Thanx agian, and FSA will be the first "common language" between free softrware world and "people" world. its time to "not divide" and "unite".

I'm glad to see Free Software being used here, as opposed to the more popular alternative.

Greetings Mr xen0, what do you find specially insteresting?
I very interesting about your opinion!

This sounds really interesting!

Dear Pb:

It doesnt really matters at this same time, think about the UN treaties like an obstacle. FreeSoftware and OpenSource strikes on "social knowledge", it comes like the rain, wind and other natural resources.FOSS is Knowledge, and this goes to zero all the time. So cant be stoped it!, but humans can acept the "way of" understand it!, anyway, anyhow, agree or not, FOSS will arise, and FSA contribute to this natural "process".
Dont talk about FOSS like technologies, like the only way to understand it., U know, im talking about balance, and its exists on politicians, too...

Draft whatever legislation you like, but don't expect the GPL to go anywhere in the meantime--many countries already don't follow or abide by many UN treaties, you know, and the punishments for not following them are often... non-existent.

FSA Brings Balance to the FOSS Force. This will show us howto "not to do", like SCO and IBM fight. If FSA enter in the "common world", will bring us security, will be acepted for everyone, doesnt matter if u like the philosophy of Richard Stallamn or your prefer the Develope Model of Eric Raymond. It means, that you will have access to unify concepts, unify efforts, to avoid troubles , specially "legal troubles", beging to learn HOW Free Software coulb be necessay and useful for People, Enterprises and NO IT people ,too. FSA brings equality, from my point of view, bewteen "geeks" and "humans". Somebody says, FOSS is a "geek bussiness", but its not true, FOSS is for everyone, FSA take it to real world, to the correct concept.

FSA, "brings balance" to the FreeSoftware and OpenSource Force.It Means, while SCO falls down into a desesperate war against "freedom", if this Act runs officially, we will learn the things that will never repeat again. We must learn and rationalize this "process". People must know that doesnt loose rights and benefits using Free Software, are empowering it. While the inevitable "evolution to" FOSS is growing up, we must on every place (especially countries in undepeveloped conditions), join and work to make it "available", people must know, what`s the meaning of it. Robbing to Ian Murdock his words (Linux is a "process"), we can say that FOSS are processes, too, and web must use this FSA like the "guide point" to "real freedom" in IT and "common" world, too.

FSA could be probably the best way to protect the Free Software Community Knowledge from private appropriation. Due to recent recommendations from UN organisms like UNESCO, UNCTAD, UNDP about use of FLOSS for developing countries, it should be important to have a UN umbrella to protect this initiatives.

The Free Software Act may take decades to be implemented, however, if the SCO vs. IBM Judge rules the GPL as inconstitutional, it will take not decades but years, and even motnhs, if Countries -and local Congresses at state/province level- in Brasil, Germany, Spain, China, etc, coordinate with UNESCO and other UN bodies to pass the FSA as an international convention. This is an additional advantage the FSA provides over the Copyright law, which is different in many countries. Through a UN FAS Convention, that can be ratified also at State/Province level, the free software law can be the same in all the world.

As the gun-rights crowd says, we don't need new laws, but rather better enforcement of the ones we already have. The attempt to reconcile copyright legislation with the rights of the individual is admirable, but not if it attempts to transfer even more sovereignty of those individuals to yet another organ of state.

The Free Software Act is a good idea, but it will probably take years, or even decades, to get it enacted. Meanwhile, it is necessary to protect the IP owned by the open source community using the existing legal structure.

The GPL is adequate protection against those who would try to modify GPLd programs without honoring its terms. We need additional protection against those who would try to claim ownership of programs they don't distributed, probably by means of patents.

I think that the best protection for this would be a patent portfolio, to be used for cross licensing.