Discussion

discussion@lists.fsfe.org

1 participants
3272 discussions

Non Disclosure Agreement and GPL
by Yves Autran 02 Mar '08

02 Mar '08

I develop a software where I do have a NDA part, how can I handle this? I have to link the code against : glibc (LGPL) libusb (LGPL) libnova (LGPL) if I refer to http://lists.gpl-violations.org/pipermail/tech/2007-November.txt.gz , I am allowed to hide the source code for the NDA piece of the code and publish the sources not relating to the NDA. What should I tell the community ? Can I still use the GPL licensing? How should I behave with the LGPL projects owners/maintainers Thanks a lot for your help in this case. Yves Autran

3 4

Why are open standards important for end-users?
by gk＠fsfe.org 29 Feb '08

29 Feb '08

Hi! During preparation for the DFD I am currently searching for reasons why open standards are important for end-users. One apparent reason is "choice" and all its implications. However, other pro open standard arguments such as "availability", "no royalty when implementing" and so on won't impress typical end-users. Of course "choice" is clearly a really strong argument, but I am still in search for other ones... Regards, georg -- We could change the world if god gave us the source.

5 6

A proposal to facilitate users getting what they want from free software.
by David Picón Álvarez 27 Feb '08

27 Feb '08

Hi, I'd like to call to your attention an article I've just posted on the FSFE's website. https://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/modulus/user_driven_software_development It's a proposal for an organization that would help users and SMEs to pool resources and risk so that they could collectively commission the improvements to free software that they need. Incidentally, it might also help free software writers to get contracts. I think it is a potentially good idea, but I've gotten some negative feedback about it on the #gnu channel at freenode. I'd like to know if I am in the wrong track with this. --David.

5 9

On the EUPL
by Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel 26 Feb '08

26 Feb '08

Dears, Wikipedia classifies the European Union Public Licence (EUPL) as GPL compatible. This seems indeed resulting from the text (article 5 and annexe). However external links refer to a memo "On the EUPL" <http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2005-July/005055.html > by Georg C. F. Greve <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_C._F._Greve> of the Free Software Foundation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Foundation> , stating: "The last version of the EUPL we were presented with was a copyleft, GPL incompatible Free Software license." Could you please clarify and update? Thank you! Patrice-E. Schmitz | Director EU Management Consulting Unisys Belgium nv/sa | Bourgetlaan 20 - Avenue du Bourget B-1130 Brussels | Phone 32 2 728 06 31 | Fax 32 2 728 04 09 | Mobile 32 478 50 40 65 | www.unisys.com THIS COMMUNICATION MAY CONTAIN CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR OTHERWISE PROPRIETARY MATERIAL and is thus for use only by the intended recipient. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the e-mail and its attachments from all computers.

5 4

OOXML week of frauds.Will we see "letters from the dead" again?
by David B 25 Feb '08

25 Feb '08

Funny article comparing current MSFT strategy at ISO with the astroturfing campaign at the press at the time of the beginning of the US anti-trust case, and summarising some of the movements by MSFT in order to snatch the "standard" rubberstamp from ISO: Source (with plenty of clickable links). Best regards; David B. http://boycottnovell.com/2008/02/25/ooxml-week-of-frauds/ ISO and Office Open XML (OOXML): What REALLY Happened There? Letters from the dead strategy is back from the graveyard Well, well, well Some months ago we mentioned a surprising turn of events where Lisa Rachjel of the ISO decided to let OOXML slide into the fast-track route. Later we found that Microsoft may have simply voted for itself, using its own employees. If that wasnt bad enough, then have a look at this new little discovery. It turns out that, as one site puts it, Microsoft puppets were spamming ANSI. An impressive list of spam comments asking for supporting OOXML and backward compatibility, claiming also that Open XML in no way contradicts any other international document standard. Have a look at the evidence the Web site presents. This ought to remind you of something controversial which Microsoft did in the past, namely: In 2001, the Los Angeles Times accused Microsoft of astroturfing when hundreds of similar letters were sent to newspapers voicing disagreement with the United States Department of Justice and its antitrust suit against Microsoft. The letters, prepared by Americans for Technology Leadership, had in some cases been mailed from deceased citizens or nonexistent addresses. Antitrust exhibits from Comes vs Microsoft have taught me that executives at Microsoft were talking about grassroots tactics. The other component was an OEM stronghold, but thats another story altogether. Also recall how they started an astroturfing campaign (pseudo grassroots) in the UK. This was not an isolated incident. Be aware of all the manipulation that is involved in keeping the lockin in tact. They are protecting the cash cow. Microsofts deals with Novell, Linspire and Xandros (including Corel, which is linked to Xandros) play a significant role. They give the illusion that there is wide OOXML acceptance. OOXML: Why Should We Love Thee? * The briberies for OOXML in Sweden? * Getting 2 MA CIOs out of their jobs for supporting ODF? * Stacking panels? * Deciding to arbitrarily make leap years where they dont belong? * Having Bill Gates phone diplomats to corrupt a No vote in the US and flip it to a Yes? * Bribing companies to pretend that they like OOXML? * Bribing experts to edit Wikipedia in MS-OOXMLs favour? * Pressuring ISO veterans out of their job in the light of corruption? And the list goes on and on The key issue is that Microsoft has already set the deck for the Geneva BRM [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]. Its going to be a farce. Photos from the crime scene are already brought to us, courtesy of Tim Bray Anyhow, when I got back to the hotel I realized Id snapped the building on the wrong side of the street from where the meeting is, but hey, its the ITU world headquarters. In the neighborhood, more ways than one. The week has just begun. What might we find at the end? Just letters from the dead? Well, at last no-one actually died, except ISO. ------ ¿Eres un usuario cautivo ó libre? ¿controlas tu ordenador o tu ordenador te controla a tí? Libérate: Usa Gnu/Linux y OpenOffice.org: http://www.obtengalinux.org/windows/ Are you a free user or a captive one? Do you control your computer or does your computer control you? Set yourself free: Use Gnu/Linux and OpenOffice.org: http://www.getgnulinux.org/windows/ ______________________________________________ ¿Con Mascota por primera vez? Sé un mejor Amigo. Entra en Yahoo! Respuestas http://es.answers.yahoo.com/info/welcome

1 0

Introducing Document Freedom Day
by Georg C. F. Greve 20 Feb '08

20 Feb '08

Hi all, the following just went out - get involved and spread the word! :-) Best regards, Georg -- Georg C. F. Greve <greve(a)fsfeurope.org> Free Software Foundation Europe (http://fsfeurope.org) Join the Fellowship and protect your freedom! (http://www.fsfe.org) What everyone should know about DRM (http://DRM.info)

1 0

Free Software / Open source concepts
by Bogdan Bivolaru 18 Feb '08

18 Feb '08

I wanted to share my view of the free software / open source concepts and also check for correctness. So here's it: Free software talks mostly about the liberties of a software user and less about the means to develop the software it self ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html): - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). - The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). - The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this I noticed this talks little about the way software development is actually organized. One guy can stay alone in his cellar and make a marvelous software and then publish it under a free software license, without working with others at all. Open source Definition (http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php) talks very little about the actual end user, and more about how the software is developed, the actual process of developing software. I know this is a sore point in most communities, I was hoping to bring a new perspective on the matter. So don't bust me if I got it wrong.

7 12

4 OOXML links: "Deprecated before use", BRM access, patents, pic
by Ciaran O'Riordan 18 Feb '08

18 Feb '08

With ISO's Ballot Resolution Meeting taking place Feb 25th-29th, discussion of the OOXML format and the ISO process is heating up again. Here are four documents that were published today (or at least I found them today): DIS-29500: Deprecated before use? by Georg Greve http://fsfeurope.org/documents/msooxml-idiosyncrasies.en.html About OOXML's original purpose of preserving compatibility with an idiosyncratic format, how the changes to the format now exclude that compatibility, and how complexity and lack of a re-useable source code reference implementation makes implementation impractical or impossible. A Pre-BRM Miscellany, by Rob Weir http://www.robweir.com/blog/2008/02/pre-brm-miscellany.html "Photo ID requirements, badged access to the meeting room, prohibitions against cameras and recording devices, no observers, no press." (thanks to Sean Daly for this link) Developers warned over OOXML patent risk, by Brett Winterford http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,62037862,00.htm ZDNet Australia article about concern over the means of terms in Microsoft's Open Specification Promise A picture of a printed copy of the OOXML spec :-) http://blog.janik.cz/images/OOXMLSpec.png (I hope there was a good reason for making this printed copy. It will surely never be read. At least publicising this picture makes it less likely that someone else will think it necessary to also do a printing.) FWIW, I put these four links in a blog entry too: http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/ooxml_alread… -- Ciarán O'Riordan (+32 477 36 44 19) \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \ Join FSFE's Fellowship: http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \ http://www.fsfe.org

2 2

Fwd: Free Software / Open source concepts
by David Gerard 16 Feb '08

16 Feb '08

to list as well. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> Date: 16 Feb 2008 18:32 Subject: Re: Free Software / Open source concepts To: simo.sorce(a)xsec.it On 16/02/2008, simo <simo.sorce(a)xsec.it> wrote: > Both "camps" use basically the same set of licenses, and 99.99% of the > software that is defined Open Source is also Free Software. In fact, I was most amused to find out (confirmed by Danese Cooper of OSI) that the Netscape Public Licence, the fruit of the first big push for "Open Source", is an FSF free software licence but not an OSI open source licence ;-) (because it gives special privileges to Netscape. Though AOL then used their special powers to relicence all NPL code as MPL, so Mozilla stuff is now open source as well. Phew!) - d.

1 0

15 Feb '08

Can anyone tell us whether we should act on Bands set for longer music rights http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7244928.stm and how/where? It's bloody commissioner Charlie McCreevy out to expand copyright again. -- MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 - Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder, consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ - Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/

4 4

Jump to page:

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