On Sun, Nov 23, 2008 at 9:55 AM, V. Sasi Kumar sasi.fsf@gmail.com wrote:
remain transparent. Corporate bodies can never really be trusted. The intent of some 'document freedom camps' for example, are suspect.
You mean, the donor should have some obligations? I thought you meant that the acceptor should have obligations. But even saying that the
I mean the acceptor should have obligations. The specific additional terms agreed to by the parties should be stated. It should be for interested people in the community to try something ... in case of any apparent irregularities. The purpose is to strengthen the free software movements. Hopefully it will help different groups to improve their resources.
Best
A. Mani
On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 19:56 +0530, Mani A wrote:
I mean the acceptor should have obligations. The specific additional terms agreed to by the parties should be stated. It should be for interested people in the community to try something ... in case of any apparent irregularities. The purpose is to strengthen the free software movements. Hopefully it will help different groups to improve their resources.
I don't understand why you insist that the acceptor should have obligations. As far as I can see, it would be best if the acceptor gets donations without any obligations. FSF, for instance, retains the right to criticise the donor if he/she/it goes against Free Software. I don't think FSF accepts money that comes with any string attached. People contribute to FSF because they believe in Free Software and would like to contribute to its growth. Am I going wrong somewhere in my logic?
Best
-
Mani A -
V. Sasi Kumar