Re: Builder crowdsourcing banner on PGO
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] Hmm I am not so sure: The chip in your own card There is no chip in my ATM card, as far as I know. I've read about the chips in European credit cards, but I have never thought about the issue of the software in these chips. It may be ethically equivalent to a circuit, and if not, it may be too small and narrow an issue to matter. Anyway, you won't be using the chip if you enter your card number into Indiegogo. Thus, for several reasons, it isn't a pertinent issue for this campaign. We need not take up that tangent. Nonfree Javascript, by contrast, is a big issue and a serious problem. -- 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 Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Builder crowdsourcing banner on PGO
does anyone else here use IceCat or LibreJS and believe that donating to the Builder campaign via Indiegogo is unethical due to its use of obfuscated Javascipt? That's not quite what I said. The act of donating is not unethical. Running that nonfree software hurts you, but no one else. What is unethical is to urge others to run that nonfree software. That has an effect on others. In this case, probably thousands of others. On a practical level, a campaign against obfuscated JS is completely doomed and can only hurt our efforts to attract users to free software. (How many people do you think would be using your distro here if it shipped IceCat instead of Firefox?) The distro I use, Trisquel, does ship IceCat instead of Firefox. I feel much safer knowing that IceCat protects me from nonfree JS code. why is the question of whether it's the user's computer or the service provider's computer that executes nonfree code very interesting? The difference fundamental. The server should be under its owner's control; nonfree code there wrongs him. Your computer should be under your control; with nonfree code there, it's your freedom that's at stake. Running JS code controlled by others exposes you to spying. Without JS code, The server can only get whatever data you send it with your browser. (IceCat sends less in the way of identifying data than other browsers do.) JS code can get a lot more data about you and use it to recognize you. Many advertising companies use this fingerprinting to track visitors from site to site. If you let web sites run whatever they like on your machine, you will find that much of your computing is done by nonfree JS code sent by servers, and they control your computing. See http://gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html. -- 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 Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Builder crowdsourcing banner on PGO
1) Which bank is used for keeping/receiving money for FSF?. I'd rather not give out that information. 2) Are you sure that any kind of nonfree software is not used for anyone in the bank? Used for anyone in the bank is not ordinary English usage and I can only guess what meaning you had in mind. My guess is that you mean, 2a) Are you sure the bank does not run any nonfree software? We never asked them what software they run. That is not our concern. Here's the question that should and does matter to us: 2b) Are you sure the bank does not require customers to run any nonfree software? Yes, we are sure. We refuse to run nonfree software, and if we couldn't use this bank without nonfree software, we would not use this bank. It is the same here. We are not concerned with what software IndieGoGo uses. The issue here is about the nonfree Javascript software that IndieGoGo _requires donors to use_ in order to donate. Thus I say, let's ask people to donate to Builder through some other channel (not via IndieGoGo) that doesn't require donors to run nonfree software. By that means, we can achieve the same subgoal (helping Builder) without undermining our overall goal as a byproduct. -- 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 Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Builder crowdsourcing banner on PGO
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] I wrote: IndieGoGo has an ethical problem: to donate requires running nonfree software. Thus, even if a campaign is a good thing, we shouldn't promote it on that site. You responded: What nonfree software is needed? I think I don't have nonfree software, but I donated without problems. The nonfree software is included in the web pages, in the form of Javascript. You can verify this by accessing the site using GNU IceCat, or Firefox with LibreJS enabled. -- 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 Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Builder crowdsourcing banner on PGO
I generally take these things step by step. Explaining the problem (with supporting Builder through Indiegogo) is the first step. Solving it (finding another way) is the next step. I expect that some of the people on this list already know the situation with Builder and could quickly propose another way to donate to that project. There's no point in my searching for information that someone else here already has. But if that is not the case, I will investigate the situation. Can someone tell me the URL of the Builder project's own site? (Before you post it, please check whether someone else already did so.) -- 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 Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Builder crowdsourcing banner on PGO
