Supporting FSFE

Ciaran O'Riordan ciaran at
Tue Sep 12 17:58:20 UTC 2006

MJ Ray <mjr at> writes:
> it would 
> be nice to see where the EUR120/year's going to go...

With my time, the five main things I currently work on are software patents,
IPRED2, GPLv3, policy meetings with the European Commission, and public
speaking.  Here's what I've publicly documented of my work:

For the latest on software patents, see:

For an explantion of IPRED2, see:
(I am currently active on this in non-public ways)

GPLv3 work:

The work I do on policy meetings is mostly non-public.

And I keep a list of public speaking engagements at:

I also have meetings which I can't publicly mention.  Sometimes it's because
it would be tactically bad to let the opposition know who is collaborating
against them, and sometimes it's because the people meeting me can't be seen
in public to be helping us.

Another source of information for what FSFE is doing is the newsletter:

FSFE's funds are more transperant than most NGOs:

The 2005 accounts are delayed due to a change of accounting system which was
needed because the organisation grew - but previous years are there.

There are still ways that our transperancy should be improved, but the core
work has to continue at full speed while any changes are taking place, so it
has to be an evolutionary process - and it has to suit the people who are
doing the work.  One person's perfect solution will be incompatible with
other people.  If you see low hanging fruit, make a suggestion.f

I think FSFE has shown, over five years, that it is doing important work,
and that it is becoming more transperant and more effective over time.
Being well funded should make that improvement continue or speed up.  Being
less well funded leaves us juggling resources between communicating our work
and doing our work.

> 1. No support for FSF*'s non-free-software actions (FDL and so on)

Personally, I'm also not a fan of the GFDL, but I think it's
disproportionate to black ball FSFE's work because of this.

FSFE does support the GFDL, including the invariant sections, but FSFE has
not lobbied for invariant sections.  We've said we find them acceptable and
that we see their utility, but we never said we'd contest their removal.  (I
know, invariant sections are not the only issue, it's just an example.)

RMS said a year and a half ago that GFDL would be updated.

And, FWIW, in this talk:
Eben Moglen says that a draft of the next version of the GFDL is almost
ready, that it will be accompanied by a public consultation, and it will not
include invariant sections.  (It's also a generally interesting talk.)

> 2. No personal data for sites without a privacy policy or P3P support.

Hmm, seems like an easily correctable oversight.  I've raised it now:

CiarĂ¡n O'Riordan __________________ \ _________ \  GPLv3 and other work supported by \   Fellowship:

More information about the Discussion mailing list