Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Proposal to revise FSDG to exclude SaaSS-only software clients

[Leo Famulari]

You wrote "the purpose of this work-group is to make decisions which affect all 
FSDG distros - if this work-group concludes that some program is unfit, 
parabola would remove it immediately, and the others should too".

Who are the members of the work-group, and how are decisions made?

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] MAME emulator is giving incentive to use non-free software

[Leo]

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 6:29 PM, Ivan Zaigralin 
wrote:

> Of course there are holdouts. You know of one. But they are
> disappearing, while the historical use of such emulators becomes more
> and more relevant. So while you are probably more right at this moment,
> my points are becoming more and more valid every day, and MAME is
> turning from overall malicious to useful in the near future.
>
> I mean, even your b.i.l. seems to be motivated by the retro and d.i.y.
> aspect of it all, not the ads. And the non-free software in question is
> not even utility software, it's pure entertainment, and it's perfectly
> safe. It is true we cannot study, improve, or share it, but that does
> not make _using_ it either dangerous or unethical. It makes absolutely
> no sense to protect anyone from running these games, especially if that
> results in people building cabinets and inviting friends over, instead
> of paying micro$oft or $ony to install a $500 audio/video bug their your
> house.
>
> Consider also that the software component of these things is becoming
> ever more trivial by today's standards. For an apt analogy, just think
> of these games as interactive books, and MAME as a viewer. These games
> are works of art and art historians must be able to view them. There
> will never again be a non-free software ecosystem there, but thanks to
> MAME a free software ecosystem may yet develop.
>
I think everything you presented here makes sense and I agree with it. Take
10 internet points and have a great weekend.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] MAME emulator is giving incentive to use non-free software

[Leo]

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 4:31 PM, Jean Louis <g...@rcdrun.com> wrote:

> Hello Leo,
>
> On Fri, Apr 01, 2016 at 03:17:06PM -0500, Leo wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Ivan Zaigralin <melik...@melikamp.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > The point of emulators like this one is to preserve software history.
> > > Yes, it emulates non-free software. No, it's no longer relevant. I
> mean,
> > > it's no longer relevant as software, but only as the historical record
> > > of what entertainment software was like in the times of yore. New
> > > nonfree games are being written today in order to seduce people, so I
> > > can see why something like wine is dangerous, but no one, no one will
> > > get seduced by a museum piece. MAME does not give any incentive to use
> > > non-free software, because all of this old software is obsolete and
> > > useless. But it does give an ability to study it from the historical
> > > perspective, which is a good thing.
> > >
> >
> > I disagree with all this. My brother-in-law built an arcade-like cabinet
> > and put MAME in it. He plays these games and invites his friends to play
> > these games with him. A coworker is working on the same thing. They are
> not
> > exactly obsolete if they still provide entertainment. That's like saying
> > that Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is obsolete because now we have
> > romantic comedies in 3D.
> >
> > That being said, I'm still not sure what to think of MAME, but I
> personally
> > see it in the same level as WINE.
>
> Please ask him if he had to load the BIOS and blobs as required:
> http://docs.mamedev.org/basicuse/commonissues.html?highlight=bios
>
> http://docs.mamedev.org/basicuse/gettingstarted.html#bios-dumps-and-software
>
> Basically, he uses non-free software, and I don't know how it relates to
> free-software demand.
>
> Jean Louis
>
> Yes, he does use nonfree software and he doesn't care about free software
one bit. My point is not that. My point is that the ROMs for games can
provide an incentive to use non-free software and the games are not
obsolete nor useless.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] MAME emulator is giving incentive to use non-free software

[Leo]

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Ivan Zaigralin 
wrote:

> The point of emulators like this one is to preserve software history.
> Yes, it emulates non-free software. No, it's no longer relevant. I mean,
> it's no longer relevant as software, but only as the historical record
> of what entertainment software was like in the times of yore. New
> nonfree games are being written today in order to seduce people, so I
> can see why something like wine is dangerous, but no one, no one will
> get seduced by a museum piece. MAME does not give any incentive to use
> non-free software, because all of this old software is obsolete and
> useless. But it does give an ability to study it from the historical
> perspective, which is a good thing.
>

I disagree with all this. My brother-in-law built an arcade-like cabinet
and put MAME in it. He plays these games and invites his friends to play
these games with him. A coworker is working on the same thing. They are not
exactly obsolete if they still provide entertainment. That's like saying
that Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice is obsolete because now we have
romantic comedies in 3D.

