What are they hiding?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dthacker Feb 22, 2007 3:22 PM EDT |
"An email advertising the invitation-only seminar promises it will provide a "carefully-selected" group of attorneys with "exclusive insight" into the final wording of GPLv3, its interpretation and "the likely enforcement strategy of" of the Free Software Foundation and other FOSS rights holders." Why do they have to raise an economic barrier? Free software is supposed to be transparent. The license, and the explanation of that license should be transparent as well. Peddling "exclusive insight" is hypocritical. Bad form, FSF! Dave |
| DarrenR114 Feb 22, 2007 3:43 PM EDT |
@dthacker - agreed. Methinks the true colors are starting to show through about some of the "heroes" of FOSS. |
| swbrown Feb 22, 2007 6:02 PM EDT |
> @dthacker - agreed. Methinks the true colors are starting to show through about some of the "heroes" of FOSS. From the limited information the Register has, it's a donation-mandatory speaker event with some really high level folks. The FSF needs cash to operate as it does, and since their conversion to a more political organization, they get that from speaker fees, membership fees, and conferences like other political organizations/figures. They used to make their operational money from selling things like GNU Pro, Cygwin, and Free Software support via their Cygnus branch (since 1989 - they were profitable long before Red Hat). Have you forgotten? > True to form, the detractors wasted no time in mixing metaphors designed to show what's wrong with the groups' hosting of an event as costly and secretive as this one. Congrats in wasting no time with the colors/heroes bit. :) |
| DarrenR114 Feb 23, 2007 5:12 AM EDT |
Sure they need money to operate, but why isn't this conference open to the public? Heck, they could lower the "donation" price of entry and open it up to the FOSS community at large. What they're doing here STINKS to high heaven. |
| Abe Feb 23, 2007 7:13 AM EDT |
Quoting:but why isn't this conference open to the publicBecause they don't want it open to some of the wishy-washy people. These things cost money, if you are interested in attending, your sponsor I am sure, has enough of it to pay up for it. Quoting:Heck, they could lower the "donation" price of entry and open it up to the FOSS community at largeSure they can do that, but they are afraid not to have enough space to accommodate all, you know, the FOSS community I would say is pretty huge. Some time you have to be selective to be able to get things done and not create a circus. As you know, there are a lot who claim they are part of the FOSS community. Quoting:What they're doing here STINKS to high heaven.It only stinks when it doesn't suit you. There is nothing secretive about this whole thing, all the of the discussions and decisions will be in the open. Sit back and watch. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 23, 2007 7:30 AM EDT |
@abe, Let's wait and see ... ok ... I'm still impatiently waiting to see the next discussion draft of GPL v3. |
| tuxchick Feb 23, 2007 7:32 AM EDT |
Maybe they want to get some *gasp* actual work done, instead of refereeing endless circular flamewars? Maybe they have an actual purpose? Are there any actual attorneys complaining about this? All I see are the usual "waah, I didn't get invited" complaining from folks who have no real interest in the event anyway. Linuxchix and other women-in-tech groups face the same sort of stupid whining all the time. We're sexist, we're exclusionary, it's wrong, blah blah blah. I cry a river. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 23, 2007 7:46 AM EDT |
TC - in the actual register article, the author did reference the complaints of actual invitees (who wished to remain anonymous because they didn't want to get on the badside of the FSF or the FSLC.) The author's summary of their comments was that the way this conference is being funded is really thinly-veiled extortion. |
| tuxchick Feb 23, 2007 8:26 AM EDT |
First of all, it's a Register article, and if you don't see the obvious slant and determination to present this in the worst possible light, it's because you don't want to. Secondly, it's the same old gaggle of anti-FSF crabpots griping about it. So- I give your gripes all the weight they deserve. |
| jimf Feb 23, 2007 9:03 AM EDT |
Darren, Call ESR a weenie and a slut for using blobs, or Novell/SuSe a sellout for dealing with MS, but never, NEVER point out a flaw in the patina of the Golden Calf. No one will ever admit there are cracks in that monument. Criticism will only bring the wrath of the true believers. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 23, 2007 9:12 AM EDT |
granted it's a Register article ... but the reference by name to at least one IP attorney who characterised this "conference" in such a negative light does bear further scrutiny. Let's compare this to the way the ISO operates - the process to get a standard adopted by the ISO is wholly transparent, even though the general public does not make input or vote. Though sometimes the revealing of the deliberation process to the public might be time-delayed, such as with the "protests" over OOXML. With the uproar by the FSF over the MS-Novell deal, accompanied by their promise to include a clause to prevent such deals in the future, it especially crucial that the drafting process for the GPL v3 be more transparent than this. If there is an intention to pass on to the public the proceedings from the conference, as abe has expressed he feels will occur, then that should be good enough. We shall see. |
| tuxchick Feb 23, 2007 9:27 AM EDT |
This isn't part of the drafting process, it's an educational seminar. |
| DarrenR114 Feb 23, 2007 9:29 AM EDT |
@jimf, I know what you mean ... I think what many seem to forget is that with User Groups and other informal gatherings of Gen3 developers, there was a lot of source code freely exchanged before anyone ever heard of RMS or the GNU project. We all had our personal "code libraries" which we freely shared and cultivated with each other. Email wasn't common, so it was mostly done face to face. Most of us didn't have the egos like RMS or Bill Gates to even consider imposing "copyright" on our stuff. It was a commonly accepted premise that computer programming was really just a lab practicum for "Plagarism 101". This is why the "Open Letter" by Bill Gates in 1976 came as such a shock. That just was not the way things were done. Oh well - that was then and this is now. |
| jimf Feb 23, 2007 9:35 AM EDT |
On the up side, If the FSF is going to shake down someone , I can't think of a more deserving group. |
| swbrown Feb 23, 2007 6:17 PM EDT |
> No one will ever admit there are cracks in that monument. Criticism will only bring the wrath of the true believers. I don't think speaker fees are a crack in the monument. It seems like a rather extreme stretch to suggest so, unless you think the FSF can operate with no funding. |
| dinotrac Feb 24, 2007 3:11 AM EDT |
Yeah, it's tacky, but we are talking about the FSF. What else is new? |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!