Dear Daniel, dear all,
>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel James writes:
> Hi Andrea,
>> (b) the not-so-clear-cut stance of the Linux Audio Consortium
>> on Free v Proprietary software makes the whole thing less
>> palatable for FSF(E)
> I think the policy of linuxaudio.org is extremely explicit. It
> is quite clearly in favour of libre software, ie the Linux
> What it doesn't do is tell people which kind of software or
> licence they must use for their own projects. Personally, I
> think that's up to developers and users to decide for
I might have expressed myself badly (that happens when you are not a
I am not questioning the current policy of the Linux Audio Consortium
- I had my share of criticisms, which I hope were constructive and
useful, at the time the Consortium was created, but then I agreed that
AGNULA (which itself has a total commitment to Free Software,
sometimes to the level of it being a PITA :) would be a part of it,
and we are not changing our mind on that.
What I meant to say is that the policy of the Consortium, however
explicit, is probably not something the FSF(E) is going to totally
commit onto. This might be an advantage or not, and as I said I think
fruitful collaboration can be built on specific items.
As for telling people what to do, and stressing again that I'm
perfectly fine with the current bylaws of the Consortium, I find
nothing wrong in creating entities whose rules tell people how they
should behave, as long as people are free to decide whether they want
to be a part of that institution or not (practically, not just in
Hope now my position is clearer.
Andrea Glorioso email@example.com +39 333 820 5723
.:: Media Innovation Unit - Firenze Tecnologia ::.
Conquering the world for fun and profit