*** Proposal for a FLOSS/Linux Political Party ***
I suggest a Linux Party is formed to promote the idea of free software (and possibly related ideas). The last European Election with the patent issue showed the relevance of politics to the free software movement. Voting purely on patents lead to some undesirable alliance partners. While as LUG Radio noted, the patent issue did not brake through into the mainstream media. If free software is to gain mass use, we need decision makers and media to be more aware. A Linux party with a free post drop and media time will do this just as other single issue parties have.
Q. What would be involved A. For a reasonable campaign per constituency i. 12 signatures and a 500 pound deposit ii. A leaflet designed on a personal computer iii.50,000 copies would be duplicated (these can contain adverts) about 250 pounds iv. Turning up to 2 husting (optional), just repeat the same answer to each question. v. 5 minutes radio interview.
"Manifesto" Could include *Use of FLOSS, Linux* no to DRM no software and look & feel patents open hardware standards (end vendor lock-in) free books end of EULAs no coding obfuscation DeCSS, freedom to watch DVDs Write what code you want End security paranoia freedom to listen to CDs stop criminalising end users Anti-Microsoft etc. etc.
Remember IP and computers are more important than ever, several billion may be saved by using FLOSS. Want more hospitals, tax cuts etc.
PS. As an FLOSS idea, I welcome copying and improving (anti-SPAM and virus policy) the document. Perhaps the party could have an honorary President like RMS, Linus or Alan Cox. I forgot to mention setting up a party involves 3 people signing some forms and a start up fee of 150 pounds. I can imagine Tux or GNU on the ballot paper now.
______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
On Thursday 03 March 2005 02:36, Sid Dabster wrote:
*** Proposal for a FLOSS/Linux Political Party ***
I like your idea.
of free software (and possibly related ideas). The
Political parties success when they can get the support of the mainstream society. How can we make the average person understand and support FLOSS?
Anti-Microsoft
No, this is not a good idea. I wouldn't support an anti-M$ party, not because I love M$ (I don't), but because I would prefer pro-enduser policies instead of anti-anything rhetoric. A political party specifically being anti-M$ would draw too much attention by lawyers etc, so it wouldn't survive for too long.
Will the political party you suggest be international or focused only in a specific region/country?
--- NSK nsk2@wikinerds.org wrote:
On Thursday 03 March 2005 02:36, Sid Dabster wrote:
*** Proposal for a FLOSS/Linux Political Party ***
I like your idea.
Thanks
Anti-MicrosoftNo, this is not a good idea. I wouldn't support an anti-M$ party, not because I love M$ (I don't), but because I would prefer pro-enduser policies instead of anti-anything rhetoric. A political party specifically being anti-M$ would draw too much attention by lawyers etc, so it wouldn't survive for too long.
Lawyers will not cause any problems, in the London parliament politicians are above libel laws. What could I say that M$ would object to, I have a message for Microsoft I dare you to sue me. Today I looked at a magazine (called SAM Revival) which mentioned a game called Bill Boxing the authors of which have not been attack by M$. If M$ really did sue, I know they must be afraid of us and that it would be a big public relations disaster for them like McLibel was for McDonalds.
Will the political party you suggest be international or focused only in a specific region/country?
Nikolaos S. Karastathis
World-wide like Linux
______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
El Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 07:36:26PM -0500, Sid Dabster deia:
*** Proposal for a FLOSS/Linux Political Party ***
I suggest a Linux Party is formed to promote the idea of free software (and possibly related ideas). The last European Election with the patent issue showed the relevance of politics to the free software movement. Voting purely on patents lead to some undesirable alliance partners. While as LUG Radio
what do you mean undesirable alliance partners? The "problem" we have is that we might all agree in some topics (although the small list you give below would probably already raise discrepancies), but a political party has to decide on more than those topics. If we get together because we agree in information policy topics and then we disagree in taxes, social policy, security, foreign policy, common agricultural policy, etc. it wouldn't work.
Political parties join people that have similar views and priorities on individual freedoms, collective freedoms, redistribution of wealth, environment, economic policy, "world order", etc.
I think Xdrudis's comments below make sense. More political fragmentation would be a bad thing.