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 5:31 AM, meg ford meg...@gmail.com wrote: I also support putting a banner on Planet GNOME. Meg +1 (25 days left) ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Builder crowdsourcing banner on PGO
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote: Are we considering not linking to this fundraiser because it is hosted on a website that uses non-free software? That depends what you mean by considering. Several people are arguing vigorously against that idea, but nobody proposed it and nobody advocates it. The issue I've raised is not about what software _Indiegogo uses_ in its server. We have no reason to be concerned about that. Indeed, we can't tell what software Indiegogo uses internally, because it does not affect us -- so we may as well ignore it. (Please forgive me for repeating what I've said before.) Rather, this issue about what software _donors_ have to run when they donate via Indiegogo. It includes nonfree Javascript code that Indiegogo installs in the donor's browser. That affects the freedom of the donors: if we ask people to donate via Indiegogo, we are asking _them_ to run nonfree software. See http://gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html. I get the javascript thing, ta. ;-) Right. So, to recap: those who are objecting have never used a credit/debit card to buy stuff or get cash out the wall? Those scenarios are not similar. When I get cash from an ATM, the ATM owner is running software but I am not. I don't know what software is inside the ATM, but in any case it doesn't affect me. Since using an ATM does not require running nonfree software, there is no harm in suggesting other people use an ATM. Hmm I am not so sure: The chip in your own card will be programmed with non-free software technically the transaction can't work unless the ATM is reading that. For the ATM to read your chip you are required you to physically connect your card's chip to the ATM's reader thus making an electronic circuit between your nonfree chip software and their non-free ATM software I do occasionally pay with a credit card (very rarely, for privacy reasons), but only in ways that avoid my running any proprietary software. I don't know what software the merchant and the bank use for this, but in any case it doesn't affect me, etc. Respect that. Many of us were already aware his fundraiser would be hosted on indiGoGo before it was published including you (Alexandre). Nobody from GNOME seemed to object to indiGoGo as a fundraiser platform when the idea was being thrashed out and nobody objecting here has suggested any alternative or offered to help support Christian in setting something up either. I raised this issue as soon as I became aware of the campaign, which was when I saw it mentioned here. I would have raised the issue earlier if I had known earlier. That is unfortunate. I guess we (those who knew about it before) could have thought of it but in our defence a lot of FLOSS projects seem to happen on there so I guess it's understandable why nobody considered there would be any problem. Since it is too late to do the campaign differently, I think we should suggest to people that they bypass the campaign and send money directly to a person or organization associated with Builder. This does not seem like proportionate response taking into account that the Builder campaign has time considerations and the developer needs to, like eat and stuff to keep on living (lest we forget that). How about we all agree to let Builder off the hook and have a policy discussion about linking to sites that use non-free software, for in future? With all that said, perhaps as a sort of compromise Christian could also think about publishing a bitcoin address on the indigogo page, so that those who are used to making transactions and are offended by the idea of indigogo are able to donate with this way instead. That would partially solve the problem, but it would be better for us to post the bitcoin address directly and skip Indiegogo. Intermediate: we could mention Indiegogo and ask people to please use the bitcoin address rather than donating thru Indiegogo. I would certainly agree it's worth publishing a bitcoin address as well as the indiGoGo but realistically, Builder is not likely to any corporate donations that way and it's likely that a non-trivial portion of potential individual donors might be put off by the practicalities of that too. Bitcoin is still fairly niche. Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Builder crowdsourcing banner on PGO
