Re: Questions to answer
Maybe we should just claim that we can't spell very well; ISV = "Third Party Developer". A whole new kind of a10n[1]. ;-) We can't solve the problem by denying it. We use the term interchangably with 'third party developers', and have made that explicit in many cases when we talk about it. OOo and Firefox also fit into this world view as 'third party developers' or ISVs. The term "third party developers" has no problems--so I think that is a good solution. If we abbreviate it "TPD", that problem will be gone. It's a painless change to make. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
[Off Topic] Words to Avoid "Vendor" [was Re: Questions to answer]
[crossposting removed] Subject changed to reflect the off topic nature of this discussion, and to summarize the point being made in the previous message. On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, Richard M. Stallman wrote: > Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:22:22 -0500 > From: Richard M. Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Brian Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], > foundation-list@gnome.org, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Questions to answer > > I would be happy to help out. As Jonathan mentions, Murray and I have > been sorting through some of the issues on live.gnome.org by putting > together an Interface Specification that is hopefully useful to ISV's > > Does "ISV" stand for "Independent Software Vendor"? If so, the term is > often misleading, because the most important developers of GNOME > applications--those developing free software--are mostly not vendors. The important point is the need for clear documentation making it easier for those who want to work with Gnome including businesses which self identify under the term ISV. I'm sure the intention was not to exclude anyone. Users do not need to pay to be customers but fortunately in that case we have the term stakeholder which is already widely understood. Similarly vendors strictly need not sell and any software distributor can be called a vendor. > Consider, for instance, the GIMP developers. Another acronym which can cause misunderstanding and embarassment when talking to people who are more familiar with the the term 'gimp' as an offensive description of people with disabilities. I don't doubt the importance of the words we use. My point is acronyms are ambiguous, confusing, and exclusionary. (Another minor downside of acronyms is it annoying both to type and read things in UPPERCASE and failing to properly punctuate acronyms like G.N.O.M.E. looks odd to non-programmers.) > Their program works with GNOME, but project is not a vendor. GNU Emacs > now has GTK+ support, but we Emacs developers are not a vendor. > Every time a standard describes the projects that develop or > distribute software as "vendors", that has the effect of denying the > existence of volunteer projects. Interesting assertion but entirely the important issue at hand was encouraging more people to use Gtk and Gnome and Free Software (which I really wish could have been was unambiguously called "Freedom Software" and saved us all a lot of grief, it is not too late you know). > So please, let's use a different term for GNOME application developers > in general, one which fits all of them, and particularly fits our own > community. Perhaps we could refer to them as GNOME Application > Developers (GADs), or more generally, Independent Software Developers > (ISDs). Is replacing one acronymn with another really an improvement? In this context we could just as easily describe third party developers as "Partners" or possibly some other succint one or two word phrase and emphasizes cooperation and collaboration and avoids the ambiguity of yet another acronym. I don't doubt the importance of the words we use, which is why I try and discourage people from using unneccessary confusing words and acronyms which exclude otherwise intelligent people who just happen to be unfamiliar with computer or other scientific jargon. (Don't you appreciate when doctors explain things to you in terms you can understand?) It doesn't help that acronyms make English even more opaque and confusing for those who do not know the language well. All this is terribly off topic and an awful distraction from the point being made about the need for a clear specifiction to help encourage the use of Free Software and Gnome. Best of luck to the candidates and thanks to them for taking the time and effort to answer all the questions. Sincerely Alan Horkan http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Questions to answer
On 11/26/05, Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Does "ISV" stand for "Independent Software Vendor"? If so, the term > > is often misleading, because the most important developers of GNOME > > applications--those developing free software--are mostly not vendors. > > We use the term interchangably with 'third party developers', and have made > that explicit in many cases when we talk about it. OOo and Firefox also fit > into this world view as 'third party developers' or ISVs. Maybe we should just claim that we can't spell very well; ISV = "Third Party Developer". A whole new kind of a10n[1]. ;-) Cheers, Elijah [1] Hint at what a10n means here: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnome-love/2004-November/msg6.html ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Questions to answer
> I would be happy to help out. As Jonathan mentions, Murray and I have > been sorting through some of the issues on live.gnome.org by putting > together an Interface Specification that is hopefully useful to ISV's > > Does "ISV" stand for "Independent Software Vendor"? If so, the term > is often misleading, because the most important developers of GNOME > applications--those developing free software--are mostly not vendors. We use the term interchangably with 'third party developers', and have made that explicit in many cases when we talk about it. OOo and Firefox also fit into this world view as 'third party developers' or ISVs. - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2006: Dunedin, New Zealand http://linux.conf.au/ "Having strings in a language seems to be a case of premature optimization." - Paul Graham ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Questions to answer
On Sat, 2005-11-26 at 11:22 -0500, Richard M. Stallman wrote: > Many of the candidates have identified software patents as a major > threat. Would GNOME like to help in the campaign against the new > "IPR" enforcement directive in the EU? A prominent link to FFII's > page about this would be pretty effective, and easy to do. I see no reason why we wouldn't. Thanks, -Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Additional questions for the board candidates
On Sa, 2005-11-26 at 11:21 -0500, Richard M. Stallman wrote: > I think it is clear that C# should not be the main or preferred > language for GNOME, should not play a major or central role. Giving > it such a role would be a very bad strategic move, since it would > encourage a large community to move in a direction that serves our > declared enemy. In what way does moving to C# serve Microsoft? I do see a) patent issues b) we adopt technologies developed (*) by Microsoft a) There are many companies out there trying to enforce patents. We can never exclude that some patents are pending. The Nautilus sidebar for instance has a feature opening subfolders on drag inside the browser window when hovering over them, and they say the windows explorer has a similar feature. This might pose a heavy infridgement of the spring-loaded folder patent by Apple. For now it was decided to keep this feature in, but don't frivolously copy the "open a new window" part of the patent. IANA, but I think if Apple wanted to sue us they already did so. Not to mention that Big Blue, and others also have many patents that may affect any software developer out there. It's quiet ignorant to exclusively focus on Microsoft here. b) One may argue that it shows how mature their framework is. I see no problem with Microsoft claiming that even free software is developed in C#, proving how good the concept as a whole is. But discussions like that don't really serve anybody. When we're able to develop better software in a shorter amount of time using C#, why not use it? I see that you come from the political side, but running code itself is preceived to be totally unpolical (**), and the software market is really laid out in a way that the most convinicing product wins, not that one promoted by politicans. (*) Some people claim that the whole framework was significantly "inspired" by Sun/Java (thus adopted), except for the CIL/JIT thingie, which is really a key concept of .NET. (**) Of course, much software in fact also conveys political ideas, especially FOSS, has political impact, and just exists for political reasons (cf. how GNOME was born) but it is not perceived by its users, who decide what software is successful: sucess of a project ~ 1/(1+e^-usefulness_for_solving_tasks) ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Questions to answer
I would be happy to help out. As Jonathan mentions, Murray and I have been sorting through some of the issues on live.gnome.org by putting together an Interface Specification that is hopefully useful to ISV's Does "ISV" stand for "Independent Software Vendor"? If so, the term is often misleading, because the most important developers of GNOME applications--those developing free software--are mostly not vendors. Consider, for instance, the GIMP developers. Their program works with GNOME, but project is not a vendor. GNU Emacs now has GTK+ support, but we Emacs developers are not a vendor. Every time a standard describes the projects that develop or distribute software as "vendors", that has the effect of denying the existence of volunteer projects. So please, let's use a different term for GNOME application developers in general, one which fits all of them, and particularly fits our own community. Perhaps we could refer to them as GNOME Application Developers (GADs), or more generally, Independent Software Developers (ISDs). See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Vendor for reference. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Questions to answer
Many of the candidates have identified software patents as a major threat. Would GNOME like to help in the campaign against the new "IPR" enforcement directive in the EU? A prominent link to FFII's page about this would be pretty effective, and easy to do. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Additional questions for the board candidates
For GNOME to include C# support as an optional add-on cannot hurt. It should work with Portable.NET, which is the GNU implementation of C#, and whose design is more favorable to possible integration with GCC than that of Mono is. However, it is fine to work with Mono as well. I think it is clear that C# should not be the main or preferred language for GNOME, should not play a major or central role. Giving it such a role would be a very bad strategic move, since it would encourage a large community to move in a direction that serves our declared enemy. The hard question is whether to give C# a middle-level role--whether to let it be more than an optional add-on. The issue depends on the legal situation, and I don't know the situation enough to have an opinion. I urge the board to consult with people like Eben Moglen and Dan Ravicher before deciding this. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
