Jason Clifford wrote: >Membership of AFFS is fairly meaningless of itself right now. It doesn't >give AFFS a great deal of leverage as the membership is small and seems to >exclude corporate membership - whether anyone likes it or not the >government is not going to take AFFS seriously if it is seen as not being >representative of commercial interests. > I don't see that. The government is required to take academic experts seriously (at least nominally) in some areas. It is forced to take some note of organisations like Amnesty International. It is required to take note of the European Court of Human Rights. None of these is representative of commercial interests. Of course, none is the same as the AFFS, but the list at least suggests that representing commercial interests is not the only way to go. On the other hand, many members (AFAIK) are part of or own companies, so it is not as if the AFFS is stuck in an ivory tower...
Organisations like the Open Source Consortium do have corporate membership, but their goals are different (not wrong, different). Which is a valid division of labour. Graham _______________________________________________ Fsfe-uk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
