Re: FSFE-in-2020: Who are we?
Hello, > On 10. Oct 2019, at 16:11, Florian Snow wrote: > > Mirko Boehm mailto:mi...@fsfe.org>> writes: >> I think we are getting numb to bullshitting. So let me rephrase this >> in simple speech: The FSFE-in-2020 ground to a halt because the >> decision makers (our GA and the president) did not prioritise it > > I'm sorry, but that is not my impression at all. The process had > serious flaws from the get-go. The survey had no clear aim, multiple > major statistical issues and as such was unable to produce any sort of > reliable results. Multiple people pointed out those flaws in the > beginning of the process, but they did not get corrected anyway by those > in charge. The reason they gave was that this was only supposed to be > the beginning of the process and it would give a very rough overview > with a more refined process to be added later. > > However, at some point, we received a "final" report for the process > that had a lot of claims in it that were not supported by the available > data at all. By that point, the process had taken up considerable > ressources and so last year at the GA, we had to decide between > continuing the process by pouring more ressources on it and stopping it. > Continuing would have meant pretty much starting over because of the > huge flaws the process had. We also still didn't know the actual goal > of the process, so we decided against it. I respectfully disagree with your disagreement. I simply don’t see any tangible positive activity from the FSFE staff or president towards actual progress. This sounds more like teenagers explaining why they did not do the homework. > The restructuring was largely independent of the identity process. > There were two major obstacles there, though. One was that there was a > pad with some notes on how to possibly restructure the FSFE, but the pad > had no obvious structure and no clear suggestions. In preparation for > the GA, Matthias asked mutliple times for actual motions or suggestions > to be written, yet nothing happened. My impression was that you, Mirko, > did not have the time to update the pad or something like that. At the > same time, we had the problem of an abusive GA member and started to > worry more about simply increasing the size of the GA. Again, the same. There have been a whole 10 page concept developed around 2010 by Jonas and others that provided a fully detailed suggestion of how to reform FSFE, a formal motion at the FSFE GA by me and Shane to finally implement this, which was on the agenda, discussed and approved, and a document with the expectations and suggestions from the Berlin members meeting. If you can point me to tangible work of the staff or the president that matches this in effort and diligence we have a basis for further discussion. Until then, I let the facts speak. Best, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: FSFE-in-2020: Who are we?
Hi, > On 8. Oct 2019, at 17:32, Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > >> Did the whole process grind to a halt, perhaps due to broader collaboration >> issues? > > in short: Yes. > > Though maybe "broader collaboration" is a bit coarse. > My personal take: the process was too heavy and it turned out it could not > deliver what was expected from it. We've also had less time of the people > available who were the ones driving it. Then other other distractions came > to be and the most important goal of FSFE is to help people learn about Free > Software, so we kept doing more for Free Software and less internal > organisational questions. (Again I believe all this to be normal for an > organisation, though we should aim for writing more about this. Sorry for not > doing so earlier and thanks for the question and reminder in the other > thread.) I think we are getting numb to bullshitting. So let me rephrase this in simple speech: The FSFE-in-2020 ground to a halt because the decision makers (our GA and the president) did not prioritise it and have no interest in the increased accountability and transparency that would inevitably follow from any sort of modernisation of FSFE. Best, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: European Commission Event "Open Source beyond 2020" (DG CNECT/DIGIT)
Hello, I will be at the event and speak on two panels. I am not going to represent FSFE, though. Best, Mirko. > On 7. Oct 2019, at 14:56, Harald Welte wrote: > > I recently heard about the event "Open Source beyond 2020" by the European > Commission [1] and was wondering if anyone from the FSFE is planning to attend > the event and represent FSFE? > > The agenda looks surprisingly interesting, I must say -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: Organisation democracy (was: Balance relationships with companies)
ribute > _______ > Discussion mailing list > Discussion@lists.fsfe.org > https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > > This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All > participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: > https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: GitHub, proprietary services and Save Code Share
Hello, > On 9. May 2019, at 12:40, Reinhard Müller wrote: > > Am 09.05.19 um 11:54 schrieb Mirko Boehm: >> OFE is a great ally to FSFE, and has a mission that is strongly related >> to ours. It is however not a software freedom focused organisation. It >> is good to work together. It is not a promising approach to rely on OFE >> to have software freedom represented in Brussels for us. > > So it makes sense to work together with organisations like OFE, but we > need to make sure that their goals in a specific field of cooperation > match our goals, even if it is for different reasons. Right? Right. On top of that, I suggest that when it comes to software freedom, we remain the key driver. Even if the missions of other organisations match well with ours, their priorities may be different. We should assume that software freedom is our top priority and *a* priority for them. Best, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: GitHub, proprietary services and Save Code Share
Hello Reinhard, I am unsure if your question is satire. I did not say or imply what you think I said. I will try to answer you question, risking that the answer points into the ether: > On 7. May 2019, at 11:50, Reinhard Müller wrote: > > Am 06.05.19 um 15:55 schrieb Mirko Boehm: >> Most of the ground work on this issue was done by Openforum Europe. >> [...] >> Which means the interests of the free software community where >> much less present in the process than is commonly assumed here. > > Is this implying that OFE actively works against the interests of Free > Software, or are they just indifferent? I assume that you have some > insight about this, being the Co-Chair of the Intellectual Property Task > Force at OFE. There is a long way to go from "interests of the free software community where much less present” to "OFE actively works against the interests of Free Software”. Is this an “you are either with me or against me” argument? Maybe you can explain how you got there. > Also, given your involvement in the OFE side of the process, I > understand that you of course see the amount of work done on that side. The mission of OFE is this (from their web site): "OpenForum Europe (OFE) is a not-for-profit, European-based independent think tank which explains the merits of openness in computing to policy makers and communities across Europe.” “Open Source” is mentioned a couple of paragraphs down on their about-us page. “Free software” is not mentioned.[1] OFE is a great ally to FSFE, and has a mission that is strongly related to ours. It is however not a software freedom focused organisation. It is good to work together. It is not a promising approach to rely on OFE to have software freedom represented in Brussels for us. > Generally, I think it makes sense to, for specific activities, partner > with other organisations if these other orgs pursue the same goals as we > do, even if they do it for different reasons. Agreed. > In no case, IMHO, should we stop to fight for what is good for Free > Software just because it happens to also be good for organisations or > companies we don't like. Agreed. Best, Mirko. [1] http://www.openforumeurope.org/about-ofe/ <http://www.openforumeurope.org/about-ofe/> -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: GitHub, proprietary services and Save Code Share (was Re: Is there any hope for FSFE?)
Hello, > On 6. May 2019, at 12:37, Paul Boddie wrote: > > On Saturday 4. May 2019 13.42.51 Nikos Roussos wrote: >> On 03/05/2019 19:00, Paul Boddie wrote: >>> So, in the case of the Copyright Directive, where much fuss was made about >>> keeping code sharing platforms free of copyright filters, it seemed that >>> the FSFE was acting to defend GitHub and various proprietary services on >>> the basis that they help people share Free Software. >> >> That doesn't sound like a logical conclusion. Sure Github is one of the >> affected platforms, but code sharing platforms also include Free >> Software initiatives (eg. sourcehut) or even self-hosted instances of >> Gitlab, Gitea, etc. > > Of course. But what I object to is a prominent position being given to a > centralising, proprietary service provider in a campaign about how copyright > legislation will affect Free Software. I would much rather the FSFE supported > and promoted genuinely open code-sharing platforms and let the proprietary > service providers do their own lobbying. there is a simpler, less flattering explanation. More likely to be correct under Occam’s razor: Most of the ground work on this issue was done by Openforum Europe. Github is one of their member companies. FSFE piggy-backed on their work. Which means the interests of the free software community where much less present in the process than is commonly assumed here. This also explains the dopey wording on the Twitter message that exploded. Best, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: Request for Clarifications
Hi, > On 6. May 2019, at 04:36, Florian Snow wrote: > > Calling Daniel's behavior a symptom is a gross understatement. The symptoms of some ailments can be quite unpleasant, even icky. But I see your point. Now for some root cause analysis, please. Cheers, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: Request for Clarifications
Hello, > On 4. May 2019, at 02:51, Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote: > > Je ven, 2019-05-03 je 23:30 +0200, Paul Schaub skribis: >> For a start, are the allegations of "censorship" regarding the blog and >> newsletters written by Daniel Pocock true? I dislike the word >> censorship, as I can see valid reasons for moderation. Still, is it >> true, that Pococks work in the FSFE is being "moderated" and if so, >> based on what reasons? > > I believe the chief complaint is that the FSFE was restructured such > that there are no longer elections for a fellowship representative. > Because Daniel was the representative at the time this decision was > made, he felt that this was an act of censorship. > > The rationale for the change was not censorship. It can be found here: > > https://fsfe.org/news/2018/news-20180526-01.en.html > <https://fsfe.org/news/2018/news-20180526-01.en.html> > > The gist of it is: > > - Elections pit contributors against each other, which is not in the > spirit of collaboration. > > - There are already other ways to become a GA member. > > - And, if you ask me, the idea of a "fellowship representative" is a > little bit silly---surely everyone on the GA aims to represent the > interests of the Free Software community. I think most of us are aware of the communicated rationale. There is however reality, and it does not fully agree with the PR that was created around this. The change to remove the fellowship seats was supposed to go hand-in-hand with a broadening of the general membership of FSFE and more accountability of the organisation. The stated reason to rush it was to get it done so that we can focus on the restructuring that was given to the president as a mandate by the GA. However, while the abandonment of the fellowship proceeded swiftly, the restructuring of FSFE in general never even started. The executive director position, which served as another check to keep the president accountable, was also removed. I urge everybody to make up their own opinion. I do not condone Daniel’s activities. However to act as if Daniel is the problem, instead of a symptom of the underlying problem, may not be good enough. Best, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: resigning as Fellowship representative
Hello Daniel, > On 20. Sep 2018, at 19:19, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > Given the decline of the Fellowship and FSFE's migration of fellows into > a supporter program, I no longer feel that there is any further benefit > that a representative can offer to fellows. > > With recent blogs, I've made a final effort to fulfill my obligations to > keep you informed. I hope fellows have a better understanding of who we > are and can engage directly with FSFE without a representative. Fellows > who want to remain engaged with FSFE are encouraged to work through your > local groups and coordinators as active participation is the best way to > keep an organization on track. > > This resignation is not a response to any other recent events. From a > logical perspective, if the Fellowship is going to evolve out of a > situation like this, it is in the hands of local leaders and fellowship > groups, it is no longer a task for a single representative. I would like to thank you for your contributions to FSFE and for your commitment not to shy away from asking the difficult questions and calling out the need for change where it exists. And for volunteering for the fellowship representative position in the first place. It used to be an important position that brought diversity of thought into the FSFE general assembly. Even though the discussion was at times difficult, it was clear that the intentions where to improve FSFE and make it fit for the future. I wish you all the best for the next big thing, whatever that is for you. Thanks for all your work! Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: who has time for the GA? (was: terminating memberships responsibly)