We can more effectively contribute to the new under-parliament by joining (all?) political parties and influencing and voting on party policy. I fear this is the only way true democratic representation can be ensured these days.
Sam
xdrudis wrote:
El Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 07:36:26PM -0500, Sid Dabster deia:
*** Proposal for a FLOSS/Linux Political Party ***
I suggest a Linux Party is formed to promote the idea of free software (and possibly related ideas). The last European Election with the patent issue showed the relevance of politics to the free software movement. Voting purely on patents lead to some undesirable alliance partners. While as LUG Radio
what do you mean undesirable alliance partners? The "problem" we have is that we might all agree in some topics (although the small list you give below would probably already raise discrepancies), but a political party has to decide on more than those topics. If we get together because we agree in information policy topics and then we disagree in taxes, social policy, security, foreign policy, common agricultural policy, etc. it wouldn't work.
Political parties join people that have similar views and priorities on individual freedoms, collective freedoms, redistribution of wealth, environment, economic policy, "world order", etc.
From any of these views you can argue against swpats, for open standars, and so on and so forth, because these do not oppose essentially any of the basic values of any party (at least any I know). Right and left is tradionatilly distinguished by distribution of (scarce) resources. Distribution of infinetely reproducible resources is orthogonal to that. Nationalist, eurosceptics, pro-EU, pro or against globalisation, etc. are mostly about who decides which and where power is located. Religious or traditionalist party don't have much of a precednet with computer networks, so they can adapt to anything. Votes show that information policy issues depend more on whether a representative "gets it" than his or her political colour. It is most useful for us to join our prefered party if we have one and enlighten them on inmmaterial goods and information society, so that all parties push for a resonable policy, or at least for different but all reasonable policies, instead of just legislation who does not match reality. Another option is to join no party and try to enlgihten them all in campaigns for specific topics.
Yet, if you don't like any party, and you don't like to talk to all of them on a single issue, you are encouraged to start a political party. But when you do that, please set up a program in all kind of political decisions, not just information policy. Anyone may want to know what the party is going to do on environment, trade, taxes, health, education, etc before joining it. And you can give priority to information policy, but I guess you are not going to abstain in all the rest if you get to government, do you ?
--- Samuel Liddicott sam@liddicott.com wrote:
I think Xdrudis's comments below make sense. More political fragmentation would be a bad thing.
Here, the turnout is dropping, because all the main parties are the same.
We can more effectively contribute to the new under-parliament by joining (all?) political parties and influencing and voting on party policy. I fear this is the only way true democratic representation can be ensured these days.
Sam
Why not try both, the LCA party spent less that 3000 euro campaigning but got the law changed in 8 years
______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
--- xdrudis xdrudis@tinet.org wrote:
El Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 07:36:26PM -0500, Sid Dabster deia:
*** Proposal for a FLOSS/Linux Political Party ***
I suggest a Linux Party is formed to promote the
idea
of free software (and possibly related ideas). The last European Election with the patent issue
showed
the relevance of politics to the free software movement. Voting purely on patents lead to some undesirable alliance partners. While as LUG Radio
what do you mean undesirable alliance partners?
Many people in Britain did not want to suppport UKIP.
The "problem" we have is that we might all agree in some topics (although the small list you give below would probably already raise discrepancies), but a political party has to decide on more than those topics. If we get together because we agree in information policy topics and then we disagree in taxes, social policy, security, foreign policy, common agricultural policy, etc. it wouldn't work.
Political parties join people that have similar views and priorities on individual freedoms, collective freedoms, redistribution of wealth, environment, economic policy, "world order", etc.
I hope Wayne Stallwood will not mind me quoting him:
I think what Sid is proposing is a single-issue party. The aim of these is somewhat different to that of a full manifesto party that pretty much has to have a policy for every issue.
The whole point of a single-issue party is not to gain elected office, but to attract enough votes that a full manifesto party will start paying attention to that single issue and adopt the same policies to gain the single-issue parties votes, either that or some single-issue parties actually do manage to 'grow' to a full manifesto but it's quite rare.
