Hello everybody,
I just realised that this message was not yet sent here, also it might be interesting for you. The more people help us with that task the better the results will be. Thanks already for your help!
Best Regards, Matthias
* Erik Albers [2017-08-01 14:09 +0200]:
[...]
we are preparing a campaign named "Public Money Public Code". The aim of this campaign is to ask all the public authorities in Europe that develop software inhouse or that pay external software development and finance or co-finance the development with public funds, to release the software under a Free Software licence.
Along with the other PR-instruments we in particular like to underfed the campaign with data and knowledge about the use / misuse of public fundings for software development. We like to shed light on the best and the worst cases.
In order to do so, we need to collect information first. We will then use this information for analysis and publications to highlight the importance about publicly financed software to be published as Free Software.
And this is where you come in: We will use Freedom of Information requests to collect information about the status of non-free software used and released by public authorities in local, state and European level. If you do not know what a Freedom of Information request (FOI) is or how to file it, please find more information about it on the campaigns wiki page.
https://wiki.fsfe.org/Activities/PMPC
If you are interested in getting active for Free Software and to help the FSFE to get this important campaign big, please read this wiki page carefully. It should give you all information necessary. If it misses something or something is unclear, please ask.
On the page you will find: - general information about the campaign - general information about FOIs - written drafts for FOIs to use - helpful links for FOIs in specific European countries - Country information pages to collect succesfully filed FOIs to be analysed
= How you can contribute =
- File in FOIs and document them in the wiki accordingly - help the readers of your country page to understand the campaign in your language and give them orientation to get active -> this way the campaign can spread much better - help to translate the drafts for FOIs in your language and enable people to easily participate - spread this campaign, the idea and how people can contribute in your local group, in your channels, on mailing lists and wherever you see it fits
In know it is summer and you might have already your vacation planned. But on the other hand, maybe you have some spare time in your vacation to contribute for Free Software. Or you meet a lot of people during summer events to let them know about the campaign and they again find some time to contribute. Or you wait for autumn to get active : )
Really, there are so many ways to get active in this campaign and every bit counts. Aside from the effects for the furthering of Free Software, IMHO the sexyness of this campaign is that people immediately understand the request even if they do not care about software: that public money should lead into a public good is an easy and understandable request.
Happy hacking, Erik
- Erik Albers [2017-08-01 14:09 +0200]:
[...]
we are preparing a campaign named "Public Money Public Code". The aim of this campaign is to ask all the public authorities in Europe that develop software inhouse or that pay external software development and finance or co-finance the development with public funds, to release the software under a Free Software licence.
Along with the other PR-instruments we in particular like to underfed the campaign with data and knowledge about the use / misuse of public fundings for software development. We like to shed light on the best and the worst cases.
Hi Erik, Mathias, all,
I've been working on a philosophical argument that distinguishes free technologies from proprietary technologies on a technical basis. This offers a foundation to argue, along with the PMPC campaign, that European institutions, and more generally public institutions, should prefer open technical systems to closed technical systems (respectively: free software to privative software) not for ideological reasons, but on technical grounds. Petites Singularités already successfully used that argument to expel a proprietary software company from an European consortium to the benefit of a free software project (ongoing MURIQUI project, see [0]).
A first approach of this argument can be found in "Good bye 'open-source'; hello 'free software'" from January 2013, and was discussed abundantly during the last Libre Software Meeting in Saint-Etienne, France, the first week of July (RMLL 2017). I'm preparing a report on this covering interventions of Coline Ferrarato, Stéphane Couture, Thiago Novaes, Natacha Roussel, and Yann Moulier-Boutang. The conversation will continue in the form of articles and hopefully a review on free technologies.
I would like to propose that this effort is linked to the PMPC campaign so that when the EU software project coverage is complete, the campaign can evolve and push the technical argument. In a nutshell, French philosopher Gilbert Simondon distinguished open and closed technical systems that promote different ethics and aesthetics: the former embrace diversity, evolution, perennity, and cooperation, while the latter push univocity, control (vendor-lock), specialization. The key argument is that the path taken to produce a technology conditions the resulting technique.
