Hello et bonsoir !
I just saw this on agendadulibre:
https://www.agendadulibre.org/events/17309
What's this? I figure it's somewhat of an FSFE meeting, right?
For anyone around Montpellier: The event is tomorrow!
Too bad there's nothing in the wiki for Montpellier and no event item
on fsfe.org.
Does anybody know who's behind this?
Anyway. This is great to see!
Greetings,
Guido
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Piksel18
November 22-24 2018
Bergen, Norway
- -
Piksel is an international festival for electronic art and
technological freedom. Part workshop, part festival, it is organised in
Bergen, Norway, and involves participants from more than a dozen
countries exchanging ideas, coding, presenting art and software
projects, doing workshops, performances and discussions on the
aesthetics and politics of free technologies.
- -
open CALL for PROJECTS
For the exhibition and other parts of the program we currently seek
projects in the following categories:
1. Installations
Projects to be included in the exhibitions.
The works must be realized by the use of free and open source
technologies. For Piksel18 we specially encourage projects in the field
of DIY BIOart and renewable/sustainable technologies to apply.
2. Audiovisual performance
Live art realized by the use of free software and/or open/DIY
hardware.
3. Presentations
Innovative DIY/open hardware and audiovisual software tools or software
art released under a free/open license. (Also includes presentations of
artistic projects realized using free/open technologies.) For Piksel18
we specially encourage projects in the field of DIY BIOart and
renewable/sustainable technologies to apply.
4. Workshops
Hands on workshops utilizing free software and/or open/DIY hardware for
artistic use. For Piksel18 we specially encourage projects in the field
of DIY BIOart and renewable/sustainable technologies to apply.
5. PikselSavers
Video and software art based on the screensaver format – short
audiovisual (non)narratives made for endless looping. Possible thematic
fields includes but are not limited to: sustainable resource
allocation, renewable technologies, energy harvesting, fair trade
hardware, free content, open access, open data, DIY economy, shared
development. The works must be realized by the use of free/open source
technologies.
- -
!!!!!!!!!! Deadline - july 31. 2018 !!!!!!!!!!
Please use the online submit form at:
http://piksel.org/ocs
- -
Piksel18 is supported by the Municipality of Bergen, Arts Council
Norway, PNEK and others.
more info: www.piksel.no
Hi everybody,
As the elections have been cancelled[1] and the fellows will not be able
to elect a new representative to attend the annual meeting this year, I
would like to raise the possibility that we make the meeting more open
than previous meetings, by having observers who can participate in the
discussions even if they are not yet respected equally.
Not only do we have the end of elections, but last year's meeting also
voted[2] to look at ways to empower the wider community in FSFE's
governance. While the abolition of elections was rushed through an
extraordinary general meeting in May, I have not seen any hint of how
the new governance structure will be implemented and it is less than 3
months to the annual meeting.
I feel community involvement is vital for various reasons.
One of the most widely known quotes of the American revolution is James
Otis's "Taxation without representation is tyranny."
The FSFE fellows, supporters and community contribute time and money but
have no representation beyond myself and when my term as representative
expires, nobody will replace me.
As in the American Revolution, people can't wait for democracy to be
given to us on proper terms. You need to be present at meetings like
this. There is a limit to what I can do myself as your representative.
Council already circulated an email asking people to put 6+7 October in
their diary, a venue has not been announced but we have been told it
will be in Berlin.
There is significant time and cost involved for all GA members to travel
to the meeting so it appears to be in the best interests of the
organization to have any leaders from local groups or associated
organizations who want to attend at the same time and maximize
opportunities for discussion.
Having the community meeting last week separately from the annual
meeting in October appears to create fragmentation in the community and
I don't feel that having GA meetings that exclude the community is the
best way to spend fellows' money or motivate volunteers in the long term.
Note that people can also send requests[3] directly to the president,
mk(a)fsfe.org asking to become provisional members of the association and
receive an official invitation to the meeting. As it is less than 3
months away now and it takes a few weeks to process these requests I
would suggest sending the email promptly.
Regards,
Daniel
1. https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2018-July/012420.html
2. https://fsfe.org/about/legal/minutes/minutes-2017-10-15.en.pdf
3.
https://fsfe.org/about/legal/constitution.en.html#SECTION000400000000000000…
Hi Matthias,
Can you please make sure the minutes of the EGM are available on the
minutes page[1] of the web site?
Some people have asked questions about this and I think it is important
that people have this information available at the community meeting.
Regards,
Daniel
1. https://fsfe.org/about/transparency-commitment.en.html
Hi all,
The RMLL[0] have a traditional "meal of the libre" every year, which will take place on Sunday evening.
If you are interested, tickets (with detailed menu and a meat or vegan choice) are available at [1].
Best,
Cryptie
[0] https://2018.rmll.info/en
[1] https://2018.rmll.info/conferences/RMLL2018/tickets
--
Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma brièveté.
> http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/16/33
The article only deals with Open Source market dominance not 'Free'. All references to 'free' in that article are about royalty-free software not the 'four freedoms'.
Open Source I believe is vulnerable to this kind of threat because the idea is that it give developers freedom to innovate using a royalty free license.
OS is positioned much more closely to the capitalist demand for radical innovation and thus is already exposed to capitalist ideas of political and social legitimacy.