I would _really_ appreciate if you guys held a discussion about things that quite frankly don't have anything to do with my original question in a different thread. Thank you. 2015-01-03 3:21 GMT+00:00 Michael Catanzaro mcatanz...@gnome.org: Hi, On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Magdalen Berns m.be...@thismagpie.com wrote: Hmm I am not so sure: The chip in your own card will be programmed with non-free software technically the transaction can't work unless the ATM is reading that. For the ATM to read your chip you are required you to physically connect your card's chip to the ATM's reader thus making an electronic circuit between your nonfree chip software and their non-free ATM software If the nature of a philosophical question is found to depend on the formation or absence of an electronic circuit, is it still a philosophical question? (Seriously -- the answer is relevant.) This does not seem like proportionate response taking into account that the Builder campaign has time considerations and the developer needs to, like eat and stuff to keep on living (lest we forget that). How about we all agree to let Builder off the hook and have a policy discussion about linking to sites that use non-free software, for in future? There is a wide gulf between the installation of nonfree software on a computer and the interpretation and compilation of nonfree Javascript by a web browser. On a technical level, I reject that that constitutes installation of software, but that's just semantics, so let's move on. On a philosophical level, the web site is a service, and we already agree that it's not our problem if the service provider runs nonfree software: but why is the question of whether it's the user's computer or the service provider's computer that executes nonfree code very interesting? This is a technical, implementation detail that's largely immaterial to the user experience. (Traditional free software respects the user and provides a significantly different user experience than proprietary software.) On a practical level, a campaign against obfuscated JS is completely doomed and can only hurt our efforts to attract users to free software. (How many people do you think would be using your distro here if it shipped IceCat instead of Firefox?) I suspect that the community of free software hackers eager to take on the entire Internet is dramatically smaller than those trying to maintain the free desktop. Richard's analysis in this thread and the essays on his web site are good, insightful reading, and I appreciate his guidance and continued participation in foundation-list threads, but his campaign against browser JS seems much more radical to me than the rest of our community's already-radical beliefs*. So let's find out what others think before we jump the gun and assume we have a problem here: does anyone else here use IceCat or LibreJS and believe that donating to the Builder campaign via Indiegogo is unethical due to its use of obfuscated Javascipt? In the absence of further complaints, let's get that banner posted, please. Michael P.S. I'm CCing Christian since I'm frankly unsure if he's aware of this discussion. * To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list -- Cheers, Alberto Ruiz ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Builder crowdsourcing banner on PGO
Hi, On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Magdalen Berns m.be...@thismagpie.com wrote: Hmm I am not so sure: The chip in your own card will be programmed with non-free software technically the transaction can't work unless the ATM is reading that. For the ATM to read your chip you are required you to physically connect your card's chip to the ATM's reader thus making an electronic circuit between your nonfree chip software and their non-free ATM software If the nature of a philosophical question is found to depend on the formation or absence of an electronic circuit, is it still a philosophical question? (Seriously -- the answer is relevant.) This does not seem like proportionate response taking into account that the Builder campaign has time considerations and the developer needs to, like eat and stuff to keep on living (lest we forget that). How about we all agree to let Builder off the hook and have a policy discussion about linking to sites that use non-free software, for in future? There is a wide gulf between the installation of nonfree software on a computer and the interpretation and compilation of nonfree Javascript by a web browser. On a technical level, I reject that that constitutes installation of software, but that's just semantics, so let's move on. On a philosophical level, the web site is a service, and we already agree that it's not our problem if the service provider runs nonfree software: but why is the question of whether it's the user's computer or the service provider's computer that executes nonfree code very interesting? This is a technical, implementation detail that's largely immaterial to the user experience. (Traditional free software respects the user and provides a significantly different user experience than proprietary software.) On a practical level, a campaign against obfuscated JS is completely doomed and can only hurt our efforts to attract users to free software. (How many people do you think would be using your distro here if it shipped IceCat instead of Firefox?) I suspect that the community of free software hackers eager to take on the entire Internet is dramatically smaller than those trying to maintain the free desktop. Richard's analysis in this thread and the essays on his web site are good, insightful reading, and I appreciate his guidance and continued participation in foundation-list threads, but his campaign against browser JS seems much more radical to me than the rest of our community's already-radical beliefs*. So let's find out what others think before we jump the gun and assume we have a problem here: does anyone else here use IceCat or LibreJS and believe that donating to the Builder campaign via Indiegogo is unethical due to its use of obfuscated Javascipt? In the absence of further complaints, let's get that banner posted, please. Michael P.S. I'm CCing Christian since I'm frankly unsure if he's aware of this discussion. * To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Builder crowdsourcing banner on PGO