This conversation will happen on the Petites Singularités discourse platform [2], and I would like to invite people interested in the PMPC to experiment with this platform as a campaign tool. I wish the FSFE would provide support towards this endeavor: I can provide the platform and sysadmin effort to sustain it (i.e. no FSFE sysadmin will be required), but I can't otherwise spend more time organizing the campaigning effort.
What do you think? How can these two approaches (philosophical / technical argument and EU assets identification with FOIA requests) can create synergies to amplify the PMPC campaign? Who would be interested in supporting such an endeavor, and with which means?
Thank you for your attention,
== hk
[0]: https://ps.zoethical.com/t/singular-technologies-the-third-technoscape/333 [1]: https://ps.zoethical.com/t/good-bye-open-source-hello-free-software/344 [2]: https://ps.zoethical.com/
On 25.08.2017 19:59, hellekin wrote:
- Erik Albers [2017-08-01 14:09 +0200]:
we are preparing a campaign named "Public Money Public Code". The aim of this campaign is to ask all the public authorities in Europe that develop software inhouse or that pay external software development and finance or co-finance the development with public funds, to release the software under a Free Software licence.
I've been working on a philosophical argument that distinguishes free technologies from proprietary technologies on a technical basis. This offers a foundation to argue, along with the PMPC campaign, that European institutions, and more generally public institutions, should prefer open technical systems to closed technical systems [...]
This is great work, thanks! Looking forward to reading more.
I just yesterday finally picked up a copy of "The Comingled Code" by Josh Lerner and Mark Schankerman. The subtitle of the book is "Open Source and Economic Development", so it is not about technical arguments, nor philosophical arguments, nor morals.
Ultimately, I believe a successful "Public Infrastructure" campaign needs to also look at economical arguments _against_ Free Software, and carefully dissect and refute these arguments.
To illustrate the problem, let me quote from the final section of that book, the "Takeaways":
# Implications for Government Officials
There is no right answer. Despite the well-understood imperfections of the software market, we find no reason to believe that market mecha- nisms inherently favor either type of software. Under these conditions, and given the serious hazards of governments trying to pick winners, it is appropriate to let competition (controlled, of course, by competi- tion law) and the decentralized choices of diverse economic agents do their jobs.
More specifically, government officials need not—and should not—favor either open source or proprietary software. Rather, they should maintain a neutral stance toward the way in which software is licensed, devel- oped, and procured. There are many reasons for encouraging com- petition between open and proprietary software. Open source and proprietary software differ on many dimensions, including such crite- ria as functionality, cost, quality, and product evolution. These con- siderations are each likely to require careful assessment. To consider the last-mentioned criteria, for instance, open source software gives the user access to the underlying software code—thus there is no danger that the software will be ‘‘snatched away’’ because of the change of a corporate strategy. But the development of future versions of open source programs will be a function of its ability to attract the interest of individual and corporate contributors. When encouraging the development of a local computer industry, government officials should let firms weigh these complex considerations and choose the model of software development that they find most appropriate. Rec- ommending that governments should encourage competition, how- ever, is not the same thing as arguing that they should not be involved in regulating the software industry.
When funding the development of software, whether for their own use or as a more general R&D effort, government officials need to apply a different calculus as opposed to private entities. In particular, the same issues, such as cost and quality, should be weighted, but government officials must also take into account the benefits to society. This implies that different countries may make different choices. For instance, a small country might want to take advantage of further improvements by others to its software and would be more inclined to fund open source projects with licenses that limit commercial utilization, such as the General Public License. In a large country with a dynamic software industry, government officials may wish to make it easier for commercial firms to benefit from publicly funded research and development. (Indeed our survey findings suggest that countries in the real world do make different choices.)
[...]