That's the way I think I understand it anyway, somebody more versed in politics can correct me.d
xdrudis wrote:
From any of these views you can argue against swpats, for open standards, and so on and so forth, because these do not oppose essentially any of the basic values of any party (at least any I know). Right and left is tradionatilly distinguished by distribution of (scarce) resources. Distribution of infinetely reproducible resources is orthogonal to that. Nationalist, eurosceptics, pro-EU, pro or against globalisation, etc. are mostly about who decides which and where power is located. Religious or traditionalist party don't have much of a precednet with computer networks, so they can adapt to anything. Votes show that information policy issues depend more on whether a representative "gets it" than his or her political colour. It is most useful for us to join our prefered party if we have one and enlighten them on inmmaterial goods and information society, so that all parties push for a resonable policy, or at least for different but all reasonable policies, instead of just legislation who does not match reality. Another option is to join no party and try to enlgihten them all in campaigns for specific topics.
Yet, if you don't like any party, and you don't like to talk to all of them on a single issue, you are encouraged to start a political party. But when you do that, please set up a program in all kind of political decisions, not just information policy. Anyone may want to know what the party is going to do on environment, trade, taxes, health, education, etc before joining it. And you can give priority to information policy, but I guess you are not going to abstain in all the rest if you get to government, do you ?
The environmentalist have the Green Party, pressure groups like Greenpeace (both), Friends of the Earth they work at both level at the same time. However the Green Party in England has run into problem with trying to be a full party because environmentalists can be right, middle of left of the political spectrum. The Green party has also had problem with people being more interested in a special interest that they support than saving the environment. FLOSS is not a rightwing idea, it goes against normal capitalist ideas.
______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
Am Donnerstag, den 03.03.2005, 14:20 -0500 schrieb Sid Dabster:
FLOSS is not a rightwing idea, it goes against normal capitalist ideas.
Free Software is neither a right nor a left wing idea. Many enemies of Free Software would like the Free Software movement to be regarded as anti capitalistic, but that's plain wrong.
In fact, several of the people active in the Free Software movement even own a company, including (for example) myself :-)
So basically I agree with the other posts on this list who think that there are various and very different political views within the Free Software movement.
Thanks, Reinhard
(I didn't have time to read this discussion earlier, that's why I reply so late)
At Thu, 03 Mar 2005 20:51:35 +0100, Reinhard Mueller wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 03.03.2005, 14:20 -0500 schrieb Sid Dabster:
FLOSS is not a rightwing idea, it goes against normal capitalist ideas.
Free Software is neither a right nor a left wing idea. Many enemies of Free Software would like the Free Software movement to be regarded as anti capitalistic, but that's plain wrong.
In fact, several of the people active in the Free Software movement even own a company, including (for example) myself :-)
So basically I agree with the other posts on this list who think that there are various and very different political views within the Free Software movement.
Non-free software goes directly against the idea of a free market and free competition. With non-free software, there is only one company which can look at the code, fix bugs, add features, etc. With Free Software, you can go to every company and ask them to implement a feature or fix bugs. There is a free market for services around the software.
Free Software is also like a socialist system. I mean, the software is owned by everybody (or nobody, but that's not really a practical difference), which really fits the socialist idea.
And here you see that Free Software doesn't have a political colour, but with the correct argumentation you can get the support of most parties.
Jeroen Dekkers
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 00:36 +0000, Sid Dabster wrote:
*** Proposal for a FLOSS/Linux Political Party ***
I suggest a Linux Party is formed to promote the idea of free software (and possibly related ideas). The last European Election with the patent issue showed the relevance of politics to the free software movement. Voting purely on patents lead to some undesirable alliance partners. While as LUG Radio noted, the patent issue did not brake through into the mainstream media. If free software is to gain mass use, we need decision makers and media to be more aware. A Linux party with a free post drop and media time will do this just as other single issue parties have.
Whilst I'm behind the ideology 100% I'm not sure forming a separate political party is the best way to go to achieve your aims.
Single issue parties have always performed badly (apart from one or two notable successes) mainly for the reason that by definition they are only interested in a couple of key points, where an elected leader is expected to deal with a wide range of social and political issues.
Even parties with single issues that are much more visible to the general public such as the Green party don't attract the votes of all their sympathisers because they don't want to 'waste' their vote on that single issue when there are more pressing issues to hand.