Are we considering not linking to this fundraiser because it is hosted on a website that uses non-free software? That depends what you mean by considering. Several people are arguing vigorously against that idea, but nobody proposed it and nobody advocates it. The issue I've raised is not about what software _Indiegogo uses_ in its server. We have no reason to be concerned about that. Indeed, we can't tell what software Indiegogo uses internally, because it does not affect us -- so we may as well ignore it. (Please forgive me for repeating what I've said before.) Rather, this issue about what software _donors_ have to run when they donate via Indiegogo. It includes nonfree Javascript code that Indiegogo installs in the donor's browser. That affects the freedom of the donors: if we ask people to donate via Indiegogo, we are asking _them_ to run nonfree software. See http://gnu.org/philosophy/javascript-trap.html. Right. So, to recap: those who are objecting have never used a credit/debit card to buy stuff or get cash out the wall? Those scenarios are not similar. When I get cash from an ATM, the ATM owner is running software but I am not. I don't know what software is inside the ATM, but in any case it doesn't affect me. Since using an ATM does not require running nonfree software, there is no harm in suggesting other people use an ATM. I do occasionally pay with a credit card (very rarely, for privacy reasons), but only in ways that avoid my running any proprietary software. I don't know what software the merchant and the bank use for this, but in any case it doesn't affect me, etc. Many of us were already aware his fundraiser would be hosted on indiGoGo before it was published including you (Alexandre). Nobody from GNOME seemed to object to indiGoGo as a fundraiser platform when the idea was being thrashed out and nobody objecting here has suggested any alternative or offered to help support Christian in setting something up either. I raised this issue as soon as I became aware of the campaign, which was when I saw it mentioned here. I would have raised the issue earlier if I had known earlier. Since it is too late to do the campaign differently, I think we should suggest to people that they bypass the campaign and send money directly to a person or organization associated with Builder. With all that said, perhaps as a sort of compromise Christian could also think about publishing a bitcoin address on the indigogo page, so that those who are used to making transactions and are offended by the idea of indigogo are able to donate with this way instead. That would partially solve the problem, but it would be better for us to post the bitcoin address directly and skip Indiegogo. Intermediate: we could mention Indiegogo and ask people to please use the bitcoin address rather than donating thru Indiegogo. -- 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 Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Builder crowdsourcing banner on PGO
My question was if someone was against it. Some people is against any website with obfuscated javascript (a concern and a discussion worth the while from a FOSS perspective I think, but beyond practical in this context), there seems to be consensus that supporting this campaign is the right thing. I'd say the question is settled. Whatever we do beyond that is a bit off scope for this thread. Besides, I don't think foundation list is the right place to discuss the creation of a new crowdsourcing platform that is FSF approved. Any help with the HTML/JS needed is more than welcome as I'm on vacation right now and have very little time to devote to it until the 13th :( 2015-01-03 3:31 GMT+00:00 Alexandre Franke alexandre.fra...@gmail.com: On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 4:24 AM, Alberto Ruiz ar...@gnome.org wrote: I would _really_ appreciate if you guys held a discussion about things that quite frankly don't have anything to do with my original question in a different thread. Thank you. Your question was if we should add a link to the campaign on a GNOME website. The current discussion is about defining if it fits within our ethical boundaries, so it has everything to do with your original question. (For the record, I was the first to reply positively to your question and even proposed to push it further) -- Alexandre Franke ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list -- Cheers, Alberto Ruiz ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Builder crowdsourcing banner on PGO
