In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, jean-paul@argudo.org (Jean-Paul Argudo) transmitted:
> How PostgreSQL can tell on the main website
> " The world's most advanced open source database "
>
> ... *and* not defending Open source from its major threat: patents?
>
> This seems schyzophrenic to me.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me that those are two quite separate
matters, only one of which is forcibly relevant to PostgreSQL.
I see no problem with people contributing to the EFF as well, or with
them choosing to lobby against what may seem to be patent abuse of
patents.
But I _do_ have a problem with tying such to the PostgreSQL project
when it certainly is possible that people may feel differently about
the issue.
Perhaps the EFF isn't the best organization for dealing with the
European situation as it's somewhat US-centric; that's another reason
to shy away...
I am similarly not enthralled with situations where unions wind up
collecting fees from members and then using them to sponsor other
political movements. If members are interested, they can participate
individually, which rather represents a stronger expression of
interest. I have known cases where unions chose to donate to causes
that some members distinctly _didn't_ support, and that leads to
problems.
For the situation to remain "fair," it would also be appropriate for
political contributions to only have any sort of "tax deductibility"
if given by individuals. Which would rather hamper donations being
given in 'corporate' manners, whether by unions or by for-profit
corporations. (And possibly one should s/individuals/voters/g ...)
For an organization like PGDG that _isn't_ politically activist in
nature (and that arguably isn't clearly defined for legal purposes) to
steer clear of political activism doesn't seem particularly
schizophrenic to me...
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://cbbrowne.com/info/slony.html
Microsoft: The Scientology of Computing