[A2k] Open letter
Silke.Helfrich at gmx.de
Thu Feb 17 00:54:37 PST 2011
> What is this open letter you are talking about. I do not find it in
> earlier post. Maybe I did not read the relevant one.
see attachment, that is the version with the first signatures as
presented last Friday to the following networks and media:
Abong, association brésilienne des ONG (Brésil)
Action Jeunesse (Maroc)
African Klomeo renaissance (Nigeria)
Alai - Agencia Latinoamericana de Información (Ecuador)
Alba TV (Venezuela)
Amarc Association mondiale des radios communautaires
Arcoiris TV (Italie)
Berlin Carré (Allemagne)
CIC Bata (Espagne)
Editions Charles Léopold Mayer (France)
Federacion de sindicatos de periodistas (Espagne)
Forum alternative (Maroc)
Fundacion Quepo (Espagne)
Giaba (Guinée Bissau)
Guinée Culture (Guinée)
Imersao Latina (Brésil)
KebethCache women resource center (Nigeria)
Maison des citoyens du monde (France)
Maison des droits de l’homme (France)
Maison du Monde d’Evry (France)
May first / People link (Etats-Unis)
Mission for Youth (Ouganda)
Queens Magazine (Nigeria)
Revista Forum (Brésil)
Rural Health women Day (Nigeria)
Social Watch (Italie)
Support Initiative For sustainable development (Nigeria)
TV Star (Sénégal)
WarriorsSelf-Help group (Kenya)
WSFTV, world social forum TV
> * Silke Helfrich <Silke.Helfrich at gmx.de>, le 15-02-11, a écrit:
> > Dear Richard,
> > we take this into account for the next initiave, but the letter as
> > proposed was actually shared with the communication networks last week
> > in Dakar, therefor we stick to that version. (We will now publish it
> > with the signatures of those who signed it and circulate it for
> > distribution and further signatures)
> > The letter is written in a way, that those how receive it and media can
> > clearly understand what it is all about.
> > Very best
> > Silke
> > On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 11:15 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> > > The FSF mostly agrees with the views expressed in the letter, but
> > > cannot sign it, because of its use of the term "intellectual property"
> > > as if that referred to something coherent. The letter goes so far as
> > > to treat "intellectual property" as a kind of substance.
> > >
> > > It is a mistake to generalize about copyright law and patent law. It
> > > is a worse mistake to generalize about a dozen totally different laws.
> > >
> > > The reference to an attempt to "balance" the system for handling this
> > > fictitious substance is also an obstacle. Even in regard to copyright
> > > alone, "balance" as usually interpreted is the wrong goal. (See
> > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-copyright.html. That
> > > article's argument based on the US Constitution would carry no weight
> > > for Brazil, but I think its conclusion is valid anyway.)
> > >
> > > The use of the word "protect" to describe what copyright does is also
> > > unfortunate. That alone would not be a reason to reject the letter,
> > > but it's so easy to avoid -- why not avoid it?
> > >
> > > I suppose it is too late now to change the wording of this letter.
> > > However, you may in the future write other texts that you'd like the
> > > FSF to support. These same issues are likely to arise each time,
> > > so you may as well know about them in advance.
> > >
> > > The FSF is limited to the issue of free software and its sub-issues.
> > > Some issues about the sharing of other kinds of works don't raise the
> > > issue of free software, so the FSF would have to stay out of them.
> > > However, this letter's issue does affect free software concerns, which
> > > would have given the FSF a basis to support it ... if only the text
> > > had been written differently.
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > A2k mailing list
> > A2k at lists.keionline.org
> > http://lists.keionline.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k_lists.keionline.org
More information about the A2k