Hello, > On 30. Aug 2018, at 07:34, Carsten Agger wrote: > > > On 08/30/2018 03:49 PM, Nikos Roussos wrote: >>> This brings me back to the original question then: democracy. Annual >>> elections and allowing all the community to participate can provide >>> regular renewal. When somebody doesn't have the time any more, either >>> they don't run for re-election or the community will help them depart by >>> voting for an alternative candidate. Changing the tools and arbitrarily >>> expelling people are a crazy alternative to something as easy to >>> understand as democracy. >> I understand that this may be your expectation, but this hardly true for any >> non-profit organisation out there. You have a very specific view on how FSFE >> should operate democratically, but that doesn't mean that this is the only >> way, or even that democracy is the only way to run an organization. >> >> I have been (and still am) member/supporter of various non-profit >> organizations and none of these apply the kind of democracy you envision. >> Rightfully so, in my opinion. As an example, I'm a member of EFF but there >> is no democratic way for me to be elected in the Board of Directors, or >> participate in their private strategic meetings. Same applies for FSF (US). >> >> > Many NGOs that I know of are run as traditional associations, with a yearly > general assembly as te highest authority, a board elected by the participants > at the general assembly; with all members being eligible to attend the > general assembly and run for the board, and membership being open to everyone > (maybe with well-defined limitations, such as a profession or geographical > area) willing to pay membership dues. > > That's true of some of the largest NGOs here in Denmark, and I believe it's a > requirement in order to receive various kinds of public support (e.g., access > to venues, for small associations). That has, on the other hand, of course, > never been how e.g. the FSF or the FSFE (or the EFF) have worked. But it is > true that such organization is a norm in some circumstances. Thanks, Carsten and Nikos. What you describe as a norm is almost exactly the model Shane and I (and Jonas earlier on) suggested as a blueprint for how FSFE should operate. We suggested this for approval during the 2017 agenda. The proposal was accepted. Implementation is outstanding. It is apparent that some of the old guard free software organisations are set up in an intransparent, autocratic model that is tailored to protecting the position of the figure heads. It is also apparent that all these organisation struggle with renewal and maintaining relevance and a contributor base. This is a fate I we should avoid for FSFE. I don’t think inaction is a good approach. Cheers, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: supporting our fellowship representative
Thank you for your careful and civil contribution to this discussion, Paul. Mirko. > On 28. Aug 2018, at 07:28, Paul Boddie wrote: > > On Tuesday 28. August 2018 15.32.24 Reinhard Müller wrote: >> >> Am 2018-08-28 um 15:04 schrieb Joe Awni: >>> As far as I'm concerned, with out elections, my impression is it's a >>> staff-office in Berlin that is effectively domain-name-squatting on >>> fsfe.org <http://fsfe.org>. >> >> I guess that you know how offending this is to the numerous volunteers >> in FSFE, especially for those not based in Berlin - like, for example, >> myself. It does, however, speak for itself that such statements usually >> origin from people who have never participated in any of FSFE's activities. > > I wouldn't phrase my own thoughts in such terms, and I do recognise the effort > made by both staff and volunteers within the FSFE, but I do also recognise the > frustration some people have that their involvement with the organisation is > largely confined to paying their membership dues. > > Having begun my involvement with the FSFE in a fairly active way, only for > that involvement to gradually diminish over the years, I don't consider it > completely inappropriate for me to point out that the organisation struggles > to engage and empower its membership. > > Some of these struggles are matters of practicality. For instance, which tools > are available to supporters to amplify their own personal efforts to use, > develop and advocate Free Software? > > (We have, at the moment, an ongoing thread about not using GitHub in the face > of arguably overstated claims about that platform's "network effects", but > what kind of network effects does the FSFE offer?) > > Other problems arise from the organisation's positioning. While some people > may like the idea of the FSFE as a kind of "FSF light", others including > myself expect the organisation to take a principled and effective stand on > matters of software freedom and associated concerns. To do otherwise is to > misrepresent an entire family of related organisations. > > Luke wrote: >> I want to give my full support to Daniel Pocock and commend him for his >> tenacity in the pursuit of transparency and truth. It looks like the GA >> is full of yes-men but Pocock is the fiercely independent advocate that us >> fellows need. > > As the Fellowship did elect Daniel as representative, with various other > candidates expressing similar views, I find it disturbing that if these views > are dissenting then they will no longer find a voice in the leadership of the > organisation. While it may be claimed that others in the leadership do, in > fact, share his views on some matters, the rest of us are now obliged to take > those claims at face value. > > I can understand that the elections seemed like a distraction, especially > given a turnout of 265/1532 in the last one [1]. However, such disengagement > was probably informed by the fact that the Fellowship representatives are > vastly outnumbered in the governing body of the organisation, making their > only effective role as some kind of conscience of the membership. > > I don't agree with Daniel on everything, but I can sympathise with him here > given that his current predicament is practically a consequence of a number of > factors in the way this organisation is structured and run. And while people > might not want the obvious to be said out loud, the result will be that people > end up voting with their money instead. > > Paul > > [1] https://civs.cs.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/results.pl?id=E_29119d29f759bbf8 > ___ > Discussion mailing list > Discussion@lists.fsfe.org > https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > > This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All > participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: > https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: transparency about the fellowship
+. > On 10. Jul 2018, at 01:05, mray wrote: > > The snarky-ness on this entire ML starts being a burden to read. > Probably I represent more people than myself with that view. > Everybody, please be more excellent to each other. > > > I know you can :) Yes, that would be wonderful. Maybe try to focus on issues where we can work together, and move things forward towards tangible results. Best, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: Call for Participation: FSFE track during LSM/RMLL 2018 in Strasbourg
Hello, I regret that I won’t be able to attend RMLL in Strasbourg. Instead I will be somewhere in California. Cheers, Mirko. > On 23. Mar 2018, at 14:47, Max Mehl wrote: > > This is to let you know that the Call for Participation for the FSFE's > dedicated track during RMLL/LSM 2018 in Strasbourg, France, has opened. > We are looking forward to interesting presentations, workshop proposals, > and your participation in France's largest Free Software event. > > Please read more about the CfP and the programme in our dedicated news > item: <https://fsfe.org/news/2018/news-20180322-01.html > <https://fsfe.org/news/2018/news-20180322-01.html>> > > If you have any questions regarding the conference, please write them to > cont...@fsfe.org <mailto:cont...@fsfe.org> so we don't miss them. > > Looking forward to meet you in Strasbourg! > -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Fellowship Representative, FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
Re: forums, mailing lists and other tools
Hi, > On 18. Jan 2018, at 10:45, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > The real questions: > > - can you trust a container to be available in the future the same > extent that you can trust a package in a stable Linux distribution? > > - can you trust upstream developers to ensure they never put anything > non-free into their container images or does somebody have time to > verify the contents of those images on every update? > > When you take something from an official package, it has usually been > looked at by a second set of eyes already. If you cut that step out > then how long is it before non-free stuff creeps in? These are real questions. I don’t have any answers for them. To me the issue of JS in web services is separate from them, though. Best, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Fellowship Representative, FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: forums, mailing lists and other tools
Hello, > On 18. Jan 2018, at 10:28, Daniel Pocock wrote: > >> The client-side Javascript to me is not a >> relevant issue anymore since JS is an open standard and browsers are >> sandboxed these days. >> > > > There is an issue: > a) if the JavaScript is distributed as minified blobs and we can't > rebuild it easily from source, > b) if a large application makes heavy use of things like the NPM > repository for its build process Accepted. I always assume that software like Discourse is compliant with FOSS licenses, where minified JS code is not “the corresponding source code”. That is usually a choice, though - most packages have a minified and a non-minified source URL. Developers tend to ship with links to the minified version because that is the norm and loads faster. For a Debian packager, this is understandably a problem. We will probably run Discourse out of a container shipped by the project, not a package, so does that still apply to us? Cheers, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Fellowship Representative, FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: forums, mailing lists and other tools
Hello there! > On 16. Jan 2018, at 13:57, Max Mehl wrote: > > # Daniel Pocock [2018-01-16 13:43 +0100]: >>> Discourse is somewhat overwork as we would have to patch various parts >>> of it to either remove JS or free/libreate it. >> Would packaging the Discourse JavaScript into Debian satisfy those concerns? >> Is there enough interest in this topic to start building a wiki page >> about it? > > I want to highlight that some volunteers are already experimenting with > a Discourse instance for FSFE, mainly Nikos IIRC (in Cc). Please join > them if you want to support them in their work. > > https://git.fsfe.org/fsfe-system-hackers/community > <https://git.fsfe.org/fsfe-system-hackers/community> +1 for investigating Discourse. It was reviewed at the recent community meeting in Berlin and excitement was great. I agree with Daniel's concerns, and feel that the way Discourse works can help allay them. Especially the bridging of the traditional mailing list mode with a forum web interface can help making our discussions accessible to a wider range of people. The client-side Javascript to me is not a relevant issue anymore since JS is an open standard and browsers are sandboxed these days. Best, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Fellowship Representative, FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Shouldn't we try to give a boost to the PMPC campaign?
I think that more generally, this distinction makes no sense in the first place. Why is support from some organization better than support from a company? On Wed, Dec 13, 2017, 11:22 Carsten Agger wrote: > One thing that might help ever so little ... > > > Several of my colleagues signed the letter. > > My company wanted to support the project officially, including a donation > of money, and desired to have its logo listed among the "supporting > organizations". > > However, these can only be non-profits/civil society organizations, so we > couldn't be listed as official supporters (and our CEO kept his money). > > I can understand that for-profit companies are not NGOs, but why not have > a section with "supporting companies"? If many signed up, it would also > make a statement that actual companies working within the economy etc. > support this motion. > > Best > > > Carsten > > On 12/11/2017 12:15 PM, Gergely Székely wrote: > > Hi! > > I worriedly watch the slowing down of the accumulation of the signatures > of the Public Money Public Code open letter. I think this is a great > campaign that should reach as much people as possible and the slowing down > bellow 15k signatures sort of suggest that its spreading started fading way > too soon. > > Maybe we (FSFE volunteers, supporters, and members) should give the > campaign an extra push. I'm pretty certain that the vast majority of people > haven't even heard about the campaign yet. > > Some ideas: > >- Can't we know and get some celebrities of relatively famous guys >sympathizing with Free Software who may openly support the camping and >attract others to join as supporters? I don't know Stephen Fry is very >famous and I have seen him advertising Trisquel GNU/Linux-libre on youtube, >Bryan Lunduke also have some fame and a regular youtube program on Free >Software related stuff, and probably there are plenty of people who may >worth a shot to ask... >- I also think it would be worth bringing the campaign to the streets. >A couple of volunteers could bring campaign stickers or flyers ( >https://git.fsfe.org/gergely/PMPC_QR-code_flyers) and distribute them >to the passers-by. (If you are [or know] someone in Budapest who would >happily join me doing that please contact me. Unfortunately, I would feel >embarrassed to do this alone... :-/) >- I think putting posters to bulletin boards in universities would >also be great. Lack of official posters link >https://git.fsfe.org/gergely/PMPC_QR-code_flyers here too. I totally >plan to do this with the linked QR-code flyers even alone but if you are in >Budapest and happy to join please contact me as this is also more fun to do >in pairs or in groups. >- I think the campaign should also be boosted on online platforms >(forums, blogs, social media, etc). I'm only on diaspora* there I think I >did my part (maybe on diaspora* most of the active users are already >reached)... >- I don't know if opening and keeping alive threads about the campaign >on 4chan /g/ is a good idea or not? but I can help in that... Also if you >can recommend online platforms where I can help engaging in discussion >about the campaign I'm happy to do so. > > All in all: Keep spreading the message are way too many people to be > reached!!! > > What do you think? > > Best, > Gergely > > > ___ > Discussion mailing > listdiscuss...@lists.fsfe.orghttps://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > > > ___ > Discussion mailing list > Discussion@lists.fsfe.org > https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Free software and open source philosophies differ,, sometimes with radically different outcomes
