On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Ted Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 15:48 -0600, Patrick Anderson wrote: > > Rudolf wrote: > > > Also are there any legal problems with this? > > > Like who owns the space? Can we assign the > > > server to the fsf or the collective to maintain > > > as long as the costs are covered? > > > > I am very interested in hashing-out the complexities of what it takes > > to share computing resources so they remain "Free as in Freedom". > > > > Once we understand how to share land, capital and labor for computing, > > it is only a small step to generalizing the solution to *all* > > production, including the most important of all = agriculture. > > > > This is a complex issue, and will take more than simply covering costs. > > > > Covering costs is required to begin and to continue, but we need just > > a bit more logic to insure those shared assets remain truly Free as in > > Freedom for *all* users, not just the few that originally organized to > > be benevolent dictators over the rest. > > > > Here are part of my ideas: > > > http://lists.libreplanet.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2012-05/msg00111.html > > > Can someone from the FSF comment on whether this is relevant or not for > this list? This topic generates a lot of discussion but (I would bet > money) not any actual activism opportunities for the FSF or local > LibrePlanet groups. > > Personally, I got sick of this topic years ago on the p2p-research > mailing list. It was one of the many factors that lead to the > signal:noise ratio on that list tipping into the negative. > > I seem to remember John Sullivan saying it was more appropriate for > gnu-misc-discuss, but I could be misremembering. > > > Yes, I am on the campaigns team. gnu-misc-discuss would be more appropriate.