That being said, I'm still not sure what to think of MAME, but I personally
see it in the same level as WINE.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] MAME emulator is giving incentive to use non-free software

[Leo]

On Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Leo <lgdeluc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> That being said, I'm still not sure what to think of MAME, but I
> personally see it in the same level as WINE.
>

I would like to correct this statement. I see MAME more along the lines of
SCUMMVM. There are some clear examples of free software for Windows that
can run on WINE and new software is being developed for Windows all the
time (both free and nonfree). SCUMMVM, on the other hand, is for games that
are no longer being developed and most of them (with only 2 exceptions,
AFAIK) are nonfree. Nobody is going to develop for SCUMMVM, just like
nobody will develop for MAME, except maybe only as a programming challenge.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox

[Leo]

On Wednesday 03 August 2011 21:51:03 Diego Saravia wrote:
  While projects like linux-libre and icecat are not the legal copyright
  holder of the source isn't relevant to us; the licence they are
  distributed under gives us the permission we need. (No one entity holds
  all the copyright to Linux either).
 
 yes, nobody says that you dont have the right to distribute.
 
 the point is that what you distribute are not: the sources

You keep saying that word but I don't think you understand what it means.
Yes, they _are_ the sources of forked projects. The source of the branch, if 
you will. If you want to be upstream, then start your own projects, make them 
better than Linux and Firefox and people will use them. If you can pull that, 
superb! I'll be thrilled, I'll get you a chocolate chip cookie and maybe even 
a cup of milk to go along.
In the meantime, as long as the rest of us can get some usable free source 
(regardless of where the source comes from or if we are a fork or upstream) 
and distribute it following the 4 precepts of the free software definition 
according to the FSF, that's good for us (at least it is for me).
Ideally I'd like Linux-libre and GNU IceCat to be the father projects of 
Linux and Firefox. Ideally I'd like everybody using the libre versions instead 
of the less-than-libre versions. Sadly, it is not an ideal world. Complaining 
about Mozilla or Linux in this mailing list won't make the world any more 
ideal. On the other hand, doing what Giuseppe or Alexandre do does benefit us.

  Saying we don't have source code because we are not the originator of
  the project is a logical fallacy.
 
 I am not speaking about have, con can get the real sources, from
 original project.

Forking is one of the benefits of free software. And, yes, GNU IceCat and 
Linux-libre are forks even if you don't consider them that. If you don't like 
it or if you don't think that's beneficial, refer to my previous comment.
I may not use Firefox or Linux, but I'm thankful for the effort put behind 
those projects because they allow us to have GNU IceCat and Linux-libre, which 
are 100% free.
 
  Not sure what you were getting at there.
 
 the true.

Your truth.


So, what I wonder is: besides pointing out the supposed elephant in the room, 
what's the purpose of all your emails? What action do you propose should be 
taken? Starting new projects when we already have 100% free projects seems 
ridiculous to me. Do you have any other proposal or should we leave this 
thread die? After all, the initial concern about trademarks has been addressed 
and I'm replying to a hijack. If all you wanted was to show us your truth, 
then I'll move along.

-- 
RMS Rose GNU/Linux-libre
http://rmsgnulinux.com.ar
#rmsgnulinux @ irc.freenode.net

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox

[Leo]

On Friday 22 July 2011 10:00:00 Diego Saravia wrote:
 2011/7/22 Leo l...@kde.org.ar:
  On Thursday 21 July 2011 18:34:33 Diego Saravia wrote:
  we need new, independient projects, a new free kernel, a new free
  browser, with free true sources, and a comunity involved in free
  software principles.
  
  Why new? We have Linux-libre
 
 source of linux libre is linux, and is not free
 source of icecat is firefox and we are seeing that is not free

Source of Linux-libre is Linux-libre, completely free: 
http://www.fsfla.org/svnwiki/selibre/linux-
libre/download/releases/LATEST-2.6.39.0/linux-2.6.39-libre.tar.bz2

Source of GNU IceCat, again completely free: 
http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gnuzilla/5.0/icecat-5.0.tar.bz2

There's absolutely no need to work on a new free browser or a new kernel.

