Weird Little Guys of FOSS  🔗 **Source:** [Weird Little Guys of FOSS](https://drewdevault.com/weird-guys/) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [open-source, tech-culture, far-right-politics, community-governance, harassment] > author: Drew DeVault > source: drewdevault.com > reference: https://drewdevault.com/weird-guys/ > date created: 2026-09-05 > > > [!info] Generated analysis — not the author's words. Sections below are machine-written > > from the captured source. Only text inside `> [!quote]` blocks is verbatim from the author. > > Do not quote or attribute any other line to the named author. > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## Summary - The author, SourceHut founder Drew DeVault, compiles a running list of named individuals in free and open source software (FOSS) and adjacent spaces, each entry pairing the person's notable project with allegations of racism, transphobia, misogyny, harassment, or association with far-right figures and funding networks. - What happened: the piece names roughly a dozen figures — including the founder of SerenityOS/Ladybird, Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich, Ruby on Rails creator David Heinemeier Hansson ("DHH"), Open Source Initiative co-founder Eric S. Raymond, Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman, and Hyprland founder Vaxry — with specific, sourced claims (each linked "[source]" in the original) about their conduct or affiliations. - Why it matters: the author frames this as documenting a "little network of weirdos" whose funding and social ties (naming FUTO, Cloudflare, Shopify, 37signals, Curtis Yarvin, and an event called "Omacon 2026") connect otherwise separate FOSS projects to a shared far-right political current. - Key stakeholders: the named individuals and their projects (SerenityOS, Ladybird, Brave, Omarchy, Xlibre, Hyprland, the OSI, the FSF, GNU/GCC), the corporate sponsors named as funding some of them, and the broader FOSS community whose governance and codes of conduct are implicated. - Risk/tradeoff: the page is explicitly a list of allegations, most linked to a "[source]" but not detailed or quoted within the article itself; the author states upfront "Don't harass these people! Don't engage with them at all," framing the list as informational rather than a call to action. - Bottom line: the author presents this as evidence that far-right ideology has organized funding and social channels within FOSS specifically, not just among individuals coincidentally holding those views. ## Main content - The article's stated purpose and ground rule: a crowdsourced-style list ("Request additions, removals, or changes via email; patches welcome") explicitly framed as documentation, with an opening instruction not to harass or engage with the people named. - Structural pattern across entries: each person is introduced by their FOSS credential ("Known for: ..."), followed by specific allegations (each typically marked "[source]" in the original, linking to external evidence not reproduced in this captured text), then often a note on funding or association with other named figures. - Recurring funding and association network the author draws out: FUTO (founded by Eron, described as friends with Curtis Yarvin), 37signals/Shopify (tied to David Heinemeier Hansson), Cloudflare, Framework, Dell, Block, Dropbox, Proton, JetBrains, and Sourcegraph are each named as sponsors of one or more of the individuals listed. - "Omacon 2026," described as David Heinemeier Hansson's conference, is named twice in the article as a point of connection — both ThePrimeagen and Vaxry are noted as speakers there, per the source. - The Stallman entry names allegations distinct in kind from the others: the article states Stallman "frequently writes on his website in defense of rapists, sexual harassment, sexual exploitation of minors, distribution of child sexual abuse material, and even bestiality and necrophilia," attributing detailed coverage to a named external resource, "The Stallman Report." - The Jacob Appelbaum entry describes a 2016 incident in which "ten people came forward to present serious accusations of sexual harassment, assault, and rape," which the article states led to his removal from the Tor project, Debian, and the Noisebridge hackerspace he co-founded — each removal linked to a separate source in the original. - The article closes with an artwork credit ("Artwork by @[email protected]"), indicating this is a maintained, illustrated community page rather than a one-off blog post. ## Notes - This is an article, not a timestamped transcript or video — no timestamp subheadings apply. - The piece is structured as a sequence of short, mostly self-contained biographical entries; there is no continuous narrative argument beyond the shared framing (FOSS + far-right association) established in the opening two lines. - Several entries note financial sponsorship as a distinct claim from the behavioral allegations — for example, Andreas (SerenityOS/Ladybird) is described as personally posting views the article calls transphobic and in support of "white replacement" theory, separately from the article's list of the project's corporate sponsors (FUTO, Cloudflare, Shopify, Proton, JetBrains, Sourcegraph, and others). - The Daniel Bernstein and Tanja Lange entry differs from most others in citing an academic-context allegation (a graduate student, Henry de Valence, "resigned from their PhD program in 2016 citing patterns of harassment, abuse, and bullying") rather than public political statements. - The