Information about the Free Software Foundation Europe -----------------------------------------------------
First of all we would like to thank everyone for their huge interest and support. It has definitely surpassed our wildest expectations and we very much appreciate it.
As we are currently seeing more mail than we can reasonably reply to without giving up everything else, we will try to answer some of the more frequently asked questions in this posting.
Current plans of the FSF Europe:
We are currently having a lawyer evaluate the different legal frameworks that exist in Germany to find out which one will suit the FSF Europe best. Afterwards it is planned to have this lawyer set up the legal documents so we can proceed with the official founding of the FSF Europe.
Once that is done, we will seek legal consultation in other countries as to whether a law for charitable organizations exists, and what it implies for the local organizations. This will be done in close contact with people in those countries who will be founding the local organizations.
As to which countries will be approached first we cannot say right now.
About local organizations:
Our plans are to work together with local organizations like the FFII, AFUL or APRIL. They are doing important work, and we are not planning to replace them. Bernhard Reiter is member of the new FFII board and we are in contact with people from APRIL and AFUL. Our declared goal is to strengthen and unite.
About local representatives:
We are currently looking for people in other countries to become part of the FSF Europe and we have been contacted by a lot of people so far.
The FSF in the U.S. itself is not a "membership organization." It is rather an organization of selected individuals that have proven themselves to possess a deep understanding of the Free Software philosophy and a firm belief in the long-term goals of Free Software. It can easily be understood that being a member of such an organization requires a relatively high level of commitment.
As we seek to become the acknowledged sister organization of the FSF, we feel that we have to maintain the same level of commitment and philosophical awareness of the FSF itself.
For this reason we would like to get to know everyone who is interested in becoming part of the FSF Europe. Of course we have read or heard from a lot of the active members of the Free Software community before, but this is no substitute for getting to know you from personal email and discussions. We therefore ask you to be a little patient - talk to us, discuss things with us, let us know your personal take on things so we know who we are truly dealing with. At the same time this will give you a chance to really get to know us and our views and standpoints. Hopefully this will allow us to build the mutual trust that is neccessary for such a big project.
If this seems overly cautious to you, please keep in mind that we seek to create an organization that will at least last as long as the FSF has so far (which is about 16 years). This requires doing things _right_ and we feel that anything less would not do it justice.
But this does not mean that you have to become a member in order to help the FSF Europe. In fact there will be a lot of tasks we will need help with (see below).
On financial donations:
We very much appreciate your offers and would be very pleased to accept them once the financial part of the FSF Europe gets started. Acquiring legal consultation in Germany and all the other countries will cost some money as will doing actual _work_ on behalf of Free Software. As a result it is quite likely that we will be asking for donations in the not too distant future.
On other help:
We are extremely pleased with all the spontaneous offers of help we have been receiving. In general, discussing things with us, giving us your views and perceptions on things, as well as spreading the word and backing us, is a lot of help already. Although the amount of specific tasks that we can be helped with is rather small, that number will surely increase as we will need everything from web masters and admins to people helping with booths at shows.
If you have any specific ideas as to how you might help us now, we would be very glad to hear them. Just because we haven't thought of it, doesn't mean that we won't consider it a good idea.
Okay, this should hopefully answer a lot of the questions. We will work our way through the email we receive(d); and even if we don't reply immediately, please be assured that everything you write will be read and considered.
Judging by the support all of you have given us so far, it seems quite likely that together we can build a stronghold for Free Software in Europe.
On behalf of the FSF Europe team, Georg C. F. Greve greve@gnu.org
Hamburg, $Date: 2001/04/28 21:59:02 $
On 27 Nov 2000, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
As we are currently seeing more mail than we can reasonably reply to without giving up everything else, we will try to answer some of the more frequently asked questions in this posting.
You've been slashdoted, remember?
Current plans of the FSF Europe:
About local organizations:
Our plans are to work together with local organizations like the FFII, AFUL or APRIL. They are doing important work, and we are not planning to replace them. Bernhard Reiter is member of the new FFII board and we are in contact with people from APRIL and AFUL. Our declared goal is to strengthen and unite.
Strenghten and unite? I always though GNU related things are most powerful when they're divided into smaller grops working for the same goal, with more or less coordination :)
About local representatives:
We are currently looking for people in other countries to become part of the FSF Europe and we have been contacted by a lot of people so far.
The FSF in the U.S. itself is not a "membership organization." It is rather an organization of selected individuals that have proven themselves to possess a deep understanding of the Free Software philosophy and a firm belief in the long-term goals of Free Software. It can easily be understood that being a member of such an organization requires a relatively high level of commitment.
<REALLY UNCOOL ATTITUDE IDIOCY=100%> Like what? I don't wnt to commit to an _evil_ anti-proprietarian group of people who think software should bree... yuck! </REALLY UNCOOL ATTITUDE> I'm planning to give a (dammit, I can't remember the word for 'standing in front of people like a professor and babblingsomething none of them even hopes to understand) about GNU in general.
As we seek to become the acknowledged sister organization of the FSF, we feel that we have to maintain the same level of commitment and philosophical awareness of the FSF itself.
Well... I'm not yet aware of GNU philosophy being a part of the dialectical materialism, but who cares. :)
For this reason we would like to get to know everyone who is interested in becoming part of the FSF Europe. Of course we have read or heard from a lot of the active members of the Free Software community before, but this is no substitute for getting to know you from personal email and discussions. We therefore ask you to be a little patient - talk to us, discuss things with us, let us know your personal take on things so we know who we are truly dealing with. At the same time this will give you a chance to really get to know us and our views and standpoints. Hopefully this will allow us to build the mutual trust that is neccessary for such a big project.
<CAPITALIST> TRUST?! You really want to trust someone?! </CAPITALIST> I definetly agree with this point.
If this seems overly cautious to you, please keep in mind that we seek to create an organization that will at least last as long as the FSF has so far (which is about 16 years).
So am I (OK, I'm a bit over 16, and a bit less below 16.5)
This requires doing things _right_ and we feel that anything less would not do it justice.
yup.. (OK, I'll stop agreeeing :))
But this does not mean that you have to become a member in order to help the FSF Europe. In fact there will be a lot of tasks we will need help with (see below).
I will skip the aprt about finances. I just am in a position where giving money just isn't the wisest thing to do (in other words, I'm poor, and my mother, being a ph.D. Chemist, has a word for never stating 'when I become welthy working on IRB (Rudjer Boskovic Institute)).
