[Fsfe-ie] Draft letter on IPRED2
ian at locut.us
Thu Aug 25 08:49:13 CEST 2005
On 25 Aug 2005, at 01:11, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> Why is a Free Software organisation concerned?
Perhaps introduce SCO as most people won't have heard of it (is it a
person? a company? a vegetable?).
> SCO has accused IBM of mixing some SCO-owned code into the kernel
> of the
> GNU/Linux operating system. SCO claims that all users of GNU/Linux
> have to
> pay licensing fees to SCO.
> This case has been going on for years and many distributors of GNU/
> have be dragged into it. The Free Software Foundation and others
> have had
> there time wasted by broad subpoenas.
> Despite it's numerous appearances in court, SCO has yet to be proven
> right on even one single claim it has made.
Perhaps replace with ..."on any of its claims."
> A recently leaked memo from SCO shows that a 2002 study they
> concluded that they "had found absolutely *nothing*. ie no evidence
> of any
> copyright infringement whatsoever".
So what? What does this mean in the context of the wider story?
> The interesting thing is that SCO is funded by Microsoft - the
> makers of
> Microsoft Windows, whose closest rival is: GNU/Linux, which is Free
> Software's largest project.
Again, you are mentioning a fact without explaining its relevance to
the wider context (yes, it may be obvious to us, but it won't be to
the average reader/journalist).
> Another leaked memo, the authenticity of which has been confirmed
> by SCO,
> revealed that SCO received funding of more than $100 million from
Ditto. I would probably leave these last two out unless their
relevance can be explained properly.
> Now, trying to prevent organised crime is a good goal, but when rights
Starting a sentence with "Now," seems overly conversational for a
> holders are given extreme powers of investigation and the ability to
> threaten with jail time, huge fines, and endless bureaucracy: who
> are the
> organised criminals? The companies selling GNU/Linux and related
> Or the company that is sueing people despite knowing it doesn't
> have a case?
The last rhetorical question may not make sense to people. Yes, I
understand what it is trying to say, but I think it is too indirect
for a closing sentence.
More information about the FSFE-IE