Dear all,
In the spirit of full disclosure, let me start by pointing out that I am CEO
and - along with other employees, some of whom you will also know -
shareholder of Kolab Systems AG (https://kolabsystems.com) and that Kolab
Systems has been the driving force behind Roundcube for the past years.
Kolab Systems has also agreed to help the Roundcube Next team in its aim to
refactor and build the next technology generation.
So I am not neutral.
That said, I genuinely believe it is extremely important for the Free Software
community to get behind Roundcube Next and help us push it forward, as
well as bring others on board with it.
The longer story is here: http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=676
TL;DR, Part I: As a community we *require* technologies that compete with
Google Apps, Office 365 and the likes in features, convenience, UI/UX, yet
provide full control and freedom to users.
TL;DR, Part II: Application Service Providers should get on board with that
push *right now* because otherwise they will find themselves forced into
becoming re-sellers for Office 365 and Google Apps -- and increasingly
unable to compete with their features & networking effects.
Some already understood this, and have joined the Roundcube Next community,
such as cPanel (http://blog.cpanel.com/on-to-the-next/), Tucows, and now also
Fastmail (http://blog.fastmail.com/2015/06/05/fastmail-supports-roundcube-next-develo…).
But there are many more providers using Roundcube today who have not joined,
nor have they contributed in the past. For them it should be obvious to join.
And then there are those that have their own home-brew interfaces (such as
Fastmail) who get the unique opportunity to become part of a new, growing
community that will create a technology that will make them fully competitive
against the "big clouds" in 18 months from now.
Unfortunately, most of them have not realized this yet.
So unless your provider is cPanel, Tucows, Fastmail or Kolab Now, all of who
are part of this already, please encourage them to step up and join the
community to push for Roundcube Next.
Direct link for your convenience:
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/roundcube-next--2/x/4658765#/story
Best regards,
Georg
--
Georg C. F. Greve <greve(a)fsfeurope.org>
Member of the General Assembly
http://fsfe.org/about/greve/http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/http://identi.ca/greve
On 29 April there will be the Sharing and Reuse Award from the European
Commission in Lisbon. Together with ANSOL I'll be there. For the
preparation it would be very good if someone could have a look at the
shortlist (17 projects) for the award:
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/sharingandreuse/og_page/awards-contest
Would someone here be able to check if the solution they mentioned are:
1. Really Free Software
2. If the services could be run by yourself from the software side.
That would be very helpful in the preparation and communication by us
about the event.
Best Regards,
Matthias
--
Matthias Kirschner - President - Free Software Foundation Europe
Schönhauser Allee 6/7, 10119 Berlin, Germany | t +49-30-27595290
Registered at Amtsgericht Hamburg, VR 17030 | (fsfe.org/join)
Contact (fsfe.org/about/kirschner) - Weblog (k7r.eu/blog.html)
Hi everyone,
My small side project www.fossjobs.net was featured on HackerNews today,
which brought in a bunch of new nice job postings. I don't think I ever
posted the link here, so why not do it now, with all the fresh offers. :-)
In contrast to FSF's job board, listings are free on fossjobs, and the
site is also Free Software itself. ;-)
-- Moritz
Robert David Steele: CIA Uses 1000 of US Overseas Bases to Facilitate
the Smuggling of Drugs, Cash, Gold, Guns, and Small Children for the Elite
http://ahtribune.com/in-depth/1518-robert-david-steele.html
Dear friends,
in this interview from Mohsen Abdelmoumen with Robert Steel in the
American Herals Tribube Robert Steele explains his view about Open
Source in our future.
many greetings, willi
Asuncion, Paraguay
Dear friends,
in the Internet Policy list from ISOC (Internet Sciety) i received this
email from parminder from India. The original text ist:
The Internet's Gilded Age
Geoff Huston, 03.2017
http://www.potaroo.net/ispcol/2017-03/gilding.html
I think, it is important for us to understand, what is going on.
many greetings, willi
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: [Internet Policy] Transit is dead - and the Internet privatised
Date: Fri, 17 Mar 2017 13:09:25 +0530
From: parminder <parminder(a)itforchange.net>
To: internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org <internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org>
"At Apricot 2017 two weeks back, APNIC chief scientist Geoff Huston
delivered a scathing, dystopian snapshot on how the telecoms industry
has evolved from a public peer-to-peer service - where people had the
right to access
telecommunications - to a pack of content delivery networks where the
rules are written by a handful of content owners, ignoring any concept
of national sovereignty."