-- 
RMS Rose GNU/Linux-libre
http://rmsgnulinux.com.ar
#rmsgnulinux @ irc.freenode.net

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox

[Leo]

On Friday 22 July 2011 14:37:03 Diego Saravia wrote:
   source of linux libre is linux, and is not free
   source of icecat is firefox and we are seeing that is not free
  
  Source of Linux-libre is Linux-libre, completely free:
  http://www.fsfla.org/svnwiki/selibre/linux-
  libre/download/releases/LATEST-2.6.39.0/linux-2.6.39-libre.tar.bz2
  
  Source of GNU IceCat, again completely free:
  http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/gnuzilla/5.0/icecat-5.0.tar.bz2
 
 that files are not sources, sources are in linux project and mozilla
 proyects. Linuxlibre and ice-cat  are usefull, to aloud people to use only
 free software without  restrictions, to know what happens in each machine
 (blobs) (if they have the hardware) or to aloud to sell software, but they
 don' t provide sources. They provide a sub product of the real sources, that
 are not free. A restricted set of software that is free.
 
 these files are modified by hand or in automatic way (like kernel in ututo),
 bur are not sources
 
 call them sources is like call sources a grammar in c produced by
 yacc/bisson
 
 there are not legaly sources, and is not a good idea to think of them as a
 new project, becouse the people that really do the code are not in
 linux-libre nor in ice cat project.  They are not new projects, nor forks,
 and continue to be that way, each new version is constructed from a new
 version of the very sources. Only one criterion: remove non free, restrict
 the universo of machines to the one in wich only free soft. could be run.

Do we have compilable code that produces a free browser and a free kernel? If 
the answer is yes, then your point is moot. I call that sources, if you want 
to pick at semantics minutae then you're alone on that.

-- 
RMS Rose GNU/Linux-libre
http://rmsgnulinux.com.ar
#rmsgnulinux @ irc.freenode.net

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Trademark licenses, example in Firefox

[Leo]

On Thursday 21 July 2011 18:34:33 Diego Saravia wrote:
 we need new, independient projects, a new free kernel, a new free
 browser, with free true sources, and a comunity involved in free
 software principles.

Why new? We have Linux-libre and GNU IceCat. And there are many other free 
browsers out there anyway. Also, there may not be another operating system but 
GNU but Linux is _just_ _one_ of its kernels.

Regards,
Leo

-- 
RMS Rose GNU/Linux-libre
http://rmsgnulinux.com.ar
#rmsgnulinux @ irc.freenode.net

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [GNU-linux-libre] Browser plugins

[Leo]

Hello,

On Saturday 21 May 2011 11:37:03 Sam Geeraerts wrote:
 It's been reported [1] that Konqueror suggests downloading non-free 
 plugins. Even though there's some flashplugininstaller Kubuntu code in 
 gNewSense, I suspected that the browser is actually just relaying 
 information from the website. This has been confirmed by KDE developers 
 [2] (thanks, Leo). This means that it's probably not a problem specific 
 to Konqueror, but that all browsers could be affected.

I just want to point out that the popup in Konqueror (which is the browser 
that generated this discussion) can be dismissed with a Do not download and 
it has a Don't ask me again checkbox. It's not optimal, but it does give the 
user the option of not seeing the popup again.
 
 There are several ways we can deal with this:
 
 a) We do nothing. It's the website author who steers the user to 
 non-free software, not the software. The author is free to suggest 
 non-free software. We treat it like a best viewed with Internet 
 Explorer message on the website. Strictly technically speaking the 
 software is FSDG compliant.

I kind of agree with this one.
 
 b) We cut out the browser code that suggests plugins. From the user's 
 perspective, the message comes from the browser, not from the website. 
 This would also block any steering to free plugins, but I have yet to 
 see a website that does that. This is the easiest/quickest fix and 
 already implemented in IceCat if I'm not mistaken.

I think that in a way we'd be doing freedom through obscurity.
The user can't play whatever flash is needed for and is left with the 
uncertainty of how to fix that. The popup suggests a solution, which in our 
eyes is not a solution at all, but at least the user can follow instructions 
on what to do.
Suggesting nonfree is wrong, but I don't agree that not suggesting anything is 
the right way to solve that. The way I see it, there are 4 possible scenarios 
after trying to see a site and not getting any notification:

0) I'm new to computers, I ask around or search in a search engine and find 
out about the de facto choice because it's the most obvious and popular one 
and I end up installing nonfree flash anyway.