entry for ThePrimeagen is notably shorter and more hedged than most others: the article states his "content isn't all that weird" but flags his public associations (speaking at Omacon 2026, donating to Ladybird) as the basis for inclusion. ## References - [The Stallman Report](https://stallmanreport.org/) — external resource cited in the Stallman entry as documenting his writings in detail (URL inferred from common public naming; not given verbatim in the captured source). - The article itself links "[source]" after nearly every specific claim; those individual URLs were not captured in this document's text and would need to be pulled from the live page for verification. - Related background: the Rossmann/FUTO/Yarvin network and the Rails leadership response to the DHH controversy are referenced but not linked with full citations in this captured text. ## Paraphrase - Opening framing: this is a community-maintained list of notable figures in free and open source software whose public statements or documented conduct the author connects to racism, transphobia, misogyny, or far-right political networks. The author asks readers not to harass or engage with anyone named, positioning the page as documentation rather than a call to action. - Entry pattern: for each person, the article states their FOSS credential, then lays out specific claims — a social media post, a funding relationship, a past organizational removal — each tied to an external source link. Several entries cross-reference each other (shared sponsors, shared conference appearances, personal friendships), building toward the author's implicit claim that these are not isolated individuals but a connected network. ## Newsletter - Drew DeVault's "Weird little guys of FOSS" page names about a dozen prominent open source figures — SerenityOS's founder, Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich, Rails creator DHH, OSI co-founder Eric S. Raymond, FSF founder Richard Stallman, and Hyprland's Vaxry among them — with sourced allegations tying each to racism, transphobia, harassment, or far-right funding networks. - Useful context for anyone doing due diligence before sponsoring, contributing to, or featuring a project at a conference: the piece maps out funding relationships (FUTO, Cloudflare, Shopify, 37signals) that connect several of these projects to each other and to figures like Curtis Yarvin. - Handle with care in any public writeup: this is a list of allegations, most linked to external sources not reproduced here — verify each claim against its original source before repeating it, and note the article's own explicit instruction not to harass anyone named. ## Action items #### Due diligence / community governance - Before recommending, sponsoring, or featuring any project named here at a WordPress, DevRel, or open source event, check its current maintainer and funding situation against this list and verify claims against the original linked sources. - Review any code-of-conduct or moderation policy for projects named here (the article specifically calls out Xlibre's code of conduct as "just '404' in a text file") before treating a project as community-safe by default. #### Personal / editorial - If citing any individual claim from this article in other writing, pull the original "[source]" link from the live page rather than relying on this captured summary, since sources were not reproduced in the captured text. - Note the article's own framing distinction: it separates behavioral allegations (harassment, hate speech) from funding/association claims (sponsorship, conference speaking) — preserve that distinction when summarizing, since they carry different evidentiary weight. ## Hypotheses - H1: The individuals named share overlapping funding sources (FUTO, 37signals/Shopify, Cloudflare) at a rate higher than a random sample of comparably prominent FOSS maintainers, which would support the article's "network" framing over a "coincidental individuals" reading. - H2: Projects whose founders are named in this article are more likely to have thin or absent codes of conduct (as the article claims specifically for Xlibre) than a matched sample of similarly sized FOSS projects. - H3: Corporate sponsors named in multiple entries (e.g., Cloudflare, appearing for both Ladybird and Vaxry/Hyprland) have internal sponsorship-vetting policies that do not currently screen for the kind of public conduct documented in this article. - H4: Conference-level social proof (e.g., speaking at "Omacon 2026") functions as a network-building mechanism connecting otherwise separate FOSS maintainers, independent of their technical collaboration. ## Methodology - The source's own methodology is crowdsourced documentation: the author solicits "additions, removals, or changes via email" and accepts patches, indicating an ongoing, community-corrected list rather than a single-author investigative report with a fixed methodology. - Each claim in the original article is tagged with a "[source]" link (not reproduced in this captured text), functioning as the article's citation method rather than inline quotation or narrative sourcing. - To test H1-H4: compile the sponsor lists and conference-speaker rosters named in the article into a relationship graph, then compare edge density against a control set of similarly prominent FOSS projects not named in the article; separately, audit the codes of conduct of all named projects against a standard rubric (existence, specificity, enforcement mechanism). ## Questions - What percentage of the "[source]" links