On other help:
We are extremely pleased with all the spontaneous offers of help we have been receiving. In general, discussing things with us, giving us your views and perceptions on things, as well as spreading the word and backing us, is a lot of help already.
I've already done most of that. And _I will_ keep doing it.
Although the amount of specific tasks that we can be helped with is rather small, that number will surely increase as we will need everything from web masters and admins to people helping with booths at shows.
ok
If you have any specific ideas as to how you might help us now, we would be very glad to hear them. Just because we haven't thought of it, doesn't mean that we won't consider it a good idea.
<EVIL> wow... appreciating another's view, I thoght it was just Voltaire's nightmare </EVIL>
Judging by the support all of you have given us so far, it seems quite likely that together we can build a stronghold for Free Software in Europe.
A _stronghold_? I think more like a fortress from what I've seen up to now.
On behalf of the FSF Europe team, Georg C. F. Greve greve@gnu.org
I agree with this part :)
Sinisa -- "Mors EULAe, libertas softwarei!"
Hi all,
I felt I had to write a few things that
on Mon, 27. Nov 2000, 15:04 GMT+1, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
We are currently having a lawyer evaluate the different legal frameworks that exist in Germany to find out which one will suit the FSF Europe best. Afterwards it is planned to have this lawyer set up the legal documents so we can proceed with the official founding of the FSF Europe.
Hm. Can you give us a resumee about what you've been discussing with this lawyer? In my opinion this is really important, because I wouldn't like to have a non-profit GmbH, for example. I think we and you should guarantee as much transparency as possible.
Once that is done, we will seek legal consultation in other countries as to whether a law for charitable organizations exists, and what it implies for the local organizations. This will be done in close contact with people in those countries who will be founding the local organizations.
Did I understand you right? You're planning to engage other people to found similar sister organizations of the FSF Europe in European countries? What for? Why do you think a central European organization isn't enough?
As to which countries will be approached first we cannot say right now.
On what does it depend?
Our plans are to work together with local organizations like the FFII, AFUL or APRIL. They are doing important work, and we are not planning to replace them. Bernhard Reiter is member of the new FFII board and we are in contact with people from APRIL and AFUL. Our declared goal is to strengthen and unite.
I strongly support this! In my opinion we - the Free Software Community - has a strong need for organization, because our "enemies" - large companies with strict and narrowing licenses etc - are very very well organized.
We are currently looking for people in other countries to become part of the FSF Europe and we have been contacted by a lot of people so far.
Who's that? Why didn't they contact us (this list), instead of you?
I don't want to play the role of the nerved guy, but I feel uncomfortable with this. In my opinion, you should hurry to found an organizational basis where you can speak out the facts, in order to inform us. Be sure that most of us trust you and wait and see what happens next. This makes clear that *what* happens next is extremely important. That's why I'd like to see the foundation of a democratic organization on top of the priority list.
The FSF in the U.S. itself is not a "membership organization." It is rather an organization of selected individuals that have proven themselves to possess a deep understanding of the Free Software philosophy and a firm belief in the long-term goals of Free Software. It can easily be understood that being a member of such an organization requires a relatively high level of commitment.
As we seek to become the acknowledged sister organization of the FSF, we feel that we have to maintain the same level of commitment and philosophical awareness of the FSF itself.
Just because the FSF-US has such an organization, we don't need to have it too, I can't count this argument.
In Germany it's a general practice to have a basis of members from which a couple of guys are elected to hold an office. Of course, as you're the ones that did the most for FSF-EU so far (and from what I know from you, you're most qualified for it), this guys at first will be you. And of course you'd want to know us better in order to learn who of us is qualified for a certain job.
My point is: I'd like to see it _this_ way, not the other way round. See us as potential helpers, not as potential destroyers of the Free Software Philosophy. Resist the influence from your lawyer ;-)
This doesn't mean that you should be less cautious. Perhaps it's *me* who's too cautious ;-) I've just made the experience that discussion legal stuff with lawyers etc often destroyes one's liberal attitude. Please don't let this happen to you! :-)
For this reason we would like to get to know everyone who is interested in becoming part of the FSF Europe. Of course we have read or heard from a lot of the active members of the Free Software community before, but this is no substitute for getting to know you from personal email and discussions. We therefore ask you to be a little patient - talk to us, discuss things with us, let us know your personal take on things so we know who we are truly dealing with. At the same time this will give you a chance to really get to know us and our views and standpoints. Hopefully this will allow us to build the mutual trust that is neccessary for such a big project.
I can see in this text that we probably agree in principle :-)
If you have any specific ideas as to how you might help us now, we would be very glad to hear them. Just because we haven't thought of it, doesn't mean that we won't consider it a good idea.
I'd surely have some ideas, but I don't know which ones you already had too ;-)
Judging by the support all of you have given us so far, it seems quite likely that together we can build a stronghold for Free Software in Europe.
I guess so ;-)
Armin.
Hi, GNUs!
Armin Herbert wrote:
on Mon, 27. Nov 2000, 15:04 GMT+1, Georg C. F. Greve wrote: Hm. Can you give us a resumee about what you've been discussing with this lawyer? In my opinion this is really important, because I wouldn't like to have a non-profit GmbH, for example. I think we and you should guarantee as much transparency as possible.
Transparency is one side - an important one. Another important one is stability: It must be absolutely impossible for people not understanding free software to undermine or to block our organization. I have seen too many "e.V."s (German: "registered association"s) dying from bureaucracy. An FSF Europe OTOH must be bulletproof.
Once that is done, we will seek legal consultation in other countries as to whether a law for charitable organizations exists, and what it implies for the local organizations. This will be done in close contact with people in those countries who will be founding the local organizations.
Did I understand you right? You're planning to engage other people to found similar sister organizations of the FSF Europe in European countries? What for? Why do you think a central European organization isn't enough?
We must obtain the charitable status everywhere in Europe. Unfortunately, the legal situation in the European countries is not uniform enough to allow this with a single central organization.
As to which countries will be approached first we cannot say right now.
On what does it depend?
One aspect is the legal one. It has to be carefully checked out which type of organization is the most appropriate one for this country.
Another one is the personal one: If we do not find someone with enough personal commitment for free software in a specific country, then that country must be postponed.
