Discussion

discussion@lists.fsfe.org

1 participants
3272 discussions

Who did not get a password from the ISP?
by Matthias Kirschner 21 Jun '13

21 Jun '13

I am looking for examples from people who did not get a password from their ISP for the internet access, or for the VoiP account. Background: at the moment in Germany at least some providers start to bundle routers with the internet contract. They do not hand out the username and password to set up your own router any more. Their argumentation is to save support costs. So first the question: Have you or someone you know experienced this problem? If so, which provider and which contract option? Second, I brainstormed with some people about the arguments, here the current alpha state. I am looking forward to your comments and improvements: 1. ISPs start to bundle their contracts with a router. We will argue that this is bad for competition, pushes out other companies producing routers, and will also lead to more expensive routers. 2. ISPs do not give out the usernames and passwords necessary for the internet connection and VoIP. We will argue that every computer with network hardware could fulfill the task of a router. If ISPs are allowed to keep this data secret, they can hinder new products where the funtionality of the router is included. They also have access to the privat network of the customers, they are responsible to what is happening there, but on the other hand they have no control over the router. - it will be hard for people to buy router hardware from companies they trust. - political parties are asking for privacy by default, which this is absolutely not - customers should have the possibility to buy devices, which include several functions (music/media player, print server, file server, router, wireless access point, etc.) to save power. - If ISPs can decide about the configuration of the routers, it is difficult for other companies to build products which can connect to the internet (they would have to tunnel everything) - it is difficult to run alternative software for routers, whom people trust. All the things are only available if you pay more to get the password. Privacy and control over the devices has to be the default, not the option you get, when you pay more. Best Regards, Matthias -- Matthias Kirschner - FSFE - Fellowship Coordinator, German Coordinator FSFE, Linienstr. 141, 10115 Berlin, t +49-30-27595290 +49-1577-1780003 Weblog (blogs.fsfe.org/mk) - Contact (fsfe.org/about/kirschner) Support FSFE! http://fsfe.org/support/?mk

4 5

As Microsoft repeal some Xbox restrictions, more apply to other products
by Matthias Kirschner 21 Jun '13

21 Jun '13

We just published this PR. Feel free to distribute the graphic https://fsfe.org/graphics/xbox-infographic.png. Best Regards, Matthias = As Microsoft repeal some Xbox restrictions, more apply to other products = [Read online: https://fsfe.org/news/2013/news-20130620-02.en.html ] Faced with user protests, Microsoft has been forced to make the terms for its latest Xbox gaming console look a little less restrictive [1]. However, the “new” terms which had caused such outrage were not in fact new at all: they were similar to most other proprietary software licences, including those covering other Microsoft software products and on-line services. Restrictions on selling, sharing and gift-giving appear, for example, in the Windows 7 and Office 2013 licences. Similar restrictions will continue to apply to the Xbox one in that "downloaded titles cannot be shared or resold" [1]. Geographic restrictions can also apply to Office 2013, along a class action waiver. Gamers who were angered by the invasive, inadequate and mandatory 24 hour check-in and Kinect voice/motion sensor may be similarly angered by the clause demanding “you must comply with any technical limitations in the software that only allow you to use it in certain ways. You may not work around any technical limitations in the software” in the Windows 7 licence.[2] “Even after reversing course on some of the more egregious Xbox One terms, Microsoft still leaves its users wearing digital handcuffs,” says Karsten Gerloff, FSFE's president. “We encourage everyone to choose Free Software instead, and break free of these restrictions.” “While proprietary licenses restrict your freedom, Free Software always guarantees that you can use the software for any purpose, to study how it works, to share it with others, and modify it to your needs” says Matthias Kirschner, FSFE's Head of Public Awareness. “Users should not have to beg for these rights.” *** FSFE's infographic about the Xbox restrictions is available on https://fsfe.org/graphics/xbox-infographic.png - It is still unclear what exactly the full license will or will not contain, for example, mention of the Class Action Waiver has been removed, but no statement has been made to repeal it. *** 1. http://news.xbox.com/2013/06/update 2. http://download.microsoft.com/Documents/UseTerms/Windows_7%20Home%20Basic%2… == About the Free Software Foundation Europe == The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) is a non-profit non-governmental organisation active in many European countries and involved in many global activities. Access to software determines participation in a digital society. To secure equal participation in the information age, as well as freedom of competition, the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) pursues and is dedicated to the furthering of Free Software, defined by the freedoms to use, study, modify and copy. Founded in 2001, creating awareness for these issues, securing Free Software politically and legally, and giving people Freedom by supporting development of Free Software are central issues of the FSFE. http://fsfe.org/ _______________________________________________ Press-release mailing list Press-release(a)fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/press-release

