Re: [Spi-private] Re: Josh Berkus's platform on political activity, was: money handling

Robert,

> Given the danger that software patents (not to mention laws like the DMCA,
> Sunny Bono Act, etc...) pose to open source software developers, do you
> really believe there is _no corralation_ between the educating of
> government/business/public about the problems with software patents and
> the "support and sustain" clause of SPI?

Yes, I am. Software patents are a strategic issue, one which relates to our
ability to do free software in the future. Support & sustain deal strictly
tactically with project's ability to pay bills, have servers and trademarks,
and continue day-to-day operation.

Whether or not SPI pays for Debian's conference insurance out of Debian funds,
or whether SPI accepts ownership of a server donated to PostgreSQL, are
routine tasks which do not require consensus or general discussion. Whether
or not SPI gets involved directly in opposing SW Patents (and how) as an
entire organization is a strategic question which *does* require discussion
and consensus.

I find it interesting that because I keep emphasizing representational process
and proper consensus-building, several people on this list seem to be keen to
twist that into saying that I favor software patents. I'm just not in favor
of rule by the loudest minority.

--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Project
Core Team Member
(any opinions expressed are my own)