I don't want to play the role of the nerved guy, but I feel uncomfortable with this. In my opinion, you should hurry to found an organizational basis where you can speak out the facts, in order to inform us.
That's what these mailing lists are for. :-)
Be sure that most of us trust you and wait and see what happens next. This makes clear that *what* happens next is extremely important. That's why I'd like to see the foundation of a democratic organization on top of the priority list. [...] In Germany it's a general practice to have a basis of members from which a couple of guys are elected to hold an office. Of course, as you're the ones that did the most for FSF-EU so far (and from what I know from you, you're most qualified for it), this guys at first will be you.
It is important that everyone is heared and can contribute, but we must be very careful with this. There are far more promoters of "Open Source" around (or of proprietary software, for that matter) than people who have really understood Free Software. When it comes to elections - who do you think will get more popularity?
And of course you'd want to know us better in order to learn who of us is qualified for a certain job.
Exactly. As Georg wrote, we want to build the mutual trust that is neccessary for such a big project.
My point is: I'd like to see it _this_ way, not the other way round. See us as potential helpers, not as potential destroyers of the Free Software Philosophy. Resist the influence from your lawyer ;-)
Everyone, including myself, is a potential destroyer of the Free Software Philosophy _and_ a potential helper. (That's what "potential" stands for.;-)
(Yes, I am paranoid. But am I paranoid enough? <umguck> ;-)
This doesn't mean that you should be less cautious. Perhaps it's *me* who's too cautious ;-) I've just made the experience that discussion legal stuff with lawyers etc often destroyes one's liberal attitude. Please don't let this happen to you! :-)
Hmm... we are here because we want to found an organization to promote Free Software, where "free" stands for "freedom". IMHO this indicates that our liberal attitude is at least noti the weakest one ... ;-)
Discussing legal suff with lawyers has led to the GNU GPL in contrast to, say, the X11 license. What we need for the FSF Europe is the stability of the GNU GPL.
Happy hacking,
Peter
-- http://home.pages.de/~Peter.Gerwinski/ - G-N-U GmbH: http://www.g-n-u.de Maintainer GNU Pascal - http://home.pages.de/~GNU-Pascal/ - gpc-20001122 GnuPG key fingerprint: 9E7C 0FC4 8A62 5536 1730 A932 9834 65DB 2143 9422 keys: http://www.gerwinski.de/pubkeys/ - AntiSpam: http://spam.abuse.net
Peter Gerwinski wrote:
It is important that everyone is heared and can contribute, but we must be very careful with this. There are far more promoters of "Open Source" around (or of proprietary software, for that matter) than people who have really understood Free Software. When it comes to elections - who do you think will get more popularity?
I think we need to come up with a simple, concise (one or two sentence) explanation of Free Software that a layperson can understand. If someone asks me "What is Free Software?", I don't want to have to launch into an explanation of technical details (remember, many people are not even aware of what "source code" means). Try as I might, I can't come up with an explanaiton of this kind. Can anyone else?
And of course you'd want to know us better in order to learn who of us is qualified for a certain job.
Exactly. As Georg wrote, we want to build the mutual trust that is neccessary for such a big project.
I'd like to propose that all major decisions (like what our policy is on a new issue) are put to the discussion list before becoming official- that way we can have a transparent debate.
(Yes, I am paranoid. But am I paranoid enough? <umguck> ;-)
"Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you"-- Nirvana
The Illuminatus are everywhere, my friend. <g>
Peter Gerwinski wrote:
It is important that everyone is heared and can contribute, but we must be very careful with this. There are far more promoters of "Open Source" around (or of proprietary software, for that matter) than people who have really understood Free Software. When it comes to elections - who do you think will get more popularity?
The trouble is, if we push FSF as being different from Open Source, do we run the risk of confusing people? I see your point about elections, but at this point in time, does it make that much difference between OS and FSF? Don't get me wrong, /I/ feel I understand both, and the views of both, but do Joe Public need to see the dividing line between OS and FSF?
Btw, I'm new to this list. Hello everyone :) P.s. I very often state views I don't actually agree with, but state them to make people think about it - plus I feel both sides of a view should be always be shown.
-- John "Stiring trouble as usual" Flux
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, John Tapsell wrote:
Peter Gerwinski wrote:
It is important that everyone is heared and can contribute, but we must be very careful with this. There are far more promoters of "Open Source" around (or of proprietary software, for that matter) than people who have really understood Free Software. When it comes to elections - who do you think will get more popularity?
The trouble is, if we push FSF as being different from Open Source, do we run the risk of confusing people? I see your point about elections, but at this point in time, does it make that much difference between OS and FSF? Don't get me wrong, /I/ feel I understand both, and the views of both, but do Joe Public need to see the dividing line between OS and FSF?
Well, actually I thought I had seen my share of OS/FS, but apparently not enough, as I don't see the huge difference. I just went back to check, and these are my results (just as I had thought):
the following ist taken from: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
"Free Software" is: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
the following is taken from (only the headers, the text is mostly pretty much obvious): http://www.opensource.org/osd.html
The Open Source Definition 1. Free Redistribution 2. Source Code 3. Derived Works 4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code. 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups. 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor. 7. Distribution of License. 8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product. 9. License Must Not Contaminate Other Software.
Now roughly checking: freedom 0 is covered by 6 (and 5 perhapts) freedom 1 is covered by 1 and 2 freedom 2 is covered by 1, 8 and 9 freedom 3 is covered by 1, 2, 3 and 7
Please don't gag me on the details, this is just at a first glance.
I know what _I_ mean when talking about OS/FS, and I don't discriminate between the two. The above seems to justify this. To me the point is, everyone can look at it, change it, and it is ensured through licensing that my and derived work stays that way.
(That was not easy without using neither "free" or "open" :-))
So, please, I do not know the difference. I do not want to engage in flame wars, bitter dogmatic fights or anything similar. I _honestly_ don't see the difference. As someone else asked before, could we please clarify on this point?
I hope I don't step on somebody's toes because they have _yet again_ to explain to someone the obvious. If that's the case I apologize, but otherwise I am eagerly looking forward for your opinions,
ciao
Alexander Braun Laser Laboratorium Göttingen Hans-Adolf-Krebs-Weg 1 37077 Göttingen
fon +49 (0) 551 5035 23 fax +49 (0) 551 5035 99
email abraun3@gwdg.de
On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 01:59:32PM +0100, Alexander Braun wrote:
On Fri, 1 Dec 2000, John Tapsell wrote:
Peter Gerwinski wrote:
There are far more promoters of "Open Source" around (or of proprietary software, for that matter) than people who have really understood Free Software.