For a summary of that presentation, see:
https://disruptive.asia/transit-dead-content-literally-rules/
This should concern ISOC and this group. We are talking about the very
fundamentals of this thing called the "Internet". We cannot keep
assuming it is still the same, as it used to be, when all the nice
things got said about it, and anything against was blasphemy. But the
problem is that there has emerged an Internet ideology and Internet
community that simply refused to see the writing on the wall, and in the
process is causing huge damage to public interest.
parminder
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Hi,
I recently met a postdoctoral researcher doing some work for Mozilla
since they are facing some serious retention issues for their free and
open source projects. Her particular project is looking at current
incentives in open source software development. She has a survey and I
offered to spread the word:
https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/YF6G69N
If you are part of other open source technical endeavors, feel free to
pass on as well.
All best,
for your information
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Fwd: Web Foundation responds to India consultation on net
neutrality
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 16:45:52 -0300
From: willi uebelherr <willi.uebelherr(a)riseup.net>
To: ISOC Internet Policy <internetpolicy(a)elists.isoc.org>, IGF gov
<governance(a)lists.igcaucus.org>
CC: IETF discussion <ietf(a)ietf.org>, IRTF discuss
<irtf-discuss(a)irtf.org>, IRTF gaia <gaia(a)irtf.org>, IGF dc
<dc(a)intgovforum.org>, IGF dc ctu
<dc_connectingtheunconnected(a)intgovforum.org>, IGF dc civ
<values(a)coreinternetvalues.org>
Dear friends,
this email i received from the Web Foundation. It is a very good
contribution to our discussions to net neutrality in a concrete environment.
many greetings, willi
Asuncion, Paraguay
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Web Foundation responds to India consultation on net neutrality
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:21:52 +0000
From: Web Foundation <>
Web Foundation responds to India consultation on net neutrality
Net neutrality — the principle that all internet traffic be treated
equally — is fundamental to our mission to deliver digital equality — a
world where everyone has the same rights and opportunities online. Why?
If dominant content providers can pay to have their traffic prioritised,
it risks harming competition and innovation, while limiting freedom of
expression. If governments block or censor content that they do not
agree with, it hurts free speech and democracy.
Today, in partnership with the Digital Empowerment Foundation
<https://defindia.org/>(DEF), the Web Foundation has made a submission
<http://webfoundation.org/docs/2017/03/WFDEFResponsetoTRAIcallforcommentsonN…>
to an important consultation on net neutrality in India. Responding to
questions from Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI), the Web
Foundation and DEF have jointly made four key recommendations:
*1) Consider introducing a no-fee basic data allowance*
Today, mobile broadband penetration is India is estimated to be less
than 10% (GSMA Intelligence Q4 2016). Addressing this challenge will
require innovative interventions which should be encouraged by the
government. However, we argue that interventions to provide access for
low-income and/or marginalised communities must also adhere to net
neutrality principles, as they should for all Indians. Previous attempts
in India include zero-rating programmes which restricted users to a
limited set of sites or services, and these proved controversial.
Meanwhile, research
<http://1e8q3q16vyc81g8l3h3md6q5f5e.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploa…>by
the Alliance for Affordable Internet has suggested such zero rating
initiatives are not effective in bringing new users online, and that
users would rather have free access to the whole internet, even if it is
limited by time or data allocation. Our joint suggestion is for TRAI to
explore ways to provide a basic monthly data allowance. Other countries,
such as Colombia
<http://a4ai.org/affordability-report/report/2017/#which_countries_top_the_2…>,
are already experimenting with such policies: given the size of India’s
market and the country’s global influence, the successful implementation
of such an initiative could be world-leading and transformative.
*2) Encourage TSPs to make detailed information available on important
areas such as quality of service and network neutrality compliance— in
open data formats wherever possible*
In order for regulators, citizens and civil society to monitor progress
and ensure traffic management practices abide by net neutrality
guidelines, detailed information that can easily be analysed is needed.
For this reason, we propose that TSPs be required to make detailed,
technical filings with TRAI either quarterly or bi-annually, and to post
the results on their websites too. Wherever feasible, this information
should be released as open data
<https://blog.okfn.org/2013/10/03/defining-open-data/>— free for anyone
to reuse or analyse — in order to maximise transparency and accountability.
