Re: NOSI releases "Open Source Primer" for Nonprofits
On Thursday 19 February 2004 5:03 pm, Michelle Murrain wrote:
> At 4:36 PM -0500 2/19/04, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> <snip>
>
> >If you just focus on pragmatism, then the concepts of freedom will get
> > lost and people will not understand why it is important to fight things
> > like software patents. These battles need many many enthusiastic
> > volunteers because it is a big money fight. The U.S. government is very
> > aggressively working to export these intellectual product restrictions to
> > other counties via trade negotiations. In Tuesday's RMS talk, he said
> > this was the best way for people to contribute to free software.
>
> <snip>
>
> But you have to find a way in the door, before you can begin to
> explain to people why this is important. There are several places in
> the primer where we talk about the importance of access to source
> code, and what kinds of benefit that has for an organization and the
> sector as a whole in comparison to proprietary alternatives.
>
> Yes, I totally agree that these battles need many enthusiastic
> volunteers, and I consider myself one of them. But you have to
> understand that most of the people I deal with are in their own
> pitched battles that take all of their energy. Battling around
> software patents and intellectual property just isn't something they
> are going to do. If I can help them feed a few more people, help a
> few more women, or better lobby the Mass. legislature so they don't
> pass a stupid constitutional amendment using F/OSS, and they don't
> really want to hear the details, I will. I agree that's focused on
> pragmatism. Is that what I'd like given a perfect world? Absolutely
> not.
Yes, On the scale of political issues, software freedom is low on most totem
poles.
I agree with most of what you say and I'm very happy you made the guide
happen. In fact, from the research I've done, you are one of the people
working hard to introduce free software into the non profit sector. I
appreciate your efforts!
The only place we differ is that I think it is possible and productive to talk
about the ethics in a way that does not interfere with the pragmatic
discussion.
Regards,
Mark
Reply to: