Re: Readability publisher sign-up for *.gnome.org

2011-08-26 Thread Julien Puydt 

Le 27/08/2011 04:07, Richard Stallman a écrit :

 I've been experimenting with Readability
 for a couple of months. It's a web service that reformats web pages for
 easier reading,

That sounds like SaaS.  SaaS is bad on basic principles
because users lose control of their computing.

If there is a better format for the GNOME Foundation blogs, why not
change the style on the GNOME Foundation's blog server?
If users want to see different formats, can't they do that
by customizing their browsers?  If free browsers don't support that,
and users want it, shouldn't it be implemented there?


That is the most sensible thing said on the matter yet.

Gnome takes care of translating its software.

Gnome takes care of accessibility issues in its software.

Gnome embraces the gnu ideals of freedom.

And gnome would be unable to have its blogs readable!?

Not one of us would be able to run what is basically a text with some 
formating and images through a 'compiler' to another format ; setup a 
program to automagically do so ; write a program to do the conversion!?


We would willingly handle our writings to some external entity for 
proprietary takeover!?


Not everything that looks good is edible.

Snark on #gnome-hackers
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Readability publisher sign-up for *.gnome.org

2011-08-26 Thread Richard Stallman 
I've been experimenting with Readability 
for a couple of months. It's a web service that reformats web pages for
easier reading,

That sounds like SaaS.  SaaS is bad on basic principles
because users lose control of their computing.

If there is a better format for the GNOME Foundation blogs, why not
change the style on the GNOME Foundation's blog server?
If users want to see different formats, can't they do that
by customizing their browsers?  If free browsers don't support that,
and users want it, shouldn't it be implemented there?

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Readability publisher sign-up for *.gnome.org

2011-08-26 Thread Richard Stallman 
We have agreed to an grant a copy of our blogs under no license
whatsoever;

Does this mean that the GNOME Foundation blogs carry no license
to permit even verbatim copying?  They ought to.  It should
be automatic as a condition of publishing on the GNOME blog site.

If that wasn't done for past contributions, it should be required ASAP
for the future.  And previou contributors should be asked to agree to
it for their past postings.

-- 
Dr Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation
51 Franklin St
Boston MA 02110
USA
www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software.
  Use free telephony http://directory.fsf.org/category/tel/
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Readability publisher sign-up for *.gnome.org

2011-08-26 Thread Alan Cox 
On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 14:22:14 -0500
"Jason D. Clinton"  wrote:

> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 13:45, Alan Cox  wrote:
> > People asked to have their blogs included on it and placed them on
> > it by choice. It's under CC-NC licensing (*). So they've agreed to NC use
> > but the foundation exploiting it commercially (or indeed any site
> > reformatting it and making money from doing so) would appear to be a
> > breach of copyright.
> 
> We have agreed to an grant a copy of our blogs under no license
> whatsoever; it's a one-time grant of copy, non-transferable as long as
> we agree to continue to be aggregated. We are not implicitly licensing
> anything.
> 
> The Foundation cannot grant a license to anyone else because it has none.

Then I suggest the web site is fixed because it says very clearly:

"This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0."

at the bottom of various pages, which sounds to me like a fairly explicit
grant of rights to the work.

Alan


___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Readability publisher sign-up for *.gnome.org

2011-08-26 Thread Liam R E Quin 
On Thu, 2011-08-25 at 17:57 +0100, Will Thompson wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I've been experimenting with Readability 
> for a couple of months. It's a web service that reformats web pages for
> easier reading, and—if you pay for it—maintains a TODO list of those
> nicely-formatted pages for later reading. (Sadly, it's not Free.)

So we should not use it.

However, if we can improve the readability and useability of our Web
site and the information we write and make available, we should do so.

