[Fsfe-ie] Draft letter on IPRED2

[Ian Clarke]

On 25 Aug 2005, at 01:11, Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
> Why is a Free Software organisation concerned?

Perhaps introduce SCO as most people won't have heard of it (is it a  
person? a company? a vegetable?).

> SCO has accused IBM of mixing some SCO-owned code into the kernel  
> of the
> GNU/Linux operating system.  SCO claims that all users of GNU/Linux  
> have to
> pay licensing fees to SCO.
>
> This case has been going on for years and many distributors of GNU/ 
> Linux
> have be dragged into it.  The Free Software Foundation and others  
> have had
> there time wasted by broad subpoenas.

s/there/their

> Despite it's numerous appearances in court, SCO has yet to be proven
> right on even one single claim it has made.

Perhaps replace with ..."on any of its claims."

> A recently leaked memo[2] from SCO shows that a 2002 study they  
> conducted
> concluded that they "had found absolutely *nothing*. ie no evidence  
> of any
> copyright infringement whatsoever".

So what?  What does this mean in the context of the wider story?

> The interesting thing is that SCO is funded by Microsoft - the  
> makers of
> Microsoft Windows, whose closest rival is: GNU/Linux, which is Free
> Software's largest project.

Again, you are mentioning a fact without explaining its relevance to  
the wider context (yes, it may be obvious to us, but it won't be to  
the average reader/journalist).

> Another leaked memo, the authenticity of which has been confirmed  
> by SCO[3],
> revealed that SCO received funding of more than $100 million from
> Microsoft.[4]

Ditto.  I would probably leave these last two out unless their  
relevance can be explained properly.

> Now, trying to prevent organised crime is a good goal, but when rights

Starting a sentence with "Now," seems overly conversational for a  
press release.

> holders are given extreme powers of investigation and the ability to
> threaten with jail time, huge fines, and endless bureaucracy: who  
> are the
> organised criminals?  The companies selling GNU/Linux and related  
> services?
> Or the company that is sueing people despite knowing it doesn't  
> have a case?

The last rhetorical question may not make sense to people.  Yes, I  
understand what it is trying to say, but I think it is too indirect  
for a closing sentence.

Ian.