On Mon, 29 Jul 2002, Steve wrote:
> > 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... This note was more for those who suggested that there was duplication between CanOpenER and CLUE. If CLUE is only about Linux, then it isn't the same thing even if there is some overlap. If CLUE is just promoting Linux as a piece of software, then it won't get anywhere with Government other than on the procurement side. Is procurement of Linux-based products all that CLUE is interested in advocating to government? > 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. Who does CLUE represent? I don't get the impression that CLUE is even as large as the membership of the DMCA mailing list. IT is hard to tell, partly because this list doesn't seem to have archives any more: http://www.linux.ca/lists/admin/ (Last message is Nov 1999 ) The DMCA list and CanOpenER are monitored by Government bureaucrats - some on the policy side (copyright/patents) and some part of GOSLINGS. I don't know much about the membership of CLUE, or even who is reading these messages. When I currently do government advocacy work, I don't speak on behalf of anyone else, and don't pretend that I do. My doing this as an individual citizen is far better than it not happening at all, which is what would happen if we all waited for someone else (or some organization) to do it. You don't just need to have a brand name to claim to represent someone to be taken seriously by government. You need to have something interesting to say that clearly has a constituency, which Linux, Open Source and Free Software clearly has. In my case I have been told that I have something interesting to say about Free Software and public policy, and they are things that many parts of Government already want to hear. For those in government who have invited me to speak, the public policy implications of Free Software is more interesting than the much simpler Linux procurement question. GOSLINGS is of course working on all aspects of this problem, and procurement policy was discussed a fair bit at the Open Source solutions showcase: http://www.flora.ca/osss2002/ Note: I do find procurement policy interesting as well, which is why I was involved in a lawsuits using procurement policy that is part of trade law. See http://www.flora.org/competition/citt/ if you had not heard about the PLCOM case. > 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. What is the message? There will be a lot of work trying to get a single message from LUG's to allow CLUE "represent" these users. There has been a wide variety of (often incompatible) ideas expressed by Linux users. There will need to be quite a bit of discussion on this before a clear message can be articulated. Advocating for "Free Software" is so much easier than advocating for "Linux" given the message is much simpler, and contains much less conflicting ideas. Linux may be Free Software, but Linux Users clearly aren't all Free Software advocates. > > 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. That is one commonly held opinion. It's not one I share ;-) I agree that there is a short term migration issue where the big names like IBM are helping give credibility to Open Source software. In the (near?) future I believe it will be the other way around: that big names won't get far without backing/supporting Free Software. > Being free is all and well, but organizations care about the > support, after installation service and infrastructure. Agreed, but this isn't really about "big names" as much as "good service" when you no longer have as many competition problems as currently exists with software manufacturing. There is considerable analysis over the years that suggests that service and support is much better in a free market (IE: when there aren't limitations on support, which is the case for proprietary software as some types of support like bug fixes can only be accomplished by the single vendor). > > 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? What is pragmatic is unfortunately a very subjective thing. I believe I am very pragmatic, which is part of the reason for my general boycott of the products of "software manufacturing" which I consider to be harmful to the economy in the long term. I make small exceptions in specific situations, such as the temporary use of proprietary tools for migration of a service off of a closed source platform, or limited support for projects that are direct derivatives (IE: StarOffice, Netscape). I don't offer support in my business for other proprietary products, but have customers with mixed environments where they have other support people for other products. > > 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. This is a clarification that CLUE needs to make. No organization can be all things to all people. The chosen name offers some suggestions: "Canadian Linux Users Exchange" Will it get too confusing if a Linux Users Exchange also gets involved in Open Source or Free Software advocacy? Would it make more sense to just endorse the other organization for that work? In the USA there are separate groups for LPF, EFF and FSF. There is considerable overlap in some campaigns and they keep in close contact, but don't pretend to all represent the same constituencies. > > 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. CLUE (Bill Traynor?) needs to decide this. The choice is not whether other things get advocated, but whether the CLUE name is associated with that advocacy. The Free Software advocacy will still happen, just under a different name. > > 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? Please read the archives from the DMCA forum. - There were many submissions to the copyright consultation process - they are linked via Strategis, with some of the larger ones linked via http://www.digital-copyright.ca/links.shtml - There were cross-country meetings which many members of the DMCA forum attended. I only had a chance to attend the Ottawa meeting, which was well attended by Open Source advocates - we were the most visible "group" at these meetings, which was properly noticed by government. - I personally had 3 meetings with Heritage Canada, Copyright Policy Branch (IE: personal invitations from the branch - myself as a guest speaker with approximately 7 bureaucrats each meeting). The last meeting I did a demo of Mandrake Linux (given to Heritage at the Montreal consultation meeting) and OpenOffice.org (which I installed just prior to the meeting on a Heritage-owned computer) - I also had 2 meetings with Industry Canada, one with the ICT branch and another inter-departmental meeting on ICT hosted by ICT branch (but involving people from other branches including IPPD - Intellectual Property Policy) - I've done presentations in educational environments, and even at the Open Source Solutions Showcase (slides are linked via: http://www.flora.ca/osss2002/ ) - there has since been many more face-to-face meetings. In Ottawa there is even a weekly "social gathering" of the Ottawa GOSLINGS which is a mixture of public sector (Reps from public works and Industry are always there), private sector (various people who do this for a living) and "just citizens". Discussions include updates on progress in a wide variety of projects to promote Open Source and Linux in government. > > 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 > I haven't read your draft, so will withhold comment until I have done so. Lets just say that in the current draft, the word "Linux" appears only once ;-) "<B>Open Source software</B> is already well known, and includes well known projects like Apache (HTTP Webserver), OpenOffice.org (Office Suite), Mozilla.org (Web browser), and Linux/*BSD (Operating Systems)." --- 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]
