — abusive employer & LGBTQIA+ unfriendly

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2023/10/11/moglen-sflc.html

[ The below is a personal statement that I make on my own behalf. While
my statement’s release coincides with a release of an unrelated statement
on similar topics made
by my
employer, Software Freedom Conservancy, and
the Free
Software Foundation Europe, please keep in mind that this statement is
my own, personal opinion — written exclusively by me — and not
necessarily the opinion of either of those organizations. I did not consult
nor coordinate with either organization on this statement. ]

With great trepidation, I have decided to make this public statement
regarding the psychological abuse, including menacing, that I suffered,
perpetrated by Eben Moglen, both while I was employed at his Software
Freedom Law Center (SFLC) from 2005-2010, and in the years after he fired
me. No one revels in having psychological injuries and mistreatment
they’ve suffered paraded to the public. I’ll be frank that if it were not
for Moglen’s use of the USA Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) as a
method to perpetrate further abusive behavior, I wouldn’t have written this
post. Furthermore, sadly, Moglen has threatened in recent TTAB filings his
intention to use the proceeding to release personal details about my life
to the public (using the litigation itself as a lever). I have decided to
preemptively make public the facts herein first myself — so that I
can at least control the timing and framing of the information.

This post is long; the issues discussed in it are complicated, nuanced,
and cannot be summed up easily. Nevertheless, I’m realistic that most
people will stop reading soon, so I’ll summarize now as best I can in a few
sentences: I worked initially with, and then for, Eben Moglen for
nearly a decade — during which time he was psychologically abusive and
gaslighted me (under the guise of training and mentoring me). I thought
for many years that he was one of my best friends (— in retrospect, I
believe that he tricked me into believing that he was). As such, I shared
extremely personal details about myself to him — which he has used
both contemporaneously and in years hence to attempt to discredit me with
my colleagues and peers. Recently, Moglen declared his plans to use
current TTAB proceedings to force me to answer questions about my mental
health in
deposition0. Long
ago, I disclosed key personal information to Moglen, I therefore have a
pretty good idea of what his next move will be during that deposition
questioning. Specifically, I believe Moglen was hoping to out me as
omni/bisexual1 as part of my deposition
in this proceeding. As such, I’m outing myself here first (primarily) to
disarm his ability to use what he knows about my sexual orientation against
me. Since that last sentence makes me already out, Moglen will be unable
to use the biggest “secret” that Moglen “has on me”
in his future psychological and legal attacks.

I suspect some folks will stop reading here, but I really urge that you
keep reading this post, and also to read the unrelated statement made by
Conservancy
and FSFE.
The details are important and matter. I am admittedly embarrassed to talk
publicly about how Moglen exacerbated, expanded, and caused new symptoms of
my Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) — which I already suffered
from when I met him. But, I feel it is important to talk about these
issues publicly for many reasons — including that Moglen seeks to
expose these personal facts about me as an attempt to stigmatize what is
actually a positive thing: I seek ongoing treatment for my PTSD (which
Moglen himself, in part, caused) and to simultaneously process and reduce
my (painful and stubborn) internalized shame about my LGBTQIA+
status. (Like many proud LGBTQIA+ folks, I struggle with this because
living in a society unfriendly to LGBTQIA+ folks can lead to difficult
shame issues — this is a well-documented phenomena that LGBTQIA+
folks like myself suffer from.)

The primary recent catalyst for this situation is as follows: Moglen has
insisted that, as part of the
ongoing trademark
cancellation petition that SFLC filed against my employer, Software Freedom
Conservancy in
the TTAB,
that Moglen both personally be allowed to be present at, and to
actually take the depositions3 of me and
my colleague, Karen Sandler.

This kind of behavior is typical of how abusers use litigation to
perpetuate their abuse. The USA legal system is designed to give everyone
“their day in Court”. Frankly, many of the rules established
for Court proceedings did not contemplate that the process could be
manipulated by abusers, and it remains an open problem on how to repair the
rules that both preserve the egalitarian nature of our legal system, but
also does not make it easy for abusers to misuse those same rules.
Depositions, in particular, are a key tool in abusers’ arsenals.
Depositions allow Plaintiffs (in the TTAB, BTW, the Plaintiff is called
“the Petitioner”) to gather evidence. Generally speaking, most
Courts have no good default rules to prevent abusers from using these
depositions to get themselves in the room with their victims and harass
those victims further with off-topic haranguing. The only method (which is
quite clunky as a legal tool) to curtail the harassment somewhat is called
a protective order. However, Moglen has been smart enough to use
the very process of the protective order application to further perpetuate
abusive behavior.

To understand all this in context, I ask that you first
read Conservancy’s
public response to the initial filing of the trademark cancellation
proceeding (six years ago). In short, SFLC is seeking to
“cancel” the trademark on the name “Software Freedom
Conservancy”. Ostensibly, that’s all this case is (or, rather should
be) about.

The problem is that, upon reading
the docket in
detail, it’s easily seen that at nearly every step, Moglen has
attempted to use the proceeding as a method to harass and attack me and my
colleague, Karen Sandler — regarding issues wholly unrelated to the
trademarks. The recent arguments have been about our depositions4 —
mine and Karen’s2.

After some complex legal back-and-forth,
Judge Elgin
ordered that I was legally required to sit for a deposition with and by
Moglen. This is the point where a catch-22 began for me.

  • Option 0: Sit in a room for 8+ hours with a person who had spent
    years verbally abusing me and let him ask me any question he
    wants    5 —
    under penalty of perjury and contempt of Court if I refuse.
  • Option
    1: Give Conservancy’s lawyers permission to talk openly, in public
    documents, about the details of the abuse I suffered from Moglen and the
    psychological harm that it caused me (which is the necessary backup
    document for a protective order motion).

IOW, the only way to
get a protective order that would prevent me from being legally required to
suffer further psychological abuse from Moglen was to publicly talk about
the past abuse 😩. I reluctantly chose Option 1. I encourage you to read
in
full
my first sworn testimony on the issue. That document explains many of the
psychological abusive examples I suffered from Moglen — both as an
employee at SFLC and since.

Fortunately, that aforementioned sworn testimony was sufficient to
convince Judge Elgin to at least entertain reconsidering her decision that
I have to sit8 for a deposition with Moglen. However, submitting the
official motion then required that I give even more
information about why the deposition with Moglen will be psychologically
harmful. In particular, I had little choice but to add a letter from my
(highly qualified) mental health provider speaking to the psychological
dangers that I would face if deposed by Moglen personally and/or in his
presence. I reluctantly asked my therapist
to provide
such a letter. It was really tough for me to publicly identify who my
therapist is, but it was, again, my best option out of that catch-22. I
admittedly didn’t anticipate that Moglen might use this knowledge as a
method to further his abuse against me publicly in his response filing.

As can be seen in Moglen’s response
filing, Moglen
directly attacks my therapist’s credentials — claiming she is not
credible nor qualified. Moglen’s argument is that because my therapist
is a licensed, AASECT-certified sex therapist, she is not qualified to
diagnose PTSD. Of course, Moglen’s argument is without merit: my
therapist’s sex therapy credentials are in addition to her many other
credentials and certifications — all of which is explained on her
website that Moglen admits in his filing he has reviewed.

As I mentioned, at one time, I foolishly and erroneously considered Moglen
a good friend. As such, I told Moglen a lot about my personal life,
including that I was omni/bisexual, and that I was (at the time) closeted. So,
Moglen already knows full well the reason that I would select a therapist
who held among her credentials a certification to give therapy relating to
sexuality. Moglen’s filing is, in my view, a veiled threat to me that he’s
going to disclose publicly what he knows about my sexuality as part of this
proceeding. So, I’ve decided — after much thought — that I
should simply disarm him on this and say it first: I have identified as
bisexual/omnisexual6 since 1993, but I have
never been “out” in my professional community — until
now. Moglen knows full well (because I told him on more than one occasion)
that I struggled with whether or not to come out for decades. Thus, I
chose a therapist who was both qualified to give treatment for PTSD as
well as for sexual orientation challenges because I’ve lived much of
my life with internalized shame about my sexual orientation. (I was (and
still am, a bit) afraid that it would hurt my career opportunities in the
FOSS community and technology generally if I came out; more on that below.)
I was still working through these issues with my therapist when all these
recent events occurred.

Despite the serious psychological abuse I’ve suffered from Moglen, until
this recent filing, I wouldn’t have imagined that Moglen would attempt to
use the secrecy about my LGBTQIA+ status as a way to further terrorize me.
All I can think to say to Moglen in response is to quote
what Joe Welch
said to Senator Joe McCarthy on 1954-06-09: “Have you no sense of
decency, sir — at long last? Have you left no sense of
decency?”.

It’s hard to express coherently the difficult realization of the stark
political reality of our world. There are people you might meet (and/or
work for) who, if they have a policy disagreement8 with you later, will use
every single fact about you to their advantage to prevail in that
disagreement. There is truly no reason that Moglen needed to draw
attention to the fact that I see a therapist who specializes (in part) in
issues with sexuality. The fact that he
goes
on to further claim that the mere fact that she has such certification
makes her unqualified to treat my other mental health illness —
some of which Moglen himself (in part) personally caused — is
unconscionable. I expect that even most of my worst political rivals who
work for proprietary software companies and violate copyleft licenses on a
daily basis would not stoop as low to what Moglen has in this
situation.