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 06:30:12 +0200 Moritz Bartl moritz@headstrong.de wrote:
choices. For instance, a small country might want to take advantage of further improvements by others to its software and would be more inclined to fund open source projects with licenses that limit commercial utilization, such as the General Public License.
This argument needs to be killed once and for all. As long as it is used by the enemies of freedom, it will be believed and taken into account as a problem by institutions.
I don't know of a really good answer already formulated to dispel this fallacy though, do you?
I would look at reformulating "commercial utilization" as what it is: vendor-locking and anti-competitive behavior. The GPL limits vendor-locking, and favors competition by providing an even playground for all industrial actors regardless of their size and capacity to produce code; considering public code as infrastructure, like language. Nobody would argue that limiting access to language is a genuine business practice (although promoters of 'intellectual property' would certainly disagree.)
== hk
Hi,
I would look at reformulating "commercial utilization" as what it is: vendor-locking and anti-competitive behavior.
That sounds like taking it too far. Do you mean that commercial utilization of free software, and of GPL licensed software in particular, also leads to vendor-lockin and anti-competitive behavior, or was that in reference only to proprietary software?
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 21:28:20 +0200 Jonas Oberg jonas@fsfe.org wrote:
Hi,
I would look at reformulating "commercial utilization" as what it is: vendor-locking and anti-competitive behavior.
That sounds like taking it too far. Do you mean that commercial utilization of free software, and of GPL licensed software in particular, also leads to vendor-lockin and anti-competitive behavior, or was that in reference only to proprietary software?
I'm referring to 'commercial utilization' as used in the context of what Moritz quoted.
== hk
Hi Hellekin,
I'm referring to 'commercial utilization' as used in the context of what Moritz quoted.
Thank you. I think the context is a bit muddled as it somehow seems to suggest the GPL is unsuitable for commercial utilization. There are certainly differences in what stance countries take on the issue, but we should make clear all countries, big and small, benefit from copyleft licenses.
Sincerely,
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 08:18:56 +0200 Jonas Oberg jonas@fsfe.org wrote:
Hi Hellekin,
I'm referring to 'commercial utilization' as used in the context of what Moritz quoted.
Thank you. I think the context is a bit muddled as it somehow seems to suggest the GPL is unsuitable for commercial utilization.
On the contrary, I suggested that 'commercial utilization', in this context, and probably others, is used to mask a practice that is unfair and anti-competitive. Often I use very concise language that can be misinterpreted. To clarify, I think the argument, already developed in 1998 by ESR and the 'open-source' folks, that free software is not suitable for commerce is a fallacy. See for example: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
we should make clear all countries, big and small, benefit from copyleft licenses.
Yes.
Do you, by chance, mean "misuse of commercial utilization", that is, practices such as:
- Sub-licensing/re-licenisng under non-free software licenses.
- Sub-licensing/re-licenisng the same copylefted work under non-free software licenses, or under a non-copyleft license.
- "Extorting" the licensee, either directly (through contact), or indirectly (by releasing a crippleware/limited free/libre version of the software).
- Taking a free/libre software, making adaptations, and license this adaptation as non-free (or breaking the license terms somehow), *regardless* of being under a copyleft license. Common in mobile devices, and also in automobiles.
- Taking some free/libre software and making it available in a way such that there is a digital handcuff preventing the end-user from exercising the essential freedoms of the software. Common in mobile devices.
- Overpriced redistribution of *source files*, such that the end-user/licensee gives up on requestiong such source files. As far as I know, version 3 of the GPL is one of the few licenses that have terms that try to prevent this, or that have terms with which the licensee can resort to and demand (either normally, or through the judiciary).
- Not providing an offer letter/document for the complete corresponding source files in the cases covered by the GPL (I known these exist in the version 3 of the GPL).
Least but not least, I can also include:
- When the licensor, provided he *knows* the people involved, overlooks/ignores cases where the licensees are violating the licenses (either because the licensor received compensation, or simply because he wants "broad" adoption).
Jonas Oberg jonas@fsfe.org wrote:
I'm referring to 'commercial utilization' as used in the context of what Moritz quoted.
