Why the ads? [LWN.net]

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 13, 2006 19:57 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (guest, #14462)
Parent article: Open Source Parking

I'm not at all an expert on the topic, but surely there are other ways of funding and supporting this initiative? OSDL?

to post comments

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 13, 2006 20:36 UTC (Thu) by b7j0c (guest, #27559) [Link] (1 responses)

why would the OSDL blow its money running domain squats?

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 13, 2006 20:43 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link]

Exactly. Some explanation of the financial details and the organisation that's going to be funded seems in order.

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 13, 2006 23:29 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (18 responses)

I guess you mean funding the PAC, not funding the parking site. OSDL is the exact wrong party to ask to fund the PAC, because their steering board includes many companies that support software patenting, one of the main issues the PAC would work on. IBM, for example, brought the lawsuit that made software patenting possible in the U.S., and has lobbied heavily for it in Europe and elsewhere. Indeed, if you look at OSDL's board roster, it's easy to see that their interests and those of the Open Source developers can never coincide on the software patenting issue.

Thanks

Bruce

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 14, 2006 11:03 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (16 responses)

I guess I mean both the PAC and the parking site, you state on the website itself that the money is going to be used for both.

I am not sure whether throwing money at politicians is the way to go, especially in the struggle with software patents, and whether a parkingsite is the appropriate way of raising funds.

You seem to want to take on both Microsoft and IBM, and you do that by setting up a commercial parkingsite that's going to fund a kind of organisation that -- to me, I am not extremely familiar with the US political lobbying system -- sounds like it could be somewhat responsible for the IP mess in the first place. Maybe you're trying to infiltrate the system through the sewer.

I just don't like the idea that in order to achieve our noble goals we should have to resort to rather shady tactics. Especially considering the reason for all this, which has nothing to do at all with patents or Free Software. Microsoft buys statistics like you and I do the groceries.

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 14, 2006 16:46 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (13 responses)

Well, your objection sounds in part like politics is dirty.

And yes, we are fighting dirty politics and we have to do it while not resorting to some of their tactics - for example we aren't out to use proxies and deny them the way Microsoft uses SCO, BSA, and a number of other organizations.

However, the main thing we are going after is representation. We're not well-represented in Washington - except by folks who don't necessarily share our agenda. Correcting that is simply participating in democracy. There's nothing dirty about it.

There's also the ugh, I wouldn't want to do that stuff aspect, which is heard from many geek types. Frankly, I'd rather be programming. But I'm afraid of losing the right to program.

Bruce

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 15, 2006 11:03 UTC (Sat) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (12 responses)

But I'm afraid of losing the right to program.

I am still having trouble linking Microsoft buying Netcraft statistics to sentiments like this. It sounds like politics to me.

Your way with words seems to confirms that. I am not falling for the "politics is dirty" bit, and I wish you wouldn't try to coax me into believing you're doing the right thing.

Just show it to me.

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 15, 2006 20:18 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (11 responses)

There are two things here that are only connected by the fact that #1 is a good thing to do and can produce money and #2 is really important to do and needs money to get done.

The domain parking thing takes some wind out of Microsoft's sails in an area that they think is important. As a side-effect, it can produce income.

I'm sure you noticed, but we are in really deep s**t regarding the software patent situation, and it will probably end up effecting our right to program very severely. I will not belabor this point unless you ask me to. Our biggest corporate friends aren't necessarily our friends at all where this is concerned. And they maintain permanent lobbies in Washington. I have been to visit congress members with people from HP and Compaq's permanent lobbying staff, and I've met the IBM folks. They are good, and there are a lot of them, and they have big budgets.

Who represents us in that way? A guy named Will Rodger who only does it part time and whose organization won't commit to quite all of the fights that need fighting, a lady named Gigi Sohn who has more issues to take care of than just Open Source and is limited by the 501(c)3 status of her organization, maybe some people from EFF but I hardly ever hear about it, once in a while me, and a few other dedicated people who appear on occassion like Eben Moglen but sure aren't there on a day-to-day basis. We need to do better. We need to have full-timers on site who can build relationships.

How do the two get connected? If I had money to use to further Open Source, the PAC is what I'd do with it. The parking stuff is one way to make money.

Also, I would humbly ask you to look at my history. I've tried to do the best I can for Open Source, for quite a long time now. Not all of my ideas are successful, but you don't succeed if you don't try, and my success ratio is pretty good.