At this point, I really have no choice but to come out as
omnisexual7 — even though I
wasn’t really ready to do so. Moglen has insisted now that my therapy has
been brought up in the proceeding,
that he
has a legal right to force me to be evaluated by a therapist of his
choosing (as if I were a criminal
defendant). Moglen
has also indicated that, during my deposition, he will interrogate me about
my therapy and my reasons for choosing this particular therapist (see, for
example, footnote 2 on page 11 (PDF-Page 27) of Moglen’s declaration in support of the
motion). Now, even if the judge grants Conservancy’s motion
to exclude Moglen from my deposition, Moglen will instruct his attorneys to
ask me those questions about my therapy and my sexual orientation —
with the obvious goal of seeking to embarrass me by forcing me to reveal
such things publicly. Like those folks who sat before McCarthy in those
HUAC
hearings, I know
that none of my
secrets will survive Moglen’s deposition. By outing myself here first,
I am, at least, disarming Moglen from attempting to use my shame about my
sexual orientation against me.

Regarding LGBTQIA+ Acceptance and FOSS

I would like to leave Moglen and his abusive behavior there, and spend the
rest of this post talking about related issues of much greater importance.
First, I want to explain why it was so difficult for me to come out in my
professional community. Being somewhat older than most folks in FOSS
today, I really need to paint the picture of the USA when my career in
technology and FOSS got started. I was in my sophomore year of my Computer
Science undergraduate program when Clinton implemented
the Don’t
ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy for military in the USA. Now, as a
pacifist, I had no desire to join the military, but the DADT approach was
widely accepted in all areas of life.
The whole sarcastic “Not that there’s anything wrong with that
…” attitude (made famous contemporaneously to DADT on an
episode of the TV
show, Seinfeld) made it clear in culture that the world,
including those who ostensibly supported LGBTQIA+ rights, wanted queer
folks to remain, at best, “quiet and proud”, not “loud
and proud”. As a clincher, note that three years after DADT
was put in effect, overwhelming bipartisan support came forward for the
so-called
“Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA)”. An overwhelming majority of
everyone in Congress and the Presidency (regardless of party affiliation)
was in 1996 anti-LGBTQIA+. Folks who supported and voted yes for DOMA
include: Earl Blumenauer (still a senator from my current
state), Joe Biden (now POTUS (!)), Barbara Mikulski (a
senator until 2017 from my home state), and Chuck Schumer (still Senate
majority leader today). DADT didn’t end until 2011, and
while SCOTUS
ruled parts of DOMA unconstitutional in 2015,
Congress didn’t
actually repeal DOMA until last year! Hopefully, that gives a
clear sense of what the climate for LGBTQIA+ folks was like in the 1990s,
and why I felt was terrified to be outed — even as the 1990s became
the 2000s.

I also admit that my own shame about my sexual orientation grew as I got
older and began my professional career. I “pass” as straight
— particularly in our heteronormative culture that auto-casts
everyone as cishet until proven otherwise. It was just easier to not bring
it up. Why bother, I thought? It was off-topic (so I felt), and there
were plenty of people around the tech world in the 1990s and early 2000s
who were not particularly LGBTQIA+-friendly, or who feigned that they were
but were still “weird” about it.

I do think tech in general and FOSS in particular are much more
LGBTQIA+-friendly than they once were. However, there has been a huge
anti-LGBTQIA+ backlash in certain areas of the USA in recent years, so even
as I became more comfortable with the idea of being “out”, I
also felt (and do feel) that the world has recently gotten a lot more
dangerous for LGBTQIA+ folks. Folks like Moglen who wage “total
war” against their political opponents know this, and it is precisely
why they try to cast phrases like bisexual, gay, queer, and “sex
therapist” as salacious.

Also, PTSD has this way of making you believe you’re vulnerable in every
situation. When you’re suffering from the worst of PTSD’s symptoms, you
believe that you can never be safe anywhere — ever again. But,
logically I know that I’m safe being a queer person (at least in the small
FOSS world) — for two big reasons. First, the FOSS community of
today is (in most cases) very welcoming to LGBTQIA+ folks and most of the
cishet folks in FOSS identify as LGBTQIA+ allies. Second, I sheepishly
admit that as I’ve reached my 0x32’nd year of life this year, I have a 20+
year credentialed career that has left me in a position of authority and
privilege as a FOSS leader. I gain inherent safety from my position of
power in the community to just be who I am.

While this is absolutely not the manner and time in which I wanted to come
out, I’ll try to make some proverbial lemonade out of the lemons. By now
being out as LGBTQIA+ and already being a FOSS leader, I’d like to
offer to anyone who is new to FOSS and faces fear and worry about LGBTQIA+
issues in FOSS to contact me if they think I can help. I can’t promise to
write back to everyone, but I will do my very best to try to either help or
route you to someone else in FOSS who might be able to.

Also, I want to state something in direct contrast to Moglen’s claims that
the mere fact that a therapist who is qualified for treating people with
issues related to sexual orientation is ipso facto unqualified to treat any
other mental condition. I want to share publicly how valuable it has been
for me in finding a therapist who “gets it” with regard to
living queer in the world while also suffering from other conditions (such as PTSD).
So many LGBTQIA+ youth are bullied due to their orientation, and sustained
bullying commonly causes PTSD. I think we should all be so lucky to have a
mental health provider, as I do,
that
is extensively qualified to treat the whole person and not just a
single condition or issue. We should stand against people like Moglen who,
upon seeing that someone’s therapist specializes in helping people with
their sexual orientation, would use that fact as a way to shame both the
individual and the therapist. Doing that is wrong, and people who do that
are failing to create safe spaces for the LGBTQIA+ community.

I am aghast that Moglen is trying to shame me for seeking help from a
mental health provider who could help me overcome my internalized shame
regarding my sexual orientation. I also want people to know that I did not
feel safe as a queer person when I worked for Eben Moglen at SFLC. But I
also know Moglen doesn’t represent what our FOSS community and software
freedom is about. I felt I needed to make this post not only to disarm the
power Moglen held to “out me” before I was ready, but also to
warn others that, in my opinion, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) as an
organization that is not a safe space for LGBTQIA+ folks.
Finally, I do know that Moglen is also a tenured professor at Columbia Law
School. I have so often worried about his students — who may, as I
did, erroneously believe they can trust Moglen with private information as
important as their LGBTQIA+ status. I simply felt I couldn’t stay silent
about my experiences in good conscience any longer.

0, 4

A deposition is a form of testimony done during litigation before trial
begins. Each party in a legal dispute can subpoena witnesses. Rules vary
from venue to venue, but typically, a deposition is taken for eight hours,
and opposing attorneys can ask as many questions as they want —
including leading questions.

5In most
depositions, there is a time limit, but the scope of what questions
can be asked are not bounded. Somewhat strangely, one’s own lawyer
is not usually permitted to object on grounds of relevancy to the
case, so the questions can be as off-topic as the opposing counsel
wants.

3, 8 The
opposing attorney who asks the question is said to be “taking
the deposition”. The witness is said to be “sitting for
a deposition”. (IIUC, these are terms of art in
litigation).

1,
6,
7
From 1993-2018, I identified as “bisexual”. That term,
unfortunately, is, in my opinion, not friendly to non-binary people,
since the “bi” part (at least to me, I know others
disagree) assumes binary gender. The more common term used today is
“pansexual”, but, personally I prefer the term
“omnisexual” to “pansexual” for reasons that
are beyond the scope of this particular post. I am, however, not
offended if you use any of the three terms to refer to my sexual
orientation.

2Note, BTW: when
you read the docket, Judge Elgin (about 75% of the time) calls Karen
by the name “Ms. Bradley” (using my first name as if it
were Karen’s surname). It’s a bit confusing, so watch for it while
you’re reading so you don’t get confused.

8
Footnote added 2023-10-12, 19:00 US/Eastern: Since I
posted this about 30 hours ago, I’ve gotten so many statements of
support emailed to me that I can’t possibly respond to them all, but
I’ll try. Meanwhile, a few people have hinted at and/or outright
asked what policy disagreements Moglen actually has with me. I was
reluctant to answer because the point I’m making in this post is
that even if Moglen thought every last thing I’ve ever done
in my career was harmful policy-wise, it still would not
justify these abusive behaviors. Nevertheless, I admit that
if this post were made by someone else, I’d be curious about what the
policy disagreements were, so I decided to answer the question. I
think that my overarching policy disagreement with Eben Moglen is
with regard to how and when to engage in enforcement of the GPL and
other copyleft licenses through litigation. I think Moglen explains
this policy disagreement best
in his
talk that the Linux Foundation contemporaneously promoted (and
continues to regularly reference)
entitled “Whither (Not Wither) Copyleft”. In this
talk, Moglen states that I (among others) are “on a jihad for
free software” (his words, direct quote) because we continued
to pursue GPL enforcement through litigation. While I agree that
litigation
should still remain the last resort, I do think it remains a
necessary step often. Moglen argues that even though litigation was
needed in the past, it should never be used again for copyleft and
GPL enforcement. As Moglen outlines in his talk, he supports the
concept of “spontaneous compliance” — a system
whereby there is no regulatory regime and firms simply chose to
follow the rules of copyleft because it’s so obviously in their own
best interest. I’ve not seen this approach work in practice, which is
why I think we must still sometimes file GPL (and LGPL) lawsuits
— even today.
Moglen and I have plenty of other smaller policy disagreements: from
appropriate copyright assignment structures for FOSS, to finer points
of how GPLv3 should have been drafted, to tactics and strategy with
regard to copyleft advocacy, to how non-profits and charities should
be structured for the betterment of FOSS. However, I suspect all
these smaller policy disagreements stem from our fundamental policy
disagreement about GPL enforcement. However, I conclude by (a)
saying again no policy disagreement with anyone justifies
abusive behavior toward that person — not ever, and
(b) please do note the irony that, in that 2016-11-02 speech,
Moglen took the position that lawsuits should no longer be used to
settle disputes in FOSS, and yet — less than 10 months later
— Moglen
sued Conservancy (his former client) in the TTAB.

