On Friday 3. May 2019 22.00.24 Reinhard Müller wrote: > Dear Paul, > > thank you for your verbose reply.
You're welcome! > Am 03.05.19 um 18:00 schrieb Paul Boddie: > >> Am 03.05.19 um 13:48 schrieb Besnik Bleta: > >>> we give the money to lawyers who "helped" us > >>> "safeguard" Free Software through Copyright Directive, right? > >> > >> what exactly do you refer to in this sentence? If FSFE spends money on > >> something, I'm usually among the first ones to know, but I have no idea > >> what you mean. > > > > I think that there are concerns that the FSFE has not exactly safeguarded > > the interests of individual members and Free Software initiatives > > You are probably right that whether a specific strategy in a political > process was optimal can always be questioned. But that's a different > discussion, and other people within FSFE can better speak about that > than myself. It is possibly the more interesting discussion from my perspective, but I can understand that your perspective may be different. > Besnik claimed that FSFE gave money (even "the money") to lawyers in the > course of that activity. This is an allegation for which I would request > information about on what it is based. I might also add that various campaigns tend to involve some kind of expenditure in order to get work done. Although you in your role within the FSFE might have knowledge of the precise expenditure yourself, others must deduce where the money may have been directed: staff salaries and campaign contributor expenses, purchases from suppliers of printed materials and merchandise, and so on. It isn't too big a stretch of the imagination that if legal advice features in a campaign, this advice is potentially purchased. I seem to remember another organisation whose costs for legal consultations were explicitly noted in the fundraising messages I received for various campaigns. One can easily be cynical and express a view that even where fundamental rights and freedoms are involved, some people still demand to be paid to care about such causes. Meanwhile, others are requested to pitch in for free or even pay for the privilege. With Free Software organisations, it often seems to be the supporters who are making the real sacrifices for the benefit of those organisations. For instance, in another organisation, I have seen the consequences of paid work being commissioned, delivered and the less-than-satisfactory result left to unpaid supporters to fix and maintain: a double burden on those supporters. I don't begrudge anyone who is wanting to be treated fairly the chance to be paid for valuable work, but then I don't think that the result of should work should be beyond criticism, if this is justified, either. Anyway, this is how the "allegation" of paying lawyers money (shocking as this may seem) can innocently come about, together with some indication of why people might care about such a thing to begin with. Paul _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
