-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi guys
I wanted to update you with regards the FAQ for giving talks about Free
Software.
There is a new section on the fellowship site for advocacy. At the
moment you'll find the English version of the FAQ there. We also have
the FAQ in the following languages:
- - German
- - French
- - Spanish
- - Italian
- - Bulgarian
Someone offered to do a Turkish translation and I'm waiting on that.
I've also been cheeky and asked a Japanese friend to do a Japanese
translation. Ditto Chinese Mandarin and Chinese Cantonese.
The translations of the FAQ are waiting on an update to the followship
CMS board system to allow all the characters to display properly.
Now, regarding the advocacy section of the site: I want to add a lot
more material there to help people spread the word about Free Software.
Suggestions and material welcome!
Regards
Shane
- --
Shane Martin Coughlan
e: shane(a)opendawn.com
m: +447773180107 (UK) +353862262570 (Ire)
w: www.opendawn.com
- ---
OpenPGP: http://www.opendawn.com/shane/publickey.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iQCVAwUBRNHjLtwG3M95JPpzAQio9wP+PcDlPsZcnc/U2nGXB0VHHdX7Pf8rGmdy
jiWTPXFiOTjMMZ/G3HeHlkX1d3G6ojuNAFD6+RVtkp3CWtOLVCDXm4IPrhjEc1Nk
4hWosjy4xTJYNkx7cDc5eFNTCKW9CJPAanLwQpGrHQYY1r27BXyxsWkF1GNMCb5x
kSGpJoL+8Wo=
=WijR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hello,
Denmark's parliament has voted for open standards
(http://things.dk/?p=3) but Denmark's national standards body still
supports OOXML. Are there any people here from Denmark that are going
to take action against such decisions of the standards body?
BTW I am going to take part in the german NIA-34 panel that discusses
OOXML. Participation of more people would be great. People from the
public sector does not even have to pay anything. All others have to
pay around 1000 Euro per year. The subscription form is available at
http://www.nia.din.de/sixcms/detail.php?id=5232 .
Best Regards,
Torsten
--
blog: http://twerner.blogspot.com/
homepage: http://www.twerner42.de/
Hi all
I was considering switching to use GNU Emacs for editing, I have heard
good things about it.
There appears to be a printed manual available from the GNU's web page.
Only $20, roughly £10 (I'm British).
Not bad for a tenner, apart from one HUGE problem.
Shipping. To get it shipped outside of the U.S. you have to authorize
the FSF to add any amount they chose for shipping, without telling you
what is. Surely I can't be the only one who thinks this is highly
suspicious? In fact I am suspecting that it may even be illegal under
the jurisdiction I reside in.
In fact reading from government legislation:
> Information required prior to the conclusion of the contract
> 7. - (1) Subject to paragraph (4), in good time prior to the conclusion of
> the contract the supplier shall -
> (a) provide to the consumer the following information -
> (iii) the price of the goods or services including all taxes;
> (iv) delivery costs where appropriate;
From: The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000
<http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2000/20002334.htm>
Usefully there is no mention of jurisdiction that I can see. Either
way I find it extremely risky to give consent for an unknown fee. In
fact it is the kind of thing I would have expected to see from con
artists, however the security certificate confirms it is the FSF.
As the FSFEurope is a "sister" organisation to the FSF I thought they
might sell the item I was after, they don't. And worse the things they
do sell they sell via email. Did email magically become more secure
while I was sleeping?
No wonder businesses don't take free software seriously when it is
promoted by organisations who can't even setup a proper online store.
Once again the Gnu decide the non-Americans are not worthy of using
free software.
Also do the Gnu get more or less money from directly selling manuals
than if I bought it from another vendor (such as Amazon)?
Thanks
Chi3 has finally completed his transfer to a new hosting provider.
We have also updated our website: http://www.chi3.org/en
Unlock your skills!
--
email: arc (at) fsfe.org
website: http://www.chi3.org
*I DELETE EMAIL* with html, ms office formats, files >1Mb
*DON'T WRITE ME FROM GMAIL ACCOUNTS*
Does anybody know what happened to that site? Someone to contact with
at least to explain why it disappeared or is it likely to be restored
in the near future?
Hi all,
just came accross this article about IBMs "OpenClient" on Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/12/ibm-open-source-tech-enter-cz_dl_0212ibm.h…
this once more proves how right we are to talk about Free Software!
Regards, Myriam
--
Protect your freedom, join the Fellowship of FSFE!
http://www.fsfe.org
Please don't send me proprietary file formats,
use ISO standard ODF instead (ISO/IEC 26300)
Hello. Argh. I've written too much again, i'll try to underline some
sections with "!>" so you can skip the rest:
!>I've read that a software license has been published by the EU
!>to cover software made by or for public administration that is
!>freed by EU governments.
!>
!>It's at:
!>http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/6523
!>
!>I haven't found it at
!>http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html
!>
!>An I've read the license, the preamble and the explanation on
!>the compatibility clause (without reading the reports it cites).
!>
!>The license is all right with me, until I get to an strange
!>twist:
!>
!> The European Commission may put into force translations and/or binding new
!> versions of this Licence, so far this is required and reasonable. New versions of the
!> Licence will be published with a unique version number. The new version of the
!> Licence becomes binding for You as soon as You become aware of its publication.
!>
I've seen similar clauses in some propietary licenses (for demos or betas at least).
I'm not an expert on software copyright or licenses, but
I've never seen a free software license that can expire, and
as I see it, this clause means that the moment that the European
Commission changes its mind, I can lose my right to use , modify
or redistribute the software. I think the CEC has several means
to make sure that I (or anyone) is made aware of the change
of license (for instace with a certified letter, a visit by some
officer, or simply widespread propaganda, but in any case easily
done previous to a lawsuit).
!> That wouldn't be free software
I certainly have no trust in any license than can be so easily
revoked (and I suspect it wouldn't be DFSG either, but I haven't
checked and I have bad memory). Any investment in work or learning
with software that I don't know if it will be free tomorrow is
nearly wasted. I'm not sure it would be even legal to take
away the granted rights, but I've seen it in other licenses, so
it might well be.
I'm relieved to find that confirmed in the free software definition at
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html :
In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as
long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has the
power to revoke the license, without your doing anything to give
cause, the software is not free.
I could understand people who publish their software under GPL version
X only and those who trust FSF enough to publish under GPL version X
or later. But it's always version X or later as the user chooses, not as the
publisher or FSF chooses at a later moment in time, just by making
people aware of the change.
I also don't know whether this clause was already in EUPL v 0.2 or is new.
I hadn't checked v 0.2. Today's news just happen to reach me in a moment
I could spare some minutes to read the license.
I hope I'm missing something here and... well I don't know, maybe there's
some binding compromise somewhere that the EU cannot change the EUPL
to grant less than some minimum freedoms, come what may, or so, but I
don't see it. I know governments can change law and therefore can
take away freedoms even without changing the licenses in their software,
but well, that would at least require some legislative maneuvring and
some votes somewhere (just don't get me started on democracy and the EU).
Of course the same concern I have may be shared by any public administration
that the EUPL aims to serve. Will my local council use software by a
neighbour local council if the permission to use it may be revoked at
any time by the European Comission ? Will any business help my local
council adapt software under EUPL if their legal ability to conclude the
project is dependent on a change of political tides in Brussels ?
Is that sound policy ?
Just thought I'd ask in case someone here is aware and can clarify
my confusion.