Dear Friends
Please find FSF India's statement on recent developments.
http://www.gnu.org.in/board-statement-on-recent-issues
I hope this addresses some, if not all, the questions. More documents will be published in the coming days.
regards arun
Greetings,
<quote> * *
*9. Are the members of the Director Board of FSF India elected? *
<snip> As mentioned in the answer to an earlier question, FSF India is not a mass movement and is not a democratic organisation. The purpose of FSF India, as of FSF, is to provide guidance to the Free Software movement. This purpose could be easily defeated if it is made into an elected body.
</quote> India is considered one of the biggest democracies in the world and the Free Software Movement is for the democratisation of technology and knowledge. However, the namesake of FSF in India ie., FSF-India, whose role is to lead the Free Software Movement has clearly defined itself as undemocratic.
Let us take things objectively to analyse, debate and come to some sort of an understanding.
Democracy, transparency and openness are considered the pillars of the free software movement. We talk about free(or open) standards, free knowledge, etc.. and then we hear "Democracy? That is only for theory." How can one ensure democratisation of knowledge if one is undemocratic?
The Board of FSF-I may have to (re)read the works of Eben Moglen and actually implement it in their functioning. I think the following quote of Eben Moglen is important in this context. From http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Transcript_of_The_System_Of_Ownership_Of_Ideas
"Haven't you heard," we say, "The era of presidents for life is over. We are holding elections, here. Here, we made this, its called democracy. Would you like some? Take it, its free."
In solidarity with the Free Software Movement, Vikram Vincent
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Vikram Vincent vincentvikram@gmail.comwrote:
Greetings, From http://www.gnu.org.in/board-statement-on-recent-issues
<quote> * *
*9. Are the members of the Director Board of FSF India elected? *
<snip> As mentioned in the answer to an earlier question, FSF India is not a mass movement and is not a democratic organisation. The purpose of FSF India, as of FSF, is to provide guidance to the Free Software movement. This purpose could be easily defeated if it is made into an elected body.
</quote> India is considered one of the biggest democracies in the world and the Free Software Movement is for the democratisation of technology and knowledge. However, the namesake of FSF in India ie., FSF-India, whose role is to lead the Free Software Movement has clearly defined itself as undemocratic.
Let us take things objectively to analyse, debate and come to some sort of an understanding.
Democracy, transparency and openness are considered the pillars of the free software movement. We talk about free(or open) standards, free knowledge, etc.. and then we hear "Democracy? That is only for theory." How can one ensure democratisation of knowledge if one is undemocratic?
Dont know this information is relevant but i felt this might be a useful information
Quoting from RMS's Essays : Chapter 20: Free Software : Freedom and Cooperation paragraph 3: ( please understand the context in which this assay was written and then this paragraph will be clear) In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to operate. Pro- fessor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions as a kind of law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about everybody uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that run people's lives. With free software, these laws get written in a democratic way. Not the classical form of democracy–we don't have a big election and say, "Everybody vote which way should this feature be done." [audience laughs] Instead we say, basically, those of you who want to work on implementing the feature this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the feature that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you know? And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way. In this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go. And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to take. A business is free to commission as many steps as they find useful to take. And after you add all these things up, that says which direction the software goes.
Fsf-friends mailing list Fsf-friends@mm.gnu.org.in http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Vikram Vincent vincentvikram@gmail.comwrote:
Greetings, From http://www.gnu.org.in/board-statement-on-recent-issues Let us take things objectively to analyse, debate and come to some sort of an understanding.
Democracy, transparency and openness are considered the pillars of the free software movement.
Quoting from : RMS Essays
Chapter 15 Copyleft: Pragmatic Idealism - page 93
Every decision a person makes stems from the person's values and goals. People can have many different goals and values; fame, profit, love, survival, fun, and freedom, are just some of the goals that a good person might have. When the goal is to help others as well as oneself, we call that idealism. My work on free software is motivated by an idealistic goal: spreading freedom and cooperation. I want to encourage free software to spread, replacing proprietary software that forbids cooperation, and thus make our society better. That's the basic reason why the GNU General Public License is written the way it is—as a copyleft.
Dont know this information is relevant but i felt this might be a useful information
Quoting from RMS's Essays : Chapter 20: Free Software : Freedom and Cooperation paragraph 3: ( please understand the context in which this assay was written and then this paragraph will be clear) In this respect, free software is a new mechanism for democracy to operate. Pro- fessor Lessig, now at Stanford, noted that code functions as a kind of law. Whoever gets to write the code that just about everybody uses for all intents and purposes is writing the laws that run people's lives. With free software, these laws get written in a democratic way. Not the classical form of democracy–we don't have a big election and say, "Everybody vote which way should this feature be done." [audience laughs] Instead we say, basically, those of you who want to work on implementing the feature this way, do it. And if you want to work on implementing the feature that way, do it. And, it gets done one way or the other, you know? And so, if a lot of people want it this way, it'll get done this way. In this way, everybody contributes to the social decision by simply taking steps in the direction that he wants to go. And you're free to take as many steps, personally, as you want to take. A business is free to commission as many steps as they find useful to take. And after you add all these things up, that says which direction the software goes.
