[A short introduction for this first post: I've been lurking the archives of the list for some time and had some contact with Ciaran O'Riordan regarding the EUCD. I'm a dedicated activist for Free Software since the late eighties. I live in France and I'm doing my best to cooperate with other activists worldwide. Developing Free Software is my job, with a focus on video games starting 01/2004. My focus as an activist is on legal matters, advising Free Software developers or helping people to switch to Free Software (Blender last year for instance or much more obscure and frustrating abuses of the GNU GPL). My philosophical orientation is very close to the FSF views. ]
OBJECTS
- The name of the Club shall be Irish Free Software Organisation ('IFSO')
- 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
- Encourage the localisation and translation of Free Software into Irish.
Hi,
Here are my 2 cents:
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.
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 ;-) 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. 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.
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). I'm unsure if this is relevant regarding the legal system governing non-profit organizations in Ireland, I just wanted to let you know that it helped FSF France to get tax deductibility.
At some point IFSO might want to act on behalf of one of its members in court. Although unlikely, it would be a shame of the OBJECT prevents that because of a legal technicality. In France, for instance, we just need to add a phrase that says the non-profit is entitled to act on behalf of its members, should they ask it.
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.
Cheers,
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.