[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006 08:15:59 +0000 "Aaron Trevena" <aaron.trevena@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/12/06, Peter Lloyd-Jones <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > (Who is sad that this group does not seem to care a toss about JMRI.) I feel sad that you got that impression - there have been repeated threads on the issues arising from the JMRI problems, including detailed analysis of the underlying licences. Sadly, some of the JMRI problems, IMHO, arise from the original choice of licence. Deep seated problems like that can be difficult to solve later on. I think I did what I could to highlight the issues as I understood them. It may be that, no matter how much we care, the most noticeable thing that the GLUG list can do in this situation is prevent other free software and open source projects from getting into the same situation in the future. The GLUG has looked at licence problems before (see FEMM), it is always worthwhile to raise these issues and there are people in the GLUG who care deeply about software patents and the future of free software in general. Not all G/LUG's made direct contributions to the fight against the Computer Implemented Inventions Directive, we had at least three members actively involved - including attending the DTI workshops to put the case *against* software patents directly to UK Patent Office and UK government officials. > Actually we do, but there isn't much you can do about it on this list. Absolutely. What we can do is discuss the issues, raise awareness etc. The list isn't the right place for a campaign or direct action of some other kind relating specifically to JMRI. Don't misinterpret that as a "don't care" message. The GLUG rarely speaks with a single voice but there are GLUG members who do care about JMRI and the implications for other projects. > I've raised the issue on the FFII uk list, and blogged about it, it's > a very good example of why software patent's are harmful and already > harm open source software, when many deny that to be the case. Peter: What would you have liked the GLUG to do that we have not done? Were you aware of what has been done, as Aaron mentions above, off-list? -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpgZP1xH3Bkr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html