Fsf-friends mailing list Fsf-friends@mm.gnu.org.in http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends
2008/11/29 renuka prasad renukaprasadb@gmail.com
On Sat, Nov 29, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Vikram Vincent vincentvikram@gmail.comwrote:
<snip> Let us take things objectively to analyse, debate and come to some sort of an understanding.
Democracy, transparency and openness are considered the pillars of the free software movement. We talk about free(or open) standards, free knowledge, etc.. and then we hear "Democracy? That is only for theory." How can one ensure democratisation of knowledge if one is undemocratic?
<snip> > > >
One reason why I promote Debian is because of its politics. It is democratic in its own way. There is an eligibility criteria to be met before being given developer status. Then the corresponding elections for position of Debian leader. Fixed period of functioning. Distribution of responsibilities. Procedure to recall a leader if the majority feel that that functionary is not fit.
Now in the FSF-I we have people who claim to be my leader.
2008/11/29 Vikram Vincent vincentvikram@gmail.com:
India is considered one of the biggest democracies in the world and the Free Software Movement is for the democratisation of technology and knowledge. However, the namesake of FSF in India ie., FSF-India, whose role is to lead the Free Software Movement has clearly defined itself as undemocratic.
"The FSF has a worldwide mission to promote computer user freedom and to defend the rights of all free software users."
Cheers Praveen
<snip> As mentioned in the answer to an earlier question, FSF India is not a mass movement and is not a democratic organisation.
</quote>
I think the above sentence is little misleading. First Part is OK. But I believe Democracy exists within its board.
The process to select board does not need to be democratic completely. for eg: GPLv3 drafting will be failure if it was decided completely by users participating in drafting process. There was commitee ( not democratically elected ) to analyse and take the needed .
But Democracy within the board is very important. It may be true that FSF India is not working on electoral / Representational democracy. That is Ok. But Democratic decision making in the board is important to make it as a democratic structure
Deepa paul Researcher
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Deepa Paul |ദീപാ പോള് deepa.paul@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> As mentioned in the answer to an earlier question, FSF India is not a mass movement and is not a democratic organisation.
</quote>
I think the above sentence is little misleading. First Part is OK. But I believe Democracy exists within its board.
The process to select board does not need to be democratic completely. for eg: GPLv3 drafting will be failure if it was decided completely by users participating in drafting process. There was commitee ( not democratically elected ) to analyse and take the needed .
But Democracy within the board is very important. It may be true that FSF India is not working on electoral / Representational democracy. That is Ok. But Democratic decision making in the board is important to make it as a democratic structure
I also think that the statement is too short and does not sound good.
It may be changed to something like:
FSF India is not meant to lead a mass movement, but it may support a mass movement, or its members may join or lead such mass movements. The members of the board are selected from the among the leads from within the free software community of India, and the selected board of directors members work democratically.
'not democratic' does not sound good. We can make an amendment to the FAQ after hearing some more constructive criticism.
Nagarjuna
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 5:56 PM, Nagarjuna G. nagarjun@gnowledge.org wrote:
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 5:44 PM, Deepa Paul |ദീപാ പോള് deepa.paul@gmail.com wrote:
<snip> As mentioned in the answer to an earlier question, FSF India is not a mass movement and is not a democratic organisation.
</quote>
I think the above sentence is little misleading. First Part is OK. But I believe Democracy exists within its board.
The process to select board does not need to be democratic completely. for eg: GPLv3 drafting will be failure if it was decided completely by users participating in drafting process. There was commitee ( not democratically elected ) to analyse and take the needed .
But Democracy within the board is very important. It may be true that FSF India is not working on electoral / Representational democracy. That is Ok. But Democratic decision making in the board is important to make it as a democratic structure
I also think that the statement is too short and does not sound good.
It may be changed to something like:
FSF India is not meant to lead a mass movement, but it may support a mass movement, or its members may join or lead such mass movements. The members of the board are selected from the among the leads from within the free software community of India, and the selected board of directors members work democratically.
That sounds good
Deepa
'not democratic' does not sound good. We can make an amendment to the FAQ after hearing some more constructive criticism.
Nagarjuna
On Sun, 2008-11-30 at 17:44 +0530, Deepa Paul |ദീപാ പോള് wrote:
<snip> As mentioned in the answer to an earlier question, FSF India is not a mass movement and is not a democratic organisation.
</quote>
I think the above sentence is little misleading. First Part is OK. But I believe Democracy exists within its board.
Yes, it does. All decisions are taken on the basis of majority opinion, if not consensus.
But Democracy within the board is very important. It may be true that FSF India is not working on electoral / Representational democracy. That is Ok. But Democratic decision making in the board is important to make it as a democratic structure
Let me assure you that the Board works on a democratic basis. Otherwise, I would, most probably, not have remained a member.
Best
2008/11/29 Arun M arun@gnu.org.in:
Please find FSF India's statement on recent developments.
This document needs to be accessible from the main page.
-
Arun M -
Deepa Paul |ദീപാ പോള് -
Nagarjuna G. -
Praveen A -
renuka prasad -
V. Sasi Kumar -
Vikram Vincent