The trouble is, if we push FSF as being different from Open Source, do we run the risk of confusing people?
do Joe Public need to see the dividing line between OS and FSF?
So, please, I do not know the difference. I do not want to engage in flame wars, bitter dogmatic fights or anything similar. I _honestly_ don't see the difference. As someone else asked before, could we please clarify on this point?
Okay, here an attempt to shed some light on the issue of how open source and free software differ: (Probably not perfect.)
The first reading stop for you probably is: http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
As for the licenses, there are small but sometimes significant differences. Mostly in how licenses can create practical problems when their code is long term used within the free software community.
Another fundamental difference certainly is the level of the goals. The free software movement is not just about software technology alone it actually carries some political or ethical ideas (like the freedom to learn techniques important for modern society). The "open source" movement has no such aims or at least does not talk about them and has already created more missunderstandings with their wording as the Free Software movement.
Bernhard
Ok... the difference between FS and OS... here it is, as rms told it as he gave a speech in Ljubljana in October. The difference is that OS approves of the Apple's open source licence, while FS doesn't, and OS is much closer to buissinesses as is centered on them, while FS focuses on users and hackers. OS is, in that way beter accepted, while FS can be defined as more radical. I think that wa should stick to the FS philsophy (full freedom for the people (now, this reminds me of the ideas and the names of prjects and similars I've been told were going on/held/whatever, before nineties (e.g.technology for the people, $thing for the people)(I find nothing bad in this)) beacuse that's what stands in our (?) organisation's name, and thats what we should stand for. If a J. Random Luser can't understand what FS means, he should be tought of freedoms he get's and other advantages (everyone can be attracted by the idea of free (as in beer) things, but they will not give up windows). I think that our goals are to exactly define the philosphy under tha flag of wihch we shall try to fight proprietary software all around Europe (and a bit out of it if needed). Fighting it requires both developing the existing as much as political lobbying and teaching (indoctrinating :))) ) and advocating in anyo ther way... But I think I've just discovered hot water.
;)
P.S. about my sig: I hope you all understood it, but if you didn't, it's Latin (modernised by my little self) for "Death to the EULA, liberty to software!", derived from the WW2 Antifascits (Partisans) in Yugoslav areas (Cro, Serbia...) stating "Death to fascism, liberty to the people!".
Sinisa -- "Mors EULAe, libertas softwarei!"
Since I've seen no replies to this, yet, I'm posting mine.
the FS philsophy [...] this reminds me of the ideas and the names of prjects and similars [...] (e.g.technology for the people, $thing for the people) (I find nothing bad in this))
While I don't find it bad, either, I think the issues of libre [1] software are detached ("orthogonal") from political movements. I don't oppose your (or anyone else's) political ideas, I'd just better not mix them in the fight for libre programs. What I state in my talks about GNU/Linux is that libre software incorporates both leftist and rightist ideas. While it promotes equal shares of (potential) knowledge to everyone (leftist), it also promotes real competition in productive markets, by preventing monopolies and maximizing economical transactions and technical innovation (rightist).
I'm not versed in political ideologies or economical theories, but the fact that nobody diputed my views has been conforting so far. But, whether or not my statement is correct, we should by any mean avoid to associate our movement to any political ideology or party. For every people you approach to a movement (like FS) because of political views there is one that discards the movement for the same reason. And I think the wiser of the two approaches is the one refusing :)
That said, software is a hot political topic, in the true and original meaning of the word "political". Everything that has economic or social effects is political, as it has effect on the life of the people and the country (the "polis", greek). My pages about libre software (http://www.linux.it/GNU, although I've not been updating them for a while) are "political material about free software".
[...] we shall try to fight proprietary software all around Europe (and a bit out of it if needed). Fighting it requires both [...]
That's another error, in my opinion. We should never fight someone or something. Whe should rather promote a different views. The positive attitude is much better, both psychologically (for us who fight/promote) and practically. For those who fight, there are friends and enemies, which is an overall bad attitude. Especially in a field of ideas, where people and companies adapt their ideas and marketing techniques to a changing environment.
Also, fighting is an attitude that leads to extremes. Someone may identify microsoft with the devil, while using solaris on his workstation; is this credible? Someone else may commit crimes (like vandalism against computer producers or users), how could the movement be clear of accusations if the word "fight" is in the core of the movement?
We must definitely and by all means have a positive attitude: _promote_ freedom, _demonstrate_ that you can work and live without proprietary tools, _cooperate_ with people and companies to help them change their views.
BTW: did you ever hear RMS talk about fighting?
Thanks for your patience, and please forgive my poor dictionary when not talking of technical stuff.
/alessandro
[1] Yes, we prefer to use "libero" in italy instead of "free". And yes, people are so filo-american here that they already began corrupting the word "libero" to mean "at no charge", only to copy american usage.
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
Since I've seen no replies to this, yet, I'm posting mine.
the FS philsophy [...] this reminds me of the ideas and the names of prjects and similars [...] (e.g.technology for the people, $thing for the people) (I find nothing bad in this))
While I don't find it bad, either, I think the issues of libre [1] software are detached ("orthogonal") from political movements. I don't oppose your (or anyone else's) political ideas, I'd just better not mix them in the fight for libre programs. What I state in my talks about GNU/Linux is that libre software incorporates both leftist and rightist ideas. While it promotes equal shares of (potential) knowledge to everyone (leftist), it also promotes real competition in productive markets, by preventing monopolies and maximizing economical transactions and technical innovation (rightist).
1st of all, as far as I know, rightism is more 'nation-based' and/or supports agressive capitalism, that puts money above all, almost inlcldung human lives (in the context of exploiting people). 2nd, the FS movement, as far as I know, ranges from CENTER to LEFT, maybe 1 degree to the right. Center ios for democracy, Left is for socialism.
I'm not versed in political ideologies or economical theories, but the fact that nobody diputed my views has been conforting so far. But, whether or not my statement is correct, we should by any mean avoid to associate our movement to any political ideology or party. For every people you approach to a movement (like FS) because of political views there is one that discards the movement for the same reason. And I think the wiser of the two approaches is the one refusing :)
That said, software is a hot political topic, in the true and original meaning of the word "political". Everything that has economic or social effects is political, as it has effect on the life of the people and the country (the "polis", greek).