Eben Moglen & SFLC — abusive employer & LGBTQIA+ unfriendly

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2023/10/11/moglen-sflc.html

[ The below is a personal statement that I make on my own behalf. While
my statement’s release coincides with a release of an unrelated statement
on similar topics made
by my
employer, Software Freedom Conservancy, and
the Free
Software Foundation Europe, please keep in mind that this statement is
my own, personal opinion — written exclusively by me — and not
necessarily the opinion of either of those organizations. I did not consult
nor coordinate with either organization on this statement. ]

With great trepidation, I have decided to make this public statement
regarding the psychological abuse, including menacing, that I suffered,
perpetrated by Eben Moglen, both while I was employed at his Software
Freedom Law Center (SFLC) from 2005-2010, and in the years after he fired
me. No one revels in having psychological injuries and mistreatment
they’ve suffered paraded to the public. I’ll be frank that if it were not
for Moglen’s use of the USA Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) as a
method to perpetrate further abusive behavior, I wouldn’t have written this
post. Furthermore, sadly, Moglen has threatened in recent TTAB filings his
intention to use the proceeding to release personal details about my life
to the public (using the litigation itself as a lever). I have decided to
preemptively make public the facts herein first myself — so that I
can at least control the timing and framing of the information.

This post is long; the issues discussed in it are complicated, nuanced,
and cannot be summed up easily. Nevertheless, I’m realistic that most
people will stop reading soon, so I’ll summarize now as best I can in a few
sentences: I worked initially with, and then for, Eben Moglen for
nearly a decade — during which time he was psychologically abusive and
gaslighted me (under the guise of training and mentoring me). I thought
for many years that he was one of my best friends (— in retrospect, I
believe that he tricked me into believing that he was). As such, I shared
extremely personal details about myself to him — which he has used
both contemporaneously and in years hence to attempt to discredit me with
my colleagues and peers. Recently, Moglen declared his plans to use
current TTAB proceedings to force me to answer questions about my mental
health in
deposition0. Long
ago, I disclosed key personal information to Moglen, I therefore have a
pretty good idea of what his next move will be during that deposition
questioning. Specifically, I believe Moglen was hoping to out me as
omni/bisexual1 as part of my deposition
in this proceeding. As such, I’m outing myself here first (primarily) to
disarm his ability to use what he knows about my sexual orientation against
me. Since that last sentence makes me already out, Moglen will be unable
to use the biggest “secret” that Moglen “has on me”
in his future psychological and legal attacks.

I suspect some folks will stop reading here, but I really urge that you
keep reading this post, and also to read the unrelated statement made by
Conservancy
and FSFE.
The details are important and matter. I am admittedly embarrassed to talk
publicly about how Moglen exacerbated, expanded, and caused new symptoms of
my Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) — which I already suffered
from when I met him. But, I feel it is important to talk about these
issues publicly for many reasons — including that Moglen seeks to
expose these personal facts about me as an attempt to stigmatize what is
actually a positive thing: I seek ongoing treatment for my PTSD (which
Moglen himself, in part, caused) and to simultaneously process and reduce
my (painful and stubborn) internalized shame about my LGBTQIA+
status. (Like many proud LGBTQIA+ folks, I struggle with this because
living in a society unfriendly to LGBTQIA+ folks can lead to difficult
shame issues — this is a well-documented phenomena that LGBTQIA+
folks like myself suffer from.)

The primary recent catalyst for this situation is as follows: Moglen has
insisted that, as part of the
ongoing trademark
cancellation petition that SFLC filed against my employer, Software Freedom
Conservancy in
the TTAB,
that Moglen both personally be allowed to be present at, and to
actually take the depositions3 of me and
my colleague, Karen Sandler.

This kind of behavior is typical of how abusers use litigation to
perpetuate their abuse. The USA legal system is designed to give everyone
“their day in Court”. Frankly, many of the rules established
for Court proceedings did not contemplate that the process could be
manipulated by abusers, and it remains an open problem on how to repair the
rules that both preserve the egalitarian nature of our legal system, but
also does not make it easy for abusers to misuse those same rules.
Depositions, in particular, are a key tool in abusers’ arsenals.
Depositions allow Plaintiffs (in the TTAB, BTW, the Plaintiff is called
“the Petitioner”) to gather evidence. Generally speaking, most
Courts have no good default rules to prevent abusers from using these
depositions to get themselves in the room with their victims and harass
those victims further with off-topic haranguing. The only method (which is
quite clunky as a legal tool) to curtail the harassment somewhat is called
a protective order. However, Moglen has been smart enough to use
the very process of the protective order application to further perpetuate
abusive behavior.

To understand all this in context, I ask that you first
read Conservancy’s
public response to the initial filing of the trademark cancellation
proceeding (six years ago). In short, SFLC is seeking to
“cancel” the trademark on the name “Software Freedom
Conservancy”. Ostensibly, that’s all this case is (or, rather should
be) about.

The problem is that, upon reading
the docket in
detail, it’s easily seen that at nearly every step, Moglen has
attempted to use the proceeding as a method to harass and attack me and my
colleague, Karen Sandler — regarding issues wholly unrelated to the
trademarks. The recent arguments have been about our depositions4 —
mine and Karen’s2.

After some complex legal back-and-forth,
Judge Elgin
ordered that I was legally required to sit for a deposition with and by
Moglen. This is the point where a catch-22 began for me.

  • Option 0: Sit in a room for 8+ hours with a person who had spent
    years verbally abusing me and let him ask me any question he
    wants    5 —
    under penalty of perjury and contempt of Court if I refuse.
  • Option
    1: Give Conservancy’s lawyers permission to talk openly, in public
    documents, about the details of the abuse I suffered from Moglen and the
    psychological harm that it caused me (which is the necessary backup
    document for a protective order motion).

IOW, the only way to
get a protective order that would prevent me from being legally required to
suffer further psychological abuse from Moglen was to publicly talk about
the past abuse 😩. I reluctantly chose Option 1. I encourage you to read
in
full
my first sworn testimony on the issue. That document explains many of the
psychological abusive examples I suffered from Moglen — both as an
employee at SFLC and since.

Fortunately, that aforementioned sworn testimony was sufficient to
convince Judge Elgin to at least entertain reconsidering her decision that
I have to sit8 for a deposition with Moglen. However, submitting the
official motion then required that I give even more
information about why the deposition with Moglen will be psychologically
harmful. In particular, I had little choice but to add a letter from my
(highly qualified) mental health provider speaking to the psychological
dangers that I would face if deposed by Moglen personally and/or in his
presence. I reluctantly asked my therapist
to provide
such a letter. It was really tough for me to publicly identify who my
therapist is, but it was, again, my best option out of that catch-22. I
admittedly didn’t anticipate that Moglen might use this knowledge as a
method to further his abuse against me publicly in his response filing.

As can be seen in Moglen’s response
filing, Moglen
directly attacks my therapist’s credentials — claiming she is not
credible nor qualified. Moglen’s argument is that because my therapist
is a licensed, AASECT-certified sex therapist, she is not qualified to
diagnose PTSD. Of course, Moglen’s argument is without merit: my
therapist’s sex therapy credentials are in addition to her many other
credentials and certifications — all of which is explained on her
website that Moglen admits in his filing he has reviewed.

As I mentioned, at one time, I foolishly and erroneously considered Moglen
a good friend. As such, I told Moglen a lot about my personal life,
including that I was omni/bisexual, and that I was (at the time) closeted. So,
Moglen already knows full well the reason that I would select a therapist
who held among her credentials a certification to give therapy relating to
sexuality. Moglen’s filing is, in my view, a veiled threat to me that he’s
going to disclose publicly what he knows about my sexuality as part of this
proceeding. So, I’ve decided — after much thought — that I
should simply disarm him on this and say it first: I have identified as
bisexual/omnisexual6 since 1993, but I have
never been “out” in my professional community — until
now. Moglen knows full well (because I told him on more than one occasion)
that I struggled with whether or not to come out for decades. Thus, I
chose a therapist who was both qualified to give treatment for PTSD as
well as for sexual orientation challenges because I’ve lived much of
my life with internalized shame about my sexual orientation. (I was (and
still am, a bit) afraid that it would hurt my career opportunities in the
FOSS community and technology generally if I came out; more on that below.)
I was still working through these issues with my therapist when all these
recent events occurred.

Despite the serious psychological abuse I’ve suffered from Moglen, until
this recent filing, I wouldn’t have imagined that Moglen would attempt to
use the secrecy about my LGBTQIA+ status as a way to further terrorize me.
All I can think to say to Moglen in response is to quote
what Joe Welch
said to Senator Joe McCarthy on 1954-06-09: “Have you no sense of
decency, sir — at long last? Have you left no sense of
decency?”.

It’s hard to express coherently the difficult realization of the stark
political reality of our world. There are people you might meet (and/or
work for) who, if they have a policy disagreement8 with you later, will use
every single fact about you to their advantage to prevail in that
disagreement. There is truly no reason that Moglen needed to draw
attention to the fact that I see a therapist who specializes (in part) in
issues with sexuality. The fact that he
goes
on to further claim that the mere fact that she has such certification
makes her unqualified to treat my other mental health illness —
some of which Moglen himself (in part) personally caused — is
unconscionable. I expect that even most of my worst political rivals who
work for proprietary software companies and violate copyleft licenses on a
daily basis would not stoop as low to what Moglen has in this
situation.