[I deleted my normal message to the NSA and FBI out of consideration for the people on this list who report feeling annoyed by it] If are you really concerned about people using non free software, you should take everything in consideration, no? It would be a mistake to take everything in consideration _in the same way_. They don't all relate to us in the same way. We have direct responsibility for the software we ask people to run. If we ask people to donate through Indiegogo, this includes the nonfree JS code that one must run in order to donate through Indiegogo. We would be wrong to ask people to donate through Indiegogo and run this software. We don't have direct responsibility for the software that Indiegogo runs internally. If Indiegogo has ceded its freedom by running nonfree software, that is unfortunate of course, and we hope Indiegogo will stop running that software, but we don't need to make a fuss about it. -- 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 Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Builder crowdsourcing banner on PGO
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote: Can someone tell me the URL of the Builder project's own site? Here it is: https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Builder/ -- Alexandre Franke ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Builder crowdsourcing banner on PGO
I also support putting a banner on Planet GNOME. Meg On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 9:00 PM, Magdalen Berns m.be...@thismagpie.com wrote: Oh dear. On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio fabi...@fidencio.org wrote: On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 2:24 AM, Alexandre Franke alexandre.fra...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio fabi...@fidencio.org wrote: Can you be more explicit about what you mean with tools used to do your/the bank transactions run nonfree software AFAIU, when you do a bank transfer, the job responsible for your transaction will be executed in the next scheduled period. There are people monitoring and scheduling it (most likely not using free software for this), there is a system on where it is being running (same here ...). According to the GNU/FSF advocacy, in the case of a service it is ok not to have access to the source code since you're not the one running the software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.fr.html Thanks for the link. You also run the non-free software when you use online banking, ebay, paypal, amazon, google and pretty much everything that most of us regularly use... Are we considering not linking to this fundraiser because it is hosted on a website that uses non-free software? I hate to break it to you all, but it's entirely likely that GNOME servers have already linked to a website that uses non-free software before, probably like a lot of times... A quick site search seems to agree with my hypothesis. In my view, there are more effective ways to demonstrate that we care about free software than this and in any case, it seems a bit hypocritical of us to get all shirty about a single link to promote the fundraiser of the development project of GNOME builder, with all things considered. And I'm really wondering how much these random comments about not good, not free software coming from and with no real suggestions can help instead of just generate noise and silly discussions like this one. You're mislead about the intentions of people caring about software freedom. Your stance is that they should not be so focused on their cause, but maybe you should be a bit more open as well and consider their points and reasoning rather than just outright claiming it is noise. Many of us were already aware his fundraiser would be hosted on indiGoGo before it was published including you (Alexandre). Nobody from GNOME seemed to object to indiGoGo as a fundraiser platform when the idea was being thrashed out and nobody objecting here has suggested any alternative or offered to help support Christian in setting something up either. Fabiano makes a very valid point about that. If there are people among us who really want to make it a policy not to do this sort of thing then that seems like a valid discussion to have for the future but I really don't see why this issue should affect the community's willingness to promote builder fundraiser on the GNOME server when is already well in motion and there's no alternative solution to the problem we seek to solve for builder. On that basis I have to agree with Fabiano, that the objections against this are not being argued in a constructive way. Here we are discussing the project lead by Christian who has already invested so much of his time, energy and effort into putting it all together, hacking away. He has placed a lot of trust and good faith into the community who have given him positive feedback to nurture the investment. The project is for a GNOME specific development tool which we are all likely to benefit from. If we don't choose to support it, who else is going to do that? Personally I feel that for us to collectively refuse to help with the builder fundraiser this late in the day would be an utterly disrespectful way to undervalue the time, energy and hard work contributed by the Builder team's contributors who are working on something that is specifically designed with the GNOME community in mind. Ultimately, the take home point I want to make is that we don't have a policy on linking to non-free software. Maybe we should but right now: we don't. On that basis, we should get behind members of our community at the times when it most matters to them, which is for builder is right now. Yeah, I've checked a proper dictionary before, that's the reason I've asked you what did you mean, because it was still not clear to me. I can't be sure but I believe he meant the point was moot because he felt he'd proved himself right on the issue already, in an earlier paragraph. Happy 2015, Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org