1 0

Italian Ministry of Education: problem of freedom
by Massimo Barbieri 20 Jun '13

20 Jun '13

Hi! The Italian Ministry of Education University and Research (MIUR) offers every year a series of obligatory written tests in order to evaluate the levels of student learning. Those tests are carried out by the National Institute for the Evaluation of Educational System (INVALSI)[1] from which it derives its name: "INVALSI tests". The INVALSI is subject to supervision by the MIUR and of course they should work in a neutral way towards the market of the software, but unfortunately it is not. The INVALSI provides schools with an XLS file which contains macros to record the evaluation of the students. Of course this file doesn't work with Free Software and doing so the INVALSI force schools to use proprietary software. Unfortunately the XLS file was provided to me by a school, but they asked to me to not spread it (for the moment). I posted a screencapture of the macro in action on proprietary software. http://lugscandiano.org/index.php/File:Invalsi_non-free.png I would like that the FSFE get active with the MIUR and the INVALSI to ask them to solve this problem of freedom. Of course I will be glad to get myself active to this campaign and I can ask for the cooperation of the LUG Scandiano, to which I belong, which in the past has been very active on the PDFreaders campaign. Maybe we could even ask for a support of the Italian Community of LibreOffice and perhaps also of The Document Foundation to give more weight to our eventual action. Next weekend I will meet Italo Vignoli, from The Document Foundation, in an event dedicated to Libre Office organized by LUG Scandiano. If you think it might be useful I could talk to him about this idea. Please let me know. Ciao, Massimo 1. http://www.invalsi.it/invalsi/index.php -- IM: massimo(a)jabber.fsfe.org - GnuPG Public Key-Id: 0x5D168FC1

2 1

Reading recommodation "How Can Any Company Ever Trust Microsoft Again?"
by Matthias Kirschner 19 Jun '13

19 Jun '13

I strongly recommend reading "How Can Any Company Ever Trust Microsoft Again?" by Glyn Moody. http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2013/06/how-can-any-compan… Best Regards, Matthias -- Matthias Kirschner - FSFE - Fellowship Coordinator, German Coordinator FSFE, Linienstr. 141, 10115 Berlin, t +49-30-27595290 +49-1577-1780003 Weblog (blogs.fsfe.org/mk) - Contact (fsfe.org/about/kirschner) Support FSFE! http://fsfe.org/support/?mk

1 0

various issues with using Fellowship smartcards
by Daniel Pocock 17 Jun '13

17 Jun '13

Some time ago there was some discussion about the fellowship smartcard and 4096 bit keys. I understand that most of the recent cards that say they support 3072 actually support 4096. Debian 7 now includes gnupg v2.0.19, so it supports 4096 as well The SPR532 pinpad card reader was recommended by Martin, I notice it is superseded by the SPR332. However, the SPR332 is not on the supported list here: http://wiki.debian.org/Smartcards and I also found comments suggesting that pinpad support used to be problematic, but that was 2005: http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2005-June/026082.html and this email says it works, but doesn't specifically reference the pinpad: http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-users/2013-February/046054.html and it's not clear whether that means it works just for GnuPG or potentially for other applications too (e.g. Iceweasel/Firefox, Java) I also had another look at the fellowship page: http://fellowship.fsfe.org/card.html and it mentions that the card supports three keys: but from what I've read elsewhere, it appears to only support three 1024 bit keys, or just one 4096 bit key. What does this mean in practice: can a single 4096 bit key be used for all purposes (signing, encryption and ssh) or is it necessary to have three separate cards for each of those subkeys?

2 2

standards / principles for secure, free RTC software?
by Daniel Pocock 30 May '13

