MESSAGE
| DATE | 2003-02-10 |
| FROM | Dave Williams
|
| SUBJECT | Subject: [hangout] Status
|
As far as I can tell, any decision about how to proceed regarding the
EGovOS conference hinges on one thing.
Dr. Stallman expressed it best: Either the conference is advocacy, in
which case Microsoft should be excluded, or it is an academic dialog, in
which case the term "Open Source" should probably be removed from the
title (in favor of something like "Comparative Source Code Licensing
Schemes in Government" or something similar).
Mr. Perens is welcome to attach the Open Source title to the meeting, of
course. And Mr. Safir is welcome to organize a protest to draw
attention to the issue of Shared Source as a perversion of Free
Software's ideals. Whether this turns out to be harmful or helpful
remains to be seen.
My question is: Which is it? Advocacy or Academia?
The sources I've read indicate advocacy, or at least a series of
discussions and presentations limited to the subject of Open Source
Software in Government. But I could be mistaken. Is anyone out there
qualified to answer this? I think it would settle the matter once and
for all and allow people to go ahead with their plans.
- Dave
____________________________
New Yorker Free Software Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