So, you want me to show you. Perhaps the best way would be for you to wait a while.

Bruce

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 16, 2006 9:49 UTC (Sun) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (10 responses)

The domain parking thing takes some wind out of Microsoft's sails in an area that they think is important. As a side-effect, it can produce income.

Simple statistics tells me that as long as you keep parking sites on a non-Apache webserver, Microsoft will gladly take the reward for your efforts. You might also want to point out specifically that migrating idle sites that are already hosted by Apache (which is not unlikely) off of them is great news for Microsoft's Netcraft stats, as well as your income.

Our biggest corporate friends aren't necessarily our friends at all where this is concerned. And they maintain permanent lobbies in Washington.

As far as PACs are concerned, I'd worry about the dentists, not IBM and HP. PACs are not the only way to become influential in Washington, I believe.

More importantly: the software patents problem is not related to Free Software other than that it affects all programmers. It is also part of the bigger patent problem, where the pharmaceutical industry kicks in. I am not sure whether they'd be very impressed by the arrival of the Free Software PAC men.

The question of how exactly this battle should be fought by Free Software proponents is therefore a quite important one, especially given the fact that companies such as IBM and HP are very much involved in it in a way that you and I are not. I'm quite sure organisations such as EFF and OSDL have thought and are thinking about that question very hard, and are doing the best they can to make progress solving this difficult political problem.

Also, I would humbly ask you to look at my history. I've tried to do the best I can for Open Source, for quite a long time now. Not all of my ideas are successful, but you don't succeed if you don't try, and my success ratio is pretty good.

I appreciate and benefit from your efforts, but, looking at your history, I'm not sure political manoeuvring in Washington is one of your more successful fields of interest.

So, you want me to show you. Perhaps the best way would be for you to wait a while.

Okidoki. Good luck! (Really!)

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 16, 2006 12:15 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (9 responses)

Simple statistics tells me that as long as you keep parking sites on a non-Apache webserver, Microsoft will gladly take the reward for your efforts.

Uh-huh. I will probably have to change to apache.

More importantly: the software patents problem is not related to Free Software other than that it affects all programmers.

The economic structure of Free Software, particularly the fact that we don't charge copyright royalties, makes the problem worst for us.

It is also part of the bigger patent problem, where the pharmaceutical industry kicks in. I am not sure whether they'd be very impressed by the arrival of the Free Software PAC men.

If software has to be under the same rules as drugs, the pharmaceutical industry is going to have a lot to say about it. But that shows one way out of the particular problem of the pharmaceutical industry. Nobody in the Free Software camp should be swayed by "the other guy is too big to compete with" arguments, we've disproved that one before.

I'm quite sure organisations such as EFF and OSDL have thought and are thinking about that question very hard

You don't have to rely on me for this. Ask Dan Ravicher about OSDL's efforts.

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 16, 2006 15:05 UTC (Sun) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (8 responses)

Uh-huh. I will probably have to change to apache.

Given your stated reasons for putting up an Open Source parking site, this seems an essential part of the plan, yes. Are you going to fake Apache headers?

The economic structure of Free Software, particularly the fact that we don't charge copyright royalties, makes the problem worst for us.

There is no "economic structure of Free Software". There is a simple statement in the GPL that cannot be reconciled with the current concept of software patents. But let's not go through that here now, that's not what this is about.

Let's face it. The PAC has been tried before, didn't work. I'd say this is a dead-end road, but you are of course welcome to give it another shot.

The only thing I find strange, is that for someone who is so experienced as you are, both in all things Open Source as well as entrepeurship, you are making some really odd moves.

For instance, why didn't you contact the Apache people first? It seems so obvious. Or is that just me? And why not be extremely open with respect to the money, from the start? Or am I wrong in thinking that, even though your organization cannot be a non-profit one, all of the profit simply goes to the good cause? I mean, the financial side of all this is not extremely complicated, is it? You could at least try to answer the obvious questions and be done with it.

You don't have to rely on me for this.

No, I didn't. :-)

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 16, 2006 18:12 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (7 responses)

Are you going to fake Apache headers?

You mean like this:

Apache 2.0 (compatible; Lighttpd 1.4.6)

[Note: joke is specific to people who read browser logs]

There is no "economic structure of Free Software". There is a simple statement in the GPL that cannot be reconciled with the current concept of software patents.