1) I'm new to GNU/Linux but have used computers before; I'd probably install 
nonfree Flash anyway since that's what I'd have previous knowledge of.

2) I'm not new to GNU/Linux but I'm an opensource kind of person and I install 
nonfree flash because that's what it works and I don't want to have to deal 
with Gnash incompatibilities with some sites.

3) I'm a freetard and subscribed to the GNU-linux-libre mailing list and I 
already know about this problem and I wouldn't get anywhere near nonfree 
software.

 c) We keep a blacklist of known non-free URLs and replace them with 
 links to free alternatives in the dialog box. While there are probably 
 not many different URLs used in the wild, we're never sure to catch them 
 all. We'd also have to keep track of the freedom status of the 
 alternatives upstream besides all the packages in the distro. There may 
 not even be something FSDG compliant to point to (which is preferably 
 also easily installable by the user).

This one I kind of agree with, but maybe with a message that says The site 
you're visiting suggested installing nonfree software to have access to 
additional things. We suggest installing this instead: 
$INSERT_LINK_TO_FREE_FLASH_ALTERNATIVE_HERE. It could be Gnash, Lightspark, 
swfdec or whatever. Gnash is working quite well, in my experience, but I 
barely visit sites that need flash anyway.
It needs to be pointed out that, AFAIK, swfdec doesn't work with Konqueror. I 
remember there was an app called Klash (Gnash for Konqueror as a kpart), but I 
don't know the status of that anymore. Konqueror is the browser I use the most 
and, like I said, I barely use flash.
 
 d) We use the dialog box (or e.g. integration with Software Center) to 
 suggest a package from the distro to install for each media type.

This one seems a bit difficult, considering that packages are named different 
and that package managers work in different ways. If we suggest a generic 
name, then that would probably be right. The site you're visiting suggested 
installing nonfree software to have access to additional things. We suggest 
that you look for Gnash/swfdec/Lightspark in your repos instead.

 I think (a) is just a poor excuse. (c) seems high cost, low gain to me. 
 A first (b), then (d) if possible implementation looks like the best 
 solution to me.

I think (a) is an option if a message was added to the popup; something like 
The site suggested this plugin, which could be nonfree. I agree that (c) is 
high cost, but I don't think it has low gain. (b) I don't like much. (d) also 
sounds high cost, but if it's done how I suggested it, then it wouldn't be 
hard.

I like (a) and not (b) because I see (b) a bit like censoring. If a user 
doesn't want to install flash they can always dismiss

[GNU-linux-libre] ufoai has noncommercial requirements

[Leo]

The file LICENSES in the ufoai git repo [0] shows that some files have a 
Creative Commons Sampling Plus 1.0 licence [1], which doesn't allow commercial 
redistribution.
Some other files don't show a clear license.
At least one of the fonts also has a noncommercial license (the one marked as 
7th.zip).

Also, they have a page [2] that specifically says they allow contributions 
with the Creative Commons Sampling Plus 1.0 licence.

I believe that ufoai is in contrib in Debian. Arch wrongly marks ufoai-data as 
GPL (in Parabola it's getting blacklisted right now).
If it could be included in the blacklist in Libre Planet that would be good.

I'll try to contact the team behind ufoai about this and ask them if they can 
replace the nonfree files (they really aren't many (8 sound effects) and to 
clarify the licence on the rest of the files (about 12 of them lack a 
license). If someone wants to contact them, though, it would be good, since I 
don't have a lot of free time.
They seem to be aware of this problem judging from [3], so they should be 
advised about this by a licence guru.

Leo


[0] 
http://ufoai.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=ufoai/ufoai;a=blob_plain;f=LICENSES;hb=HEAD
[1] http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/
[2] http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/License#Derivative_work
[3] 
http://ufoai.ninex.info/wiki/index.php/License_Issues#Creative_Commons_Sampling_Plus_1.0_License

-- 
RMS Rose GNU/Linux-libre
http://rmsgnulinux.com.ar
#rmsgnulinux @ irc.freenode.net


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.