On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Steve wrote:
> Well then it seems Canopener is the one that's approaching on CLUE's
> advocacy yard.
Advocacy for what? Agreeing on what is being advocated is pretty
important. CanOpenER is advocating all Open Source (and only Open
Source), not just Linux (or non-Open Source that happens to run on Linux).
I also didn't observe CLUE doing any advocacy. If I did, I would have
brought that to their attention when they were founding CanOpenER (I was
there early as an observer when they were first deciding to form and to
decide on a name).
Last year there was an interesting discussion that started at the Ottawa
Linux Symposium during the Q&A section after the keynote speaker. It
became obvious that (at least) "three camps" existed:
Linux - cool software/hardware, want to run all the same software as
Windows (IE: proprietary stuff as well as Open Source)
Open Source - community efforts towards better engineered software (many
eyes, shallow bugs, etc).
Free Software - Political (some claim religious at times ;-)
implications of Publicly Licensed ideas towards public policy.
I am strongly in the latter camp, so my advocacy --- directly to
government --- is involved with Free Software, not specifically Linux, and
not in the style or motivations of Open Source.
Even my interest in GOSLINGS (Getting Open Source and Linux INto
GovernmentS) is in the hopes that the public policy "Free Software"
aspects will become more visible as well.
Linux to me is of interest primarily because it is licensed under the
GNU GPL, not because it is Open Source and not because it is "Cool stuff".
I found that I simply didn't fit in with the LUG's where we kept hearing
"Linux users don't want to pay for their software" which was the continual
re-dragging up of FUD around "Free Software" by Linux users.
I don't use proprietary software, regardless of the price (including
free), but do contribute financially and otherwise to Free Software
projects.
> In terms of many small voices mean more than one large - not
> necessarily, too many people shouting tend to confuse the issue.
There isn't a single "large voice" as not everyone is advocating for the
same thing. Not recognizing this can also confuse any issue.
There is going to be considerable overlap between "Linux Advocacy" and
"Free Software Advocacy", but they aren't always the same thing. Work
together where the overlap exists, and try not to step on each others toes
otherwise.
There are almost continuous consultations with the Government of Canada
on some issue of great concern to Linux, Open Source and Free Software
advocates. I didn't see people representing CLUE during last summer's
Copyright Consultation process, and I suspect having some submissions
endorsed by CLUE would have helped greatly.
As an example, would CLUE endorse my "Innovation Strategy" submission
when it is completed? It is currently in draft at:
http://www.flora.ca/russell/drafts/innovation.shtml
My experience is that Linux users tend to be more tolerant of (or even
promote) "Software Manufacturing" (IE: proprietary software), where Free
Software advocates aren't. Given this, I wouldn't expect a "Linux" group
to endorse the type of public policy that is being suggested, even though
there would likely be an agreement on most of it.
Anyone care to correct me or otherwise prove me wrong?
---
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
See http://weblog.flora.ca/ for announcements, activities, and opinions
Getting Open Source and Linux INto GovernmentS | No2Violence in Politics
http://www.flora.org/dmca/forum/942 | http://www.no-dot.ca/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