Hello, > On 22. Nov 2017, at 07:25, Mat Witts wrote: > >> You are projecting your own political beliefs onto everyone in the > Free Software movement. > > Not quite, what I am doing is suggesting that a persons political > beliefs can be broadly predicted using some basic knowledge of Open > Source and Free Software principles and established social and political > theory. > > You are of course at liberty to reject those theories and the basis for > them if you think they are unreliable. I reject your hypothesis that a persons political beliefs can be broadly predicted using some basic knowledge of Open Source and Free Software principles and established social and political theory. I find this claim so absurd that I have a hard time arguing against it. Political beliefs are a multidimensional bundle based on a complex value system. I am raising this point because I fear that simply stating this claim in public may seriously damage the reputation of FSFE. Please refrain from doing so :-) Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Fellowship Representative, FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Free software and open source philosophies differ sometimes with radically different outcomes
Hi, I wanted to stay out of this discussion because I cannot believe that we are even having it, but it is difficult :-) > On 17. Nov 2017, at 09:13, J.B. Nicholson wrote: > >> I rather see them one depending on another, meaning without Free >> Software I doubt that the Open Source Software would have existed but >> not vice versa and that clears almost everything. > That is self-contradictory but begins to get into why the open source > development methodology and philosophy exists. In short, open source is (as > Stallman has pointed out) a right-wing reactionary counter to the free > software movement. The free software social movement existed for over a > decade before open source came along. Open source enthusiasts continue to try > to talk about the practical benefits of free software to business without > talking about the software freedom or the ethical underpinnings of the social > movement. Just because RMS said something does not mean it is true. He also once recommended that hackers should make sure their girlfriends loose their Emacs virginity. Not advice I would suggest to follow. Open source is not right wing, and free software is not left wing. Pretty much everybody I know understands the duality of the practical benefits and the ethical underpinnings. Because without the practical benefits, the ethical underpinnings don’t exist either, right? It is just that to some people, one matters more than the other. Even the classic that the free software movement existed before open source is just smoke and mirrors, because the “movement" staid the same. It is just that people started inventing new terms for the same things to create a them-vs-us chasm. Judean People's Front vs People's Front of Judea, of sort. All we discuss here is nomenclature, not substance. There, I said it. I call it FLOSS in my presentations and studies because free software and open source refers to exactly the same commons body of knowledge that causes the ethical changes we want to see. Cheers, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Fellowship Representative, FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: negative campaigning?
Hello, I am one of the people that have argued against negative campaigning in the past. From the discussion however, even after many emails there is still not a common understanding what it is. Daniel gave some examples, let me build on top of that: “Free Software is good as it gives you choice and control over your data.” - a positive, user oriented message that tells people what they should think about when choosing what to use. Good. “Proprietary social networks aggregate your data and sell it, which may violate your privacy.” - a neutral, fact-based message that conveys a clear problem. Not negative campaigning. Good. “You should feel bad because you are using Windows, you should use Linux instead.” - a negative, aggressive message that makes somebody feel bad because of a choice they made (for reasons we don’t even know). Negative campaigning. Bad. This is a fine line to draw. I do think that we can agree that fact-based, neutral arguments are necessary (maybe we should test that in a poll or so). In my opinion, we should refrain from anything that can be read like “you moron, why are you using XYZ, we know better than you, use this”. Not only does this put a person into a defensive position, it is also a good way to make sure that person avoids exposure to us in the future. Unfortunately, the condescending tone of the last example is still quite common in situations where interested outsiders come to a free software event. We should be better than this. Especially because we have a clear, freedom focused message that explains itself pretty well. Best, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Fellowship Representative, FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?
Hi, > On 23. Jul 2017, at 09:37, Daniel Pocock wrote: > > On 23/07/17 09:03, Evaggelos Balaskas wrote: >> Social media are now part of our life (I am not debating if they >> should or not), but diminish them to cat videos is a strong opinion. >> 90% of email is SPAM, should we stop using email? Lots of people have >> their email to a proprietary platform. Should we stop talk to them? >> Should we only talk to people who have similar ideas with us? >> > > Actually, I have been thinking very seriously about blocking all email > from gmail.com <http://gmail.com/> While this would be perfectly reasonable from an individual perspective, it also indicates the same dilemma this discussion started with, at the micro level: You are a fellowship representative, and need to be accessible to fellows who support FSFE, but for their own reasons use Gmail. Best, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Fellowship Representative, FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?