30 May '13

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 I've had a look at the FSF info about the campaign for a Skype replacement http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/priority-projects/highpriori… While it specifies that existing solutions have shortcomings, it doesn't specify what the final solution should look like. In other words, a developer aiming to build such a solution won't know when they cross the finish line. Has anybody done any policy work, possibly similar to the Debian Free Software Guidelines, to define the essential attributes of a solution? Looking at it from another angle, Debian also provides a set of tests to determine if a license is really free: http://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html#testing and it may be useful to define a similar set of tests for evaluating a communications application. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJRpkO7AAoJEOm1uwJp1aqDCRQQAMbztWtR/FBIYGR5qJ6L/U6Z MmF5W5S5uNjQ2ZTjd1uCil+CSH5PTQGXaMCyTgUFunGLNf7FwDw7PVrUWfx3/gYh On2pMjeH3ZGxDUcMcQzeZMImJJyKIQAAP0Hd4D7g5z5K0G4erRY7UUq3Ze+7MByc LyJlvaT8fr20CYUhwDmDg1LA6dR66NZzf+rg6K/kMz29ZXPi/4d+UJVpN4piErrs +FvL/y90qzVnqLbftmvePx70ZmifBH865jTP4Eb2KRTOGCAj75cP5JpYwuLR7u6p jKu22zECQlqC66NVp6VGETrILE0TPfr/vn5l+2/+DPb3q3+MZyyrfBGAd0hr+e6b aU4TPrUyUL6MUYD/QPsv9Uy3NYKrH4ZQtqZBzF3HIrIKJgxYtlp9F6WKxcD+k+7r alepkyKBXURfiDCWeSGmHjAnVNn6iByr6A0JP/MfY6DH5JpoNo0gZYtVL8TqaZc3 lHaddWkGb9o1isiV7fvPKKuejjK8r4+ssV8JM94Vo/IoXU9P71OgCxRVr0kGhdVT rUbXDey/JmYOgcEhR9dGF5nm758xw/RKQrz0j/i0Uupn+/erkY4s4yUDzZrAZiBx c/3KDgBc+8WTu+XRb+Lry58pI+73PzdZOVvUdMFEXfGhcBebAGAfvqEIdZKAsRaK xhxG3PZvpLdoUTUXbC0B =6++g -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

Kontalk messenger
by Daniele Ricci 05 May '13

05 May '13

Hello! This is my first message here, I've been introduced here by a fellow member of fsfe.org, Massimo Barbieri (thank you!). A couple of years ago I started Kontalk[1], what I thought it could be a community-driven instant messaging network. For all this time, I remained "in the dark", developing this solo project and distributing it only to people I know. After moving to Google Code[2] a month ago, registrations started rising quickly (also due to the Reddit[3] effect), people started donating and showing interest to the project. Now I'm here to introduce it to the fsf, I hope it will gain more interest. In fact we need help and developers :-) As I stated before, Kontalk is a community-driven instant messaging network, built on XMPP (100% compatible - e.g. works with Pidgin, we added a few extensions in order to make it more suitable for mobile phones, domain federation and a couple of other things). We aim to create a network of server nodes run by the community (that is, cheap servers) using XMPP on the same domain (e.g. kontalk.net), based on mobile phone number identification. Primary concerns are democracy and security: client-side encryption, phone numbers not going around the network, a "vote system" based on asymmetric encryption signing, etc... a network running and managing by itself. Although these are all a bunch of nice words :P we do have a service running on our own server. But it's the first release of Kontalk server[4], using a proprietary protocol (source code is available of course), then I decided to switch to XMPP, but both server and clients are still under heavy development. We think we could make the "big switch" at the end of this summer. XMPP development is going fast, we have 2 working servers (still with a few bugs of course) I and a few other people are testing (you're welcome to download the very unstable alpha XMPP client from Google Code). Kontalk[5] is still far from being a full WhatsApp replacement: it still lacks many features and it needs help[6], contributions and ideas from the community. That's it, I guess. Of course this is just an introduction, and remember this is still an embrional solo project, so please be kind :-) [1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.kontalk [2] http://code.google.com/p/kontalk/ [3] http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/1aqekt/an_open_source_decentralise… [4] http://code.google.com/p/kontalk/source/browse?repo=pyserver [5] http://www.kontalk.org/ [6] http://www.kontalk.net/ -- Daniele

4 5

Some reviewing about a recent change in about.en.xhtml on DFD site
by Besnik Bleta 02 May '13

02 May '13

Hello, There's been a little change in about.en.xhtml file, which I spotted while updating my translation of it: "Documents that aren't free are locked to some particular product or company." has been changed to "Documents that aren't free are locked to some particular software or company." The commit messages says: software is not product (r1985 | guest-marado | 2013-03-15 13:42:21 +0200 (Fri, 15 Mar 2013) | 2 lines ) It sounds to me as a bit of diverting readers' attention from the real direction here: proprietary software vendors. That's why I'd like to ask the opinion of the more experienced. On IRC we had a little chat with two of the colleagues there, and their opinions vary. My understanding is that the section deals with software which lock freedom. Those are, almost all, products of certain companies. So stating that those are "products", goes along our efforts to point to the fact that those are intended to be how they are, proprietary, intended to lock users. "Software" is the big bag for all kind of them, while our intention are the proprietary ones. So, at least, it should be stated that they're proprietary, if going back to "product" is not agreed upon. "Software product" was proposed as an alternative by nicooo. I'd like to hear your opinions before updating my translation. Best, Besnik

