[DotGNU]Re: FW: http://www.projectliberty.org/

[S11001001]

James Michael DuPont wrote (well, actually, projectliberty wrote):
> Create a network identity infrastructure that supports all current and
> emerging network access devices 
> The Liberty Alliance is comprised of over 60 member companies
> representing a wide variety of industries and over a billion customers,
> with operations all over the globe. Each of the member companies either

I question, in light of the recent infighting in WS-I 
<http://subscribe.dotgnu.info/pipermail/developers/2002-July/003602.html>, 
that these companies truly `represent' their customers.

I presume that by saying "represent" they intend to imply "represent the 
interests of." The RIAA certainly doesn't represent the interests of its 
member companies' customers. Neither does the MPAA. And WIPO most 
definitely does not represent the citizens of countries that adhere to 
its rules.

Now, comparing LA to these groups is somewhat harsh, but the lesson is 
there: one group must never control any one medium, no matter how open 
its membership is.

> owns and operates large communities of interest or is the developer of
> core technology that can enable a federation of online communities.
> However, membership in the Alliance is still open and all organizations
> are invited and encouraged to join.

Also, the Liberty Alliance's auth system is welcome to be integrated as 
a pluggable DotGNU auth system, as always.

Also, I believe there was sometime back discussion on LA becoming a DG 
auth system, and also there was discussion of the spec release on the 
auth mailing list.

--
Stephen Compall
DotGNU `Contributor' -- http://65.194.192.130

From time to time, companies have said to us, "We would make an
improved version of this program if you allow us to release it without
freedom." We say, "No thanks--your improvements might be useful if
they were free, but if we can't use them in freedom, they are no good
at all." Then they appeal to our egos, saying that our code will have
"more users" inside their proprietary programs. We respond that we
value our community's freedom more than an irrelevant form of
popularity.
        -- RMS, "The GNU GPL and the American Way"