[Fsf-friends] FSFS.in will have a larger controversy

[V. Sasi Kumar]

On Sun, 2008-11-23 at 19:56 +0530, Mani A wrote:

> I mean the acceptor should have obligations. The specific additional
> terms agreed to by the parties should be stated. It should be for
> interested people in the community to try something ... in case of any
> apparent irregularities. The purpose is to strengthen the free
> software movements. Hopefully it will help different groups to improve
> their resources.

I don't understand why you insist that the acceptor should have
obligations. As far as I can see, it would be best if the acceptor gets
donations without any obligations. FSF, for instance, retains the right
to criticise the donor if he/she/it goes against Free Software. I don't
think FSF accepts money that comes with any string attached. People
contribute to FSF because they believe in Free Software and would like
to contribute to its growth. Am I going wrong somewhere in my logic?

Best
-- 
V. Sasi Kumar
Free Software Foundation of India
http://swatantryam.blogspot.com