Please understand I'm not being defeatist here but there are better ways to make an impact.
Why not divert that energy and focus into canvassing MEPs from the main parties and bringing them around to start defending the rights of software developers and users by challenging software patents?
Rgds
--- Simon Morris simon.morris@cmtww.com wrote:
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 00:36 +0000, Sid Dabster wrote:
*** Proposal for a FLOSS/Linux Political Party ***
I suggest a Linux Party is formed to promote the
idea
of free software (and possibly related ideas). The last European Election with the patent issue
showed
the relevance of politics to the free software movement. Voting purely on patents lead to some undesirable alliance partners. While as LUG Radio noted, the patent issue did not brake through into
the
mainstream media. If free software is to gain mass use, we need decision makers and media to be more aware. A Linux party with a free post drop and
media
time will do this just as other single issue
parties
have.
Whilst I'm behind the ideology 100% I'm not sure forming a separate political party is the best way to go to achieve your aims.
Single issue parties have always performed badly (apart from one or two notable successes) mainly for the reason that by definition they are only interested in a couple of key points, where an elected leader is expected to deal with a wide range of social and political issues.
Even parties with single issues that are much more visible to the general public such as the Green party don't attract the votes of all their sympathisers because they don't want to 'waste' their vote on that single issue when there are more pressing issues to hand.
Anserwed in my previous email. How do I contact all LUGs with my suggestion.
Please understand I'm not being defeatist here but there are better ways to make an impact.
Why not divert that energy and focus into canvassing MEPs from the main parties and bringing them around to start defending the rights of software developers and users by challenging software patents?
Rgds
Simon Morris
Some countries in Europe do not have MEPs and never will, while other may loss theirs.
______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 19:26 +0000, Sid Dabster wrote:
Anserwed in my previous email. How do I contact all LUGs with my suggestion.
In the UK we have http://www.lug.org.uk
http://www.lug.org.uk/lugs/index.php shows you a regional list at the top where you get info on the individual LUGS
My local LUGS are GLLUG and Lonix
http://www.gllug.org.uk gllug@gllug.org.uk
http://www.lonix.org.uk general@lists.lonix.org.uk
Please mail them both. I'd be interested in what people think
~sm
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 19:36 -0500, Sid Dabster wrote:
*** Proposal for a FLOSS/Linux Political Party ***
A political party would be the worst move ever. 1. Political parties tends to make enemies in other parties, that will make our cause isolated to a tiny group of "fanatics". We may loose the support currently being given us by nearly all parties.
2. Political parties tend to survive to their own objectives by transforming themselves into vote-gathers and much nothing else, and that would put the stone on our cause in the end.
Very IMHO.
Simo.
--- Simo Sorce simo.sorce@xsec.it wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 19:36 -0500, Sid Dabster wrote:
*** Proposal for a FLOSS/Linux Political Party ***
A political party would be the worst move ever.
- Political parties tends to make enemies in other
parties, that will make our cause isolated to a tiny group of "fanatics". We may loose the support currently being given us by nearly all parties.
On the positive side it will give us a voice, as most people and politician have not heard of us yet.
______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
On Thu, 2005-03-03 at 14:36 -0500, Sid Dabster wrote:
--- Simo Sorce simo.sorce@xsec.it wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 19:36 -0500, Sid Dabster wrote:
*** Proposal for a FLOSS/Linux Political Party ***
A political party would be the worst move ever.
- Political parties tends to make enemies in other
parties, that will make our cause isolated to a tiny group of "fanatics". We may loose the support currently being given us by nearly all parties.
On the positive side it will give us a voice, as most people and politician have not heard of us yet.
Ok, I did not meant to start a flame, but "us" who?
I think you see the community too much as a whole and think it is a single coherent mind. It's not. Free Software IS not politically colored. I know people that truly believe in free software that come from the most different political backgrounds and orientation.
What would you do, once elected on (99%) matters that do not regard free software and Linux?
Now, on your point, we DO HAVE a voice, we do not need a party to lobby for free software, and we already do it (at least here in Italy we do).
Simo.