*3) Don’t ban paid service-specific data bundles *—*unless there is a
relationship between mobile operators and content providers*
We argue that application-specific traffic discrimination should not be
allowed. However, one exception is the case of service-specific data
bundles — where TSPs charge different rates for access to certain sites
or applications. Such bundles can be a good way for operators to respond
to customer demand and devise innovative ways for more people to connect
and communicate affordably. As such, we recommend that they should be
encouraged, with any complaints dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The
caveats, of course, are if there is a commercial relationship between
TSPs and the sites or applications included in the bundle or if the
content is not available on a non-exclusive basis to all TSPs; in such
cases, we believe that service-specific data bundles should not be allowed.
*4) Consider creating a dedicated advisory committee on net neutrality
*—*with representatives from government, business and civil society*
It is clear that net neutrality is a vital issue. Preserving and
enhancing it will help Indian entrepreneurs and established businesses
alike, and can help millions more to connect affordably. Yet it is also
a complex issue, which will continue to shift and evolve over time. For
this reason, we recommend that TRAI considers establishing a dedicated
advisory committee on net neutrality, made up of representatives from
business, government, academia and civil society. One of the most
important mandates of this committee would be to explore the
implications of emerging technologies on the principles of network
neutrality, which TRAI should revisit every two years to allow for agile
policy design. We do not envision this body as one that can take actions
in case of any violation of network neutrality. However, the committee
would be able to make recommendations directly to TRAI.
/The Web Foundation also made a submission to TRAI’s previous
consultation on net neutrality in 2015, which can be //accessed here/
<http://webfoundation.org/2015/04/net-neutrality-india/>/. /
/The Digital Empowerment Foundation’s’ previous submissions can be
accessed below:/
* /////Submission on Consultation Paper on Differential pricing for
Data Services/
<http://www.internetrights.in/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Submission-on-Diffe…>
* /////Submission on Consultation Paper on OTT Services/
<http://www.internetrights.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/net_neutrality_def.…>
* /////Submission on Consultation on Free Data Provision/
<http://www.internetrights.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/DEF_Comments-on-Fre…>
* /////Submission on Pre-Consultation Paper on net Neutrality/
<http://www.internetrights.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/DEF_Comments-on-NN-…>
For updates on net neutrality and other issues, follow us on twitter at
@webfoundation <http://twitter.com/webfoundation> and sign up to our
mailing list <http://eepurl.com/WxB9j>
Here an interesting news:
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/node/157872
Let's see if there will be real action connected with it...
Regards,
Matthias
--
Matthias Kirschner - President - Free Software Foundation Europe
Schönhauser Allee 6/7, 10119 Berlin, Germany | t +49-30-27595290
Registered at Amtsgericht Hamburg, VR 17030 | (fsfe.org/join)
Contact (fsfe.org/about/kirschner) - Weblog (k7r.eu/blog.html)
Opinions? My initial gut feeling is "I don't believe this is true", but
I haven't had the time to go through it and review properly.
https://www.mirbsd.org/permalinks/wlog-10_e20170301-tg.htm#e20170301-tg_wlo…
Thorsten Glaser, 1.3.2017
MirOS: New GitHub Terms of Service /require/ removing many Open Source
works from it
The new Terms of Service of GitHub became effective today, which is
quite problematic — there was a review phase, but my reviews pointing
out the problems were not answered, and, while the language is somewhat
changed from the draft, they became effective immediately.
Now, the new ToS are not so bad that one immediately must stop using
their service for disagreement, but it’s important that certain content
may no longer legally be pushed to GitHub. I’ll try to explain which is
affected, and why.
I’m mostly working my way backwards through section D, as that’s where
the problems I identified lie, and because this is from easier to harder.
Note that using a private repository does not help, as the same terms apply.
Anything requiring attribution (e.g. CC-BY, but also BSD, …)
Section D.7 requires the person uploading content to waive any and all
attribution rights. Ostensibly “to allow basic functions like search to
work”, which I can even believe, but, for a work the uploader did not
create completely by themselves, they can’t grant this licence.
The CC licences are notably bad because they don’t permit sublicencing,
but even so, anything requiring attribution can, in almost all cases,
not “written or otherwise, created or uploaded by our Users”. This is
fact, and the exceptions are few.
Anything putting conditions on the right to “use, display and perform”
the work and, worse, “reproduce” (all Copyleft)
Section D.5 requires the uploader to grant all other GitHub users…
the right to “use, display and perform” the work (with no further
restrictions attached to it) — while this (likely — I didn’t check) does
not exclude the GPL, many others (I believe CC-*-SA) are affected, and…
the right to “reproduce your Content solely on GitHub as permitted
through GitHub's functionality”, with no further restructions attached;
this is a killer for, I believe, any and all licences falling into the
“copyleft” category.
Note that section D.4 is similar, but granting the licence to GitHub
(and their successors); while this is worded much more friendly than in
the draft, this fact only makes it harder to see if it affects works in
a similar way. But that doesn’t matter since D.5 is clear enough.
This means that any and all content under copyleft licences is also no
longer welcome on GitHub.
Anything requiring integrity of the author’s source (e.g. LPPL)
Some licences are famous for requiring people to keep the original
intact while permitting patches to be piled on top; this is actually
permissible for Open Source, even though annoying, and the most common
LaTeX licence is rather close to that. Section D.3 says any (partial)
content can be removed — though keeping a PKZIP archive of the original
is a likely workaround.
Affected licences
Anything copyleft (GPL, AGPL, LGPL, CC-*-SA) or requiring attribution
(CC-BY-*, but also 4-clause BSD, Apache 2 with NOTICE text file, …) are
affected. BSD-style licences without advertising clause (MIT/Expat,
MirOS, etc.) are probably not affected… if GitHub doesn’t go too far and
dissociates excerpts from their context and legal info, but then nobody
would be able to distribute it, so that’d be useless.
But what if I just fork something under such a licence?
Only “continuing to use GitHub” constitutes accepting the new terms.
This means that repositories from people who last used GitHub before
March 2017 are excluded.
Even then, the new terms likely only apply to content uploaded in March
2017 or later (note that git commit dates are unreliable, you have to
actually check whether the contribution dates March 2017 or later).
And then, most people are likely unaware of the new terms. If they
upload content they themselves don’t have the appropriate rights
(waivers to attribution and copyleft/share-alike clauses), it’s plain
illegal and also makes your upload of them or a derivate thereof no more
legal.
Granted, people who, in full knowledge of the new ToS, share any
“User-Generated Content” with GitHub on or after 1ˢᵗ March, 2017, and
actually have the appropriate rights to do that, can do that; and if you
encounter such a repository, you can fork, modify and upload that iff
you also waive attribution and copyleft/share-alike rights for your
portion of the upload. But — especially in the beginning — these will be
few and far between (even more so taking into account that GitHub is,
legally spoken, a mess, and they don’t even care about hosting only OSS
/ Free works).
Conclusion (Fazit)
I’ll be starting to remove any such content of mine, such as the source
code mirrors of jupp, which is under the GNU GPLv1, now and will be
requesting people who forked such repositories on GitHub to also remove
them. This is not something I like to do but something I am required to
do in order to comply with the licence granted to me by my upstream.
Anything you’ve found contributed by me in the meantime is up for
review; ping me if I forgot something. (mksh is likely safe, even if I
hereby remind you that the attribution requirement of the BSD-style
licences still applies outside of GitHub.)
(Pet peeve: why can’t I “adopt a licence” with British spelling? They
seem to require oversea barbarian spelling.)
The others
Atlassian Bitbucket has similar terms (even worse actually; I looked at
them to see whether I could mirror mksh there, and turns out, I can’t if
I don’t want to lose most of what few rights I retain when publishing
under a permissive licence). Gitlab seems to not have such, but requires
you to indemnify them… YMMV. I think I’ll self-host the removed content.
And now?
I’m in contact with someone from GitHub Legal (not explicitly in the
official capacity though) and will try to explain the sheer magnitude of
the problem and ways to solve this (leaving the technical issues to
technical solutions and requiring legal solutions only where strictly
necessary), but for now, the ToS are enacted (another point of my
criticism of this move) and thus, the aforementioned works must go off
GitHub right now.
That’s not to say they may not come back later once this all has been
addressed, if it will be addressed to allow that. The new ToS do have
some good; for example, the old ToS said “you allow every GitHub user to
fork your repositories” without ever specifying what that means. It’s
just that the people over at GitHub need to understand that, both
legally and technically¹, any and all OSS licences² grant enough to run
a hosting platform already³, and separate explicit grants are only
needed if a repository contains content not under an
OSI/OKFN/Copyfree/FSF/DFSG-free licence. I have been told that “these
are important issues” and been thanked for my feedback; we’ll see what
comes from this.
① maybe with a little more effort on the coders’ side³
② All licences on one of those lists or conformant to the DFSG, OSD or
OKD should do⁴.
③ e.g. when displaying search results, add a note “this is an excerpt,
click HERE to get to the original work in its context, with licence and
attribution” where “HERE” is a backlink to the file in the repository
④ It is understood those organisations never un-approve any licence that
rightfully conforms to those definitions (also in cases like a grant
saying “just use any OSS² licence” which is occasionally used)