Re: Builder crowdsourcing banner on PGO
Oh dear. On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 1:39 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio fabi...@fidencio.org wrote: On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 2:24 AM, Alexandre Franke alexandre.fra...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio fabi...@fidencio.org wrote: Can you be more explicit about what you mean with tools used to do your/the bank transactions run nonfree software AFAIU, when you do a bank transfer, the job responsible for your transaction will be executed in the next scheduled period. There are people monitoring and scheduling it (most likely not using free software for this), there is a system on where it is being running (same here ...). According to the GNU/FSF advocacy, in the case of a service it is ok not to have access to the source code since you're not the one running the software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.fr.html Thanks for the link. You also run the non-free software when you use online banking, ebay, paypal, amazon, google and pretty much everything that most of us regularly use... Are we considering not linking to this fundraiser because it is hosted on a website that uses non-free software? I hate to break it to you all, but it's entirely likely that GNOME servers have already linked to a website that uses non-free software before, probably like a lot of times... A quick site search seems to agree with my hypothesis. In my view, there are more effective ways to demonstrate that we care about free software than this and in any case, it seems a bit hypocritical of us to get all shirty about a single link to promote the fundraiser of the development project of GNOME builder, with all things considered. And I'm really wondering how much these random comments about not good, not free software coming from and with no real suggestions can help instead of just generate noise and silly discussions like this one. You're mislead about the intentions of people caring about software freedom. Your stance is that they should not be so focused on their cause, but maybe you should be a bit more open as well and consider their points and reasoning rather than just outright claiming it is noise. Many of us were already aware his fundraiser would be hosted on indiGoGo before it was published including you (Alexandre). Nobody from GNOME seemed to object to indiGoGo as a fundraiser platform when the idea was being thrashed out and nobody objecting here has suggested any alternative or offered to help support Christian in setting something up either. Fabiano makes a very valid point about that. If there are people among us who really want to make it a policy not to do this sort of thing then that seems like a valid discussion to have for the future but I really don't see why this issue should affect the community's willingness to promote builder fundraiser on the GNOME server when is already well in motion and there's no alternative solution to the problem we seek to solve for builder. On that basis I have to agree with Fabiano, that the objections against this are not being argued in a constructive way. Here we are discussing the project lead by Christian who has already invested so much of his time, energy and effort into putting it all together, hacking away. He has placed a lot of trust and good faith into the community who have given him positive feedback to nurture the investment. The project is for a GNOME specific development tool which we are all likely to benefit from. If we don't choose to support it, who else is going to do that? Personally I feel that for us to collectively refuse to help with the builder fundraiser this late in the day would be an utterly disrespectful way to undervalue the time, energy and hard work contributed by the Builder team's contributors who are working on something that is specifically designed with the GNOME community in mind. Ultimately, the take home point I want to make is that we don't have a policy on linking to non-free software. Maybe we should but right now: we don't. On that basis, we should get behind members of our community at the times when it most matters to them, which is for builder is right now. Yeah, I've checked a proper dictionary before, that's the reason I've asked you what did you mean, because it was still not clear to me. I can't be sure but I believe he meant the point was moot because he felt he'd proved himself right on the issue already, in an earlier paragraph. Happy 2015, Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Builder crowdsourcing banner on PGO
