On Sunday 09 August 2009, vid wrote: > ... just read this thread which has the same old arguments ...... > > On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 12:39, Guru गुरु<[email protected]> wrote: > > Only Kenneth has not wanted this inclusion and again he clarifies that > > while > > [.........] > > > Also Kenneth is not correct in his statements suggesting that sw patents > > issue inclusion would make FOSSCOMM = FSF. Most people on this list (like > > IT for Change) are not FSF members. > > I am not an FSF member either and am against patents of all kinds, > including pharma patents (but i digress). Even so, I am not convinced > that fosscomm (or any new coalition under another name) should > replicate or adopt FSF or any other existing org's work? Anyone > (including organisations) interested can join them directly in their > work under the appropriate umbrella.
Logical. > > > I was in the Bangalore meeting. While the agenda is clearly to broaden > > the 'appeal' of FOSS beyond groups already working on FOSS, there was no > > I was there too and the (oft repeated) argument that if the fosscomm > agenda doesnt allow the patent issue to be included its somehow a > dis-service to floss seems a stretch. In my personal opinion, > replicating the work of another organisation under a new banner isnt > going to change the way our laws are made. Not borne out by facts. > > The moot point of having a CMP for fosscomm is not to limit but to > __define__ the objectives of a large coalition consisting of a wide > variety (and subset) of people. In such a scenario -- the larger the > group, the simpler its objectives. Logical. But again, we have have no hard figures to prove (or disprove) membership numbers with and without a no SW patents agenda. IMO we havent even identified potential organisations that arent computer junkies but going to be seriously affected. > I have seen larger foundations get > formed and reach a consensus on basic goals very quickly but sadly, > that does not seem to be the case here. TBH, i am tired of the endless > threads on the patent issue. So if a CMP is not going to be defined > for fosscomm, can we please run with the earlier understanding of > individual(s) and organisations continuing to work under their > respective banner on specific issues. Without forming FOSSCOM as an organisation (and the associated baggage, including CMP)?. That makes us YAML. And can anybody elaborate how standards are going to be open and unencumbered and yet covered by patents? For the record i too am totally against patents and firmly believe in the FSF philosophy, but prefer to fight a war one battle at a time. Given our limited resources this should be a preferred strategy. -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
