Hi there.
Loic Dachary loic@gnu.org wrote: > I'm doing my best to cooperate with other activists
worldwide.
Your contributions are very welcome.
Instead of refering to the Free Software Foundation, it might be more informative to add a PREAMBLE before the OBJECTS that defines Free Software. Cut and past of the definition published on the fsf.org web site could do the job.
I support this idea.
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.
I disagree slightly here,
Firstly, the phrase ``clear relationship'' is surely open to interpretation.
Secondly, what brings us together as a group is our belief in free software. It is not necessarily the case that someone who believes in free software must believe in all classes of ``electronic freedom'' (e.g, those advocated by the EFF).
For example, an important issue discussed at one of our meetings was the current implementation of electronic voting in Ireland. A conclusions was that, although an important issue, it would not be a primary issue for a *free software* organisation to tackle.
> Lobbying governments so that laws fair to Free Software
are implemented does not directly relate to writing, using or translating Free Software although it seems clear to me that IFSO should be entitled to act on this front.
I would say such lobbying does fall under the phrase ``promoting and defending'' (used in the second draft of the proposed rules).
It is often the case that people think about these activities as marginal to the goals of a Free Software non-profit (or criticize them as too "political") and stating this clearly in the OBJECTS prevents useless discussions in the future.
I certainly believe that IFSO should be political! If a piece of legislation (even potentially) interferes with the development or use of free software, then I think we should tackle it.
Good luck,
Malcohol.