Hi, > On 23. Jun 2017, at 09:59, Daniel Pocock wrote: > >> I am glad you asked. Overall global GNUsocial users rank in the >> 1000s-100.000s, as far I know. Maybe somebody has better statistics on >> that. Here is a good overview of proprietary social media >> reach: >> http://www.smartinsights.com/social-media-marketing/social-media-strategy/new-global-social-media-research/ >> >> <http://www.smartinsights.com/social-media-marketing/social-media-strategy/new-global-social-media-research/> >> Of >> the 3.7 billion internet users, 2.8 are active social media users >> (see Q5. What is the overall Social Media usage globally?) >> >> However, I don’t think this means much. And I don’t want to get into >> an argument about lying statistics or whether or not everybody should >> be using free software. My main point was and is: FSFEs mission (part >> 2 in the original email) is to advocate, and we won’t achieve that by >> preaching to the acolytes. >> > > We also won't achieve the mission by preaching in the middle of a busy > street where people are in too much of a hurry and nobody can hear us > over the noise of the traffic anyway. > > If people are going to argue in favour of violating our principles to > use facebook, then I would prefer to see the data first and if data is > not available, I'd like to see what plan is in place to collect data > about the effort being spent and the outcomes achieved (e.g. what > metrics will be monitored and why they are good metrics). > > Without data, you can't convince anybody that this is worthwhile. Please don’t say "people are going to argue in favour of violating our principles to use facebook”, because that assumes a lot. Is it violating a principle? Is it Facebook we are arguing about? Data needs to be available about all alternatives that we consider. How about we start by looking at what the reach is if we stick to purely free software? This information surprisingly seems to be less transparent, we know less about it than about proprietary platforms. I am looking forward to a data driven discussion. Best, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Fellowship Representative, FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?
Hi! > On 22. Jun 2017, at 22:05, Daniel Pocock wrote: > >> It appears to me as if we conduct this discussion based on what we wish >> the world would be, instead of based on what the present world is like. >> In the perfect world, everybody would be using free software, and >> everybody would know that it is about freedom, not free beer. >> > > Does a man who is overweight lose weight by continuing to eat donuts? > > Or does he lose weight by going to the gym and acting like the man he > wants to become? > > >> There would however not be a need for FSFE in this scenario. Our mission >> is to advocate software freedom. On one hand this means protecting the >> freedoms we already have, which targets mainly those already using free >> software. These we may well reach on GNUsocial. Or via an RSS feed. On >> the other hand, it means educating people and lobbying to politicians >> that do not use free software, and do not yet understand the need for >> software freedom. These we won’t reach on free platforms, by definition. >> > > But why do you think we would reach them on Facebook or other > proprietary platforms? Where is the data to back that up? How much > time is put in to it, how much time do people look at those platforms > and how many other messages are they bombarded with during that time? I am glad you asked. Overall global GNUsocial users rank in the 1000s-100.000s, as far I know. Maybe somebody has better statistics on that. Here is a good overview of proprietary social media reach: http://www.smartinsights.com/social-media-marketing/social-media-strategy/new-global-social-media-research/ <http://www.smartinsights.com/social-media-marketing/social-media-strategy/new-global-social-media-research/> Of the 3.7 billion internet users, 2.8 are active social media users (see Q5. What is the overall Social Media usage globally?) However, I don’t think this means much. And I don’t want to get into an argument about lying statistics or whether or not everybody should be using free software. My main point was and is: FSFEs mission (part 2 in the original email) is to advocate, and we won’t achieve that by preaching to the acolytes. Best, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Fellowship Representative, FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?
Hi, > On 22. Jun 2017, at 21:31, Roland Häder wrote: > >> Based on this, I would argue that FSFE needs to be present on >> proprietary platforms to be able to achieve the second part of it’s mission. > > There is an idea circulating in the fediverse about writing a free-libre > open source "youtube" ([s]of course, with an other name which I don't > want to name here to not fuel domain sharks[/s] na, they already took > the .org domain ... :-( ). But it remains only like that, no actual > development took place after that. Mostly because of low human-resources > (hackers willing to write it). > > If the FSFE could put their resources more into such projets, it would > be more helpful than setting linkings to Youtube, Facebook, Linked-In, > Instagram (FB again) and all of these high-walled coorporate "networks" > (not really a network, compared to GNUSocial/Friendica). > > But what now? There is no FLOSS-Youtube (you should not name it that > way) and nobody seem to have enough time to do it? This is again the “world as it should be” point of view. Sure we can write a new video service. But how do we get those who are not in our network to know about it? I am all for the idea. But it is important to keep in mind that FSFE is foremost not an organisation that facilitates free software development. Not that we could not, but it is not our mission. Best, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Fellowship Representative, FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?