Sid Dabster wrote:
--- Simo Sorce simo.sorce@xsec.it wrote:
On Wed, 2005-03-02 at 19:36 -0500, Sid Dabster wrote:
*** Proposal for a FLOSS/Linux Political Party ***
A political party would be the worst move ever.
- Political parties tends to make enemies in other
parties, that will make our cause isolated to a tiny group of "fanatics". We may loose the support currently being given us by nearly all parties.
On the positive side it will give us a voice, as most people and politician have not heard of us yet.
You know, you are also right.
Maybe one (or many) of the parties will say "but we also..." in a hope to steal the block vote and save it being wasted ona special interest group.
That would also be success.
Sam
Hi Sid,
* Sid Dabster sid_dabster@yahoo.ca [2005-03-03 14:36:23 -0500]:
On the positive side it will give us a voice, as most people and politician have not heard of us yet.
We already have a voice. But you have to speak to the politicians so they can hear you ;)
Seriously, setting up a political party is IMHO not a good idea. We want to talk about Free Software, because we are experts in this subject. We don't want to talk about stuff we don't have a clue about. For example, I am not an expert in health care etc.
With best wishes, Matze
On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 07:36:26PM -0500, Sid Dabster wrote:
*** Proposal for a FLOSS/Linux Political Party ***
Is that people gathering for cleaning their teeth? :)
Sorry, couldn't resist.
The wording floss shows that you are undecided on the political question of if it is ethical to do non-free software or not. Not mentioning GNU, but the famous kernel brings up the question what the proposed party would think about the history of Free Software.
Bernhard
Sid Dabster wrote:
*** Proposal for a FLOSS/Linux Political Party ***
I suggest a Linux Party is formed to promote the idea of free software (and possibly related ideas).
I don't think that to create a linux party would be a wise thing particularly from the italian politics' point of view. In italy ( but I think it is not so different in other contries except in subtle facts) we now have two distingiushed parties: left and right. To create a new party would mean make it to side with the one or the other and let arise inauspicious consequences to the idea of free software. This would mean for several associations like FSFE and LUGs not to have the possibility to make pressure on the entire arch of politic parties. If we will create a party we'll only have the possibility to take advantage by pressing the party we're sided with. I think it will also configure a serious limitation on philosophic and thought freedom for the associations that have lots of different people who have different political ideas.
Vasco
--- Vasco Maria Cleri vasco.cleri@lugrieti.net wrote:
Sid Dabster wrote:
*** Proposal for a FLOSS/Linux Political Party ***
I suggest a Linux Party is formed to promote the
idea
of free software (and possibly related ideas).
I don't think that to create a linux party would be a wise thing particularly from the italian politics' point of view. In italy ( but I think it is not so different in other contries except in subtle facts) we now have two distingiushed parties: left and right. To create a new party would mean make it to side with the one or the other and let arise inauspicious consequences to the idea of free software. This would mean for several associations like FSFE and LUGs not to have the possibility to make pressure on the entire arch of politic parties. If we will create a party we'll only have the possibility to take advantage by pressing the party we're sided with. I think it will also configure a serious limitation on philosophic and thought freedom for the associations that have lots of different people who have different political ideas.
Not trying to start a flame war, but will people please stop saying "We do not want a multi-issue party" when the proposal was for a "single issue party". The missunderstanding seems to come from the fact continental countries have PR (or hybrid systems) while the UK and USA use first past the post (FPTP). In FPTP only two (or three) parties win seats, all other parties have zero, I repeat zero, chance of getting elected. So a minor party does not need a manifesto but can stand on a single policy, e.g. legalising a particular thing that is illegal, such as the right of women to vote. How do I contact US Free software users and FSF? While standing at an election sounds scary, once you have done you find out how easy it is.
______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca
* Sid Dabster sid_dabster@yahoo.ca [2005-03-04 13:19:08 -0500]:
Not trying to start a flame war, but will people please stop saying "We do not want a multi-issue party" when the proposal was for a "single issue party".
Why do you think that a "single issue party" makes sense? And what do you think will be better with a "single issue party" then with a interest group??? Can you give me one example of a successful "single issue party"?
With best wishes, Matze