At this point, I really have no choice but to come out as
omnisexual7 — even though I
wasn’t really ready to do so. Moglen has insisted now that my therapy has
been brought up in the proceeding,
that he
has a legal right to force me to be evaluated by a therapist of his
choosing (as if I were a criminal
defendant). Moglen
has also indicated that, during my deposition, he will interrogate me about
my therapy and my reasons for choosing this particular therapist (see, for
example, footnote 2 on page 11 (PDF-Page 27) of Moglen’s declaration in support of the
motion). Now, even if the judge grants Conservancy’s motion
to exclude Moglen from my deposition, Moglen will instruct his attorneys to
ask me those questions about my therapy and my sexual orientation —
with the obvious goal of seeking to embarrass me by forcing me to reveal
such things publicly. Like those folks who sat before McCarthy in those
HUAC
hearings, I know
that none of my
secrets will survive Moglen’s deposition. By outing myself here first,
I am, at least, disarming Moglen from attempting to use my shame about my
sexual orientation against me.

Regarding LGBTQIA+ Acceptance and FOSS

I would like to leave Moglen and his abusive behavior there, and spend the
rest of this post talking about related issues of much greater importance.
First, I want to explain why it was so difficult for me to come out in my
professional community. Being somewhat older than most folks in FOSS
today, I really need to paint the picture of the USA when my career in
technology and FOSS got started. I was in my sophomore year of my Computer
Science undergraduate program when Clinton implemented
the Don’t
ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy for military in the USA. Now, as a
pacifist, I had no desire to join the military, but the DADT approach was
widely accepted in all areas of life.
The whole sarcastic “Not that there’s anything wrong with that
…” attitude (made famous contemporaneously to DADT on an
episode of the TV
show, Seinfeld) made it clear in culture that the world,
including those who ostensibly supported LGBTQIA+ rights, wanted queer
folks to remain, at best, “quiet and proud”, not “loud
and proud”. As a clincher, note that three years after DADT
was put in effect, overwhelming bipartisan support came forward for the
so-called
“Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA)”. An overwhelming majority of
everyone in Congress and the Presidency (regardless of party affiliation)
was in 1996 anti-LGBTQIA+. Folks who supported and voted yes for DOMA
include: Earl Blumenauer (still a senator from my current
state), Joe Biden (now POTUS (!)), Barbara Mikulski (a
senator until 2017 from my home state), and Chuck Schumer (still Senate
majority leader today). DADT didn’t end until 2011, and
while SCOTUS
ruled parts of DOMA unconstitutional in 2015,
Congress didn’t
actually repeal DOMA until last year! Hopefully, that gives a
clear sense of what the climate for LGBTQIA+ folks was like in the 1990s,
and why I felt was terrified to be outed — even as the 1990s became
the 2000s.

I also admit that my own shame about my sexual orientation grew as I got
older and began my professional career. I “pass” as straight
— particularly in our heteronormative culture that auto-casts
everyone as cishet until proven otherwise. It was just easier to not bring
it up. Why bother, I thought? It was off-topic (so I felt), and there
were plenty of people around the tech world in the 1990s and early 2000s
who were not particularly LGBTQIA+-friendly, or who feigned that they were
but were still “weird” about it.

I do think tech in general and FOSS in particular are much more
LGBTQIA+-friendly than they once were. However, there has been a huge
anti-LGBTQIA+ backlash in certain areas of the USA in recent years, so even
as I became more comfortable with the idea of being “out”, I
also felt (and do feel) that the world has recently gotten a lot more
dangerous for LGBTQIA+ folks. Folks like Moglen who wage “total
war” against their political opponents know this, and it is precisely
why they try to cast phrases like bisexual, gay, queer, and “sex
therapist” as salacious.

Also, PTSD has this way of making you believe you’re vulnerable in every
situation. When you’re suffering from the worst of PTSD’s symptoms, you
believe that you can never be safe anywhere — ever again. But,
logically I know that I’m safe being a queer person (at least in the small
FOSS world) — for two big reasons. First, the FOSS community of
today is (in most cases) very welcoming to LGBTQIA+ folks and most of the
cishet folks in FOSS identify as LGBTQIA+ allies. Second, I sheepishly
admit that as I’ve reached my 0x32’nd year of life this year, I have a 20+
year credentialed career that has left me in a position of authority and
privilege as a FOSS leader. I gain inherent safety from my position of
power in the community to just be who I am.

While this is absolutely not the manner and time in which I wanted to come
out, I’ll try to make some proverbial lemonade out of the lemons. By now
being out as LGBTQIA+ and already being a FOSS leader, I’d like to
offer to anyone who is new to FOSS and faces fear and worry about LGBTQIA+
issues in FOSS to contact me if they think I can help. I can’t promise to
write back to everyone, but I will do my very best to try to either help or
route you to someone else in FOSS who might be able to.

Also, I want to state something in direct contrast to Moglen’s claims that
the mere fact that a therapist who is qualified for treating people with
issues related to sexual orientation is ipso facto unqualified to treat any
other mental condition. I want to share publicly how valuable it has been
for me in finding a therapist who “gets it” with regard to
living queer in the world while also suffering from other conditions (such as PTSD).
So many LGBTQIA+ youth are bullied due to their orientation, and sustained
bullying commonly causes PTSD. I think we should all be so lucky to have a
mental health provider, as I do,
that
is extensively qualified to treat the whole person and not just a
single condition or issue. We should stand against people like Moglen who,
upon seeing that someone’s therapist specializes in helping people with
their sexual orientation, would use that fact as a way to shame both the
individual and the therapist. Doing that is wrong, and people who do that
are failing to create safe spaces for the LGBTQIA+ community.

I am aghast that Moglen is trying to shame me for seeking help from a
mental health provider who could help me overcome my internalized shame
regarding my sexual orientation. I also want people to know that I did not
feel safe as a queer person when I worked for Eben Moglen at SFLC. But I
also know Moglen doesn’t represent what our FOSS community and software
freedom is about. I felt I needed to make this post not only to disarm the
power Moglen held to “out me” before I was ready, but also to
warn others that, in my opinion, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) as an
organization that is not a safe space for LGBTQIA+ folks.
Finally, I do know that Moglen is also a tenured professor at Columbia Law
School. I have so often worried about his students — who may, as I
did, erroneously believe they can trust Moglen with private information as
important as their LGBTQIA+ status. I simply felt I couldn’t stay silent
about my experiences in good conscience any longer.

0, 4

A deposition is a form of testimony done during litigation before trial
begins. Each party in a legal dispute can subpoena witnesses. Rules vary
from venue to venue, but typically, a deposition is taken for eight hours,
and opposing attorneys can ask as many questions as they want —
including leading questions.

5In most
depositions, there is a time limit, but the scope of what questions
can be asked are not bounded. Somewhat strangely, one’s own lawyer
is not usually permitted to object on grounds of relevancy to the
case, so the questions can be as off-topic as the opposing counsel
wants.

3, 8 The
opposing attorney who asks the question is said to be “taking
the deposition”. The witness is said to be “sitting for
a deposition”. (IIUC, these are terms of art in
litigation).

1,
6,
7
From 1993-2018, I identified as “bisexual”. That term,
unfortunately, is, in my opinion, not friendly to non-binary people,
since the “bi” part (at least to me, I know others
disagree) assumes binary gender. The more common term used today is
“pansexual”, but, personally I prefer the term
“omnisexual” to “pansexual” for reasons that
are beyond the scope of this particular post. I am, however, not
offended if you use any of the three terms to refer to my sexual
orientation.

2Note, BTW: when
you read the docket, Judge Elgin (about 75% of the time) calls Karen
by the name “Ms. Bradley” (using my first name as if it
were Karen’s surname). It’s a bit confusing, so watch for it while
you’re reading so you don’t get confused.

8
Footnote added 2023-10-12, 19:00 US/Eastern: Since I
posted this about 30 hours ago, I’ve gotten so many statements of
support emailed to me that I can’t possibly respond to them all, but
I’ll try. Meanwhile, a few people have hinted at and/or outright
asked what policy disagreements Moglen actually has with me. I was
reluctant to answer because the point I’m making in this post is
that even if Moglen thought every last thing I’ve ever done
in my career was harmful policy-wise, it still would not
justify these abusive behaviors. Nevertheless, I admit that
if this post were made by someone else, I’d be curious about what the
policy disagreements were, so I decided to answer the question. I
think that my overarching policy disagreement with Eben Moglen is
with regard to how and when to engage in enforcement of the GPL and
other copyleft licenses through litigation. I think Moglen explains
this policy disagreement best
in his
talk that the Linux Foundation contemporaneously promoted (and
continues to regularly reference)
entitled “Whither (Not Wither) Copyleft”. In this
talk, Moglen states that I (among others) are “on a jihad for
free software” (his words, direct quote) because we continued
to pursue GPL enforcement through litigation. While I agree that
litigation
should still remain the last resort, I do think it remains a
necessary step often. Moglen argues that even though litigation was
needed in the past, it should never be used again for copyleft and
GPL enforcement. As Moglen outlines in his talk, he supports the
concept of “spontaneous compliance” — a system
whereby there is no regulatory regime and firms simply chose to
follow the rules of copyleft because it’s so obviously in their own
best interest. I’ve not seen this approach work in practice, which is
why I think we must still sometimes file GPL (and LGPL) lawsuits
— even today.
Moglen and I have plenty of other smaller policy disagreements: from
appropriate copyright assignment structures for FOSS, to finer points
of how GPLv3 should have been drafted, to tactics and strategy with
regard to copyleft advocacy, to how non-profits and charities should
be structured for the betterment of FOSS. However, I suspect all
these smaller policy disagreements stem from our fundamental policy
disagreement about GPL enforcement. However, I conclude by (a)
saying again no policy disagreement with anyone justifies
abusive behavior toward that person — not ever, and
(b) please do note the irony that, in that 2016-11-02 speech,
Moglen took the position that lawsuits should no longer be used to
settle disputes in FOSS, and yet — less than 10 months later
— Moglen
sued Conservancy (his former client) in the TTAB.

