Bruce,
When you say "everything that ARDC funds must be Open", as an observer, it makes me squirm in my seat just a little bit. First, there's nothing in their articles of incorporation about that, ref: https://www.ampr.org/wp-content/uploads/articles.pdf. I know that only means so much, and says nothing about it's membership and how they feel about things, but it is sufficient to say, that it funded at least one activity, namely the sale of some amateur IPs to a commercial entity, that many would argue is not an "Open" activity. I suppose exceptions can always be made when there are Mega-bucks involved :-). I get it. I completely understand Phils response and how it is an action of financial opportunity, which has and will continue to benefit the amateur community. Nothing more to say except high-five to Phil and his crew for being in the right place at the right time, maintaining good relationships and leveraging a resource at a good time! Quite the story, indeed!
Joseph Armbruster KJ4JIO
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 10:54 PM Bruce Perens [email protected] wrote:
On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 7:40 PM Joseph Armbruster < [email protected]> wrote:
If this figure is correct, can ARDC spare another, say... several million for a launch for AMSAT?
Yeah, probably. One thing you need to be clear about. Everything that ARDC funds must be Open. It's their rule. So, it's going to need some change in the direction of AMSAT.
I can't speak for the ARDC guys at all, but I know that some of them have reason to be upset with AMSAT and have said so. Over misdirected donations, and some organizational issues, and some of the technical direction, and definitely that "Open" thing.
I knew this was happening for a long time, and it was always close to my mind during the election discussion, and I could not talk about it. Now you might understand more of were I was coming from.
Thanks Bruce