Greetings, My observations are at the end.
2008/11/30 Nagarjuna G. nagarjun@gnowledge.org: <snip>
FSF was founded in 1985. What kind of hindrance did it create for not letting democracy or freedom flourish? On the contrary it took the lead in promoting and protecting these virtues. It gave the direction to the movement. FSM created tools that help create social networks to let this happen. It is therefore an enabler of freedom.
<snip>
Political parties on the other hand want to administer social change, but we do not do that. They want power and control but we don't.
Free software movement is possible without creating any large political groups. The most important identity that we respect is the human being and that beings' freedom. When we have a large number of small groups at every part of the country (an FSUG in every town, district, we don't have them now.) FSM will flourish. FSFI will support their formation, provide them direction, give them infrastructure, invite the leads of such groups into the working group, generate consensus etc. and support each other.
<snip>
Let us all work towards such an organic growth, instead of creating one large network of FSF chapters. let me repeat, FSFs do not want to become a political powers, and does not want to govern. That will be self-defeating to the ideals of freedom.
FSF-I was formed in July 2001. The I-Lugs existed years before that. Now FSF-I should have worked for the conversion of the "Linux" to "Libre" as done in certain groups. Why divide the Movement by promoting FSUGs etc? To take free software(free knowledge) to the last (wo)man in the most backward villages of our country we need people of different backgrounds. I don't think that differences on the issue of Free vs. Open should have been a devisive issue.