First, the GPL is not all Free Software. Even the BSD license contains an implicit patent grant. This is a legal conversation we should probably not carry on here.

Second, economics is everything in this, because there are people who want us to pay for the right to make software, and we can't, and OSDL will never be able to, and IBM and HP neither could, nor want to.

I'd say this is a dead-end road, but you are of course welcome to give it another shot.

In a few years there may be no Free Software, if we don't take action.

For instance, why didn't you contact the Apache people first?

When did you last see Apache exercising any leadership in the Free Software community? They very strictly stay to the mission of generating code. Because of their structure and membership, they can't do anything about this as an organization. Individual members can and will have opinions and I am happy to discuss it with them.

It seems so obvious. Or is that just me?

Well, it may be experience. But I don't know who you are, and thus have no idea to judge your experience.

And why not be extremely open with respect to the money, from the start?

I am entirely open about money. I have laid out my plans for structure and how to spend it.

Or am I wrong in thinking that, even though your organization cannot be a non-profit one, all of the profit simply goes to the good cause?

I have already said that a small amount of money would go to operations and the rest to forming the PAC. I don't know what else can be added to that.

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 16, 2006 19:14 UTC (Sun) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (4 responses)

You mean like this:
Apache 2.0 (compatible; Lighttpd 1.4.6)

Yes, that's what I meant. What I don't understand is why, apparently, the thought of getting people with bandwidth and Apache servers involved in this didn't come quite naturally to you. No need for an unrelated ad-campaign and epic goals.

When did you last see Apache exercising any leadership in the Free Software community? They very strictly stay to the mission of generating code.

This is not about leadership, it is about decency. You are using them.

I am entirely open about money. I have laid out my plans for structure and how to spend it.

What happens when you haul in a couple of grand and there is no and will not be a PAC? How much do you charge per hour? What happens if the money runs out? Those are things one can put down quite generally, and it's very simple. In fact, it's something that most organizations manage to do well before going into business. If you have a financial policy readily available, I'd be happy to receive a pointer to it.

But instead of taking the enterpreneurial route you might have also chosen to do it, if you allow me, the Open Source way: by getting people with actual Apache servers to shelter unused domains. That would have been my first instinct, if someone had forced me to come up with a solution for this "problem" of Netcraft statistics.

And let me see if I get this right.

Microsoft has every right to sell people their operating systems. They are going to get every ounce of publicity they can get out of the GoDaddy deal. Because statistics are stupid, this means they can claim many new brilliant installations of IIS. And they will.

You, on the other hand, set up a website that is not run by Apache, luring domain owners (regardless of what they are actually running on) to park idle domains with you. Then you put advertisements on those pages. People who haven't got the slightest idea about software patents are now going to click you closer to Washington DC, possibly through Open Source-friendly washing powder. You change your server configuration so it incorrectly displays "Apache 2.0", thereby actually changing and messing up webserver statistics, whoever gives a damn about them. You apparently don't think this will have consequences when Microsoft decides to go for the Netcraft statistics and its "Get the facts" campaign.

Hell, they'd actually be right for once.

And I'm nobody, Bruce. I'm just someone you represent.

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 16, 2006 21:42 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (3 responses)

This is not about leadership, it is about decency. You are using them.

Did anyone from Apache say that? I doubt they think so, and I feel your sentiment is over the top.

What happens when you haul in a couple of grand and there is no and will not be a PAC?

Then would be an appropriate time to raise rabble. For you to assume that I'll behave this way, given my history in the community, is to say the least uncharitable.

You seem to feel I'm incapable of setting up Apache, too, and build a theoretical structure that IMO is far from what an average Free Software Developer (and Developers are the ones who need the help) would say, and then claim to be one of the people I represent while remaining anonymous.

Dave Cinege gave me an attack like this some years ago while I was taking care of Debian funds. As far as I'm aware, I eventually was able to show him I wasn't a bad guy. I can't think of anything that would change your opinion but time.

Bruce

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 16, 2006 22:33 UTC (Sun) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (2 responses)

For you to assume that I'll behave this way, given my history in the community, is to say the least uncharitable.

Don't be so easily offended. I was trying to make some rather technical points and I think the ample opportunity you had to address them appropriately would excuse my rudeness, if you are inclined to take it that way. And I just want to know where the money goes, this is not the Spanish Inquisition. Obviously you have plenty of options, but you refuse to detail them. You are indeed completely open about the things you have already publicly stated.

