Russell McOrmond wrote: > 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).
Well we are talking about Linux here... BTW, I don't understand whom gave you your mandate? That's what this is all about IMHO. To be taken seriously by government, business, one needs to represent somebody. This is the purpose IMHO of CLUE, to represent Canadian Linux users. If it can be shown that CLUE has the support of the LUG's in Canada, that will be the first step. > 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). Ditto for Canopener, never heard of it before, so obviously it's not promoting itself too well. > 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. Free software will never get far, if there aren't any big name companies behind it. Being free is all and well, but organizations care about the support, after installation service and infrastructure. > 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. Agreed it does get tiresome, that being said, I find that to do my day to day work, I continually must use Cupertino's software and or Redmonds. Why? Because it's not being supported by the software companies that endusers depend on <ie> the Adobe's and Macromedia's of the world for one. This has to change. Apple is now even moving into Linux's stronghold of movie graphics. > I don't use proprietary software, regardless of the price (including > free), but do contribute financially and otherwise to Free Software > projects. Ah an idealist - I trust you're a pragmatic man as well? >>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. Well that can change if CLUE gets going. Advocating free as opposed to the branding of the Linux name is an error IMHO. > 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. Not at first, as another poster so aptly wrote. Advocating anything other than the Linux brand at first will only lead to confusion and splintering. It will not bode well for either end-game. > 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. There is? Could have fooled me - any examples, and by whom to whom? > 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. I haven't read your draft, so will withhold comment until I have done so. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
