[senko]

> We already know that Copilot as it stands is unacceptable and unjust [...]. Activists wonder if there isn't something fundamentally unfair about a proprietary software company building a service off their work.

> We will read the submitted white papers, and we will publish ones that we think help elucidate the problem.

Doesn't give me hope they're aiming for unbiased opinion. I would be very surprised if any of the published papers don't closely align with FSFs apriori position.

[nescioquid]

It sounds like they have a legal premise and they want to work out the implications, not to open up discussion to every quibble about the FSF's values. Having an opinion on the legal issues around their licenses and values seems sort of essential to what the organization does.

The word "unbiased" seems to be doing a lot of heavy work in your comment. The FSF is inherently biased towards its project -- how is that a problem?

[senko]

> The word "unbiased" seems to be doing a lot of heavy work in your comment. The FSF is inherently biased towards its project -- how is that a problem?

That's straw-man, I never said (nor do I think) FSF should not be biased towards its project.

However, I would be more willing to trust the results of this call if I had confidence that all solid arguments are presented, even if they're not aligned with FSF's agenda. Hiding them won't make them disappear - you might as well get as informed as possible about the issue, especially if you care deeply about the issue and agree with the FSF.

[kelnos]

Well, sure. They're looking for legal support for their position. They're not pretending to be an unbiased, disinterested observer.

[user-the-name]

The part you removed is the crucial part that explains that paragraph.