Eben Moglen & SFLC — abusive employer & LGBTQIA+ unfriendly

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2023/10/11/moglen-sflc.html

[ The below is a personal statement that I make on my own behalf. While
my statement’s release coincides with a release of an unrelated statement
on similar topics made
by my
employer, Software Freedom Conservancy, and
the Free
Software Foundation Europe, please keep in mind that this statement is
my own, personal opinion — written exclusively by me — and not
necessarily the opinion of either of those organizations. I did not consult
nor coordinate with either organization on this statement. ]

With great trepidation, I have decided to make this public statement
regarding the psychological abuse, including menacing, that I suffered,
perpetrated by Eben Moglen, both while I was employed at his Software
Freedom Law Center (SFLC) from 2005-2010, and in the years after he fired
me. No one revels in having psychological injuries and mistreatment
they’ve suffered paraded to the public. I’ll be frank that if it were not
for Moglen’s use of the USA Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) as a
method to perpetrate further abusive behavior, I wouldn’t have written this
post. Furthermore, sadly, Moglen has threatened in recent TTAB filings his
intention to use the proceeding to release personal details about my life
to the public (using the litigation itself as a lever). I have decided to
preemptively make public the facts herein first myself — so that I
can at least control the timing and framing of the information.

This post is long; the issues discussed in it are complicated, nuanced,
and cannot be summed up easily. Nevertheless, I’m realistic that most
people will stop reading soon, so I’ll summarize now as best I can in a few
sentences: I worked initially with, and then for, Eben Moglen for
nearly a decade — during which time he was psychologically abusive and
gaslighted me (under the guise of training and mentoring me). I thought
for many years that he was one of my best friends (— in retrospect, I
believe that he tricked me into believing that he was). As such, I shared
extremely personal details about myself to him — which he has used
both contemporaneously and in years hence to attempt to discredit me with
my colleagues and peers. Recently, Moglen declared his plans to use
current TTAB proceedings to force me to answer questions about my mental
health in
deposition0. Long
ago, I disclosed key personal information to Moglen, I therefore have a
pretty good idea of what his next move will be during that deposition
questioning. Specifically, I believe Moglen was hoping to out me as
omni/bisexual1 as part of my deposition
in this proceeding. As such, I’m outing myself here first (primarily) to
disarm his ability to use what he knows about my sexual orientation against
me. Since that last sentence makes me already out, Moglen will be unable
to use the biggest “secret” that Moglen “has on me”
in his future psychological and legal attacks.

I suspect some folks will stop reading here, but I really urge that you
keep reading this post, and also to read the unrelated statement made by
Conservancy
and FSFE.
The details are important and matter. I am admittedly embarrassed to talk
publicly about how Moglen exacerbated, expanded, and caused new symptoms of
my Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) — which I already suffered
from when I met him. But, I feel it is important to talk about these
issues publicly for many reasons — including that Moglen seeks to
expose these personal facts about me as an attempt to stigmatize what is
actually a positive thing: I seek ongoing treatment for my PTSD (which
Moglen himself, in part, caused) and to simultaneously process and reduce
my (painful and stubborn) internalized shame about my LGBTQIA+
status. (Like many proud LGBTQIA+ folks, I struggle with this because
living in a society unfriendly to LGBTQIA+ folks can lead to difficult
shame issues — this is a well-documented phenomena that LGBTQIA+
folks like myself suffer from.)

The primary recent catalyst for this situation is as follows: Moglen has
insisted that, as part of the
ongoing trademark
cancellation petition that SFLC filed against my employer, Software Freedom
Conservancy in
the TTAB,
that Moglen both personally be allowed to be present at, and to
actually take the depositions3 of me and
my colleague, Karen Sandler.

This kind of behavior is typical of how abusers use litigation to
perpetuate their abuse. The USA legal system is designed to give everyone
“their day in Court”. Frankly, many of the rules established
for Court proceedings did not contemplate that the process could be
manipulated by abusers, and it remains an open problem on how to repair the
rules that both preserve the egalitarian nature of our legal system, but
also does not make it easy for abusers to misuse those same rules.
Depositions, in particular, are a key tool in abusers’ arsenals.
Depositions allow Plaintiffs (in the TTAB, BTW, the Plaintiff is called
“the Petitioner”) to gather evidence. Generally speaking, most
Courts have no good default rules to prevent abusers from using these
depositions to get themselves in the room with their victims and harass
those victims further with off-topic haranguing. The only method (which is
quite clunky as a legal tool) to curtail the harassment somewhat is called
a protective order. However, Moglen has been smart enough to use
the very process of the protective order application to further perpetuate
abusive behavior.

To understand all this in context, I ask that you first
read Conservancy’s
public response to the initial filing of the trademark cancellation
proceeding (six years ago). In short, SFLC is seeking to
“cancel” the trademark on the name “Software Freedom
Conservancy”. Ostensibly, that’s all this case is (or, rather should
be) about.

The problem is that, upon reading
the docket in
detail, it’s easily seen that at nearly every step, Moglen has
attempted to use the proceeding as a method to harass and attack me and my
colleague, Karen Sandler — regarding issues wholly unrelated to the
trademarks. The recent arguments have been about our depositions4 —
mine and Karen’s2.

After some complex legal back-and-forth,
Judge Elgin
ordered that I was legally required to sit for a deposition with and by
Moglen. This is the point where a catch-22 began for me.

  • Option 0: Sit in a room for 8+ hours with a person who had spent
    years verbally abusing me and let him ask me any question he
    wants    5 —
    under penalty of perjury and contempt of Court if I refuse.
  • Option
    1: Give Conservancy’s lawyers permission to talk openly, in public
    documents, about the details of the abuse I suffered from Moglen and the
    psychological harm that it caused me (which is the necessary backup
    document for a protective order motion).

IOW, the only way to
get a protective order that would prevent me from being legally required to
suffer further psychological abuse from Moglen was to publicly talk about
the past abuse 😩. I reluctantly chose Option 1. I encourage you to read
in
full
my first sworn testimony on the issue. That document explains many of the
psychological abusive examples I suffered from Moglen — both as an
employee at SFLC and since.

Fortunately, that aforementioned sworn testimony was sufficient to
convince Judge Elgin to at least entertain reconsidering her decision that
I have to sit8 for a deposition with Moglen. However, submitting the
official motion then required that I give even more
information about why the deposition with Moglen will be psychologically
harmful. In particular, I had little choice but to add a letter from my
(highly qualified) mental health provider speaking to the psychological
dangers that I would face if deposed by Moglen personally and/or in his
presence. I reluctantly asked my therapist
to provide
such a letter. It was really tough for me to publicly identify who my
therapist is, but it was, again, my best option out of that catch-22. I
admittedly didn’t anticipate that Moglen might use this knowledge as a
method to further his abuse against me publicly in his response filing.

As can be seen in Moglen’s response
filing, Moglen
directly attacks my therapist’s credentials — claiming she is not
credible nor qualified. Moglen’s argument is that because my therapist
is a licensed, AASECT-certified sex therapist, she is not qualified to
diagnose PTSD. Of course, Moglen’s argument is without merit: my
therapist’s sex therapy credentials are in addition to her many other
credentials and certifications — all of which is explained on her
website that Moglen admits in his filing he has reviewed.

As I mentioned, at one time, I foolishly and erroneously considered Moglen
a good friend. As such, I told Moglen a lot about my personal life,
including that I was omni/bisexual, and that I was (at the time) closeted. So,
Moglen already knows full well the reason that I would select a therapist
who held among her credentials a certification to give therapy relating to
sexuality. Moglen’s filing is, in my view, a veiled threat to me that he’s
going to disclose publicly what he knows about my sexuality as part of this
proceeding. So, I’ve decided — after much thought — that I
should simply disarm him on this and say it first: I have identified as
bisexual/omnisexual6 since 1993, but I have
never been “out” in my professional community — until
now. Moglen knows full well (because I told him on more than one occasion)
that I struggled with whether or not to come out for decades. Thus, I
chose a therapist who was both qualified to give treatment for PTSD as
well as for sexual orientation challenges because I’ve lived much of
my life with internalized shame about my sexual orientation. (I was (and
still am, a bit) afraid that it would hurt my career opportunities in the
FOSS community and technology generally if I came out; more on that below.)
I was still working through these issues with my therapist when all these
recent events occurred.

Despite the serious psychological abuse I’ve suffered from Moglen, until
this recent filing, I wouldn’t have imagined that Moglen would attempt to
use the secrecy about my LGBTQIA+ status as a way to further terrorize me.
All I can think to say to Moglen in response is to quote
what Joe Welch
said to Senator Joe McCarthy on 1954-06-09: “Have you no sense of
decency, sir — at long last? Have you left no sense of
decency?”.

It’s hard to express coherently the difficult realization of the stark
political reality of our world. There are people you might meet (and/or
work for) who, if they have a policy disagreement8 with you later, will use
every single fact about you to their advantage to prevail in that
disagreement. There is truly no reason that Moglen needed to draw
attention to the fact that I see a therapist who specializes (in part) in
issues with sexuality. The fact that he
goes
on to further claim that the mere fact that she has such certification
makes her unqualified to treat my other mental health illness —
some of which Moglen himself (in part) personally caused — is
unconscionable. I expect that even most of my worst political rivals who
work for proprietary software companies and violate copyleft licenses on a
daily basis would not stoop as low to what Moglen has in this
situation.