Hi everybody! > On 21. Jun 2017, at 17:20, Federico Bruni wrote: > > Il giorno mer 21 giu 2017 alle 16:47, Daniel Pocock <mailto:dan...@pocock.pro>> ha scritto: >> - systems like facebook are made by the establishment, for the >> establishment. Zuckerberg is a regular at Bilderberg these days. This brings >> me to the age old question: can you change the system by using the rules the >> system gives you? People like the Bolsheviks and Gandhi didn't exactly think >> so. > > This reminds me a recent discussion I had with a quite popular blogger here > in Italy. He wrote a blog post complaining that Youtube automatic filters put > his video under "restricted mode"¹. The video is about a "controverse" and > hot topic in Italy in the last months, but the content itself is far from > being dangerous or controversial at all. > > I commented that we cannot expect real free speech in a walled garden and > these events should encourage video bloggers to start using alternative > platforms. He replied that there's no big audience in alternative platforms, > so he cannot migrate until an alternative platform reaches the "critical > mass". > Well, true but nothing will change if everyone, especially opinion leaders, > adopts this mindset. It's a complicated matter. It appears to me as if we conduct this discussion based on what we wish the world would be, instead of based on what the present world is like. In the perfect world, everybody would be using free software, and everybody would know that it is about freedom, not free beer. There would however not be a need for FSFE in this scenario. Our mission is to advocate software freedom. On one hand this means protecting the freedoms we already have, which targets mainly those already using free software. These we may well reach on GNUsocial. Or via an RSS feed. On the other hand, it means educating people and lobbying to politicians that do not use free software, and do not yet understand the need for software freedom. These we won’t reach on free platforms, by definition. Based on this, I would argue that FSFE needs to be present on proprietary platforms to be able to achieve the second part of it’s mission. Best, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Fellowship Representative, FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: UK to "end" encryption?
Hello Willi, > On 28. May 2017, at 03:21, willi uebelherr wrote: > > two emails from "D" (dguth...@posteo.net <mailto:dguth...@posteo.net>), now > with a reference to "David Icke" from outside? > > Who are this persons? D Guthrie is a well-respected member of our community. David Icke is a well-known conspiracy theorist. D’s comment indicated that your emails fit better into a forum with him than to a FSFE mailing list. I politely agree with that. Let us please keep the lists’ focus on-topic, which means directly related to matters of software freedom, and grounded on verifiable facts. Thanks, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Fellowship Representative, FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist and Trainer Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: A dual license system for code libraries?
Hi! > On 28 Feb 2017, at 10:11, Agner Fog wrote: > > Mirko Boehm wrote: >> I cannot speak for FSFE, but I think the setup can be made simpler: Anybody >> can donate to FSFE. Just ask them to provide proof of the donation, and then >> you give them a license. This way you don’t need any kind of organisation, >> and no arrangement for handling money. > Yes, but the FSF or FSFE still has to endorse such a scheme because the > donors will ask all kind of questions about license conditions, pro forma > invoices, and other technicalities. FSFE hands out donation receipts. You can say “I will issue a proprietary license if you deliver a donation receipt from FSFE”. The donation receipt is sufficient for the accounting of the donor. That is what I meant when I tried to explain to use a setup that does not connect the donation to the license. The details are of course up to you. > A scheme with selling proprietary license requires a unification of the > copyright. Who should own the copyright, me, FSF, or all contributors? I > would prefer to avoid such problems by making donation voluntary. If you issue the proprietary licenses, *you* need to have permission to do so. Either the contributors assign that right to you (by granting you a license, for example) or somebody else (FSF(E)) can be the copyright fiduciary but would still have to grant you that right. The author remains the copyright owner, in most cases. > Is it common to assign the copyright to FSF, even when FSF has nothing to do > with the project? I can see the advantage of unifying the copyright, but also > administrative burdens on FSF, and potentials for abuse. I would not think this makes sense in such a scenario. If FSF denies you the right to hand out proprietary licenses, then what? Cheers, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Fellow, FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: A dual license system for code libraries?
Hi! > On 27 Feb 2017, at 14:40, Agner Fog wrote: > > On 27-02-2017 11:06, Mirko Boehm (FSFE) wrote: >> You will need permission/license from the other contributors to sell >> proprietary licenses. >> You need a scheme that fairly distributes the licensing revenue so that it >> motivates people to contribute. You could pay out shares of the revenue to >> them, or you could make it a public service effort by donating a share or >> all of the proceeds to a organisation with aims that benefit the general >> public, for example FSFE. >> A Contributor License Agreement (CLA) can be used to set up such a model. >> Usually, FSFE would not recommend using CLAs that enable proprietary >> licensing. However in your situation this is already the case, so in my >> understanding it would make your software more free (because others can >> contribute to it). Please be aware that this is not an official FSFE >> position. > My initial idea was that proprietary users would automatically get a license > by donating a certain amount of money to some organization that supports free > software, such as FSF. But I understand from this discussion thread that the > policy of FSF or FSFE does not allow such a scheme. So I guess this will not > work. I don't want to put in a random charity organization because the > contributors might have different opinions about which organization to > support. I cannot speak for FSFE, but I think the setup can be made simpler: Anybody can donate to FSFE. Just ask them to provide proof of the donation, and then you give them a license. This way you don’t need any kind of organisation, and no arrangement for handling money. > So I guess the only solution is to use a more permissive license and let > proprietary software vendors use the library for free. Right now they are > actually paying, but this becomes too complicated if there is more than one > contributor to the software library. > > I could still encourage commercial users to donate money to FSF or some other > organization, but I am not sure whether a voluntary scheme would work. The > commercial users want an invoice and a piece of paper that says "license". > Some even require that I register into their database of suppliers. Donation > to charity doesn't fit into their administrative routines, I guess. Or maybe > they can put it on their PR budget or their "Corporate Social Responsibility" > budget? > > Do you think the FSF will endorse such a scheme? (I can't get access to their > mailing list even though I am a member). As suggested, I would make the scheme consist of two mainly independent parts, where you don’t need approval between the two. Best, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Fellow, FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Fellow, FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: A dual license system for code libraries?