Thank you. I think the context is a bit muddled as it somehow seems to suggest the GPL is unsuitable for commercial utilization. There are certainly differences in what stance countries take on the issue, but we should make clear all countries, big and small, benefit from copyleft licenses.
... and other free software licenses.
Fabian
On Monday 28. August 2017 12.26.34 Fabian Keil wrote:
Jonas Oberg jonas@fsfe.org wrote:
I'm referring to 'commercial utilization' as used in the context of what Moritz quoted.
Thank you. I think the context is a bit muddled as it somehow seems to suggest the GPL is unsuitable for commercial utilization. There are certainly differences in what stance countries take on the issue, but we should make clear all countries, big and small, benefit from copyleft licenses.
... and other free software licenses.
Well, yes, but let us try and avoid drawing this out over lots of messages because the original context keeps getting lost. The assertion in the text quoted from the book "The Comingled Code" was...
"For instance, a small country might want to take advantage of further improvements by others to its software and would be more inclined to fund open source projects with licenses that limit commercial utilization, such as the General Public License."
The objection that started this discussion was about the assertion that the GPL limits "commercial utilization" (as meant by the authors). Now, the GPL does prevent the "easy money" approach of welding the lid shut and sticking a price tag on the box, and this approach then becomes unavailable to certain kinds of commercial entities. This is indeed a "limit" on a specific form of "commercial utilization".
But this "limit" does not mean that other activities are curtailed or that other ways of making money aren't even created by the need to provide the sources under the GPL, particularly when the obligation involves recipients who can be (and may only be) paying customers. And although what the authors wrote can be consistent with what I have just written, much depends on one's own perceptions.
For many people, the production of proprietary software is somehow equated to "commercial utilization" because such people cannot understand how anyone would otherwise make money from software. So, they claim that the GPL is "non- commercial" or "anti-commercial", when what it actually does is to prevent one specific business model.
Now, maybe the authors do not support such false equivalences, but even so, random members of the public who have not read the book may well jump to erroneous conclusions if they are presented with things like the quoted statement in isolation. That is presumably why the objection was raised.
The following sentence from the quoted text is informative about the mindset behind notions of commercialisation:
"In a large country with a dynamic software industry, government officials may wish to make it easier for commercial firms to benefit from publicly funded research and development."
What we now see in the public sector, or in institutions performing a public service (such as academic institutions that may be private in some cases), is the idea that public money should encourage or initiate "innovation". This often seems to take the form of letting companies profit from work done for the public good, and it is often excused or explained as a way of "stimulating the economy".
One argument that is made is that it provides a way of assisting local companies against foreign competition, and that the money made from such works will provide tax revenues instead of going abroad. But what ends up happening is that the public ends up paying over and over again for such works, and such works end up being exploitative towards the average person.
So, as Adonay mentioned, the average person ends up having to use proprietary tax software that may only work on certain proprietary platforms, and they may even have to pay substantial sums to be able to use all of this. And so, the "benefits" seem to get channeled to certain people and not to others, all in the name of "business".
Meanwhile, there are arguments that publicly-funded works might be used to reduce costs for the average person, to eliminate profiteering around commercial distractions, and to direct entrepreneurs towards activities that provide greater benefits to society.
Paul
P.S. Note that permissive licences do let people take publicly-funded code, deny people the source code, and charge money for the result. Such licences would guarantee "public code" only in its initial form.
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 14:09:23 +0200 Paul Boddie paul@boddie.org.uk wrote:
"In a large country with a dynamic software industry, government officials may wish to make it easier for commercial firms to benefit from publicly funded research and development."
Thank you Paul for your very thorough response that covers that entire chain of understanding. Indeed, in this quote, "commercial firms" is understood as "proprietary software firms" as opposed to "free software firms". This confusion that free software would be 'anti-commercial' is at the heart of the power of proprietary solutions over free software in public institutions.
One way to dispel this fallacy is to show that successful commercial venture with free software through valuable examples, e.g.--retaking some that appeared during the last RMLL: GNU Health, that is used in many hospitals in South America and the Carribeans, or the newly founded Synpell (trade unions for free software producers) in France.
By showcasing the existing successes of commercial free software we can easily counter that argument, and expand the meaning of 'commercial firms'. Nevertheless it remains important IMO not to limit this understanding to capitalist trade which is only the tip of the iceberg of the world economy: free software excels where proprietary software ceases to extract profit, in scientific research (e.g., biology, genetics, scientific publications, etc.), in commons practices (e.g., OSM, cagette.net), in hobbyist and education markets (e.g., genealogy, electronics, etc.)...
I'd be really interested if we would start compiling such use-cases and, as Moritz suggested, dispel anti-free-software arguments.
Thank you again for your insight and for rectifying my original intention in the eyes of others on the list.
== hk
Dear Hellekin,
i support your proposal to Open Sorce Technology, the condition for a real technical development. And your strong answer to Moritz.
Moritz is a german boy. And in Germany all governments groups on any level look for money flow. This is the base for the big corruption in Germany in the political spheres. And this is the base for his thinking.
The Free Software results are used for private interests. They are not interested to extend the space for activity over the software space. And they are not interested to analyse, what is the most powerfull way for technical development.
We know it from the beginning. Software in general was an open space. And in this time in the USA, all developed software with support from public fonds have to be Open Source software.
Therefore, like Matthias wrote, it is very easy to understand. We see in Muenchen how the moneyflow from Microsoft change the situation and start a big campaign of lies. This to place the responsibility for public space under private interests.
We have to extend this discussion to the FSFla in spanish.
many greetings, willi Asuncion, Paraguay
Am 26/8/2017 um 13:00 schrieb hellekin:
On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 06:30:12 +0200 Moritz Bartl moritz@headstrong.de wrote:
choices. For instance, a small country might want to take advantage of further improvements by others to its software and would be more inclined to fund open source projects with licenses that limit commercial utilization, such as the General Public License.
This argument needs to be killed once and for all. As long as it is used by the enemies of freedom, it will be believed and taken into account as a problem by institutions.
I don't know of a really good answer already formulated to dispel this fallacy though, do you?
I would look at reformulating "commercial utilization" as what it is: vendor-locking and anti-competitive behavior. The GPL limits vendor-locking, and favors competition by providing an even playground for all industrial actors regardless of their size and capacity to produce code; considering public code as infrastructure, like language. Nobody would argue that limiting access to language is a genuine business practice (although promoters of 'intellectual property' would certainly disagree.)
== hk
-------- Weitergeleitete Nachricht -------- Betreff: Re: Public Money - Public Code: Helping with the campaign Datum: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 19:59:02 +0200 Von: hellekin how@gnu.org An: discussion@lists.fsfe.org
- Erik Albers [2017-08-01 14:09 +0200]:
[...]
Hi Erik, Mathias, all,
I've been working on a philosophical argument that distinguishes free technologies from proprietary technologies on a technical basis. This offers a foundation to argue, along with the PMPC campaign, that European institutions, and more generally public institutions, should prefer open technical systems to closed technical systems (respectively: free software to privative software) not for ideological reasons, but on technical grounds. Petites Singularités already successfully used that argument to expel a proprietary software company from an European consortium to the benefit of a free software project (ongoing MURIQUI project, see [0]).
A first approach of this argument can be found in "Good bye 'open-source'; hello 'free software'" from January 2013, and was discussed abundantly during the last Libre Software Meeting in Saint-Etienne, France, the first week of July (RMLL 2017). I'm preparing a report on this covering interventions of Coline Ferrarato, Stéphane Couture, Thiago Novaes, Natacha Roussel, and Yann Moulier-Boutang. The conversation will continue in the form of articles and hopefully a review on free technologies.
I would like to propose that this effort is linked to the PMPC campaign so that when the EU software project coverage is complete, the campaign can evolve and push the technical argument. In a nutshell, French philosopher Gilbert Simondon distinguished open and closed technical systems that promote different ethics and aesthetics: the former embrace diversity, evolution, perennity, and cooperation, while the latter push univocity, control (vendor-lock), specialization. The key argument is that the path taken to produce a technology conditions the resulting technique.
This conversation will happen on the Petites Singularités discourse platform [2], and I would like to invite people interested in the PMPC to experiment with this platform as a campaign tool. I wish the FSFE would provide support towards this endeavor: I can provide the platform and sysadmin effort to sustain it (i.e. no FSFE sysadmin will be required), but I can't otherwise spend more time organizing the campaigning effort.
What do you think? How can these two approaches (philosophical / technical argument and EU assets identification with FOIA requests) can create synergies to amplify the PMPC campaign? Who would be interested in supporting such an endeavor, and with which means?
Thank you for your attention,
== hk
[0]: https://ps.zoethical.com/t/singular-technologies-the-third-technoscape/333 [1]: https://ps.zoethical.com/t/good-bye-open-source-hello-free-software/344 [2]: https://ps.zoethical.com/
On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 14:52:03 -0400 willi uebelherr willi.uebelherr@riseup.net wrote:
Dear Hellekin,
i support your proposal to Open Sorce Technology, the condition for a real technical development. And your strong answer to Moritz.
I'm sure Moritz chose the quote I replied to on purpose, and I have no doubt we all share the same view. But note, I didn't mention 'open source tech' but 'open technical systems', of which free software is an exemplary application.
We have to extend this discussion to the FSFla in spanish.
Feel free to translate it and forward. I can't ride both horses at this time.
== hk
That's an interesting quote you got there...
In Brazil at least, it's currently inconstitutional to declare free/libre software as *mandatory* through *legislation* ([1][2]). Noting that, at least in Brazil, the major sector in legislation is the legislative, but the administrative and the judiciary can also affect the legislation in some way.
Brazil's Federal Constitution defines, among other things, what public administrators can do (and everything not there is forbidden). This constitution exposes that the administrator have to follow some principles, one of these talks about public administration efficiency. However, the efficiency principle serves as guide and comes as priority of evaluation over the remaining principles ([1]).
Furthermore, at least in the researches made on the interpretation of Brazilian laws and norms, the "public administration efficiency" is beyond the general "bring results with less resource usage" (that is: optimizing the means), in order to also include the quality of the result ([1]).
However, as I said, free/libre software usage can't be mandated in *legislation* in Brazil, but the public administration can mandate it through procurement, either as a requirement, or with a criteria with punctuation/weight heavier than the other criterias ([1]).
In the first case (mandated in the procurement), there's no discrimination, at least according to [1]. However, I must add my personal note here: if we take that case upside-down, and imagine a procurement limited to some some non-free software known by name; or limited in a way that explicitly writes "non-free software", "closed source software" (I do know that we're not open source, but let's assume they don't know that) or "non-libre software", then we might have a problem with the argument made by the reference [1]. :(
In the second case (with higher weight), it might be that no candidate attends the criteria, or that the weight isn't set high enough in order to make the compliant candidates stand out (however, I didn't investigate if there is a standard as to how to set the weights, so I don't know if the act of "making something stand out just by being compliant with one criteria" is even legal).
[1] http://bibliotecadigital.fgv.br/dspace/bitstream/handle/10438/2673/FGV-CTS%20-%20Software%20livre.pdf (CC BY 2.5 BR)
[2] http://www2.senado.leg.br/bdsf/bitstream/handle/id/243078/Caderno3.pdf?sequence=1 (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 BR)
I'm not from Europe, and I'm not living there, but I would like to mention the "misuse" of public money in Brazil.
In the country's governance level. The application used to fill and send personal income taxes is non-free. The IRPF-Livre project from FSFLA's Software Imposto campaign/group once managed to force the public organization responisble for making such software to free/liberate *one* version of it, from around 2008--2009. Nowadays, IRPF-Livre (https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/IRPF-Livre), Declara (https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Declara), and Rnetclient (https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Rnetclient) --- all of which in some way or another emerged from that single release --- are community attempt to provide almost the same set of features as the ongoing non-free software. For more information on this issue, you can contact Alexandre "lxo"/"lxoliva" Oliva and Thadeu Cascardo.
In the country's judiciary level, we recently found out, during a free/libre software event, that this part of the state's power is depending on non-free software for signing (and verifying signatures of) documents through the CAdES, XAdES and PAdES "standards". I put "standards" under quotes because, at least the Brazilian activists are unaware of free/libre software able to completely handle these (generally, there might be one that reads and signs, but there might be free/libre firmware missing, or even free/libre driver/module missing). See what was the result of the free/libre software event in question at: https://flisol.info/FLISOL2017/Brasil/BalnearioCamboriu#Relat.2BAPM-rio. Cleber Leao (contact information available in that same page) has more information on this matter.
The latest WannaCry non-free software scandal affected various computers which were running non-free system distributions in the administrative, legislative, and judiciary organizations. The English Wikipedia page for WannaCry has references citing Brazil and the public organizations affected (not cited in the Wikipedia article itself, but in the referenced articles).
Last but not least, while the software in the administrative, legislative, and judiciary organizations' side is free/libre, most public-facing software distributed through JavaScript is still non-free or not clearly marked as such for the general public. As an example, enable GNU LibreJS and visit web sites such as:
- http://www12.senado.leg.br/hpsenado.
- http://www.stf.jus.br/portal/principal/principal.asp.
I hope this helps. :)
Hi!
I'm not from Europe, and I'm not living there, but I would like to mention the "misuse" of public money in Brazil.
Thank you very much, this is very helpful and useful! And I should take the opportunity to say we're happy to see the contribution from other countries well outside of Europe on this list and in our work too. This isn't a problem exlusive to any one region or country; the challenges facing us are the same world wide.
You're welcome! :)
I wonder, can Brazil's case be included in that wiki page?
... if yes, who can do this?
Note that I don't have an account on the FSFE wiki, and nowadays I'm somewhat over my ears of college work. :) I could do the inclusion in the wiki page, but it would be just a copy-paste from what I wrote, because I don't have much time to make it into a further research.
I'm somewhat busy nowadays because I'm trying to write a paper about the importance of free/libre software *philosophy* (not simply the software) to university management (which as far as I have studied so far, also involves administrative decisions and teaching practices).
The article is being written in Brazilian Portuguese, and has a repository available at: https://notabug.org/adfeno/Trabalho_sobre_gestao_universitaria
I would translate it to English, but since I'm still writing it and still under orientation from a teacher, I think translating it now would be impractical. When I do finish it, then I'll translate it. :)
On Mon, 28 Aug 2017 09:29:18 -0300 Adonay Felipe Nogueira adfeno@hyperbola.info wrote:
You're welcome! :)
I wonder, can Brazil's case be included in that wiki page?
I guess the case of Brazil belongs to the FSFLA mailing list where you will find local support!
== hk
P.S.: nice to see a hyperbola.info email.
Indeed, FSFLA already has a page describing it in their news archive. :)
hellekin how@gnu.org writes:
I guess the case of Brazil belongs to the FSFLA mailing list where you will find local support!
== hk
P.S.: nice to see a hyperbola.info email.
One thing that would be important to promote is GNU LibreJS markup compliance when the government, legislative, and judiciary wants some web site that has any JS in it, or require web sites not to use client-side scripting at all.
Just for information: I was replying to the message which originated this thread (the one which also has the link to the wiki page about the campaign).
Adonay Felipe Nogueira adfeno@hyperbola.info writes:
One thing that would be important to promote is GNU LibreJS markup compliance when the government, legislative, and judiciary wants some web site that has any JS in it, or require web sites not to use client-side scripting at all. _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion