Talk:Software Freedom Conservancy

what is the goal of this organization's activities, what does it do?

must be my fault but, i failed to grasp the essential point of this org, or its activity. perhaps some further explanation could be added to the article for the benefit of laymen. how does it promote freedom of software, what software does and what doesnt fit into its scope? from what does it protect whom/what? 80.99.38.199 (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC).

I don't think it's your fault at all! This page is extremely poorly written, as the text fails to explain what Conservancy does, why we do it, and how we reach our goals. It seems this page was primarily created by various people adding items to the history section when there were announcements about the organization, and as such the article doesn't seem to me to fit Wikipedia's guidelines in a variety of ways. I felt really bad upon reading your comment above because it seems to indicate you came to Wikipedia to seek good information about the Conservancy and Wikipedia fell short. However, I have a conflict of interest because I work for Conservancy, and Wikipedia rules "strongly discourage" me from editing the body of the article.

So, instead, upon reading your comment today, I just merely added a multiple issues box on the main page with a cleanup types that it seems are needed. I encourage and welcome others to remove any cleanup types they think that aren't needed, and more importantly, to actually do those cleanups. Thanks very much for your help, Wikipedians! -- bkuhn 00:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Infobox needed

This article needs an Infobox. Lentower (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done. This has been integrated apparently. Wget (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Structure of the article

Hello, currently the introduced Ligitation chapter breaks the chronological order of the history chapter as it also introduce redundancy. Some has an alterantive to the Consoldidation I proposed already? cheers Shaddim (talk) 11:37, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think a completely chronological account is the only way to look at this; all of the content on Wikipedia is by definition "history" and different kinds of history need different kinds of representation. The litigation activities are a major dimension of SFC's activities and having them listed together is valuable for readers, especially when a case is in progress. I did consider trying to improve the edit you offered (which unfortunately placed headers in the wrong place) but the edit was too extensive to mend easily. If others agree, we could place the Litigation header at the same level as History rather than as a subsection. ClareTheSharer (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree on putting the Litigation header on the same level as the history header, if it shoudl be not part of the chronological history. This could be done, while I currently see not enough content for a own Litigation chapter in contrast to an integration into the history chapter. Shaddim (talk)

 Done. I solved the issue by reorganizing the article. Like proposed, that section is now on the same level as the history section. Like other Wikipedia articles, that section has been put to the end, or actually more at the end of the document. Regards. Wget (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

"the conservancy"

In response to MartinMichlmayr's comment below:

Use of an acronym or "the" in "the Conservancy" or "the conservancy" is not about the formal or informal name of the organization, but about English usage in a sentence. Conservancy is an English word, a type of noun describing an action. It is also a type of organization. There are uncountable conservancies, groups who conserve things. So when referring to a specific conservancy, one would say "the conservancy". I believe the word "bank" is an applicable example. A "bank" is a type of organization that banks things. You would not say: "Bank did something" even if "Bank" is in its formal name. You would say: "The bank did something." Unfortunately the current usage contributes to the article appearing to be internal description, rather than an encyclopedia entry. The article needs more editing of this sort.

(MartinMichlmayr's comment) "Regarding your recent edit to Software Freedom Conservancy (replacing "Conservancy" with "SFC"): while people often use "SFC" to refer to Conservancy, the proper usage is "Conservancy" (and no "the"). If you look at the Conservancy web site, you'll see that it's consistent in this regard. I changed the page back to "Conservancy".

--Ellisun (talk) 17:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I added (also known as "Conservancy") to the into to clarify this unusual use of the word "Conservancy". -- SkipperGeek (talk) 19:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Now that sentence is fairly incomprehensible. To me, it reads as if it tries to say that if people talk about a/the Conservancy, they mean the Software Freedom Conservancy. Which clearly is not the case.

Maybe what the sentence should say is something like "below referred to just as 'Conservancy'"? TorLillqvist (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

List of officers and member projects

I don't think either of these lists make sense for inclusion and are ripe for getting out of date. I think we should just mention projects in prose that are backed up by independent, reliable sources. Legoktm (talk) 06:31, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I've removed both sections now. Legoktm (talk) 08:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Lawsuit updates

I've just added in the conclusion of the VMware suit; I'd appreciate if someone could double-check my formatting. Their latest suit against Vizio began in October 2021 and should finally enter trial in March of this year. SuscipiamSingularitatem (talk) 17:32, 19 January 2024 (UTC)