Hello, > On 25 Feb 2017, at 09:54, Agner Fog wrote: > > Hi, I have a problem with several open source projects. Neither GPL nor LGPL > license seems to be appropriate. > > One such project is my C++ vector class library > (http://agner.org/optimize/#vectorclass > <http://agner.org/optimize/#vectorclass> ) > Right now, I am using a dual license system. The library is published under > GPL, following the advice at > https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html > <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html> > > However, there is a significant demand for using this library in commercial > closed-source code. Therefore, I am selling commercial licenses to anybody > who want to use the library in commercial code. > > Now, there is a problem with unifying the copyright. I want to put this code > on github and make it a collective project. But then I can no longer be the > only copyright owner. It is not fair that others should contribute to the > project for free while I make profit on selling licenses. We would have to > set up an organization to own the copyright and sell licenses. But the > administration cost of running such an organization would probably eat up all > the income. And open source programmers prefer to spend their time on > programming, not on administration of an organization. > > An LGPL license is not possible because the program code that uses a class > library will be a "derived work", not a "combined work", and it is impossible > to meet the relinking requirement of LGPL. The application code and class > library code are mixed together and compiled together so that the two cannot > be separated. > > An Apache or BSD license might be possible, but I don't think commercial > users like the requirement that the end product should include various > required notices. Also, I think these licenses are too permissive. I like the > protection against tivoization, DRM, and patent retaliation in GPL. > > More importantly, people would have little motivation to contribute to an > open source library when their work only goes to somebody else's profit. The > motivation would be higher if the effort could somehow contribute to the > general goal of supporting free software. That's why I prefer the dual > license solution. The only problem is who should own the copyright and sell > commercial licenses? > > I have asked the FSF, but they are not willing to sell licenses, and frankly > they are quite difficult to communicate with. That's why I am now taking the > discussion to FSFE. Is there any other suitable non-profit organization who > could be the copyright owner and sell licenses? > > I have also thought about a scheme that requires no administration. You would > get a commercial license automatically by donating a certain amount of money > to some non-profit organization and posting proof of payment to some > repository. Would that work? > > Or do we need a completely new license concept for open software libraries > and other code that is likely to be used in proprietary derived works? Any > suggestions? The situation you are describing cannot easily be solved with a license alone. Your intention is to release copyleft free software that can also be used in proprietary environments. You already went with dual-licensing. This is a proven approach that models your intention better than using an academic/permissive software license. Opening up the project to other contributors means to introduce a conflict of interest, as you describe correctly. If the plan is to stay with copyleft licensing (which I would recommend, but that is a personal opinion), you will have to solve two problems: You will need permission/license from the other contributors to sell proprietary licenses. You need a scheme that fairly distributes the licensing revenue so that it motivates people to contribute. You could pay out shares of the revenue to them, or you could make it a public service effort by donating a share or all of the proceeds to a organisation with aims that benefit the general public, for example FSFE. A Contributor License Agreement (CLA) can be used to set up such a model. Usually, FSFE would not recommend using CLAs that enable proprietary licensing. However in your situation this is already the case, so in my understanding it would make your software more free (because others can contribute to it). Please be aware that this is not an official FSFE position. Hope this helps, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Fellow, FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Free Software contributors threatened as individuals with patents?
>From what I know, this rarely happens, if at all. On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 11:29 AM Matthias Kirschner wrote: > Hello everybody, > > I recently had a discussion which made me wonder: does anyone of you > know someone who was directly threatened with software patents; either > someone in the function as a volunteer contributor to Free Software, or > self-employed? To clarify: it is not about companies being threatened > with patents, but about threats to individual contributors. > > If so, would you be able to ask them to get in contact with me? I will > of course handle all of that confidential. Currently I am mainly > interested how often that happens and in which areas. > > Thank you, > Matthias > > -- > Matthias Kirschner - President - Free Software Foundation Europe > Schönhauser Allee 6/7, 10119 Berlin, Germany | t +49-30-27595290 > <+49%2030%2027595290> > Registered at Amtsgericht Hamburg, VR 17030 | (fsfe.org/join) > Contact (fsfe.org/about/kirschner) - Weblog (k7r.eu/blog.html) > ___ > Discussion mailing list > Discussion@lists.fsfe.org > https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: Implementing a code of conduct?
Hi, > On 3 Nov 2016, at 15:19, Erik Albers wrote: > > Are you in favor or against having a general Code of Conduct? > Are you in favor or against having this Code of Conduct? > I am slowly re-emerging out of a pile of unprocessed communication. Sorry that I am late to the party. In favor. One important reason for me is that implicit rules (the code of conduct we already have, that is not written down) are obvious to people that have been around for a while and difficult to understand for newcomers. Making the code explicit reduces uncertainty. And I think it is important to make it easier for people who feel harassed in some way to speak out about it. Best, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Fellow, FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Re: October Newsletter /Summit
Hello, > On 11 Oct 2016, at 22:11, Paul Boddie wrote: > >> Werner Koch mailto:w...@gnupg.org>> writes: >>> I miss any mentioning of an (internal) discussion in the aftermath of a >>> very questionable talk[2] advertising proprietary software. >> >> Thank you for pointing out that talk. I was not aware of any problems >> with it so far. I will watch the recording soon. > I agree the talk was not what we expected and nothing we should endorse. But I don’t see this being a topic for the newsletter. We need to keep it in mind as “lessons learned” for future summits. Do we already have a process for that? Best, Mirko. -- Mirko Boehm | mi...@kde.org | KDE e.V. FSFE Fellow, FSFE Team Germany Qt Certified Specialist Request a meeting: https://doodle.com/mirkoboehm ___ Discussion mailing list Discussion@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