in the original article point to primary statements (the person's own posts) versus secondary reporting or third-party accusations? - Has any named individual or project issued a public response to inclusion on this list, and if so, does the list get updated to reflect it (given the stated "additions, removals, or changes" policy)? - Is there a documented case of a corporate sponsor withdrawing funding after a project's founder was named in coverage like this? - What is Xlibre's actual moderation practice, beyond the article's claim that its code of conduct is "just '404' in a text file" — has this changed since the article's most recent update? ## Future research - A structured, source-verified version of this list (each claim independently checked against its cited source, with dates and outcomes) would be more citable than the current informal format for anyone doing governance or due-diligence work. - Research into whether FOSS foundations and package registries (npm, crates.io, PyPI, etc.) have any formal policy for handling maintainers named in credible harassment or hate-speech allegations, distinct from license or security concerns. - A comparative study of code-of-conduct adoption and enforcement across the specific projects named here versus projects of similar size and prominence not named. ## Implications - Practice: anyone building a curriculum, conference lineup, or sponsorship program in the WordPress or broader FOSS ecosystem has a concrete, if informal, reference list to cross-check against before extending a platform or funding relationship. - Policy: the funding-network claims (FUTO, 37signals, Cloudflare, and others) suggest that sponsorship vetting in open source currently happens, if at all, at the individual-project level rather than through any shared industry standard — a gap this article implicitly argues should close. - Security/community management: the specific claim that Xlibre's code of conduct is a "404" file is a concrete, checkable governance failure mode worth flagging in any "how to evaluate a FOSS project" checklist. - Funding models: the repeated appearance of the same handful of corporate names (Cloudflare, Shopify, Framework, Proton) across multiple entries suggests concentrated sponsorship risk exposure for those companies specifically, not just reputational risk for the individuals named. ## Learning styles assessment - Reading level estimate: college level (Flesch-Kincaid approx. grade 11-12), driven by dense proper-noun density (project names, people, companies) rather than complex sentence structure. #### Visual learners - Present: the original article includes at least one photo (referenced as "This photo of him on the right") and a closing artwork credit; neither image is reproduced in this captured text. - Improve: a relationship diagram mapping the named individuals to their shared sponsors and conference appearances would make the "network" claim easier to evaluate visually than prose alone. #### Aural learners - Not applicable to this source — it is a written article with no audio component. #### Verbal learners - Present: each entry defines the person's credential before listing allegations, giving readers unfamiliar with a given project quick context. - Improve: a glossary distinguishing the specific movements referenced (dark enlightenment, techno-fascism, "unwoke" framing) would help readers less familiar with this political vocabulary. #### Kinesthetic learners - Not applicable to this source — no exercises or hands-on tasks fit a documentation list of this kind. #### Logical learners - Present: the sponsor/association callouts in each entry function like informal graph edges, letting a careful reader manually reconstruct the network the author is describing. - Improve: an explicit table (person, project, alleged conduct, named sponsors, named associates) would make the logical structure auditable at a glance rather than requiring the reader to track connections across separate prose entries. #### Social learners - Present: the crowdsourced correction model ("Request additions, removals, or changes via email; patches welcome") is itself a social, community-maintained process. #### Solitary learners - Improve: a reflection prompt such as "which of these claims would you want to verify yourself before repeating them in your own writing?" supports independent critical reading given the article's serious, largely unquoted allegations. #### Naturalistic learners - Not applicable to this source's subject matter. ## Accessibility assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: the captured text is structured prose with implied section breaks per person; the original page likely uses heading or photo markup not preserved in this plain-text capture. - Improve: verify the live page uses semantic headings per entry (not just visual line breaks) so screen reader users can navigate between individuals. #### Keyboard navigation - Not applicable to this captured text; would need to be checked on the live page for link/photo focus order. #### Contrast and readability - Not applicable to this captured text — no color or contrast information is preserved in plain-text capture. #### Text resizing and reflow - Not applicable to this captured text; applies to the live page's CSS, outside this document's scope. #### Media and captions - Present: at least one photo is referenced ("This photo of him on the right is prominently displayed on his personal website") without alt text captured in this document. - Improve: confirm the live page provides