[WSIS CS-Plenary] PCT and WGIG

[Taran Rampersad]

Quite an interesting thread. Been busy with some stuff in the real world
and in cyberspace, but this is a conversation that cannot slip by.

Beatriz Busaniche wrote:

>El vie, 14-01-2005 a las 09:17 +0100, Vittorio Bertola escribió:
>  
>
>>It seems that PCT caucus members consider the free 
>>software concept as if it was (C) FSF/FSFE, and no one else was allowed to 
>>use it, promote it, modify it or even discuss it without their authorization.
>>    
>>
>
>
>I don't think you meant to say that anybody ought to be able to modify
>the meaning of a concept, because that would be absurd. Should I be able
>to change the meaning of "gender equality" to suit my understanding of
>the issue?
>  
>
'Gender equality' is actually an issue in and of itself which does have
fluctuating meanings in different cultures as well as in different
geopolitical arenas. Free Software isn't something that should be
compared to this if we do not wish to inherit the inconsistent meanings
across cultures.

This is an issue. This is an issue that those within Free Software,
perhaps, should pay more attention to.

>Of course anybody can discuss it. But the issue of free software is
>complex, and even people who are genuinely interested in it often fail
>to understand extremely important aspects of it. 
>
I disagree on one part of this. Free Software itself is not complex.
Free Software itself is quite simple. It's the present regime of
non-traditional software (proprietary) that is complex, and is growing
increasingly complex due to the nature of the legalities associated with
it. The standardization of these legalities through political and
corporate weight is really what is complex.

The important aspects of Free Software in the role of Civil Society are
not the same aspects that affect the greater WSIS; much of this would be
less of a problem if more industry leaders participated in the
advocation of Free Software.

The larger issue here is not really so much of a Free Software issue as
it is a Civil Society issue. Civil Society itself has not had a major
role in the WGIG, or has not found a way to play one. Free Software is,
because of low or no participation from industry and government, been
relegated to a Civil Society issue.

The WGIG selection, definition and so on - it's all been rather odd.
Groups were asked for nominations when there was no solid understanding
of what the WGIG is supposed to do, and the nominees themselves had
little or no impact on the WGIG's definition. This adversely affected
Civil Society, and therefore - because Free Software is not being
advocated by groups outside of Civil Society as much - has adversely
affected the message of Civil Society.

Lobbying government and industry with the right tone would probably help
matters here. The wrong tone - and I've read it, heard it and felt the
repercussions - turns people away. Free Software itself is very simple,
and requires little explanation on it's own.

Now, have someone explain the legalities of proprietary software... they
drag you down to the function level and beat you with process.

-- 
Taran Rampersad

cnd at knowprose.com

http://www.linuxgazette.com
http://www.a42.com
http://www.worldchanging.com
http://www.knowprose.com
http://www.easylum.net

"Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo