On Thu, 2017-09-21 at 17:00 +0100, jah wrote:

On 21/09/17 13:31, Jonke Suhr wrote:

...

I received a request to add Doteveryone [1] to our list of supporting organizations for Public Code, however I'm not sure if they are truly an NGO like the other organisations on our list.

They are a registered charity, however I'm not sure what that entails so I wanted to ask if anyone who knows a lot about the UK could pitch in with some information (I CC'd Daniel so maybe he can forward this mail).

More information about the charity can be found here:-

http://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details?regid=1146972&su bid=0

To quote last year's report:-

"Go ON UK is a partnership organisation and was formed by a number of organisations from the business, charity and public sectors who wished to work together, creating an effective national alliance to ensure everyone has the Basic Digital Skills they need."

jah

Short answer as Jah says above. They are a charity.  They have an online document which they shared publicly asking for contribution. I contributed to it saying that many of their issues might be reinventing the wheel.  I pointed them towards groups that are doing similar things such as consumers international, fsf, fsfe, and ORG (I think I forgot about public software). So basically, it was me who pointed them in fsfe direction. Some of their blogs can be found here: https://medium.com/doteveryone Their founder is Martha Lane Fox who has the respect of many people in UK.  I don't know what it implies to have their dot-everyone  on the links page of fsfe but I feel that doteveryone should be consulting with fsfe and other charities to find out what is best for ethical tech.  They also have a podcast: https://soundcloud.com/user-558357776 I get the feeling that they have just started but probably will have strong influence in business in UK.

On Fri, 22 Sep 2017 11:22:08 +0000 Heiki Lõhmus repentinus@fsfe.org wrote:

GO ON UK LIMITED is a charitable company. They were incorporated on 13 July 2009 [0]. I believe that, at the time, a charitable company was the only structure in the English law that limited the liability of trustees for the debts of the charity.

Not quite but close enough. There are also NGOs which don't qualify as charities, which is most of the UK's civil society. In general, we use the same incorporation methods as the private sector, which has both benefits (for example, it makes it difficult for government to target NGOs in general without also hurting a lot of businesspeople who fund certain political parties that, shall we say, might not be too unhappy at hurting NGOs) and drawbacks (you have to look pretty carefully sometimes to figure out whether a corporation is an NGO or not). There are a few forms which are intended for NGOs and charities, but they have their own drawbacks, including usually higher registration and operation fees. Also, the current regulators seem pretty hands-off, so it may be possible at the moment to be a CIC and do all sorts of naughtiness as long as none of the owners take it to caught.

In short, look at the company not the type. Don't get hung up on whether it says Ltd, CIC, CIO, LLP, Cyf or whatever after the name.

Hope that clarifies,

So they have had an open page open for comments and they are going over the first draft. Hopefully we are not late to the party this time.  They have an open document where they accept input. I have done my bit, but I really don't have a completely full understanding of free software as many of you here.  So please comment:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bAScKd1eIKgPX3T8nXOkwbB2h8GC01SUP_d u3O7H7oU/edit#heading=h.exstkxcrxuof Sorry that they are currently using googledocs, but I guess that is something we can address later down the line.  On Wed, 2017-10-04 at 17:41 +0200, Paul Boddie wrote:

On Wednesday 4. October 2017 15.56.46 Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:

...

I think there also needs to be more work on their part on how to define "ethical tech choices", see:

ces-try- check-your-tech-3c05bcb28faf>.

Of course, this is not to say that this is a severe problem, it just means that it needs to be worked over time --- and hope for them to understand the reasons for our view of "ethical tech choices".

It is nice that they are trying to address the problems associated with choice  and technology, but I fear that the "consumer-focused" perspective will result  in the same kind of attitude shown by organisations like the Consumers'  Association (also known as "Which?"), where every last problem in society can  supposedly be remedied by having everyone constantly monitoring every little  aspect of their lives so that they might "switch providers" at a moment's  notice (where this is even appropriate) and deliver some kind of consumer  justice to bad companies.

Unfortunately, people don't always have the time to constantly check  everything in their lives, adjust their habits by swiping left or right, or  whatever, and tune their lifestyles to be completely optimal. Millions of  people remain in bad customer-business relationships not because they are lazy  or ignorant (which is the tone often used by the "empowered consumer"  organisations), but because switching banks, phone companies, and other  providers can be a lot of work for which such people don't have the time or  energy, certainly not on a regular basis.

There is also the matter of addressing "popular" concerns while ignoring  systemic flaws in products and services. So, to take an example, while  Fairphone pursued the worthy goals of using materials from ethical sources and  making sure that the employees of the manufacturer were well-treated, the  matter of sustainable and durable software technology was marginalised. That  has left the first phone unsupported and probably threatens the second one,  despite the problems of industry-wide licence violation being known about for  years.

Free Software is an essential part of making technology that lasts and is fair  to its users, but it can be argued that many people regard it as some kind of  peripheral lifestyle choice, like the tedious and superficial "Mac or PC"  choice that you can still see mentioned in various places online, or which  sports team you happen to support. Such marginalisation results in flawed  products and services that could have been viable had people understood the  role of software instead of having a simple-minded "it's all ones and zeros"  mentality.

Until these organisations properly recognise the value of Free Software and  the importance of related matters such as interoperability and transparency,  many of their activities and recommendations will be ineffective.

Paul _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

There is a reply to this message where I also share the contents that people shared with me, which is was sent for review to the mailing list administration due to the size of the content --- that's perfectly fine, better safe than sorry. ;)

Anyways, while that message doesn't come, here is the message I would send to the organizations involved.

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- This message can be passed on to the organization involved.

I have read the files attached. The page numbers reported in this message are based on the ones reported by the document viewer, not those displayed in the document.

I do agree with page 6 of the "Trustworthy tech partners --- 2017 handbook" when it mentions reusing "appropriately licensed code" as good practice.

However, I also share the same concern raised by others in the parent thread. Software and other functional data is it self so important to society, and at the same time somewhat trickier subject that is very hard for the end-consumer to inspect by himself and also to switch to another "solution" if one takes into account that there are other forces that may help keep the not-so-good situation. Stablishing a "trust mark" requires using a "fake client" approach to do detailed evaluation of the product periodically.

For such a fast change in functional data, we have projects such as the Free Software Directory ([1]), evaluators for free/libre system distributions ([2]), the maintainers of the GNU Linux-libre scripts ([3]) --- which remove non-free parts of Linux (the kernel) ---, the contributors to the list of computer parts that require non-free software ([4]), the editors of the list of software and packages that do not respect the guidelines followed by [2] (see reference [5]), and the various evaluators inside the various projects for free/libre system distributions ([6][7]).

Now, if one talks about physical/tangible products that already provide functional data inside (built-in, with no requirement for Internet access), then although the problem and requirement for periodic evaluation, the release of the physical product is slower compared to the software and other functional data. So a "trust mark" for these is somewhat easier to set, although care still must be taken so that the mark isn't used for advertising without permission.

One can see the evaluators that test for Respects Your Freedom certification compliance ([8]) as an example of "trust mark" verifiers for such physical products. There is also the testers of h-node ([9]) --- which review if computers/devices and parts are at least friendly to free/libre system distributions, although the approach provided by h-node isn't sustainable because it leaves the end-consumer as a hostage to the "good-will" of the manufacturers and local providers.

Besides, it's already known that simple reuse of "correctly licensed" things isn't enough if the original project isn't also free/libre and if it isn't to keep the resulting work free/libre, preferably through strong copyleft licenses such as the latest version of both GNU GPL and AGPL, with "or later"/"+" option --- and most importantly: compliant with these licenses ([10]). Lack of observation of this issue can lead to issues that affect all the environmental, social and econimic pillars of sustainability, common cases include the non-compliance of some device manufacturers that provide their own custom copies of Android wrapped in Restricted Boot, which forbids the end-user to reuse/use an adaptation that a person made even when person's perfectly able to "sign" per own adaptation as trustworthy ([11][12]). This, combined with the presence of non-free software in the custom copies, causes the perception of need to change device more often.

Now, if one wants to talk about "web services" or "apps", all of those deserve to be taken with a grain of salt, because they might not be sustainable.

In the case of streaming, most of the times it's done in a way such that you can't get an exact copy of the media easily ([12]), and the provider doesn't follow any completely "open" standard that allows other place/website to make exact and complete copies of the content in order to also be a provider of it (and related things, such as comments, likes, etc.) ([13][14]). Simply put: the streaming provider would be the central provider, one greedy attempt from him, or other issues, and any content can be changed or vanish. Projects like GNU MediaGoblin and the ActivityPub/ActivityPump standard (in process of standardization) are an attempt to address this.

The same notes for streaming is valid for social networks and communication technologies. In the first case, ActivityPub comes as important again, together with Diaspora, Pump.io, GNU Social and Mastodon --- if I'm not mistaken, ActivityPub is supposed to integrate all theese within themselves and GNU MediaGoblin. For the second case (communication technologies), XMPP/Jabber (with all extensions enabled by the service provider and the client application being used) and emails --- yes these ones, preferably shifting the recommendations to favor independent small local providers (not the bigger ones) and those which provide at least POP3 and SMTP access to everyone, or at least IMAP and SMTP access (also to everyone). For this entire paragraph, see the references [13][14][15].

As for the online or "app-based" payments, it's also a mess. GNU Taler provides ways for standardization ([16]), allowing payments or donations in any currency and requiring less computing power/energy than blockchain --- thus, it will be in compliance with the future Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR), which requires privacy by design and data minimization for all data processing in Europe after 25/05/2018 ([16]).

There's always the problem with websites that make the visitor's/guest's web browser run non-free software automatically (generally done through JavaScript). This results in privacy and accessibility problems ([17]), and either the website is made without JavaScript, or these are liberated --- this can be tested with GNU LibreJS ([18]). Unfortunatelly, its not yet common for website designers and programmers to free/liberate their JavaScript.

Finally, all of this should be taken into account in the case of public procurement, so it would be a good idea to have a step to differentiate each of these items from those related to functionallity. So that the items mentioned here weight more in favor of those who comply than those who don't, that is: simple "+1" points might not be enough if all the other items also give "+1".

Respectfully, Adonay.

[1] https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/Main_Page.

[2] https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html#NewDistro.

[3] https://www.fsfla.org/ikiwiki/selibre/linux-libre/.

[4] https://libreplanet.org/wiki/LinuxLibre:Devices_that_require_non-free_firmware.

[5] https://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines.

[6] https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html.

[7] https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-non-gnu-distros.html.

[8] https://www.fsf.org/resources/hw/endorsement/respects-your-freedom.

[9] https://h-node.org/.

[10] https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guide.pdf.

[11] https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libby/m/embracing-secure-boot-and-rejecting-restricted-boot-matthew-garrett/.

[12] http://audio-video.gnu.org/video/2015-10-24--rms--free-software-and-your-freedom--seagl--speech.ogv.

[13] https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/christopher-webber-federation-and-gnu-2b47/.

[14] http://cdn.media.ccc.de/congress/2015/webm-hd/32c3-7403-en-de-A_New_Kid_on_the_Block_webm-hd.webm.

[15] https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/the-surreptitious-assault-on-privacy-security-and-freedom/.

[16] http://cdn.media.ccc.de/events/eh2017/webm-hd/eh17-8471-eng-Taler_-_Talk_webm-hd.webm.

[17] https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/the-surreptitious-assault-on-privacy-security-and-freedom/.

[18] https://media.libreplanet.org/u/zakkai/m/javascript-if-you-love-it-set-it-free-54ab/. --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8---

Andres Muniz Piniella a75576@alumni.tecnun.es writes:

So they have had an open page open for comments and they are going over the first draft. Hopefully we are not late to the party this time.

They have an open document where they accept input. I have done my bit, but I really don't have a completely full understanding of free software as many of you here. So please comment: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bAScKd1eIKgPX3T8nXOkwbB2h8GC01SUP_du3O7H...

Sorry that they are currently using googledocs, but I guess that is something we can address later down the line.

Just for informational purposes: I thank Mx. Piniella and also those from Doteveryone who replied.

However, I do hope that either:

- the suggestions and notes presented are implemented or discussed explicitly;

- they discuss the importance of free/libre software philosophy/movement explicitly during the related programs/tracks;

- they put the related free/libre software philosophy/movement and its projects as important/necessary/rquired part of the process;

- they foster people getting in touch with the related free/libre software activists and non-profit and charity organizations.

These points are important because, at least in the groups I observed from afar/far here in Brazil, I noticed that even though a free/libre software activist takes days of his life to write ellaborated reply or suggestions to this regard, little is done from the affected organizations in regards to discussing the issues explicitly. Most of the times, in the organizations here in Brazil we have only some basic mention of "accessibility", "privacy", "security", "development", but almost no explicit mention and discussion on the free/libre software philosophy and its movement, its principles, and relations with sustainability (which goes beyond the environmental pillar), democracy, politics, federation, economics (which deals with the effects of resource scarcity, limits, overuse or underuse; not to be confused with finance and chrematistics), capability-based approach/theory of political philosophy, the conflict between competition (and "competitive advantage") and collaboration, ethics (and moral dilemmas), and how non-exclusive and non-rival naturally-public goods with zero transaction costs and which can have positive externalities behave different than other goods.

Finally, during the discussions, care must be taken so that free/libre software isn't framed as "required to be gratis". While in some cases one can acquire a copy of free/libre software or free/libre system distribution by paying nothing for it, there are costs associated with maintainance, training costs, development, customization for specific needs, adapting previous customizations after getting updates (because someone has to keep the pieces, or do even better by contributing them to the original project). All these costs also exist in the case of non-free software, but they are felt and paid for in other ways (which the public wouldn't agree with if told exclicitly beforehand). By making these needs and costs explicit, it's possible to open oors for fostering the local/municipal, regional, national/federal, and international economies.

Respectfully, Adonay.

Andres Muniz Piniella a75576@alumni.tecnun.es writes:

On Thu, 2017-11-09 at 18:22 -0200, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:

Anyways, while that message doesn't come, here is the message I would send to the organizations involved.

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- This message can be passed on to the organization involved.

Andonay: Your feedback has been forwarded on and Laura James, technology principal at Doteveryone. Has said:

"thanks for the feedback! (...)Also useful to have feedback on the Trustworthy tech partners handbook and the thinking therein - this is the first serious feedback we’ve had on that :slightly_smiling_face: will think about this as we work through the program and refine our ideas"

So thank you! If anybody else wants to review any more documents I can send the odt of the google doc and pdf document (I have asked for a link on that one).

A related coop that is out is: https://diglife.com if worth discussing I can create a separate thread for this.

Note: Top-posting so that new people know to what I'm replying to.

Is everything going OK in that periodic check?

As a side-note: I wonder if someone from this list is going to a random number of these in-person meetings.

Finally, for every case: don't worry, this message isn't meant to be aggressive.

2017-11-18T10:50:48+0000 Andres Muniz Piniella wrote:

Agreed with this (my thoughts exactly), I will check in from time to time to make sure faif is mentioned. In the mean time we can monitor here: https://medium.com/doteveryone/responsible-tech/home

Andres (he/him/his)

On Fri, 2017-11-17 at 11:16 -0200, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:

Just for informational purposes: I thank Mx. Piniella and also those from Doteveryone who replied.

However, I do hope that either:

• the suggestions and notes presented are implemented or discussed explicitly;

• they discuss the importance of free/libre software philosophy/movement explicitly during the related programs/tracks;

• they put the related free/libre software philosophy/movement and its projects as important/necessary/rquired part of the process;

• they foster people getting in touch with the related free/libre software activists and non-profit and charity organizations.

These points are important because, at least in the groups I observed from afar/far here in Brazil, I noticed that even though a free/libre software activist takes days of his life to write ellaborated reply or suggestions to this regard, little is done from the affected organizations in regards to discussing the issues explicitly. Most of the times, in the organizations here in Brazil we have only some basic mention of "accessibility", "privacy", "security", "development", but almost no explicit mention and discussion on the free/libre software philosophy and its movement, its principles, and relations with sustainability (which goes beyond the environmental pillar), democracy, politics, federation, economics (which deals with the effects of resource scarcity, limits, overuse or underuse; not to be confused with finance and chrematistics), capability-based approach/theory of political philosophy, the conflict between competition (and "competitive advantage") and collaboration, ethics (and moral dilemmas), and how non-exclusive and non-rival naturally-public goods with zero transaction costs and which can have positive externalities behave different than other goods.

Finally, during the discussions, care must be taken so that free/libre software isn't framed as "required to be gratis". While in some cases one can acquire a copy of free/libre software or free/libre system distribution by paying nothing for it, there are costs associated with maintainance, training costs, development, customization for specific needs, adapting previous customizations after getting updates (because someone has to keep the pieces, or do even better by contributing them to the original project). All these costs also exist in the case of non-free software, but they are felt and paid for in other ways (which the public wouldn't agree with if told exclicitly beforehand). By making these needs and costs explicit, it's possible to open oors for fostering the local/municipal, regional, national/federal, and international economies.

Respectfully, Adonay.

Andres Muniz Piniella a75576@alumni.tecnun.es writes:

On Thu, 2017-11-09 at 18:22 -0200, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:

Anyways, while that message doesn't come, here is the message I would send to the organizations involved.

--8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- This message can be passed on to the organization involved.

Andonay: Your feedback has been forwarded on and Laura James, technology principal at Doteveryone. Has said:

"thanks for the feedback! (...)Also useful to have feedback on the Trustworthy tech partners handbook and the thinking therein - this is the first serious feedback we’ve had on that :slightly_smiling_face: will think about this as we work through the program and refine our ideas"

So thank you! If anybody else wants to review any more documents I can send the odt of the google doc and pdf document (I have asked for a link on that one).

A related coop that is out is: https://diglife.com if worth discussing I can create a separate thread for this.