[clug] Opensource legislation in ACT

[Jepri]

Brad Hards wrote:

>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 19:20 pm, Darren Freeman wrote:
>  
>
>>On Tue, 2003-09-16 at 17:43, Anthony David wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>If there is interest, in discussing the proposal,
>>>I will confirm it with her.
>>>      
>>>
>>I think I speak for most CLUGers when I say:
>>
>>*shit yeah!*
>>    
>>
>Lets make like we have a bit of professionalism, given the topic. And remember 
>that at least one person (OK, maybe only me) thinks that legislation for this 
>is broken by design. Even if no-one spoke against it, no-one can actually 
>

Do you mean the way Microsofts "shared source" could look like "Open 
Source" by the legislation's definition, if you squint really hard at it?

Perhaps we need a flying visit from Richard Stallman.  But first we need 
to change our name to CGLUG.

>claim that CLUG supports (or discourages) legislative measures. AUUG could 
>probably do that though - try to get some of the AUUG people there if you 
>want representation. Maybe even Linux Australia would be interested?
>

Personally I'd be happy with an "everyone in favour say 'aye'" kind of 
poll.  It should be enough for a statement like "nine out of every ten 
CLUG members polled said it was a good thing".

>
>  
>
>>Usually we just make up something to talk about, now we have something
>>to really hammer out.
>>    
>>
>So the technical stuff starts around ten to eight? Guess I'll see you then.
>

You're going to miss the bit where we all sing "We  shall overcome"!