On Fri, Jan 2, 2015 at 1:59 AM, Fabiano Fidêncio fabi...@fidencio.org wrote: Can you be more explicit about what you mean with tools used to do your/the bank transactions run nonfree software AFAIU, when you do a bank transfer, the job responsible for your transaction will be executed in the next scheduled period. There are people monitoring and scheduling it (most likely not using free software for this), there is a system on where it is being running (same here ...). According to the GNU/FSF advocacy, in the case of a service it is ok not to have access to the source code since you're not the one running the software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/network-services-arent-free-or-nonfree.fr.html Apart from that, when you open your bank account you deal with people using an OS, using the bank applications, most likely non-free software. When you do a deposit in cash, for someone working in the bank, mos likely this person is not running a free software. And so on, and so on ... The argument could be made that it is a shame that the person whose dealing with the software on the other side of the counter doesn't have access to the source code, but in this case nobody forces *you* to use non-free software so it is ok on your side of the counter (which seems to be the part you're missing). If are you really concerned about people using non free software, you should take everything in consideration, no? Asking for a thin layer of free software stuff running seems a bit useless for me. In this particular case, Richard asks to be allowed to participate without being forced to use non-free software on his machine. This is something clearly different from asking for the source of everything being available to everyone. You can learn more about this at the above link and at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#PrivateSoftware And I'm really wondering how much these random comments about not good, not free software coming from and with no real suggestions can help instead of just generate noise and silly discussions like this one. You're mislead about the intentions of people caring about software freedom. Your stance is that they should not be so focused on their cause, but maybe you should be a bit more open as well and consider their points and reasoning rather than just outright claiming it is noise. Quite frankly, people that act like that are as tiresome as they claim RMS is. Hmm. Didn't get good examples from moot in the Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moot). Maybe it should be used a bit more carefully. :-) Or maybe you should be more careful with the sources you use as references. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/moot adjective, third definition: (North America) Having no practical impact or relevance. That point may make for a good discussion, but it is moot http://www.thefreedictionary.com/moot 1b has a similar definition. I guess any respectable dictionary will have one. Cheers, -- Alexandre Franke ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Builder crowdsourcing banner on PGO
On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 11:27 PM, Alexandre Franke alexandre.fra...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 1, 2015 at 6:30 PM, Fabiano Fidêncio fabi...@fidencio.org wrote: 4) If not, considering that your bank have some people running nonfree software, should not we close the bank account once we would be paying for someone use a nonfree software and it is an ethical problem? The issue Richard is pointing to with IndieGogo is that non-free software is mandatory to use the service (make a donation). As I said, I didn't ask about the IndieGoGo issue. I was putting things in context to explain why the issue with IndieGogo is not as much of an issue anymore when it comes to banking. Even if a bank uses non-free software on its website, and unless it's a 100% online bank, you can still use their service (make a deposit, transfer, or withdraw money) by going to the bank and talking to a person, so nobody forces non-free software on you. But if all the tools used to do your/the bank transactions run nonfree software it can be an issue, as fair as I can see (and as far as I understand we should avoid it instead of just ask for a layer of free software running). Can you be more explicit about what you mean with tools used to do your/the bank transactions run nonfree software AFAIU, when you do a bank transfer, the job responsible for your transaction will be executed in the next scheduled period. There are people monitoring and scheduling it (most likely not using free software for this), there is a system on where it is being running (same here ...). Apart from that, when you open your bank account you deal with people using an OS, using the bank applications, most likely non-free software. When you do a deposit in cash, for someone working in the bank, mos likely this person is not running a free software. And so on, and so on ... If are you really concerned about people using non free software, you should take everything in consideration, no? Asking for a thin layer of free software stuff running seems a bit useless for me. And I'm really wondering how much these random comments about not good, not free software coming from and with no real suggestions can help instead of just generate noise and silly discussions like this one. 5) If we don't find any bank that can provide a service without run a nonfree software, what would be your recommendation? Moot. Didn't get what you mean by moot. I meant that given my answer to question 4, question 5 did not stand anymore. Hmm. Didn't get good examples from moot in the Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moot). Maybe it should be used a bit more carefully. :-) Best Regards, -- Fabiano Fidêncio ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