You seem to feel I'm incapable of setting up Apache, too, and build a theoretical structure that IMO is far from what an average Free Software Developer (and Developers are the ones who need the help) would say, and then claim to be one of the people I represent while remaining anonymous.

My name is Buddy. There is nothing special about me. I choose the somewhat cryptic "hppnq" because my name is rather popular around where you live (I'm Dutch) and it looks nice when I turn my monitor upside down.

You are a self-proclaimed Open Source evangelist. I am a self-proclaimed Open Source convert. Surely you represent me.

I am very confident that you will manage to set up Apache. It is typical that you should worry about that, there's a pattern here. What I am worried about, and you know this perfectly well, is that you are just not going to do that.

I can't think of anything that would change your opinion but time.

Oh please.

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 17, 2006 0:10 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (1 responses)

OK, Buddy. I promise to report publicly on money. You can have my first report:

So far, there is no money and I am funding expenses out of my pocket. The only expense so far: I pay $200/month for a dedicated server running Debian and 2 terabytes/month of bandwidth, which supports Technocrat.net and various Open Source sites and has 24/7 supervision. So far OpenSourceParking is not more than 10% of that cost. The machine is not close to the bandwidth limit.

Ads are not running yet, only PSAs, as I feel it's important to build up the number of parked sites first. We need to get to 16 browser hits per minute around the clock to qualify for Adsense for Sites, although there are other venues and one company inquired about advertising directly.

Bruce

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 17, 2006 1:03 UTC (Mon) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link]

Not exactly what I asked for, and nothing new worth mentioning, but still appreciated. Let me pre-emptively add that, no, I don't just accept any answer, and yes, my joy is sincere.

This is beginning to sound like the Spanish Inquisition.

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, and don't take this the wrong way: you are not seriously going to address the other issues any more, are you?

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 16, 2006 20:59 UTC (Sun) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (1 responses)

Oh and yes, one more question: did you intend the pun on those faithful lighttpd developers? ;-)

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 16, 2006 21:43 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

I really like Lighttpd and am sad that I will not be able to use it for this project. That's all.

The big picture

Posted Apr 18, 2006 20:45 UTC (Tue) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] (1 responses)

[Thanks for explaining ``hppnq''. I've always been curious, but figured it had something to do with Hewlett-Packard. :-)]

Mr. Perens has covered the territory, but I'm hoping a different perspective may satisfy your concerns. I've collected quotations from your all your comments, for simplicity in responding.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - (Jon: It would be nice to have the <hr> tag.)

Some explanation of the financial details and the organisation that's going to be funded seems in order.

I see no need for a business plan, which would take more effort than simply trying out the idea. If any profit shows up, Mr. Perens's career is sufficient evidence that it'll be used appropriately. In the past, when action was needed, and he was able to finance it himself, he turned down money to do it. (Joining a standards committee to ensure Free Software was represented. Unfortunately, I can't find the pointer at the moment.)

I am not sure whether throwing money at politicians is the way to go

In this country there are only two ways of influencing politicians. One is vocal protest by tens (preferably hundreds or more) of thousands of citizens. (Witness the action on the immigration law changes.) While there may be multiple thousands who care about software patents, they're almost exclusively programmers, and are emphatically not a politically vocal lot.

The other way is money, both to contribute to campaigns and for advertising. Barring enlightenment of the citizenry, that's what we need to do.

I am not sure [...] whether a parkingsite is the appropriate way of raising funds.

Any way of raising funds is appropriate. (Well, maybe barring bank robbery...but don't tempt me.)

a kind of organisation that [...] sounds like it could be somewhat responsible for the IP mess in the first place.

A ``kind of organization'' isn't responsible. Perhaps a specific instance, but that's not germane to this PAC.

Microsoft buys statistics like you and I do the groceries.

Too true. But publicity is vital to getting an issue addressed. (See my comments about buying iPods for U.S. Senators.)

But I'm afraid of losing the right to program.
I am still having trouble linking Microsoft buying Netcraft statistics to sentiments like this. It sounds like politics to me.

