Discussion February 2008

discussion@lists.fsfe.org

45 participants
43 discussions

Re: Freedom or Copyright? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)
by Matthias-Christian Ott 11 Feb '08

11 Feb '08

"David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 11/02/2008, Matthias-Christian Ott <ott(a)enolink.de> wrote: > > Stefan Meretz <stefan.meretz(a)hbv.org> wrote: > > > > It means that successful competition is reached by cooperation. The > > > competition is not won on the old field, but by opening a new field. > > > Example: Encyclopedia Britannica was out-cooperated by Wikipedia, not > > > by competiting on the old proprietary field, but by opening a new field > > > of free cooperation. And of course: Free software is on the way of > > > out-cooperating proprietary software. > > > But this requires people who believe in Free Software and Wikipedia. > > > Er, what? Both are growing in the market, not just in a small world of > predefined terms. Come on, loot at it seriously - from the perspective of the average Joe. He doesn't know what Wikipedia or Free Software is, he just knows that Wikipedia is his first entry on his google search page. Do you think he has realised the philosophical dimensions of Wikipedia or Free Software and believes in it? > - d. Regards Matthias-Christian

1 0

Fwd: Freedom or Copyright? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)
by David Gerard 11 Feb '08

11 Feb '08

To list as well ... ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> Date: 11 Feb 2008 19:13 Subject: Re: Freedom or Copyright? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF) To: Matthias-Christian Ott <ott(a)enolink.de> On 11/02/2008, Matthias-Christian Ott <ott(a)enolink.de> wrote: > Stefan Meretz <stefan.meretz(a)hbv.org> wrote: > > It means that successful competition is reached by cooperation. The > > competition is not won on the old field, but by opening a new field. > > Example: Encyclopedia Britannica was out-cooperated by Wikipedia, not > > by competiting on the old proprietary field, but by opening a new field > > of free cooperation. And of course: Free software is on the way of > > out-cooperating proprietary software. > But this requires people who believe in Free Software and Wikipedia. Er, what? Both are growing in the market, not just in a small world of predefined terms. - d.

1 0

Fwd: [ORG-discuss] European Commission to exclude Open Source developers with patented standards?
by David Gerard 11 Feb '08

11 Feb '08

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Glyn Wintle <glynwintle(a)yahoo.com> Date: 7 Feb 2008 10:40 Subject: [ORG-discuss] European Commission to exclude Open Source developers with patented standards? To: Open Rights Group open discussion list <org-discuss(a)lists.openrightsgroup.org> http://www.digitalmajority.org/forum/t-39739/european-commission-to-exclude… The European Commission is organizing next week in Brussels a conference on "European ICT standardisation policy at a crossroads: A new direction for global success". Among the papers in discussion for this conference, one paper suggests to allow RAND standards as general policy. The European Commission seems to listen to the big industry who contributed to the discussion paper. RAND standards (such as h264 or MPEG2) are a way to exclude FLOSS developers, because they require royalty payments that developers cannot afford. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs _______________________________________________ ORG-discuss mailing list ORG-discuss(a)lists.openrightsgroup.org http://lists.openrightsgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/org-discuss

3 2

Boycott Trend Micro
by Wiebe van der Worp 11 Feb '08

11 Feb '08

As you probably know ScriptumLibre (branch of Vrijschrift) is calling for a boycott of Trend Micro. I would like to ask you to spread the news and to support the action. http://www.scriptumlibre.org/Call_for_IT_Professionals says: ------ Take action * Read about the Trend Micro's patent attack on ClamAV [1] * Blog about, and encourage others to boycott Trend Micro * Email lists, IT-decision makers, and potential supporters. * Contact the media with our press release [2] * Translate the press release [3] * Joining the mailing list [4] * Put banners on your site The patent attack [1] on ClamAV by Trend Micro is simply unacceptable. We must boycott Trend Micro, and we must act urgently and aggressively. A final note: software patent attacks are a problem for both copyleft and copyright developers so please make this boycott as wide as possible. Thank you for helping! [1] A good starting point is the boycott page: http://www.scriptumlibre.org/Boycott_Trend_Micro [2] The Press Release: http://www.scriptumlibre.org/Press_Release_Boycott_Trend_Micro [3] Create a user account at http://www.scriptumlibre.org/ and request write rights via office(a)scriptumlibre.org or mail it [4] Mail-list: http://mailman.scriptumlibre.org/admin/kern-int ------ What is important right now are translations of the press release.

2 4

RE: FDL requirements for original author
by Sam Liddicott 11 Feb '08

11 Feb '08

Thanks for posting the debian osition statement. I didn't know thw GFDL was that deficient, but it clearly is. Chers to those who contributed on debian-legal. I'm of the opinion that documents are open to interpretation and processing by man or machine just as software, and the cloaking of software as a literary work for the purpose of crypto-export is an interesting examle; however we've had these discusions before - but I wonder where we'd be if Knuths classic works were GFDL. My only explanation is that GFDL is written to solve a problem that isn't widely known yet... Sam -----Original Message----- From: Ben Finney <ben(a)benfinney.id.au> Sent: 09 February 2008 01:36 To: discussion(a)fsfeurope.org Subject: Re: FDL requirements for original author On 08-Feb-2008, David Gerard wrote: > GFDL is free by all measures if you don't use invariant sections and > so forth, isn't it? Does anyone dispute that? Unmodifiable sections (not merely those the license calls "Invariant Sections") are only the most prominent of the problematic issues of the FDL. Even if a specific work does not exercise those parts of the license, the other problems remain. "Draft Debian Position Statement about the GNU Free Documentation License" Not ratified, but does cover many of the problems with the freedom of works under the FDL. <URL:http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.xhtml> "A Simple Guide to the Problems of the GNU FDL" <URL:http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl> Many of the remaining problems have to do with the license attempting to have "documentation" distinct from "program", even though there are many works that are clearly both (e.g. Postscript documents). It's unfortunate that some within the FSF choose to interpret "software" as equivalent to "program", instead of the more tenable position that "software" is a term as opposed to "hardware". This leads to the even worse position that documentation recipients deserve freedoms different from the freedoms deserved by recipients of programs. -- \ “Rightful liberty is unobstructed action, according to our | `\ will, within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of | _o__) others.” —Thomas Jefferson | Ben Finney <ben(a)benfinney.id.au>