At this point, I really have no choice but to come out as
omnisexual7 — even though I
wasn’t really ready to do so. Moglen has insisted now that my therapy has
been brought up in the proceeding,
that he
has a legal right to force me to be evaluated by a therapist of his
choosing (as if I were a criminal
defendant). Moglen
has also indicated that, during my deposition, he will interrogate me about
my therapy and my reasons for choosing this particular therapist (see, for
example, footnote 2 on page 11 (PDF-Page 27) of Moglen’s declaration in support of the
motion). Now, even if the judge grants Conservancy’s motion
to exclude Moglen from my deposition, Moglen will instruct his attorneys to
ask me those questions about my therapy and my sexual orientation —
with the obvious goal of seeking to embarrass me by forcing me to reveal
such things publicly. Like those folks who sat before McCarthy in those
HUAC
hearings, I know
that none of my
secrets will survive Moglen’s deposition. By outing myself here first,
I am, at least, disarming Moglen from attempting to use my shame about my
sexual orientation against me.

Regarding LGBTQIA+ Acceptance and FOSS

I would like to leave Moglen and his abusive behavior there, and spend the
rest of this post talking about related issues of much greater importance.
First, I want to explain why it was so difficult for me to come out in my
professional community. Being somewhat older than most folks in FOSS
today, I really need to paint the picture of the USA when my career in
technology and FOSS got started. I was in my sophomore year of my Computer
Science undergraduate program when Clinton implemented
the Don’t
ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy for military in the USA. Now, as a
pacifist, I had no desire to join the military, but the DADT approach was
widely accepted in all areas of life.
The whole sarcastic “Not that there’s anything wrong with that
…” attitude (made famous contemporaneously to DADT on an
episode of the TV
show, Seinfeld) made it clear in culture that the world,
including those who ostensibly supported LGBTQIA+ rights, wanted queer
folks to remain, at best, “quiet and proud”, not “loud
and proud”. As a clincher, note that three years after DADT
was put in effect, overwhelming bipartisan support came forward for the
so-called
“Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA)”. An overwhelming majority of
everyone in Congress and the Presidency (regardless of party affiliation)
was in 1996 anti-LGBTQIA+. Folks who supported and voted yes for DOMA
include: Earl Blumenauer (still a senator from my current
state), Joe Biden (now POTUS (!)), Barbara Mikulski (a
senator until 2017 from my home state), and Chuck Schumer (still Senate
majority leader today). DADT didn’t end until 2011, and
while SCOTUS
ruled parts of DOMA unconstitutional in 2015,
Congress didn’t
actually repeal DOMA until last year! Hopefully, that gives a
clear sense of what the climate for LGBTQIA+ folks was like in the 1990s,
and why I felt was terrified to be outed — even as the 1990s became
the 2000s.

I also admit that my own shame about my sexual orientation grew as I got
older and began my professional career. I “pass” as straight
— particularly in our heteronormative culture that auto-casts
everyone as cishet until proven otherwise. It was just easier to not bring
it up. Why bother, I thought? It was off-topic (so I felt), and there
were plenty of people around the tech world in the 1990s and early 2000s
who were not particularly LGBTQIA+-friendly, or who feigned that they were
but were still “weird” about it.

I do think tech in general and FOSS in particular are much more
LGBTQIA+-friendly than they once were. However, there has been a huge
anti-LGBTQIA+ backlash in certain areas of the USA in recent years, so even
as I became more comfortable with the idea of being “out”, I
also felt (and do feel) that the world has recently gotten a lot more
dangerous for LGBTQIA+ folks. Folks like Moglen who wage “total
war” against their political opponents know this, and it is precisely
why they try to cast phrases like bisexual, gay, queer, and “sex
therapist” as salacious.

Also, PTSD has this way of making you believe you’re vulnerable in every
situation. When you’re suffering from the worst of PTSD’s symptoms, you
believe that you can never be safe anywhere — ever again. But,
logically I know that I’m safe being a queer person (at least in the small
FOSS world) — for two big reasons. First, the FOSS community of
today is (in most cases) very welcoming to LGBTQIA+ folks and most of the
cishet folks in FOSS identify as LGBTQIA+ allies. Second, I sheepishly
admit that as I’ve reached my 0x32’nd year of life this year, I have a 20+
year credentialed career that has left me in a position of authority and
privilege as a FOSS leader. I gain inherent safety from my position of
power in the community to just be who I am.

While this is absolutely not the manner and time in which I wanted to come
out, I’ll try to make some proverbial lemonade out of the lemons. By now
being out as LGBTQIA+ and already being a FOSS leader, I’d like to
offer to anyone who is new to FOSS and faces fear and worry about LGBTQIA+
issues in FOSS to contact me if they think I can help. I can’t promise to
write back to everyone, but I will do my very best to try to either help or
route you to someone else in FOSS who might be able to.

Also, I want to state something in direct contrast to Moglen’s claims that
the mere fact that a therapist who is qualified for treating people with
issues related to sexual orientation is ipso facto unqualified to treat any
other mental condition. I want to share publicly how valuable it has been
for me in finding a therapist who “gets it” with regard to
living queer in the world while also suffering from other conditions (such as PTSD).
So many LGBTQIA+ youth are bullied due to their orientation, and sustained
bullying commonly causes PTSD. I think we should all be so lucky to have a
mental health provider, as I do,
that
is extensively qualified to treat the whole person and not just a
single condition or issue. We should stand against people like Moglen who,
upon seeing that someone’s therapist specializes in helping people with
their sexual orientation, would use that fact as a way to shame both the
individual and the therapist. Doing that is wrong, and people who do that
are failing to create safe spaces for the LGBTQIA+ community.

I am aghast that Moglen is trying to shame me for seeking help from a
mental health provider who could help me overcome my internalized shame
regarding my sexual orientation. I also want people to know that I did not
feel safe as a queer person when I worked for Eben Moglen at SFLC. But I
also know Moglen doesn’t represent what our FOSS community and software
freedom is about. I felt I needed to make this post not only to disarm the
power Moglen held to “out me” before I was ready, but also to
warn others that, in my opinion, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) as an
organization that is not a safe space for LGBTQIA+ folks.
Finally, I do know that Moglen is also a tenured professor at Columbia Law
School. I have so often worried about his students — who may, as I
did, erroneously believe they can trust Moglen with private information as
important as their LGBTQIA+ status. I simply felt I couldn’t stay silent
about my experiences in good conscience any longer.

0, 4

A deposition is a form of testimony done during litigation before trial
begins. Each party in a legal dispute can subpoena witnesses. Rules vary
from venue to venue, but typically, a deposition is taken for eight hours,
and opposing attorneys can ask as many questions as they want —
including leading questions.

5In most
depositions, there is a time limit, but the scope of what questions
can be asked are not bounded. Somewhat strangely, one’s own lawyer
is not usually permitted to object on grounds of relevancy to the
case, so the questions can be as off-topic as the opposing counsel
wants.

3, 8 The
opposing attorney who asks the question is said to be “taking
the deposition”. The witness is said to be “sitting for
a deposition”. (IIUC, these are terms of art in
litigation).

1,
6,
7
From 1993-2018, I identified as “bisexual”. That term,
unfortunately, is, in my opinion, not friendly to non-binary people,
since the “bi” part (at least to me, I know others
disagree) assumes binary gender. The more common term used today is
“pansexual”, but, personally I prefer the term
“omnisexual” to “pansexual” for reasons that
are beyond the scope of this particular post. I am, however, not
offended if you use any of the three terms to refer to my sexual
orientation.

2Note, BTW: when
you read the docket, Judge Elgin (about 75% of the time) calls Karen
by the name “Ms. Bradley” (using my first name as if it
were Karen’s surname). It’s a bit confusing, so watch for it while
you’re reading so you don’t get confused.

8
Footnote added 2023-10-12, 19:00 US/Eastern: Since I
posted this about 30 hours ago, I’ve gotten so many statements of
support emailed to me that I can’t possibly respond to them all, but
I’ll try. Meanwhile, a few people have hinted at and/or outright
asked what policy disagreements Moglen actually has with me. I was
reluctant to answer because the point I’m making in this post is
that even if Moglen thought every last thing I’ve ever done
in my career was harmful policy-wise, it still would not
justify these abusive behaviors. Nevertheless, I admit that
if this post were made by someone else, I’d be curious about what the
policy disagreements were, so I decided to answer the question. I
think that my overarching policy disagreement with Eben Moglen is
with regard to how and when to engage in enforcement of the GPL and
other copyleft licenses through litigation. I think Moglen explains
this policy disagreement best
in his
talk that the Linux Foundation contemporaneously promoted (and
continues to regularly reference)
entitled “Whither (Not Wither) Copyleft”. In this
talk, Moglen states that I (among others) are “on a jihad for
free software” (his words, direct quote) because we continued
to pursue GPL enforcement through litigation. While I agree that
litigation
should still remain the last resort, I do think it remains a
necessary step often. Moglen argues that even though litigation was
needed in the past, it should never be used again for copyleft and
GPL enforcement. As Moglen outlines in his talk, he supports the
concept of “spontaneous compliance” — a system
whereby there is no regulatory regime and firms simply chose to
follow the rules of copyleft because it’s so obviously in their own
best interest. I’ve not seen this approach work in practice, which is
why I think we must still sometimes file GPL (and LGPL) lawsuits
— even today.
Moglen and I have plenty of other smaller policy disagreements: from
appropriate copyright assignment structures for FOSS, to finer points
of how GPLv3 should have been drafted, to tactics and strategy with
regard to copyleft advocacy, to how non-profits and charities should
be structured for the betterment of FOSS. However, I suspect all
these smaller policy disagreements stem from our fundamental policy
disagreement about GPL enforcement. However, I conclude by (a)
saying again no policy disagreement with anyone justifies
abusive behavior toward that person — not ever, and
(b) please do note the irony that, in that 2016-11-02 speech,
Moglen took the position that lawsuits should no longer be used to
settle disputes in FOSS, and yet — less than 10 months later
— Moglen
sued Conservancy (his former client) in the TTAB.