As Mr. Perens points out, it is politics, and the only way to deal with politics is by politics. Every little bit of PR Microsoft can get is that much more leverage for them. Improving Netcraft's statistics factors into the patent fight. (MS lobbyist: ``But Free Software is marginal, see how they're losing in the marketplace.'' [Shows graph] ``They're beside the point; patents are necessary for fair competition.'')

It's the butterfly effect, and they'll collect all the butterflies they can.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That's the situation. Questions about asking the Apache Foundation, or worrying whether the parking site will fund Mr. Perens's vacation in Rio are truly beside the point.

Best wishes,
Max Hyre

Disclaimer: I've been listening to Mr. Perens since he was DPL (or whatever it was called before the constitution), and have immense respect for his aims and abilities. Free Software owes him a bunch.

The big picture

Posted Apr 19, 2006 22:29 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link]

Thanks for your thoughtful comments, Max. Let me try to summarize the situation as I see it.

Microsoft has made a perfectly legitimate deal with GoDaddy, one of the effects of which is that it shifts Netcraft statistics to their advantage. Because Netcraft statistics do not reveal idle domains, these statistics are very probably useless to anyone who is not a complete lunatic, but Microsoft will surely use them anyway to do their business.

The problem of software patents is a very difficult one. It involves having to convince a whole lot of people that they are wrong, or that they should care about something that means nothing to them. Plenty of organisations contribute to this effort, in their own way, maybe for their own reasons. It is a difficult playing field, and the ways in which players can be influenced are numerous. It is also intercontinental, I might add, by the way.

Bruce (Mr Perens to some ;-) has found a way to fight the first problem: why not convince domain owners to park idle domains on a non-Microsoft platform? Say: lighttpd. Hang on, we're going to end up in "Other". But we do want to make the technically correct choice: we'll fake the server to look like Apache. After all, this is a crucial part of the plan. We are not just doing the Apache Foundation a favour, we are taking on the giant, we have to protect our status as the most popular webserver.

(We are not going to tell the Apache people about this, obviously. Those hackers are too busy cranking out mod_lighttpd anyway. Especially Open Source leaders can afford to pull off an innocent prank like this. And it's not like the world really *cares* about Apache, it's software, dude. Now, please let me proceed before I lose my RIGHT TO PROGRAM, dammit.)

Wait a minute -- idle domains, software patents, ads, we could be on to something. We'll try to fund a PAC, in order to finally solve the problem of software patents in a way that has been discussed and tried before quite unsuccessfully. The thing to do now is to stay cool and *not* make any plans, let's concentrate on the money and the software patents. Don't forget the patents. We'll see what happens.

To avoid the possibility that anyone ever brings up difficult questions about business plans, and whether we are going to consider spending the money on a holiday in Rio, we'll be absolutely open about the money by revealing the average costs of internet access. Which, given our business plan -- sorry, inspiration, is a substantial percentage of the total turnover so that satisfies any requests about what happens to the rest of it. This is after all the least interesting bit of the whole deal, it's not like a PAC gives us any clear and ready strategy for funds. Problem solved.

Oh, the software patents, yes. Wait! And see!

<hr>

Yes, this is highly cynical (and Max, nothing personal against you, or Bruce for that matter -- it's strictly business). I'll wait to hear Microsoft's take on it, see what they make of it. Trust me: I am converted, but this time I can imagine how some of their facts might just seem to be, in fact... quite true.

I thought the original idea was to thwart Microsoft.

(Let me be absolutely clear on one point. I really don't care what happens to the money if the PAC doesn't make it and I certainly don't suspect Bruce of any bad intentions. I do find odd points in his logic, but I am fully prepared to accept the fact that I am mistaken. Of course I think it would help if I had a bit more to go on than "wait", "I'm not a bad guy" and some easily made and often repeated statements, but you are free to consider this to be a shortcoming on my part.)

Why the ads?

Posted Apr 20, 2006 19:07 UTC (Thu) by GreyWizard (guest, #1026) [Link]

What a fiendishly clever idea. Well done and good luck.

Funding

Posted Apr 13, 2006 23:37 UTC (Thu) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (11 responses)

User "hppnq" asked about financial details. There is no money today. The money collected would be banked for the purpose. When approximately $10K was collected, a not-for-profit corporation would be formed. It can't be a 501(c)3, because those can't collect money for a PAC. SPI can't do it for this reason, nor can EFF. So it would be a conventional corporation run not-for-profit. A few trusted folks in the community would be on the board, and more of them on the advisory board. As additonal money comes in, it will be used for lobbying and promotion of issues important to Open Source.