I agree with that point.
My pages about libre software (http://www.linux.it/GNU, although I've not been updating them for a while) are "political material about free software".
[...] we shall try to fight proprietary software all around Europe (and a bit out of it if needed). Fighting it requires both [...]
That's another error, in my opinion. We should never fight someone or something. Whe should rather promote a different views. The positive attitude is much better, both psychologically (for us who fight/promote) and practically. For those who fight, there are friends and enemies, which is an overall bad attitude. Especially in a field of ideas, where people and companies adapt their ideas and marketing techniques to a changing environment.
I mean fight as in oppose, although I think 'oppose' is more of a passi ve verb then 'fight'. Well... Just take a look at www.gnu.org .... - _fighting_ patents - _fighting_ UCITA also www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-kth.html contains a cople of 'fightings'
Also, fighting is an attitude that leads to extremes. Someone may identify microsoft with the devil, while using solaris on his workstation; is this credible? Someone else may commit crimes (like vandalism against computer producers or users), how could the movement be clear of accusations if the word "fight" is in the core of the movement?
We must definitely and by all means have a positive attitude: _promote_ freedom, _demonstrate_ that you can work and live without proprietary tools, _cooperate_ with people and companies to help them change their views.
BTW: did you ever hear RMS talk about fighting?
yes... and I've mentioned it a cople of lines ago.
Thanks for your patience, and please forgive my poor dictionary when not talking of technical stuff.
/alessandro
Sinisa -- "Mors EULAe, libertas softwarei!"
"Sinisa "Sigma14" "187.64.230.77" Milicic" wrote:
On Sun, 3 Dec 2000, Alessandro Rubini wrote:
Since I've seen no replies to this, yet, I'm posting mine.
the FS philsophy [...] this reminds me of the ideas and the names of prjects and similars [...] (e.g.technology for the people, $thing for the people) (I find nothing bad in this))
While I don't find it bad, either, I think the issues of libre [1] software are detached ("orthogonal") from political movements. I don't oppose your (or anyone else's) political ideas, I'd just better not mix them in the fight for libre programs. What I state in my talks about GNU/Linux is that libre software incorporates both leftist and rightist ideas. While it promotes equal shares of (potential) knowledge to everyone (leftist), it also promotes real competition in productive markets, by preventing monopolies and maximizing economical transactions and technical innovation (rightist).
1st of all, as far as I know, rightism is more 'nation-based' and/or supports agressive capitalism, that puts money above all, almost inlcldung human lives (in the context of exploiting people). 2nd, the FS movement, as far as I know, ranges from CENTER to LEFT, maybe 1 degree to the right. Center ios for democracy, Left is for socialism.
It depends what you mean by "rightism" and "leftism". There are several different issues here. There is economic-right (monetarian) and social-right (conservative). The other ends of the spectrum are economic-left (Keynesian) and social-left (liberal). A centerist is merely someone who believes in a position that is somewhere in the approximate center of these beliefs.
The FS movement contains many, many economic right-wingers in the form of libertarians and anarchists. It also, of course, contains many economic left-wingers in the form of socialists and communists. Socialism, communism and libertarianism do not exclude democracy. Democracy vs. dictatorship is an entirely seperate issue (although most real-world Communist countries have, unfortunately, also been dictatorships). Anarchism does exclude democracy, but only because it preaches the abolition of the state.
Generally, the FS movement *is* liberal on social issues, however.
The FS movement is not inherently anti-corporate or anti-capitalist. It only opposes those corporations who choose to restrict our rights by not implementing libre licenses.
</politics geek>
:)
I think this is begins to get a bit offtopic...
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 12:22:39AM +0200, Lord [INSERT NAME HERE] wrote:
The FS movement contains many, many economic right-wingers in the form of libertarians and anarchists. It also, of course, contains many
<snip>
dictatorships). Anarchism does exclude democracy, but only because it preaches the abolition of the state.
And capitalism.
Please, there are some people in the US who insist on calling their idea of capitalism 'anarchism', but it has little to do with it. You may play Orwell and try to redefine words, but anarchism has always had the broader meaning of 'without rulers'. Capitalism, with its bosses, is inherently auhoritarian.
I can well imagine to what ends these people try to confuse and obfuscate political words... I've even seen facists call themselves 'national anarchists'. But please, I don't want to see this to happen on this list. It's simply not honest.
I know being an anarchist is just so cool, but just anybody doesn't qualify... :-)
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 12:22:39AM +0200, Lord [INSERT NAME HERE] wrote:
dictatorships). Anarchism does exclude democracy, but only because it preaches the abolition of the state.
About anarchism, let me suggest you the reading of
There is also a Debian package (anarchism 8.0-2) !
On Wed, 06 Dec 2000, Kari Pahula wrote:
I think this is begins to get a bit offtopic...
I also think so and I believe that FSFE should stay politically neutral, first to ensure the cohesion between its members and second to be heard by both right and left parties.
Is it not yet time to begin to write a few web pages to explain what is Free Software and how FSFE aims to promote it ?
Christophe
On 2000-12-05 Lord without a name wrote:
economic-right (monetarian) social-right (conservative) economic-left (Keynesian) social-left (liberal)
Social-left = liberal? I can't believe it. As a socialist it's not a pleasure for me, to set equal with liberal ideology.
Socialism, communism and libertarianism do not exclude democracy.
For socialism and communism you're right but libertarianism I don't know, because they want no state and no collective control for anything.
Generally, the FS movement *is* liberal on social issues, however.
Yes and no, the FS movement might be liberal, but the GPL license says the software must be free and liberal policy would says it can be free. In Germany we would says it's social-liberal, but more left than right.
The FS movement is not inherently anti-corporate or anti-capitalist.
Yes
Thomas
Thomas Bohn schrieb:
economic-right (monetarian) social-right (conservative) economic-left (Keynesian) social-left (liberal)
Social-left = liberal? I can't believe it.
This _is_ correct for the traditional political system in the u.s., you can compare it with europe.
As a socialist it's not a pleasure for me, to set equal with liberal ideology.
With freedom ideology in the sense of civil rights like Stallman does - why not?
