Yea- Dave was in a much better position to organize the developers to get
behind this. I'm glad he took part. He saw others jumping on it and started
working on stuff as well. It really took quite a few people to pull all this
off and most of it was really even just the dedication of a small handful-
maybe half a dozen people or so- and then some participation by a few dozen
others. None of it is/was terribly organized. It was just a bunch of people
forming basically two or three groups/mailing lists and then everybody going
off into there own worlds of existence here or there to further the effort.
We're not actually in agreement on everything- but ultimately it's close
enough.
For example: We were really not wanting to make any proposals to the FCC and
Dave was. The reason being I believe was we can get more people to oppose it
if there is solution. That is to say we really just want the FCC to drop it.
In a sense Dave is hi-jacking it in an effort to do more. While I don't think
anybody objects to the more part it could hurt the end results in getting the
FCC to back off.
Anyway- I'm still not convinced the FCC is listening to us. They responded
October 8th and basically said we don't want to do X and yet they still have
rules and proposed rules that will result in causing the problems.
We'll see what happens. If ThinkPenguin is hit we'll go down screaming and
point out every hypocritical things the FCC has said about not wanting to ban
"open source". But even if they don't attack us for not locking devices down
the end results are still a problem if upstream uses it as a reason to refuse
release of code (they already are using it at as a reason by the way).
