No subject

<quote>
* *

*9. Are the members of the Director Board of FSF India elected? *

<snip> As mentioned in the answer to an earlier question, FSF India is not a
mass movement and is not a democratic organisation. The purpose of FSF
India, as of FSF, is to provide guidance to the Free Software movement. This
purpose could be easily defeated if it is made into an elected body.

</quote>
India is considered one of the biggest democracies in the world and the Free
Software Movement is for the democratisation of technology and knowledge.
However, the namesake of FSF in India ie., FSF-India, whose role is to lead
the Free Software Movement has clearly defined itself as undemocratic.

Let us take things objectively to analyse, debate and come to some sort of
an understanding.

Democracy, transparency and openness are considered the pillars of the free
software movement. We talk about free(or open) standards, free knowledge,
etc.. and then we hear "Democracy? That is only for theory."
How can one ensure democratisation of knowledge if one is undemocratic?

The Board of FSF-I may have to (re)read the works of Eben Moglen and
actually implement it in their functioning. I think the following quote of
Eben Moglen is important in this context. From
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Transcript_of_The_System_Of_Ownership_Of_Ideas

"Haven't you heard," we say, "The era of presidents for life is over. We are
holding elections, here. Here, we made this, its called democracy. Would you
like some? Take it, its free."

In solidarity with the Free Software Movement,
Vikram Vincent

------=_Part_49133_18726313.1227947159708
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

Greetings,<br>From <a href="http://www.gnu.org.in/board-statement-on-recent-issues" target="_blank">http://www.gnu.org.in/board-statement-on-recent-issues</a><br><p>&lt;quote&gt;<br>
<b>
</b></p><p><b>9. Are the members of the Director Board of FSF India elected?

</b></p>
<p>&lt;snip&gt; As mentioned
in the answer to an earlier question, FSF India is not a mass movement
and is not a democratic organisation. The purpose of FSF India, as of
FSF, is to provide guidance to the Free Software movement. This purpose 
could be easily defeated if it is made into an elected body.</p><p>&lt;/quote&gt;</p>India
is considered one of the biggest democracies in the world and the Free
Software Movement is for the democratisation of technology and
knowledge. However, the namesake of FSF in India ie., FSF-India, whose role is to lead the Free Software Movement has clearly defined itself as undemocratic.<br>
<br>Let us take things objectively to analyse, debate and come to some sort of an understanding.<br><br>Democracy, transparency and openness are considered the pillars of the free software movement. We talk about free(or open) standards, free knowledge, etc.. and then we hear &quot;Democracy? That is only for theory.&quot;<br>
How can one ensure democratisation of knowledge if one is undemocratic?<br>
<br>The Board of FSF-I may have to (re)read the works of Eben Moglen and actually implement it in their functioning. I think the following quote of Eben Moglen is important in this context. From
<a href="http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Transcript_of_The_System_Of_Ownership_Of_Ideas" target="_blank">http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Transcript_of_The_System_Of_Ownership_Of_Ideas</a><br>
<br>
&quot;Haven&#39;t you heard,&quot; we say, &quot;The era of presidents for life is over.
We are holding elections, here. Here, we made this, its called
democracy. Would you like some? Take it, its free.&quot;<br><br>In solidarity with the Free Software Movement,<br>Vikram Vincent<br>

------=_Part_49133_18726313.1227947159708--