I don't think that the old political coordinate system fits very well on the historically new FS movement. Currently we (see below) discuss four criteria which are essentials in Free Software as a generally new social process and new form of production (hard to translate): - individual self-development/self-fulfilment ("individuelle Selbstentfaltung") - collective self-organisation ("kollektive Selbstorganisation") - using global networks - being free from economic value
The last point means that the code is free from making the code private and limited (an effect of the GPL) which is essential for making profit with proprietary code. So this does not mean, that you can "make money with FS" in a global sense, but you have to add other "values" like Raymond describes it in his cauldron-paper (which I don't like).
You can find more of these discussions in the oekonux-project. Oekonux - in english it must be econux;-) - is a combination of economy and gnu/linux and asks, whether the principles of FS can be generalized for whole society. It is a german project yet, but debates are in english and german. More you'll find: http://www.oekonux.de (german) or http://www.oekonux.org (english, but few informations). A conference is planned: http://www.oekonux-konferenz.de (german cfp).
Ciao, Stefan
Thomas Bohn schrieb:
economic-right (monetarian) social-right (conservative) economic-left (Keynesian) social-left (liberal)
Social-left = liberal? I can't believe it.
This _is_ correct for the traditional political system in the u.s., you can compare it with europe.
^^^
Oops, should be "can _not_ compare".
Stefan
Stefan Meretz wrote:
Thomas Bohn schrieb:
economic-right (monetarian) social-right (conservative) economic-left (Keynesian) social-left (liberal)
Social-left = liberal? I can't believe it.
This _is_ correct for the traditional political system in the u.s., you can compare it with europe.
^^^Oops, should be "can _not_ compare".
I wasn't saying that economic leftists are always social leftists- in fact, this was my point.
But "left" is commonly applied to liberals in both the US and the UK.
Hello.
I mean fight as in oppose, although I think 'oppose' is more of a passive verb then 'fight'.
Hmm... I think oppose is better. However, even my own message had a "fight" in it.
Well... Just take a look at www.gnu.org ....
- _fighting_ patents
- _fighting_ UCITA
Yes, that's correct. But it's not "fighting proprietary software". That's what you were proposing, and "fighting Microsoft" is something pretty common in the field. Those are bad, and talking about them makes more harm than good to our movement.
also www.gnu.org/philosophy/stallman-kth.html contains a cople of 'fightings'
Sure. He fights "the phenomenon" ("attempts to own software") and "the spirit" ("pressuring people to sell out their neighbors and causing social decay").
But also, you find this:
| So the MIT AI lab that I loved is gone. and after a couple of years | of fighting against the people who did it to try to punish them for it | I decided that I should dedicate my self to try to create a new | community with that spirit.
So this is "instead of fighting, I chose to promote".
/alessandro
Alessandro Rubini a écrit :
We must definitely and by all means have a positive attitude: _promote_ freedom, _demonstrate_ that you can work and live without proprietary tools, _cooperate_ with people and companies to help them change their views.
BTW: did you ever hear RMS talk about fighting?
Yes, somehow (I hope I remember well what he told us in that conference):
I've heard him once describe the GPL as a weapon in order to defend our freedom, compared to a pacifist attitude in using a BSD-type license : one uses the GPL as a legal protective weapon, not to shoot on others, but ready to defend himself... This really means that a fight is occurring sometimes, and we must not be passive when time comes.
Btw, this comparison came after he compared his father's decision to learn french as a way to escape germany (I think) and be able to flee from the nazis, instead of staying in germany in a passive attitude : french has been a tool to protect his freedom, just as the GPL is a tool to protect programers freedom.
Has anybody any pointer to any conference/text of RMS where he discusses this in his own words ?
Hi.
On Donnerstag, 30. November 2000 21:09, Lord [INSERT NAME HERE] wrote:
I think we need to come up with a simple, concise (one or two sentence) explanation of Free Software that a layperson can understand. If someone asks me "What is Free Software?", I don't want to have to launch into an explanation of technical details (remember, many people are not even aware of what "source code" means). Try as I might, I can't come up with an explanaiton of this kind. Can anyone else?
Hm, I don't agree with this. Nowadays lawyers jugde about even more complicated things like webbrowsers that are built into an OS. Not to say that they do it well, but I think it shouldn't be too complicated to explain the facts to a lawyer.
Software = A program that can be run by a computer Source Code = The text a programmer has written that can be translated by a compiler so that computers can run it. Free Software = Software that is delivered along with its Source Code and the guarantee that anyone is allowed to run, reproduce, modify, translate etc the Code as long as he keeps the copyright.
Better definitions can be taken from the GPL.
And of course you'd want to know us better in order to learn who of us is qualified for a certain job.
Exactly. As Georg wrote, we want to build the mutual trust that is neccessary for such a big project.
I'd like to propose that all major decisions (like what our policy is on a new issue) are put to the discussion list before becoming official- that way we can have a transparent debate.
(Yes, I am paranoid. But am I paranoid enough? <umguck> ;-)
"Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you"-- Nirvana
The Illuminatus are everywhere, my friend. <g>
Armin Herbert wrote:
Hi.
On Donnerstag, 30. November 2000 21:09, Lord [INSERT NAME HERE] wrote:
I think we need to come up with a simple, concise (one or two sentence) explanation of Free Software that a layperson can understand. If someone asks me "What is Free Software?", I don't want to have to launch into an explanation of technical details (remember, many people are not even aware of what "source code" means). Try as I might, I can't come up with an explanaiton of this kind. Can anyone else?
Hm, I don't agree with this. Nowadays lawyers jugde about even more complicated things like webbrowsers that are built into an OS. Not to say that they do it well, but I think it shouldn't be too complicated to explain the facts to a lawyer.
Software = A program that can be run by a computer Source Code = The text a programmer has written that can be translated by a compiler so that computers can run it. Free Software = Software that is delivered along with its Source Code and the guarantee that anyone is allowed to run, reproduce, modify, translate etc the Code as long as he keeps the copyright.
Better definitions can be taken from the GPL.
That's all very well and good for lawyers and for long, detailed articles. I was wondering if anyone could come up with something that encapsulates the concept libre software for Joe Sixpack. Such a thing would be invaluable for evangelising, but it looks like no-one else has any etter ideas than me.
Software = A program that can be run by a computer Source Code = The text a programmer has written that can be translated by a compiler so that computers can run it. Free Software = Software that is delivered along with its Source Code and the guarantee that anyone is allowed to run, reproduce, modify, translate etc the Code as long as he keeps the copyright.
