MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-02-10 |
| FROM | Dave Williams
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] Re: out of the bag
|
I agree -- if a private organization has a conference and doesn't invite
me they are acting within their rights. Even if I was a perfect match
for the event. I, in turn, can put together a conference that doesn't
include them. The public is welcome to interpret these things as they
will, filtered by whatever angle the media presents of course.
I am also allowed to hold a press conference and voice my displeasure.
I'm not sure if any journalists would attend, however! It happens all
the time. In fact, there are so many Shared Source presentations at
universities and government meetings that exclude outside participation
that one event seems like small change in comparison. How nice to
imagine a conference dedicated to Open Source!
It doesn't matter if it's held on the grounds of a university; if a
group that legitimately represents the school chooses to sponsor it then
the terms are clearly spelled out.
On Mon, 2003-02-10 at 10:26, David Sugar wrote:
> First, I would not want or expect to go to their events. They have events to
> sponsor and state their market position, and they have a right to do this
> unmolested, just as they can have board meetings where they can say all they
> wish to about anything, although in the latter they are presumably fiducially
> obligated to their shareholders.
>
> When one holds an event explicitly to market and sell, whether it's physical
> products, or ideas, one has a right to choose who should or should not
> participate to further that message. A marketing conference is not a debate
> club, and this conference of Tony's is organized as a conference specifically
> to market a specific set of ideas, in theory in a positive way, not as an
> event to debate them. One can read this from the cfp with the long list of
> suggested topics for "proper" consideration, with each topic stating an
> example the exemplifies the promotion of "Open Source".
>
> I did not see the conference cfp include a topic to "debate closed source
> licenses". The abstract that was submitted by the Microsoft guy did not meet
> the criteria of the cfp and should simply have been ignored. They also could
> have simply said "sorry, we just couldnt fit you in", since they had to
> reject a number of speakers already.
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
