On Sunday, November 9, 2003 at 13:19 +0100, Loic Dachary wrote:
OBJECTS
[...]
- The club shall Promote and defend the writing of Free Software of the sort advocated by the Free Software Foundation and others,
- Promote and defend the use of Free Software, and
[...]
Here are my 2 cents:
Hi Loic,
Thanks for your comments, they're very helpful. I have question about one of your suggestions.
Instead of refering to the Free Software Foundation, it might be more informative to add a PREAMBLE before the OBJECTS [...]
I agree, this is a very good idea - it was mentioned in draft 1 and I'm not sure what I was thinking of when I rewrote it. Anyway, this is clearly the way to go.
Rather that limiting the scope of the association to writing, usage and localization, it might be wiser to allow any kind of activity as long as it has a clear relationship with Free Software. Lobbying governments so that laws fair to Free Software are implemented (I'm thinking EUCD here ;-)
Here I have a question; I know you have been active on the EUCD, so you have a better insight than I do. Anyway, I shall ask my question and suggest why it occurs to me:
Why would lobbying or campaigning against the EUCD not be covered by proposed objects 2 & 3? It seems to me that various clauses in the EUCD imply problems for Free Software (for instance by making it impossible for Free Software authors to provide support for formats on Free platforms where manufacturers choose not to do so). I would have argued that we could (and should) oppose the EUCD on at least these grounds. I would draw a parallel with the EU patent legislation here. But it may be that I am missing something.
On the general subject of IFSO and politics - I am in substantial agreement with Malcolm in his reply to you, and with your original mail. IFSO should be politically active, it is important.
You might want to add specific wording in the OBJECTS so as to ease the fact that IFSO is recognized as a charity (tax deductible donations). [...] At some point IFSO might want to act on behalf of one of its members in court.
I am investigating further what, if anything, would be required in Irish law for these. Thank you for pointing out that we may need them.
Although there are examples of OBJECTS sections for non-profit such as yours (AFFS for instance), each of them is more or less ad-hoc and need to be adapted. A crystal clear object is essential for a democratic non-profit since it is ultimately the only safeguard, should members be tempted to drift away from the original purpose.
Nothing to add, I just want to express my agreement.