Free Software is not exclusionary AFAIK I cannot think of any case where proprietary software has been refused entry to a market because of it, but am open to studying examples of that happening if anyone can find examples?
> * How can we oppose the argument that publicly financed software released as Free Software is anticompetitive?
In the same way competitive market actors defend vendor lock-ins and rent seeking and all the other market failures, resist market-led policy priorities which have already become over-represented. Real competition after all, is (in some) sense anti-competitive if we are imagining a 'pro-competitive' product produces a perfect market. It's a wrong question that anchors responses in wrong-thinking about markets and about free software.
> * What can we bring up on the other hand in favor of publishing as Free Software from a competitive point of view?
(except the usual non-dependencies)
Why is this a demand? This sounds like an apology for Open Source, not the basis for promoting free software to me. 'Competition' is a market-led paradigm that deforms software development in favor of proprietorial interests, it's making a vice out of a virtue...
Hi all,
currently we are working on a brochure for our Public Money? Public Code!
campaign, that we like to use as a help for politicians and decision-takers.
The brochure shall help to clarify common misunderstandings about Free
Software, show positive use-cases and of course the multiple benefits of using
Free Software. Aim is that the reader gets a broad picture and positive
understanding as well as valid arguments why to prefer using Free Software in
public administrations. Size will be around 16 to 24 pages.
One of these pages shall be dedicated to the topic "market distortion /
anticompetition". The point is that a main argument against publishing
publicly financed software developments under a free licence is said to be
"market distortion". The argument says that private actors cannot compete
against "software offered by the state free of charge" and therewith these
publications are to be seen anticompetitive. On the other hand we use to argue
that in fact Free Software fosters competition because there are a way less
dependencies in the Free Software and Open Standards world.
However, we find the similar argumentations ("private actors cannot compete
with services offered by the state free of charge") in a lot of industries.
For example when private media competes with public-service broadcasting. That
is why in Germany they introduced a law to "depublish" publicly financed
news-pages after seven days up to one year (seriously).
Last week I met an IT manager from BBC who told me that his team tries since a
while to publish their developments under free licences. However, they are not
allowed to do so because of the arguments brought up above. In Switzerland in
contrary the same arguments led to some years of legal uncertainty around Open
Justitia, but finally the court allowed the Kanton Bern to publish publicly
financed self-developed software under a free license.
Now my questions:
* How can we oppose the argument that publicly financed software released as
Free Software is anticompetitive?
* What can we bring up on the other hand in favor of publishing as Free
Software from a competitive point of view?
(except the usual non-dependencies)
* What other arguments can be made in that context to balance an even
anticompetitive decision pro Free Software (like public duty to supply,
binding public money with public goods etc)?
* Are there more examples in Europe in that - like in Switzerland - national
courts decided in favor of publishing publicly financed software as Free Software?
Looking forward to your input
Best regards,
Erik
--
No one shall ever be forced to use non-free software
Erik Albers | Communication & Community Coordinator | FSFE
OpenPGP Key-ID: 0x8639DC81 on keys.gnupg.net
Hi all,
in the light of our Public Money? Public Code! campaign we are running a
series of interviews to highlight best practices for publishing code.
The first one is with Elena Muñoz Salinero, head of the Technology Transfer
Centre, about how Spanish administrations reuse software. It all starts with a
law in 2007 and ends up now in the obligation and technical solutions for
public administrations to share and reuse their self-developed software.
Give it a read at:
https://fsfe.org/news/2018/news-20180601-01
Best,
Erik
--
No one shall ever be forced to use non-free software
Erik Albers | Communication & Community Coordinator | FSFE
OpenPGP Key-ID: 0x8639DC81 on keys.gnupg.net
Hello,
A few days ago, I saw Daniel's article about the use of proprietary software
and services by the FSFE:
https://danielpocock.com/pmpc-for-fsfe-itself
This follows up on a long discussion last year, starting here...
https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2017-June/011591.html
...and ending here:
https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2017-October/011934.html
Firstly, I like the idea of awards to organisations who actually use Free
Software to achieve their objectives. These days, it is far too easy for
people to use "off the shelf" proprietary services and wave away objections
about privacy, surveillance and control. Those who persist with Free Software
and who improve it should be acknowledged and rewarded.
Now, I understand that even in the Free Software universe, people do not
always want to be bothered to deploy software, especially if the act of doing
so is not a familiar one. It seems that more and more expertise is required to
deploy software in a secure, defensible fashion. But unless there are people
who do so and who are willing to share their expertise, then it will become a
less widely practised act with fewer able to benefit from the control and
independence that Free Software offers.
I was surprised that Daniel's motion to document the FSFE's proprietary
dependencies, and to describe ways of eliminating them, was so strongly
opposed. Is it because admitting such dependencies is embarrassing? Or are
there other reasons why no-one else was willing to support it?
Many of us commit to using Free Software exclusively where the right to
exercise this control has been given to us. Actively using and developing such
software is just as important as promoting it, arguably more so. If I were to
use proprietary software to advocate Free Software usage, it might be said
that I would merely be indulging in a hobby, that I do not lead by example,
and so on.
Is it not right for the FSFE to be held to the same standards?
Paul