Better definitions can be taken from the GPL.
That's all very well and good for lawyers and for long, detailed articles. I was wondering if anyone could come up with something that encapsulates the concept libre software for Joe Sixpack. Such a thing would be invaluable for evangelising, but it looks like no-one else has any etter ideas than me.
OK.. what we should, in other words, do is take a model of J. Random Luser and figure a way to enlighten his computer-half/whole-illiterate being into seeing what lies beyond proprietary software. If we want Andy Capp to USE and UNDERSTAND software libre, we lower the advanteages of it to his level, we musn't use common sence. We mustn't get into the situation Cro's only LuG's president got into. He was asked by an old lady, when sne found out he was into computers, ('96.) wether he uses Windows 95. He said he almost coredumped when he heard what she had said. What I think the main problem of Andy Capp, J. Random and Joe Sixpack is their intellectual capacity. You can't teach them the differences between GNU/Linux and Linux, Linux and Software Libre (if they've even heard of Linux, whche they persuambly have, and consider it to be somthing 'like Windows, only gratis'), et cetera, because they won't follow you from the word 'Hi!'. People tend to oppose rather then improve. That's how GNU stared, right? So, what I would like to say, is that our advocacy case should be based on equally accenting the why-not-to-use-proprietary sw, as much as the use-free-sw-because-you-can-$foo.
Defeinitions: only rational people care about definitions, and they who do care about them do not need special enlghtening methods.
Sinisa -- "Mors EULAe, libertas softwarei!"
"Sinisa "Sigma14" "187.64.230.77" Milicic" wrote:
Software = A program that can be run by a computer Source Code = The text a programmer has written that can be translated by a compiler so that computers can run it. Free Software = Software that is delivered along with its Source Code and the guarantee that anyone is allowed to run, reproduce, modify, translate etc the Code as long as he keeps the copyright.
Better definitions can be taken from the GPL.
That's all very well and good for lawyers and for long, detailed articles. I was wondering if anyone could come up with something that encapsulates the concept libre software for Joe Sixpack. Such a thing would be invaluable for evangelising, but it looks like no-one else has any etter ideas than me.
OK.. what we should, in other words, do is take a model of J. Random Luser and figure a way to enlighten his computer-half/whole-illiterate being into seeing what lies beyond proprietary software. If we want Andy Capp to USE and UNDERSTAND software libre, we lower the advanteages of it to his level, we musn't use common sence. We mustn't get into the situation Cro's only LuG's president got into. He was asked by an old lady, when sne found out he was into computers, ('96.) wether he uses Windows 95. He said he almost coredumped when he heard what she had said. What I think the main problem of Andy Capp, J. Random and Joe Sixpack is their intellectual capacity. You can't teach them the differences between GNU/Linux and Linux, Linux and Software Libre (if they've even heard of Linux, whche they persuambly have, and consider it to be somthing 'like Windows, only gratis'), et cetera, because they won't follow you from the word 'Hi!'. People tend to oppose rather then improve. That's how GNU stared, right? So, what I would like to say, is that our advocacy case should be based on equally accenting the why-not-to-use-proprietary sw, as much as the use-free-sw-because-you-can-$foo.
Generally speaking, a good point. I would caution against doing down people's intellectual capacity, though. I understand the issues around software pretty well because that's what I'm into. But do I know anything about car engines, for example? No. I'm sure there are plenty of Joe Sixpacks out there who do understand car engines, but don't understand software.
But we can't expect everyone to take the same amount of time to understand the issues as we have. We should perhaps study the environmental movement- they've been very effective at stirring up public opinion about pretty complex scientific issues, like global warming and acid rain.
On Sat, 2 Dec 2000, Lord [INSERT NAME HERE] wrote:
"Sinisa "Sigma14" "187.64.230.77" Milicic" wrote:
Software = A program that can be run by a computer Source Code = The text a programmer has written that can be translated by a compiler so that computers can run it. Free Software = Software that is delivered along with its Source Code and the guarantee that anyone is allowed to run, reproduce, modify, translate etc the Code as long as he keeps the copyright.
Better definitions can be taken from the GPL.
That's all very well and good for lawyers and for long, detailed articles. I was wondering if anyone could come up with something that encapsulates the concept libre software for Joe Sixpack. Such a thing would be invaluable for evangelising, but it looks like no-one else has any etter ideas than me.
OK.. what we should, in other words, do is take a model of J. Random Luser and figure a way to enlighten his computer-half/whole-illiterate being into seeing what lies beyond proprietary software. If we want Andy Capp to USE and UNDERSTAND software libre, we lower the advanteages of it to his level, we musn't use common sence. We mustn't get into the situation Cro's only LuG's president got into. He was asked by an old lady, when sne found out he was into computers, ('96.) wether he uses Windows 95. He said he almost coredumped when he heard what she had said. What I think the main problem of Andy Capp, J. Random and Joe Sixpack is their intellectual capacity. You can't teach them the differences between GNU/Linux and Linux, Linux and Software Libre (if they've even heard of Linux, whche they persuambly have, and consider it to be somthing 'like Windows, only gratis'), et cetera, because they won't follow you from the word 'Hi!'. People tend to oppose rather then improve. That's how GNU stared, right? So, what I would like to say, is that our advocacy case should be based on equally accenting the why-not-to-use-proprietary sw, as much as the use-free-sw-because-you-can-$foo.
Generally speaking, a good point. I would caution against doing down people's intellectual capacity, though. I understand the issues around software pretty well because that's what I'm into. But do I know anything about car engines, for example? No. I'm sure there are plenty of Joe Sixpacks out there who do understand car engines, but don't understand software.
I'm sorry, I forgot to define intellectual capacity as the amount of ratinal proofs, ideas and arguments one can comprehend in a unit of time.
But we can't expect everyone to take the same amount of time to understand the issues as we have. We should perhaps study the environmental movement- they've been very effective at stirring up public opinion about pretty complex scientific issues, like global warming and acid rain.
