[Fsfe-ie] IFSO Rules, Draft 2

[malcohol at eircom.net]

Hi there.

Loic Dachary <loic at gnu.org> wrote:
                                                                                    > I'm doing my best to cooperate with other activists 
> worldwide.
                                                                                         
Your contributions are very welcome.
                                                                                         
> Instead of refering to the Free Software Foundation, it
> might be more informative to add a PREAMBLE before the
> OBJECTS that defines Free Software. Cut and past of the 
> definition published on the fsf.org web site could do the
> job.
                                                                                         
I support this idea.
                                                                                         
> Rather that limiting the scope of the association to 
> writing, usage and localization, it might be wiser to
> allow any kind of activity as long as it has a clear 
> relationship with Free Software.
                                                                                         
I disagree slightly here, 

Firstly, the phrase ``clear relationship'' is surely open
to interpretation.

Secondly, what brings us together as a group is our belief
in free software. It is not necessarily the case that 
someone who believes in free software must believe in all 
classes of ``electronic freedom'' (e.g, those advocated by
the EFF).

                                                                                        For example, an important issue discussed at one of our 
meetings was the current implementation of electronic 
voting in Ireland. A conclusions was that, although an 
important issue, it would not be a primary issue for a
*free software* organisation to tackle.

                                                                                       > Lobbying governments so that laws fair to Free Software
> are implemented does not directly relate to writing, 
> using or translating Free Software although it seems 
> clear to me that IFSO should be entitled to act on this
> front.
                                                                                         
I would say such lobbying does fall under the phrase 
``promoting and defending'' (used in the second draft of
the proposed rules).
                                                                                         
> It is often the case that people think about these
> activities as marginal to the goals of a Free Software
> non-profit (or criticize them as too "political") and
> stating this clearly in the OBJECTS prevents useless 
> discussions in the future.
                                                                                         
I certainly believe that IFSO should be political! If a
piece of legislation (even potentially) interferes with 
the development or use of free software, then I think we
should tackle it.
                                                                                         
Good luck,
                                                                                         
Malcohol.