On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 11:44 AM, larry price <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ron Paul is equal to Ralph Nader shifted a bit to the right? > Might as well stick Barack Obama's name in the archives too. :-) But seriously, Obama has taken some positions of importance to the FOSS community in his campaign platform. They are on the Technology plank page of his platform. <http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/>. They are a mixed bag from the pro-FOSS viewpoint and this is not to argue for his election. But given that he is a serious contender, I think FOSS folk should be concerned with pushing him further on his pro-FOSS positions and pushing for elaboration of the position that leaves him wiggle room not to address the software patent issue. His major downer for FOSS is a position on patents that seeks to draw a middle line between competing corporate positions in Congress and seems oblivious to the software patent issue. But his position does not lock him into an endorsement of software patents and I see a need to push him on that issue. Other positions he has taken seemingly compel a conclusion that software patents have to go, but his campaign staff have not been specific enough to deny the wiggle room. From the totality of his relevant positions, one might guess that he intends to do something about software patents but has avoided that discussion to keep the corporate campaign contributions flowing and to avoid alienating voters who support software patents. Raising the issue publicly would open the candidate to all of that rhetoric about "property" rights, the protection of property rights by the 5th Amendment, and other such garbage. (Patents pretty clearly do not rise to the level of a property right protected by the 5th Amendment. I omit the legal analysis.) For such reasons, I think one right target for FOSS is the Obama presidential transition team rather than the campaign election platform, accompanied by pushing the other contenders on the same issues. Long before the Obama announced his candidacy, I was working on a candidate successor to the various definitions of an "open standard" used by various FOSS advocates within units of government. The existing definitions clash with governing competition law in several ways and generally suffer from having been drafted by folks familiar with the governing law. This has been my major project during the last two years. A few days ago, I published version 0.001 for review and reaction. After Obama took his relevant positions, I added an introduction that summarizes the Obama platform's relevant positions while excluding mention of his patent position. But the patent issue is addressed by the draft definition itself. It is worded as a set of requirements an open standard *must* fulfill. Extensive footnotes explain the various provisions' thorough grounding in law governing human rights, antitrust and international competition. Note that the accessibility issue handling needs detail. That is my current area of research. Initial reaction from a couple of heavyweights in the European open standards reform movement has been supportive, with the proviso that they would like to see the introductory portion discussing the Obama campaign's positions moved to a different page so the page does not appear so U.S.-centric. I concur in that criticism so version 0.002 will incorporate that change and a few more minor changes they suggested. My personal goal is to play the benevolent dictator role until the document is ready for broader public discussion, then hand off to competent younger blood as rapidly as I can. A guy who has had three heart attacks and is still smoking is not the right guy to head a long-term project of this kind. :-) But I am very much interested in getting constructive criticism at an early stage from a small group of tech-minded folk without legal expertise. I am hoping members of this list might contribute in that regard. Potential goals for what is in fact intended as a meta-standard for open standards include: * Provide a self-contained rallying point and a written statement of goals for standards reform groups in their advocacy and education, together with a thorough, referenced legal justification for the goals. * Adoption by government technology officers as requirements vendors must fulfill within the context of a schedule to remain eligible for government procurement tenders; * Through that kind of action, to create financial incentives for vendors and standardization bodies to fulfill the requirements or risk being displaced by other vendors and standardization bodies that do fulfill the requirements. * Provide legally defensible criteria for evaluation of standards and implementations of standards that fulfill the requirements. Impact the Obama presidential transition team, which currently lacks a detailed published justification and implementation plan for the candidate's advocacy of interoperability, integration of government IT infrastructure, and universally accessible formats. * Impact other political candidates' campaign positions globally. With that introduction, I present for your consideration "The universally accessible and interoperable specification v. 0.01. < http://www.universal-interop-council.org/specification>. Please spare no punches and try to kick holes in it. Best regards, Marbux
_______________________________________________ EUGLUG mailing list [email protected] http://www.euglug.org/mailman/listinfo/euglug