Liam

-- 
Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/
Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/
Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogato.org

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Readability publisher sign-up for *.gnome.org

2011-08-26 Thread Germán Póo-Caamaño 
On Fri, 2011-08-26 at 14:22 -0500, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 13:45, Alan Cox  wrote:
> > People asked to have their blogs included on it and placed them on
> > it by choice. It's under CC-NC licensing (*). So they've agreed to NC use
> > but the foundation exploiting it commercially (or indeed any site
> > reformatting it and making money from doing so) would appear to be a
> > breach of copyright.
> 
> We have agreed to an grant a copy of our blogs under no license
> whatsoever; it's a one-time grant of copy, non-transferable as long as
> we agree to continue to be aggregated. We are not implicitly licensing
> anything.
> 
> The Foundation cannot grant a license to anyone else because it has none.

IIUC, the proposal did not say anything about granting any license,
neither the terms of conditions of Readibility. However, IANAL.

-- 
Germán Póo-Caamaño
http://people.gnome.org/~gpoo/


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: Readability publisher sign-up for *.gnome.org

2011-08-26 Thread Jason D. Clinton 
On Fri, Aug 26, 2011 at 13:45, Alan Cox  wrote:
> People asked to have their blogs included on it and placed them on
> it by choice. It's under CC-NC licensing (*). So they've agreed to NC use
> but the foundation exploiting it commercially (or indeed any site
> reformatting it and making money from doing so) would appear to be a
> breach of copyright.

We have agreed to an grant a copy of our blogs under no license
whatsoever; it's a one-time grant of copy, non-transferable as long as
we agree to continue to be aggregated. We are not implicitly licensing
anything.

The Foundation cannot grant a license to anyone else because it has none.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Readability publisher sign-up for *.gnome.org

2011-08-26 Thread Alan Cox 
> > I would be surprised if the Gnome Foundation had legal authority and
> > ownership rights to authorise any redesign of such material as it isn't
> > the rightsholder in question.
> 
> Well, we are reformating and republishing already.  How's that different?
> Just wondering.

People asked to have their blogs included on it and placed them on
it by choice. It's under CC-NC licensing (*). So they've agreed to NC use
but the foundation exploiting it commercially (or indeed any site
reformatting it and making money from doing so) would appear to be a
breach of copyright.

Alan


(*) which is btw utterly broken because "non-commercial" has no defined
and common meaning

___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Readability publisher sign-up for *.gnome.org

2011-08-26 Thread Behdad Esfahbod 
On 08/26/11 20:36, Alan Cox wrote:
>> I suspect the most likely sub-domain to be read via Readability is
>> blogs.gnome.org, which would raise the question of whether it's right
>> for the Gnome Foundation to accept the money from people reading
>> Foundation-hosted blog posts. I think it's probably reasonable, but I'm
>> just one person writing mundane things. ;)
> 
> I would be surprised if the Gnome Foundation had legal authority and
> ownership rights to authorise any redesign of such material as it isn't
> the rightsholder in question.

Well, we are reformating and republishing already.  How's that different?
Just wondering.

behdad

> Alan
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Re: Readability publisher sign-up for *.gnome.org

2011-08-26 Thread Alan Cox 
> I suspect the most likely sub-domain to be read via Readability is
> blogs.gnome.org, which would raise the question of whether it's right
> for the Gnome Foundation to accept the money from people reading
> Foundation-hosted blog posts. I think it's probably reasonable, but I'm
> just one person writing mundane things. ;)

I would be surprised if the Gnome Foundation had legal authority and
ownership rights to authorise any redesign of such material as it isn't
the rightsholder in question.

Alan
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list

Readability publisher sign-up for *.gnome.org

2011-08-26 Thread Will Thompson 
Hi,

I've been experimenting with Readability 
for a couple of months. It's a web service that reformats web pages for
easier reading, and—if you pay for it—maintains a TODO list of those
nicely-formatted pages for later reading. (Sadly, it's not Free.)

A unique (AFAIK) aspect of their business model is that they earmark 70%
of the monthly fees users pay for distribution among the publishers
whose content is being read through Readability. If people are reading
gnome.org content via Readability, it might be worth the Gnome
Foundation registering at
 to receive its share
of contributions.

I suspect the most likely sub-domain to be read via Readability is
blogs.gnome.org, which would raise the question of whether it's right
for the Gnome Foundation to accept the money from people reading
Foundation-hosted blog posts. I think it's probably reasonable, but I'm
just one person writing mundane things. ;)

Just a thought,
-- 
Will
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list