🚀 go-pugleaf

[Yeah...LPF != FSF, but this seemed as good a place as any.]

The literature the LPF sends out says they need members - both those
who want to get actively involved and those who just pay dues so they
can do their work.  In the past, I was content to be member type #2.
The recent SCO/Lotus settlement has motivated me to try to be a member
type #1.

What is very troubling is that my decision was reached Monday, a couple
of email messages were sent that day, and here we are Thursday with
not a peep out of them.  One of those messages mentioned that I would
be talking to the Austin UNIX User's Group briefly about the problem
of software copyrights, and I wanted to get my hands on some of the
LPF literature - offering to pay the costs and a FedEx number for
shipping.  Well...here it is, the day of the meeting, and I guess I'll
be speaking without LPF's support.

Yeah...I know these folks aren't getting paid for their work.  Still,
volunteer labor is not an excuse for ineffectiveness.  There are a whole
bunch of people I talk to who are concerned that the problem of software
copyrights has now moved from the DOS world to the UNIX world.  In this
past week, I think two of those folks have been convinced to join LPF.

Now I'm not sure I feel comfortable I did the right thing.  When I
talk to 60 people tonight, should I urge them to send membership dues
into a black hole?  I support the goals of LPF, and I would like to
support LPF itself.  I just wish they didn't make it so hard to do
so.  If anybody has an idea what is going on or if this problem is
going to get fixed, please let me know.  I sincerely hope this is a
story which gets a happy ending.

-- 
Chip Rosenthal  512-482-8260  |  Closed user interfaces for open systems?
Unicom Systems Development    |  No, thank you.
<chip@chinacat.Unicom.COM>    |  Boycott Lotus Development Corp.