descriptive alt text for the photo and artwork credited at the end, since a screen reader user would otherwise miss content the sighted reader is directed to notice ("on the right"). #### Forms and interactions - Not applicable to this source — no interactive forms are described; corrections happen via email, not an on-page form. #### Standards reference - WCAG 2.2 AA criterion 1.1.1 (Non-text Content) is the relevant check for the photo reference noted above; cannot be verified from this captured plain-text version alone. ## Deib assessment #### Cultural breadth - The article is specific to the FOSS community and largely US/European in its named individuals and institutions (SerenityOS, Mozilla, Rails/37signals, the FSF, Tor); it does not claim global coverage and shouldn't be read as representative of FOSS communities outside this scope. #### Inclusive language - The author uses direct, unambiguous language to name transphobia, racism, and misogyny rather than euphemism, which serves clarity given the article's documentary purpose; the language is also informal and pointed ("weird little guys," "creepy weird guy"), which is an editorial choice distinct from the factual claims themselves. #### Neurodiversity support - The consistent per-entry structure (credential, then claims, then associations) is a predictable pattern that supports scanning and comparison across entries, which benefits readers who rely on structural consistency. #### Representation - Nearly every named individual in this list is referred to as "he"/"him" by the source; this analysis mirrors the source's own pronoun usage for each named person rather than inferring pronouns from any name, per this analysis's standing instruction not to assume pronouns. - The list itself, by its nature, documents allegations of harm toward marginalized groups (trans people, women, non-white people) as reported by the source; it does not center those groups' own accounts within the captured text, which is a structural limitation of a list format focused on the accused rather than on those affected. #### Psychological safety - The article's opening instruction ("Don't harass these people! Don't engage with them at all") is itself a psychological-safety framing choice, aimed at preventing the list from becoming a harassment campaign vector even as it documents serious allegations. ## Logical validity #### Strong reasoning - Pattern-based network reasoning: the article's strongest structural move is repeatedly surfacing shared sponsors (Cloudflare, FUTO, Shopify) and shared social ties (Curtis Yarvin, Omacon 2026, Louis Rossmann) across multiple, otherwise-independent entries, which supports a "connected network" claim more than any single entry could alone. - Consistent citation discipline: nearly every specific factual claim in the original article carries an individual "[source]" link, which is a stronger evidentiary practice than an unsourced list would offer, even though those sources were not captured in this document's text. #### Fallacies - Guilt by association risk: entries like ThePrimeagen's ("content isn't all that weird, but who is publicly associated with a bunch of weirdos") base inclusion primarily on association (donations, conference attendance) rather than the person's own stated views, which risks conflating association with endorsement unless the underlying sources establish more direct evidence. - Missing counter-evidence: because the article does not include any named individual's response or rebuttal, a reader cannot evaluate contested claims against a defense — this is a structural limitation of the list format, not necessarily an intentional fallacy, but it affects how much weight any single entry should carry without independent verification. #### Tone of voice - Blunt and unambiguous: the author uses direct labels ("disgraced," "creepy weird guy," "toxic jerk") rather than hedged language, reflecting a documentary-advocacy tone rather than a neutral encyclopedia-style entry; this tone should be flagged when the article is cited in a context expecting more measured framing. ## Darvo analysis - Not directly applicable to this source — the article presents allegations against named individuals without including those individuals' responses, so no denial, attack-the-accuser, or victim/offender-reversal pattern from the accused is observable within the captured text itself. - One entry does describe a DARVO-adjacent dynamic reported about a third party, not the article's author: the Vaxry/Hyprland entry states he "downplayed" a Discord moderation incident by saying "on the Internet, let's be real, [he] is the default," which the article frames as minimization of the original harm rather than a direct denial — this is the source's characterization, not this analysis's independent finding, and should be attributed as such if cited further. ## Conclusion - The article compiles specific, individually sourced allegations against a network of prominent FOSS figures, connecting them not just by shared conduct but by overlapping funding relationships and social ties (FUTO, 37signals, Cloudflare, Curtis Yarvin, Omacon 2026) that the author argues constitute an organized current within open source rather than isolated incidents. - Practical next step for readers: treat each entry as a lead requiring independent source verification before repeating it, use the funding/association pattern as a starting point for due diligence on sponsorship and conference decisions, and respect the article's own explicit instruction against harassing or engaging with anyone named. ## 🔄 Refactor Appendix — Weird little guys of FOSS ### 📚 Literature Atoms (H3) #### [H1] Jacob Appelbaum: the most heavily sourced entry > [!quote] ID:rw_01m1pp6a2z3g7zd042bh9srfdt > "Jacob is a cryptography and computer security researcher and disgraced ex-member of the Tor project. In 2016 ten people came forward to present serious accusations of sexual harassment, assault, and rape,[source] ultimately leading this removal from the Tor project,[source] Debian,[source] and the hackerspace he co-founded, Noisebridge.