Re: [Fsfe-uk] Draft PR on swpat directive

[Alex Hudson]

On Sun, 2003-09-28 at 08:38, Martin Keegan wrote:
> > property - it would actually make it worse), but the actualite is that
> > it would have made the directive 100% fine for Free Software. So, I'm in
> 
> No. To say it would have been *100%* fine simply isn't true. With an
> exemption for free software, the swpat would still have harmed the broader
> digital ecosystem in which free software must exist. 

True. But, you have to be aware I'm stating an argument in favour of
something I don't believe in, so it's unlikely to be sustainable :o)

The fact is that there was a tabled amendment that was highly pro-free
software, and it was rejected. Would the AFFS be wrong in not mentioning
it?

I'm assuming from your reaction that you agree with me, and I definitely
agree with the point you put forward. I also don't want to see AFFS fall
into the "trap", if you will, of being seen to be part of the dark "Free
Software Alliance" that McCarthy keeps referring to (in fact, we
probably ought to mention something about that in the PR...).

Cheers,

Alex.