Eben Moglen & SFLC — abusive employer & LGBTQIA+ unfriendly

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2023/10/11/moglen-sflc.html

[ The below is a personal statement that I make on my own behalf. While
my statement’s release coincides with a release of an unrelated statement
on similar topics made
by my
employer, Software Freedom Conservancy, and
the Free
Software Foundation Europe, please keep in mind that this statement is
my own, personal opinion — written exclusively by me — and not
necessarily the opinion of either of those organizations. I did not consult
nor coordinate with either organization on this statement. ]

With great trepidation, I have decided to make this public statement
regarding the psychological abuse, including menacing, that I suffered,
perpetrated by Eben Moglen, both while I was employed at his Software
Freedom Law Center (SFLC) from 2005-2010, and in the years after he fired
me. No one revels in having psychological injuries and mistreatment
they’ve suffered paraded to the public. I’ll be frank that if it were not
for Moglen’s use of the USA Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) as a
method to perpetrate further abusive behavior, I wouldn’t have written this
post. Furthermore, sadly, Moglen has threatened in recent TTAB filings his
intention to use the proceeding to release personal details about my life
to the public (using the litigation itself as a lever). I have decided to
preemptively make public the facts herein first myself — so that I
can at least control the timing and framing of the information.

This post is long; the issues discussed in it are complicated, nuanced,
and cannot be summed up easily. Nevertheless, I’m realistic that most
people will stop reading soon, so I’ll summarize now as best I can in a few
sentences: I worked initially with, and then for, Eben Moglen for
nearly a decade — during which time he was psychologically abusive and
gaslighted me (under the guise of training and mentoring me). I thought
for many years that he was one of my best friends (— in retrospect, I
believe that he tricked me into believing that he was). As such, I shared
extremely personal details about myself to him — which he has used
both contemporaneously and in years hence to attempt to discredit me with
my colleagues and peers. Recently, Moglen declared his plans to use
current TTAB proceedings to force me to answer questions about my mental
health in
deposition0. Long
ago, I disclosed key personal information to Moglen, I therefore have a
pretty good idea of what his next move will be during that deposition
questioning. Specifically, I believe Moglen was hoping to out me as
omni/bisexual1 as part of my deposition
in this proceeding. As such, I’m outing myself here first (primarily) to
disarm his ability to use what he knows about my sexual orientation against
me. Since that last sentence makes me already out, Moglen will be unable
to use the biggest “secret” that Moglen “has on me”
in his future psychological and legal attacks.

I suspect some folks will stop reading here, but I really urge that you
keep reading this post, and also to read the unrelated statement made by
Conservancy
and FSFE.
The details are important and matter. I am admittedly embarrassed to talk
publicly about how Moglen exacerbated, expanded, and caused new symptoms of
my Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) — which I already suffered
from when I met him. But, I feel it is important to talk about these
issues publicly for many reasons — including that Moglen seeks to
expose these personal facts about me as an attempt to stigmatize what is
actually a positive thing: I seek ongoing treatment for my PTSD (which
Moglen himself, in part, caused) and to simultaneously process and reduce
my (painful and stubborn) internalized shame about my LGBTQIA+
status. (Like many proud LGBTQIA+ folks, I struggle with this because
living in a society unfriendly to LGBTQIA+ folks can lead to difficult
shame issues — this is a well-documented phenomena that LGBTQIA+
folks like myself suffer from.)

The primary recent catalyst for this situation is as follows: Moglen has
insisted that, as part of the
ongoing trademark
cancellation petition that SFLC filed against my employer, Software Freedom
Conservancy in
the TTAB,
that Moglen both personally be allowed to be present at, and to
actually take the depositions3 of me and
my colleague, Karen Sandler.

This kind of behavior is typical of how abusers use litigation to
perpetuate their abuse. The USA legal system is designed to give everyone
“their day in Court”. Frankly, many of the rules established
for Court proceedings did not contemplate that the process could be
manipulated by abusers, and it remains an open problem on how to repair the
rules that both preserve the egalitarian nature of our legal system, but
also does not make it easy for abusers to misuse those same rules.
Depositions, in particular, are a key tool in abusers’ arsenals.
Depositions allow Plaintiffs (in the TTAB, BTW, the Plaintiff is called
“the Petitioner”) to gather evidence. Generally speaking, most
Courts have no good default rules to prevent abusers from using these
depositions to get themselves in the room with their victims and harass
those victims further with off-topic haranguing. The only method (which is
quite clunky as a legal tool) to curtail the harassment somewhat is called
a protective order. However, Moglen has been smart enough to use
the very process of the protective order application to further perpetuate
abusive behavior.

To understand all this in context, I ask that you first
read Conservancy’s
public response to the initial filing of the trademark cancellation
proceeding (six years ago). In short, SFLC is seeking to
“cancel” the trademark on the name “Software Freedom
Conservancy”. Ostensibly, that’s all this case is (or, rather should
be) about.

The problem is that, upon reading
the docket in
detail, it’s easily seen that at nearly every step, Moglen has
attempted to use the proceeding as a method to harass and attack me and my
colleague, Karen Sandler — regarding issues wholly unrelated to the
trademarks. The recent arguments have been about our depositions4 —
mine and Karen’s2.

After some complex legal back-and-forth,
Judge Elgin
ordered that I was legally required to sit for a deposition with and by
Moglen. This is the point where a catch-22 began for me.

  • Option 0: Sit in a room for 8+ hours with a person who had spent
    years verbally abusing me and let him ask me any question he
    wants    5 —
    under penalty of perjury and contempt of Court if I refuse.
  • Option
    1: Give Conservancy’s lawyers permission to talk openly, in public
    documents, about the details of the abuse I suffered from Moglen and the
    psychological harm that it caused me (which is the necessary backup
    document for a protective order motion).

IOW, the only way to
get a protective order that would prevent me from being legally required to
suffer further psychological abuse from Moglen was to publicly talk about
the past abuse 😩. I reluctantly chose Option 1. I encourage you to read
in
full
my first sworn testimony on the issue. That document explains many of the
psychological abusive examples I suffered from Moglen — both as an
employee at SFLC and since.

Fortunately, that aforementioned sworn testimony was sufficient to
convince Judge Elgin to at least entertain reconsidering her decision that
I have to sit8 for a deposition with Moglen. However, submitting the
official motion then required that I give even more
information about why the deposition with Moglen will be psychologically
harmful. In particular, I had little choice but to add a letter from my
(highly qualified) mental health provider speaking to the psychological
dangers that I would face if deposed by Moglen personally and/or in his
presence. I reluctantly asked my therapist
to provide
such a letter. It was really tough for me to publicly identify who my
therapist is, but it was, again, my best option out of that catch-22. I
admittedly didn’t anticipate that Moglen might use this knowledge as a
method to further his abuse against me publicly in his response filing.

As can be seen in Moglen’s response
filing, Moglen
directly attacks my therapist’s credentials — claiming she is not
credible nor qualified. Moglen’s argument is that because my therapist
is a licensed, AASECT-certified sex therapist, she is not qualified to
diagnose PTSD. Of course, Moglen’s argument is without merit: my
therapist’s sex therapy credentials are in addition to her many other
credentials and certifications — all of which is explained on her
website that Moglen admits in his filing he has reviewed.

As I mentioned, at one time, I foolishly and erroneously considered Moglen
a good friend. As such, I told Moglen a lot about my personal life,
including that I was omni/bisexual, and that I was (at the time) closeted. So,
Moglen already knows full well the reason that I would select a therapist
who held among her credentials a certification to give therapy relating to
sexuality. Moglen’s filing is, in my view, a veiled threat to me that he’s
going to disclose publicly what he knows about my sexuality as part of this
proceeding. So, I’ve decided — after much thought — that I
should simply disarm him on this and say it first: I have identified as
bisexual/omnisexual6 since 1993, but I have
never been “out” in my professional community — until
now. Moglen knows full well (because I told him on more than one occasion)
that I struggled with whether or not to come out for decades. Thus, I
chose a therapist who was both qualified to give treatment for PTSD as
well as for sexual orientation challenges because I’ve lived much of
my life with internalized shame about my sexual orientation. (I was (and
still am, a bit) afraid that it would hurt my career opportunities in the
FOSS community and technology generally if I came out; more on that below.)
I was still working through these issues with my therapist when all these
recent events occurred.

Despite the serious psychological abuse I’ve suffered from Moglen, until
this recent filing, I wouldn’t have imagined that Moglen would attempt to
use the secrecy about my LGBTQIA+ status as a way to further terrorize me.
All I can think to say to Moglen in response is to quote
what Joe Welch
said to Senator Joe McCarthy on 1954-06-09: “Have you no sense of
decency, sir — at long last? Have you left no sense of
decency?”.

It’s hard to express coherently the difficult realization of the stark
political reality of our world. There are people you might meet (and/or
work for) who, if they have a policy disagreement8 with you later, will use
every single fact about you to their advantage to prevail in that
disagreement. There is truly no reason that Moglen needed to draw
attention to the fact that I see a therapist who specializes (in part) in
issues with sexuality. The fact that he
goes
on to further claim that the mere fact that she has such certification
makes her unqualified to treat my other mental health illness —
some of which Moglen himself (in part) personally caused — is
unconscionable. I expect that even most of my worst political rivals who
work for proprietary software companies and violate copyleft licenses on a
daily basis would not stoop as low to what Moglen has in this
situation.