2 1

Re: Could there be a law to protect the free choice of operating system?
by Albert Dengg 02 May '13

02 May '13

hi, On Tue, Mar 05, 2013 at 04:20:11PM +0000, howard wrote: > I think the car analogy is quite meaningless. The car manufacturers > are entirely responsible for the car as a system and cannot sell it > without stringent safety criteria being met. This would not be > possible without them having control over the components and their > integration into the whole system. There are bits they could leave > out such as radios but not anything necesaary to drive the car. well, i did not bring it up, i was just repling to the topic at hand... as for only beeing able to sell as whole: i don't think it's true, as there are also for example kit cars...but that is getting quite offtopic here. > > The OS in a computer is more like the driver of the car. The car > company is not responsible for how anyone drives, provided the car > is designed in such a way to make it safe for suitable drivers (e.g. > not children, or people who have some disability unless it has been > modied). Computers can run perfectly well under many different > operation systems provided they are built with the appropriate > compatibility. The monopoly enjoyed by Microsoft prevents consumers > choosing their OS of choice. For software that runs under Windows I > prefer XP, but my laptop bundled with Windows 7 home edition cannot > be "downgraded" to XP. This is quite wrong and trading standards > organisations are wrong to let MS get away with their domination of > the hardware manufacturers and retail distributer network. well, while somewhat true this is not completly the point here either... even though the car company might not get sued for something the driver does...nobody has ever tried to sue MS or the hardware vendor for what the user does with the computer. yours, albert

4 4

Could there be a law to protect the free choice of operating system?
by Vicen Rodriguez 02 May '13

02 May '13

Hello: A few months ago I decided to buy a laptop for one of my children. I wanted to buy a new laptop without an operating system (OS) on it to install an OS to my liking. It became a complicated problem. Most stores selling computers offered me a laptop with an OS installed; it was an OS I don't want to use and I don't want to pay for. Finally, in a town near the city where I live (but not in the 1,6 million people city where I live), I found a shop offering new laptops that could be purchased with or without an OS installed, and, in case of buying the computer with OS, they said what was the price that was being paid for it. Despite achieving my goal after a long and tedious process, I realized that in Spain, and perhaps in the entire European Union, most computers are sold with a proprietary OS already installed, without offering details of the amount the citizen is paying for that OS, and do not giving the real possibility of rejecting that OS, buy the computer without it and not be charged for it. 1. - I think it should be a right for all and every citizen of the European Union, when buying a computer, to have the details of the amount which corresponds to the computer or hardware and how much is charged for the OS and other software . 2. - I think it should be a right for all and every citizen of the European Union, when buying a computer, to have the real possibility, at the time of purchase, of rejection of the acquisition of the OS and any other software that the manufacturer and / or seller offered with the computer. I can understand that a manufacturer and / or seller could say that computers they offer have not been tested with an OS other than the one they recommend, but, once the buyer is informed about that, I can't understand why must he buy an OS he may not want and for whose use he must accept a series of contractual terms which are entirely beyond his purpose of buying a computer. I think the freedom and rights of all and every citizen of the European Union must be strictly observed in any transaction, and that freedom and those rights should be the priority over the profit of companies and corporations who may have intended to impose their interests. We can fully exercise our freedom only if we have freedom of choice. I am aware that if a measure such as I propose is adopted for the sale / buying computers process, there would be no reason to not adopt it also in relation to mobile phones, game consoles and other devices. This is not the main objective of my proposal, but, considering these possible implications, I still think it could be a good measure. I also believe that the adoption of a measure such as I propose, in addition to directly defend the rights of citizens and consumers in the European Union, would be an incentive for competition and the free market within the European Union, would promote greater transparency in the relationship between computer manufacturers and developers of operating systems and applications and help avoid the possibility of de facto monopolies, something that could happen if one or more companies take advantage of its dominant position. For all that I have said, I think it could be a good measure that would increase the use of free software. But I do not know how we can get running something like this. I consulted some pages of the European Union website [1] [2] [3], but I lack the knowledge to assess what is the best way to try to carry out the proposal. I'm sure there are people in this forum better informed and with better capabilities than me to take the proposal forward. What can we do? Regards Vicen [1] http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/consultations/index_es.htm [2] http://ec.europa.eu/spain/participa/danos-tu-opinion/index_es.htm [3] http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/welcome?lg=es P.S.: I apologize for my bad English and the mistakes.

12 21

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