Right, I said that Jose R E Castro tabled the FFII mini-prosal.
It turns out that it was jointly tabled by fellow UEN MEP Brian Crowley :)
Here's the text of the amendments in some formats: http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/docs/uen_amendments/
If we can get this amendment adopted, we'll be on the home straight.
Alex Macfie mailed me the amendment info earlier today.
What should we do? I think a very small note to our MEPs would be good. They know that many of us hate the current proposed directive, but they don't know that we all support this amendment, so a half-page mail/post/fax saying "When we said NO, this is what we meant". Might be the best?
(we don't want them snowed under with long texts)
comments?
c.
On Tue, Sep 02, 2003 at 06:17:02PM +0100, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
Right, I said that Jose R E Castro tabled the FFII mini-prosal. It turns out that it was jointly tabled by fellow UEN MEP Brian Crowley :)
Great news -- go Brian ;)
I'd agree that writing our MEPs and saying "I support this" would do just fine. After all, we've already explained why we don't like the opposing side, we just need to say we *do* like this.
--j.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Here's the text of the amendments in some formats: http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/docs/uen_amendments/
Could someone explain ammendment 13 to me. Is it a catch all in case the other ammendments aren't passed?
- -- Thanks, Aidan Delaney - -- If anyone has both the right and the need to study the code and be assured of its correct functioning, it is users. -- Whitfield Diffie Checksums of bad data tell you only: "yup, that's exactly the same bad data the other guy has" -- Tom Lord
gpg key: http://minds.cs.may.ie/~balor/public_key.asc
On 2 Sep 2003 at 18:17, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
What should we do? I think a very small note to our MEPs would be good. They know that many of us hate the current proposed directive, but they don't know that we all support this amendment, so a half-page mail/post/fax saying "When we said NO, this is what we meant". Might be the best?
(we don't want them snowed under with long texts)
comments?
My major problem with the FFII amendments is that I think it should include a clause saying that all EPO software patents registered before the start date of the directive should become null and void.
I know that's a bit radical and would draw horrendous lobbying from the pro-swpat people, but it's a two-edged sword for them - because the more they lobby, the more really evil patent examples from the EPO we can make public.
Strategy people, strategy.
Cheers, Niall