The enviromentalists use the authoritainian, bombastic ways, that are most likely to be faulty. For example, look their approach to nuclear power plants. And to nuclear research in general. They've made people think everyithing 'nuclear' is bad. The real facts are that in some areas of a nuclear pp, the radiatino os lower then in the middle of the Sahara desert, because there's no way background radiation could access those areas, and the reactor cores are locked up enough not to radiate enough energy into the area I'm talking about. My point is, that it would be great if we both stick to the facts and propagate ion a way that impresses the masses. We cannot enlighten Andy Capp without enlightening his darts team, his snooker team, his barmen (and esecially barmaids :)) ). Wehn talking about J. Random Luser, we can't rely on mouth-to-mouth advocacy, because it seems to me that's very slow and uneffective for 'common people' (cp="People who, at best, think of computers as word processors, opposite of hackers, in my terminology). The cp tend to show characteristics of collecitves, sort of one-mind types. They are ruled by mass medias, and it seems to me that we should target mass medias as well as the politicians. Always keep in mind that the goverment is based on the support of the people, and the people's support is based on the mass medias.
Sinisa -- "Mors EULAe, libertas softwarei!"
Armin Herbert a écrit :
Hi all,
SNIP
We are currently looking for people in other countries to become part of the FSF Europe and we have been contacted by a lot of people so far.
Who's that? Why didn't they contact us (this list), instead of you?
I don't want to play the role of the nerved guy, but I feel uncomfortable with this. In my opinion, you should hurry to found an organizational basis where you can speak out the facts, in order to inform us. Be sure that most of us trust you and wait and see what happens next. This makes clear that *what* happens next is extremely important. That's why I'd like to see the foundation of a democratic organization on top of the priority list.
As far as I've understood from the various opinions expressed here, I see that many people want to see a democratic organization.
But that may not be what we need...
The FSFE might not be a "federation" of all users/hackers of libre software, where each one wants to elect / vote / be informed of everything.
Democracy might not be necessary, as long as we trust the people on board.
The democratic process would be very heavy to undertake for them, instead of really acting in favor of the libre software users and developpers.
And our personnal freedom is not in danger here (I mean the FSFE board of directors won't decide on laws that apply directly on me and my thoughts or actions), opposed to what happens with ruling a country, for instance.
So even if democracy is a good thing for general ruling of a society, this may not be the best organisational model for FSFE.
I made my opinion based on experience from my point of view as a member of the board of an (not enough) active and efficient libre software organization (APRIL). We have a board, but each of it's decisions taking are not necessarily brought to the wide list of members... even if we have a very strong commitment on transparency, and real democracy when it's necessary. This way, we are often more efficient, and don't enter a process of consulting people that only argue without ever doing something concrete. We don't loose time and energy each time we can decide by ourselves, and in the end, members seem pretty satisfied with our decisions. This seems to be the best policy, for that matter.
I think that a minimum of transparency should be requested though (particularly on financial aspects), but when it goes with political / lobby / strategic decisions, I think that a minimum of secret will be necessary, and that it will be much more efficient.
You'll also note that it's the way that the FSF has run til today (I mean RMS' one), as far as I kow, and that's OK for me since I trust what they do based on their public behaviour, speeches and contributions to the libre software advancement. Of course sometimes I would like to know things before they are made public to everybody... but what would that change if I discussed it on IRC or mailing-lists, with only adding some entropy ? ... only my ego would be more satisfied ;)
So as a conclusion, I think we have to trust the people in charge and judge on their acts, and not ask for democracy as a primary goal... it's not because democracy best supports freedom in general, that we have to be democratic to best enforce freedom in this particular field of action.
I hope I made myself clear enough for you to understand my (somehow) different opinion on this topic...
Best regards, ya all.
Olivier Berger wrote:
Armin Herbert a écrit :
Hi all,
SNIP
We are currently looking for people in other countries to become part of the FSF Europe and we have been contacted by a lot of people so far.
Who's that? Why didn't they contact us (this list), instead of you?
I don't want to play the role of the nerved guy, but I feel uncomfortable with this. In my opinion, you should hurry to found an organizational basis where you can speak out the facts, in order to inform us. Be sure that most of us trust you and wait and see what happens next. This makes clear that *what* happens next is extremely important. That's why I'd like to see the foundation of a democratic organization on top of the priority list.
As far as I've understood from the various opinions expressed here, I see that many people want to see a democratic organization.
But that may not be what we need...
The FSFE might not be a "federation" of all users/hackers of libre software, where each one wants to elect / vote / be informed of everything.
Democracy might not be necessary, as long as we trust the people on board.
The democratic process would be very heavy to undertake for them, instead of really acting in favor of the libre software users and developpers.
And our personnal freedom is not in danger here (I mean the FSFE board of directors won't decide on laws that apply directly on me and my thoughts or actions), opposed to what happens with ruling a country, for instance.
So even if democracy is a good thing for general ruling of a society, this may not be the best organisational model for FSFE.
I made my opinion based on experience from my point of view as a member of the board of an (not enough) active and efficient libre software organization (APRIL). We have a board, but each of it's decisions taking are not necessarily brought to the wide list of members... even if we have a very strong commitment on transparency, and real democracy when it's necessary. This way, we are often more efficient, and don't enter a process of consulting people that only argue without ever doing something concrete. We don't loose time and energy each time we can decide by ourselves, and in the end, members seem pretty satisfied with our decisions. This seems to be the best policy, for that matter.
I think that a minimum of transparency should be requested though (particularly on financial aspects), but when it goes with political / lobby / strategic decisions, I think that a minimum of secret will be necessary, and that it will be much more efficient.
You'll also note that it's the way that the FSF has run til today (I mean RMS' one), as far as I kow, and that's OK for me since I trust what they do based on their public behaviour, speeches and contributions to the libre software advancement. Of course sometimes I would like to know things before they are made public to everybody... but what would that change if I discussed it on IRC or mailing-lists, with only adding some entropy ? ... only my ego would be more satisfied ;)
So as a conclusion, I think we have to trust the people in charge and judge on their acts, and not ask for democracy as a primary goal... it's not because democracy best supports freedom in general, that we have to be democratic to best enforce freedom in this particular field of action.
I hope I made myself clear enough for you to understand my (somehow) different opinion on this topic...
Best regards, ya all.
I understand your position, but I have to say that a democratic organization would take much more credit on any government, as it express the opinion of the many voters not of single people, said that I think a board of directors, also in a democratic elected one, doesn't have to ask the voting base for any single action, it will act on mandate (right word?) and will be reelected next time if it has made a good work or not if the base feel the director has failed to express their position.
Simo.