RE: Draft 2 -- letter to EAC commissioners

From: james_in_denver <james_in_denver_at_hotpop_dot_com>
Date: Tue May 11 2004 - 10:31:39 CDT

On Tue, 2004-05-11 at 11:11, Popkin, Laird (WMG Corp) wrote:
> Actually, it's Laird Popkin. :-)
> As I said, the specific license is very important, and thus means a
> lot to us. But I think that the debate between various open source
> licensing options isn't a point that we want to make up front -- the
> critical issue is that we get them to agree that the voting system
> should be open. Once they're philosophically on board with the general
> goal, we can guide them through the complexities. If we raise too many
> complexities up front, rather than impressing them with our depth of
> knowledge, we may scare them away from open source alltogether.
> -----Original Message-----


I emphatically agree.

In my opinion, it is more important to get involved with the process and
the powers that may be before getting into specifics. At this point it
seems a little premature to be focusing on what License model OVC will
use. It appears that the more important issue is get the OVC message
about voting concerns, and their solutions, some much needed exposure.

James Acomb

= The content of this message, with the exception of any external
= quotations under fair use, are released to the Public Domain
Received on Mon May 31 23:17:34 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon May 31 2004 - 23:18:16 CDT