5 6

Re: Freedom or Copyright? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)
by agger＠modspil.dk 11 Feb '08

11 Feb '08

> > The need to clear the rights for the background advertisements, music > which > may be playing nearby, and even copyrighted facades and monuments kills > the > project. > > So the low-budget film-maker doesn't exist (because of copyright). This > has > the knock-on effect that there is no market for reasonably priced > equipment > and related services. I don't think this is a big problem in Denmark, where the only overhead is the actual costs - music playing in the background, backgrouns ads etc. are all "reasonable occurrences" here; nor in many other countries? Is it in Belgium? Then Belgian copyright law needs to be mended (or the law that allows businesses to put up billboards anywhere needs to be mended :-)). br Carsten -- http://www.modspil.dk

1 0

Free Web App Co-operative
by Jonathan Roberts 11 Feb '08

11 Feb '08

Hi, I'm currently floating this idea around a few places and thought people here might be interested. We're trying to get together a small group interested in starting a hosted web apps co-operative where the key principles are openness and using entirely free software to build and run it. Initially we're probably going to target e-mail, calendaring and rss but this is open to discussion. The entire idea is open to discussion and the purpose of this now is to get together a group interested in discussing this and taking it forwards. I think it could be financially very reasonable for a group as small as 10. If you're interested in becoming involved with something like this feel free to reply to this thread or contact me of list. The next step will be cc'ing together an interested group where will begin figuring out implementations etc... Best wishes, Jonathan Roberts

1 0

Re: Boycott Trend Micro
by Sean DALY 11 Feb '08

11 Feb '08

Further information concerning Trend Micro and Barracuda can be found here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080125135544713 > Message du 11/02/08 10:56 > De : "Wiebe van der Worp" > A : "Sam Liddicott" > Copie à : discussion(a)fsfeurope.org > Objet : Re: Boycott Trend Micro > > Sam Liddicott wrote: > > The argumentof that website seems to be to boycott Trend Micro because it uses software patents whiich are all bogus. > > ... one of the arguments but I guess you base your opinion on what you > read at the boycott main page... > > > The argument is to weak to take beyond those who already opose software patents. > > > > The counter argument is that they are doing their best to work legitimately in a broken system and any 3rd party is bound to conclude that a differing of opinion on software patents (a matter they had not considered before) hardly warrants a boycott. > > > > I think a stronger and clearer case needs making that on that website. > > Ok, the press release covers more arguments > http://www.scriptumlibre.org/Press_Release_Boycott_Trend_Micro > > But if you think it is important to mention more arguments on the main > page that is possible of course. On the other hand there is a logical > order top down on that page I don't want to disturb. I.e. teaser > (cartoon), short intro (yes, no depth), act, learn more, stay up to date. > _______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list > Discussion(a)fsfeurope.org > https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > >

1 0

Re: Freedom or Copyright? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)
by agger＠modspil.dk 11 Feb '08

11 Feb '08

> > Alex Hudson <home(a)alexhudson.com> writes: >> For example, even the cheapest independent film is realistically going >> to cost ~$100k. > > This is a bad example since the only reason films cost so much is because > copyright law has become completely broken due to the lobbying of a small > number of very rich companies. > I don't think this has anything to do with copyright - production costs, i.e. props, fuel, film, equipment, salaries for actors, salaries for musicians, etc., easily run to $100,000 even for a very cheap production. best regards, Carsten -- http://www.modspil.dk

1 0

RE: Freedom or Copyright? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)
by Sam Liddicott 09 Feb '08

09 Feb '08

If there were no copyright there would be 1001 dodgy binaries foisted in ignorant users with no source. I like copyright + copyleft, it MAKES people play fair or not at all. Sam -----Original Message----- From: Ben Finney <ben(a)benfinney.id.au> Sent: 09 February 2008 01:53 To: discussion(a)fsfeurope.org Subject: Re: Freedom or Copyright? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF) On 08-Feb-2008, Carsten Agger wrote: > If copyright is abolished, then there's no more GPL. What about > that? That's fine. The GPL uses the term "copyleft" deliberately: its goal is to *give back* to recipients of works what copyright takes away. In other words, if copyright truly did not exist, and everyone had the same freedoms (and more) in every work, not just those that have such freedoms explicitly granted by the GPL, then there would no longer need to be a GPL. That would be a good day. -- \ "I was in the grocery store. I saw a sign that said 'pet | `\ supplies'. So I did. Then I went outside and saw a sign that | _o__) said 'compact cars'." -- Steven Wright | Ben Finney <ben(a)benfinney.id.au>

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

Discussion February 2008