At this point, I really have no choice but to come out as
omnisexual7 — even though I
wasn’t really ready to do so. Moglen has insisted now that my therapy has
been brought up in the proceeding,
that he
has a legal right to force me to be evaluated by a therapist of his
choosing (as if I were a criminal
defendant). Moglen
has also indicated that, during my deposition, he will interrogate me about
my therapy and my reasons for choosing this particular therapist (see, for
example, footnote 2 on page 11 (PDF-Page 27) of Moglen’s declaration in support of the
motion). Now, even if the judge grants Conservancy’s motion
to exclude Moglen from my deposition, Moglen will instruct his attorneys to
ask me those questions about my therapy and my sexual orientation —
with the obvious goal of seeking to embarrass me by forcing me to reveal
such things publicly. Like those folks who sat before McCarthy in those
HUAC
hearings, I know
that none of my
secrets will survive Moglen’s deposition. By outing myself here first,
I am, at least, disarming Moglen from attempting to use my shame about my
sexual orientation against me.

Regarding LGBTQIA+ Acceptance and FOSS

I would like to leave Moglen and his abusive behavior there, and spend the
rest of this post talking about related issues of much greater importance.
First, I want to explain why it was so difficult for me to come out in my
professional community. Being somewhat older than most folks in FOSS
today, I really need to paint the picture of the USA when my career in
technology and FOSS got started. I was in my sophomore year of my Computer
Science undergraduate program when Clinton implemented
the Don’t
ask, Don’t tell (DADT) policy for military in the USA. Now, as a
pacifist, I had no desire to join the military, but the DADT approach was
widely accepted in all areas of life.
The whole sarcastic “Not that there’s anything wrong with that
…” attitude (made famous contemporaneously to DADT on an
episode of the TV
show, Seinfeld) made it clear in culture that the world,
including those who ostensibly supported LGBTQIA+ rights, wanted queer
folks to remain, at best, “quiet and proud”, not “loud
and proud”. As a clincher, note that three years after DADT
was put in effect, overwhelming bipartisan support came forward for the
so-called
“Defense
of Marriage Act (DOMA)”. An overwhelming majority of
everyone in Congress and the Presidency (regardless of party affiliation)
was in 1996 anti-LGBTQIA+. Folks who supported and voted yes for DOMA
include: Earl Blumenauer (still a senator from my current
state), Joe Biden (now POTUS (!)), Barbara Mikulski (a
senator until 2017 from my home state), and Chuck Schumer (still Senate
majority leader today). DADT didn’t end until 2011, and
while SCOTUS
ruled parts of DOMA unconstitutional in 2015,
Congress didn’t
actually repeal DOMA until last year! Hopefully, that gives a
clear sense of what the climate for LGBTQIA+ folks was like in the 1990s,
and why I felt was terrified to be outed — even as the 1990s became
the 2000s.

I also admit that my own shame about my sexual orientation grew as I got
older and began my professional career. I “pass” as straight
— particularly in our heteronormative culture that auto-casts
everyone as cishet until proven otherwise. It was just easier to not bring
it up. Why bother, I thought? It was off-topic (so I felt), and there
were plenty of people around the tech world in the 1990s and early 2000s
who were not particularly LGBTQIA+-friendly, or who feigned that they were
but were still “weird” about it.

I do think tech in general and FOSS in particular are much more
LGBTQIA+-friendly than they once were. However, there has been a huge
anti-LGBTQIA+ backlash in certain areas of the USA in recent years, so even
as I became more comfortable with the idea of being “out”, I
also felt (and do feel) that the world has recently gotten a lot more
dangerous for LGBTQIA+ folks. Folks like Moglen who wage “total
war” against their political opponents know this, and it is precisely
why they try to cast phrases like bisexual, gay, queer, and “sex
therapist” as salacious.

Also, PTSD has this way of making you believe you’re vulnerable in every
situation. When you’re suffering from the worst of PTSD’s symptoms, you
believe that you can never be safe anywhere — ever again. But,
logically I know that I’m safe being a queer person (at least in the small
FOSS world) — for two big reasons. First, the FOSS community of
today is (in most cases) very welcoming to LGBTQIA+ folks and most of the
cishet folks in FOSS identify as LGBTQIA+ allies. Second, I sheepishly
admit that as I’ve reached my 0x32’nd year of life this year, I have a 20+
year credentialed career that has left me in a position of authority and
privilege as a FOSS leader. I gain inherent safety from my position of
power in the community to just be who I am.

While this is absolutely not the manner and time in which I wanted to come
out, I’ll try to make some proverbial lemonade out of the lemons. By now
being out as LGBTQIA+ and already being a FOSS leader, I’d like to
offer to anyone who is new to FOSS and faces fear and worry about LGBTQIA+
issues in FOSS to contact me if they think I can help. I can’t promise to
write back to everyone, but I will do my very best to try to either help or
route you to someone else in FOSS who might be able to.

Also, I want to state something in direct contrast to Moglen’s claims that
the mere fact that a therapist who is qualified for treating people with
issues related to sexual orientation is ipso facto unqualified to treat any
other mental condition. I want to share publicly how valuable it has been
for me in finding a therapist who “gets it” with regard to
living queer in the world while also suffering from other conditions (such as PTSD).
So many LGBTQIA+ youth are bullied due to their orientation, and sustained
bullying commonly causes PTSD. I think we should all be so lucky to have a
mental health provider, as I do,
that
is extensively qualified to treat the whole person and not just a
single condition or issue. We should stand against people like Moglen who,
upon seeing that someone’s therapist specializes in helping people with
their sexual orientation, would use that fact as a way to shame both the
individual and the therapist. Doing that is wrong, and people who do that
are failing to create safe spaces for the LGBTQIA+ community.

I am aghast that Moglen is trying to shame me for seeking help from a
mental health provider who could help me overcome my internalized shame
regarding my sexual orientation. I also want people to know that I did not
feel safe as a queer person when I worked for Eben Moglen at SFLC. But I
also know Moglen doesn’t represent what our FOSS community and software
freedom is about. I felt I needed to make this post not only to disarm the
power Moglen held to “out me” before I was ready, but also to
warn others that, in my opinion, Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) as an
organization that is not a safe space for LGBTQIA+ folks.
Finally, I do know that Moglen is also a tenured professor at Columbia Law
School. I have so often worried about his students — who may, as I
did, erroneously believe they can trust Moglen with private information as
important as their LGBTQIA+ status. I simply felt I couldn’t stay silent
about my experiences in good conscience any longer.

0, 4

A deposition is a form of testimony done during litigation before trial
begins. Each party in a legal dispute can subpoena witnesses. Rules vary
from venue to venue, but typically, a deposition is taken for eight hours,
and opposing attorneys can ask as many questions as they want —
including leading questions.

5In most
depositions, there is a time limit, but the scope of what questions
can be asked are not bounded. Somewhat strangely, one’s own lawyer
is not usually permitted to object on grounds of relevancy to the
case, so the questions can be as off-topic as the opposing counsel
wants.

3, 8 The
opposing attorney who asks the question is said to be “taking
the deposition”. The witness is said to be “sitting for
a deposition”. (IIUC, these are terms of art in
litigation).

1,
6,
7
From 1993-2018, I identified as “bisexual”. That term,
unfortunately, is, in my opinion, not friendly to non-binary people,
since the “bi” part (at least to me, I know others
disagree) assumes binary gender. The more common term used today is
“pansexual”, but, personally I prefer the term
“omnisexual” to “pansexual” for reasons that
are beyond the scope of this particular post. I am, however, not
offended if you use any of the three terms to refer to my sexual
orientation.

2Note, BTW: when
you read the docket, Judge Elgin (about 75% of the time) calls Karen
by the name “Ms. Bradley” (using my first name as if it
were Karen’s surname). It’s a bit confusing, so watch for it while
you’re reading so you don’t get confused.

8
Footnote added 2023-10-12, 19:00 US/Eastern: Since I
posted this about 30 hours ago, I’ve gotten so many statements of
support emailed to me that I can’t possibly respond to them all, but
I’ll try. Meanwhile, a few people have hinted at and/or outright
asked what policy disagreements Moglen actually has with me. I was
reluctant to answer because the point I’m making in this post is
that even if Moglen thought every last thing I’ve ever done
in my career was harmful policy-wise, it still would not
justify these abusive behaviors. Nevertheless, I admit that
if this post were made by someone else, I’d be curious about what the
policy disagreements were, so I decided to answer the question. I
think that my overarching policy disagreement with Eben Moglen is
with regard to how and when to engage in enforcement of the GPL and
other copyleft licenses through litigation. I think Moglen explains
this policy disagreement best
in his
talk that the Linux Foundation contemporaneously promoted (and
continues to regularly reference)
entitled “Whither (Not Wither) Copyleft”. In this
talk, Moglen states that I (among others) are “on a jihad for
free software” (his words, direct quote) because we continued
to pursue GPL enforcement through litigation. While I agree that
litigation
should still remain the last resort, I do think it remains a
necessary step often. Moglen argues that even though litigation was
needed in the past, it should never be used again for copyleft and
GPL enforcement. As Moglen outlines in his talk, he supports the
concept of “spontaneous compliance” — a system
whereby there is no regulatory regime and firms simply chose to
follow the rules of copyleft because it’s so obviously in their own
best interest. I’ve not seen this approach work in practice, which is
why I think we must still sometimes file GPL (and LGPL) lawsuits
— even today.
Moglen and I have plenty of other smaller policy disagreements: from
appropriate copyright assignment structures for FOSS, to finer points
of how GPLv3 should have been drafted, to tactics and strategy with
regard to copyleft advocacy, to how non-profits and charities should
be structured for the betterment of FOSS. However, I suspect all
these smaller policy disagreements stem from our fundamental policy
disagreement about GPL enforcement. However, I conclude by (a)
saying again no policy disagreement with anyone justifies
abusive behavior toward that person — not ever, and
(b) please do note the irony that, in that 2016-11-02 speech,
Moglen took the position that lawsuits should no longer be used to
settle disputes in FOSS, and yet — less than 10 months later
— Moglen
sued Conservancy (his former client) in the TTAB.