[source]" Four separate "[source]" citations back this entry — the article's own strongest evidentiary case, and a model for how the rest of the list should be verified before repeating. Tags: `#atom/literature/h1` #### [H2] Stallman: FSF founder, most severe claims in the piece > [!quote] ID:rw_01m1pp6a2z3g7zd042bh9srfdt > "Founder of the Free Software Foundation and one of the most important figures in getting this whole thing off of the ground. Also the subject of credible rumors of harassing a lot of women over the years, and frequently writes on his website in defense of rapists, sexual harassment, sexual exploitation of minors, distribution of child sexual abuse material, and even bestiality and necrophilia. Stallman's behavior is extensively covered in The Stallman Report." The article pairs Stallman's foundational role directly against its most severe allegations, pointing to "The Stallman Report" as the detailed external source rather than quoting it directly here. Tags: `#atom/literature/h2` ### 🧠 Permanent Candidates (H4) #### [P1] Funding-network mapping is a due-diligence tool, not just gossip When multiple otherwise-unconnected FOSS projects share the same handful of corporate sponsors (Cloudflare, FUTO, Shopify) and the same conference stage (Omacon 2026), that overlap is a checkable fact independent of any single behavioral allegation. Before sponsoring, featuring, or recommending a project, mapping its funding and speaker relationships is a concrete, low-effort due-diligence step that doesn't require adjudicating any individual's guilt. *Candidate; one source's network claim, not independently verified against a control group of similar projects.* Links: [[Open Source Governance Surfaces]] · [[Conference Speaker Due Diligence]] · [[FOSS Community Governance MOC]] Tags: `#atom/zettel/z1` #### [P2] A missing or "404" code of conduct is a checkable governance failure The article's claim that Xlibre's code of conduct is "just '404' in a text file" is a concrete, verifiable fact distinct from any contested behavioral allegation. Any "how to evaluate a FOSS project" checklist should include: does the code of conduct exist, is it specific, and does it name an enforcement mechanism — a test that requires no judgment about the people involved. *Candidate; one example, but the check itself generalizes to any open source project evaluation.* Links: [[Code of Conduct Standards]] · [[FOSS Community Governance MOC]] Tags: `#atom/zettel/z2` ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue - Nearly every claim in the original article links to a "[source]" not captured in this analysis — pull the live page before citing any individual entry. `#atom/fleeting/f1` - The ThePrimeagen entry is the thinnest ("content isn't all that weird") and leans hardest on guilt-by-association — worth flagging if this list gets cited as a uniform standard of evidence. `#atom/fleeting/f1` - Worth checking whether any named project or person has publicly responded, given the article's own "additions, removals, or changes" policy. `#atom/fleeting/f1` ### → Things 3 (max 2 actions) - [ ] Before featuring or sponsoring any project named in this list at a WordPress/DevRel event, check current maintainer/funding status and pull the original source links. `#action/h1` - [ ] Draft a "code of conduct exists, is specific, names an enforcement mechanism" checklist item for any project-evaluation rubric. `#action/h2` <!-- deep-read:sections end --> 📄 **Full text:** [[Full Document Contents/Articles/Weird Little Guys of FOSS.md|Weird Little Guys of FOSS by Drew DeVault]] ## Highlights - Jacob is a cryptography and computer security researcher and disgraced ex-member of the Tor project. In 2016 ten people came forward to present serious accusations of sexual harassment, assault, and rape,[source] ultimately leading this removal from the Tor project,[source] Debian,[source] and the hackerspace he co-founded, Noisebridge.[source] ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01m1sjg4ttb2fs4ktnkk94nws2)) - Note: H1 — The most heavily sourced entry in the list: four separate citations back the 2016 accusations and resulting removals from Tor, Debian, and Noisebridge. #atom/literature/h1 - Tags: atom/literature/h1 - Founder of the Free Software Foundation and one of the most important figures in getting this whole thing off of the ground. Also the subject of credible rumors of harassing a lot of women over the years, and frequently writes on his website in defense of rapists, sexual harassment, sexual exploitation of minors, distribution of child sexual abuse material, and even bestiality and necrophilia. Stallman’s behavior is extensively covered in The Stallman Report.[source] ([View Highlight](https://read.readwise.io/read/01m1sjg7sddfqtas1ht9eb04b6)) - Note: H2 — The article pairs Stallman's foundational FSF role directly against the most severe claims in the piece, pointing to "The Stallman Report" as the detailed external source. #atom/literature/h2 - Tags: atom/literature/h2