Why not use CCIA/OSAIA? They aren't willing to take on the software patenting issue as strongly as we need someone to take it on.

Thanks

Bruce

Funding

Posted Apr 14, 2006 11:22 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (8 responses)

All the organisations you have mentioned on this page actively support the battle against software patents: it seems like the inability to work with them is your own choice. Trying to convince me that they are not doing enough or are not effective enough -- do I taste despair? -- is not exactly bolstered by your proposed strategy, that has every sign of being as effective as a leaky screwdriver in a nuclear power plant.

Your financial strategy basically is "send me the money and I will take care of it". I hope you realise that most people get these requests per mail every day. And that there is a reason why organisations have financial policies.

Funding

Posted Apr 14, 2006 14:27 UTC (Fri) by dwheeler (guest, #1216) [Link] (7 responses)

But as Bruce noted above, those organizations CANNOT do certain things to work against software patents BECAUSE of the way they're organized. Therefore, there's a good reason to create another organization, to do things the others can't.

I would agree that if Bruce wants to manage a serious amount of money, then he needs to define more details about how the money will be used. But to be fair to him, he's just starting to get this thing off the ground; I get the impression that his short-term goal was simply to counter nonsense statistics. I suspect that when he realized a small amount of money might become available, that's when he noted his plans for any money.

Funding

Posted Apr 14, 2006 15:12 UTC (Fri) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (6 responses)

But as Bruce noted above, those organizations CANNOT do certain things to work against software patents BECAUSE of the way they're organized.

Yes, I got that.

Therefore, there's a good reason to create another organization, to do things the others can't.

No, not per se. That's one of the things that's bothering me. We could also rent a huge balloon and paint "Free Software Now" on it in big red capitals. You send me the cash, and I guarantee you it will at least fly. :-)

Funding

Posted Apr 14, 2006 16:57 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (3 responses)

If I pull this off, I would obviously want to work with people from FSF, EFF, Public Knowledge, etc. For their own reasons, those organizations are not choosing to do this work today.

It is possible for a 501(c)3, or at least the members of one, to create a not-for-profit foundation that is not a 501(c)3 and can do this work. For example, there is ARRL and the ARRL Foundation, two separate organizations working closely together.

EFF could conceivably do this, but is not. EFF is pretty stretched financially, as they historically were funded by one person who saw his wealth diminish in the stock bubble. FSF has other avenues it would rather pursue. I had lunch with Eben and the Freedom Law Center folks last week and discussed this thoroughly.

Thanks

Bruce

Funding

Posted Apr 16, 2006 10:07 UTC (Sun) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link] (2 responses)

I had lunch with Eben and the Freedom Law Center folks last week and discussed this thoroughly.

Yes, and the outcome was ...

By the way, what did the Apache people think of your plan?

Funding

Posted Apr 16, 2006 12:19 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (1 responses)

I don't want to say what Eben would spend money on, that's for him to announce.

I haven't discussed this with Apache folks yet.

Bruce

Funding

Posted Apr 16, 2006 15:37 UTC (Sun) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link]

I don't want to say what Eben would spend money on, that's for him to announce.

Ah, that's obviously not what I meant. But I'm not pushy. :-)

Funding

Posted Apr 15, 2006 17:25 UTC (Sat) by illtyd (guest, #2124) [Link] (1 responses)

hppnq:

Has Bruce asked you for any money? No

The only people being asked for money are potential advertisers on the parking site. IF you want to advertise there, then you can decide if you want to on the basis of value for money and whether you like the idea of the PAC. My guess is you aren't going to be advertising, so what does it matter to you what Bruce does with the money he gets from it.

Funding

Posted Apr 16, 2006 10:27 UTC (Sun) by hppnq (guest, #14462) [Link]

Your train of thought comes to a screeching halt at the first junction.

Bruce does ask me for money.

Why found another 501c(6)?

Posted Apr 14, 2006 16:40 UTC (Fri) by andrel (guest, #5166) [Link] (1 responses)

Bruce,

You've gone down this road before. What went wrong with GTPI?

Thanks,
--Andre

Why found another 501c(6)?

Posted Apr 14, 2006 16:59 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

The same thing that went wrong with Userlinux. I was attempting to support myself as an independent consultant and do all of that at the same time.

Bruce