Re: A mathematical, non-corruptable, algorithmic, democratic and free system of government and society
On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 11:06 AM Jean Louis wrote: > > The way I look at the issue, though, is that the problem is with Statist > > society in general. Hierarchical societies are not natural for humans, [citation needed] We have always had hierarchies. We have not always had absolute hierarchies, where the person/people in charge of one area are presumed to be in charge of all others. But human societies have never been "every person decides what to do for themselves, without repercussions if they disagree with the leaders." ...This is pretty much built into our genes, as three-year-olds who decide to do what they want without paying attention to their leaders, generally don't grow up to pass on those genes. Obedience to authority is a survival trait. It's one that needs temperance as people grow - teens challenge authority so that, as adults, they can learn to be authorities. (Even if only over themselves. 8-year-olds don't get to make all their own decisions; adults do. What age or milestone makes someone "adult" varies widely by culture.) But any claim that "people should be free to decide their own actions" needs to consider how that applies to small children. Do they decide? Do their parents decide? What about abusive or neglectful parents? (Who steps in to stop them?) > 1. What if, in an anarchy, people get murdered? Is that okay? It is not okay. How is that decision enforced in an anarchy? Who decides what behaviors are not okay, and who's responsible for making other people go along with them? This has always been the problem with proposed anarchies. Most anarchists agree that various acts of violence are wrong and not allowed - murder, torture, theft, and so on - but their proposed non-government doesn't have any method for dealing with people who do these things. It's like the assumption is, "if we get rid of governments, nobody will want to murder their neighbor for playing their music too late at night. Nobody will murder their ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend." Freedom is easy, do whatever you wish but don't force other people to do it. If we all follow that simple principle, we would not have any troubles. Create agreements and do it with people in agreement. The idea of "free to act as long as others agree" handwaves past the existence of scam artists and charismatic predators. In an anarchist society, is one free to convince others to take heroin? Is there an age of consent? If so, who decides what it is, and who decides what happens to people who violate it? It also skips over the problem of accidents. If I light my home with candles and, with the wax buildup on the walls, a spark makes my house catch on fire, and it burns down three other houses and kills several people - am I a murderer? If I burn charcoal for heat in winter and most of my family dies from carbon monoxide poisoning - am I a murderer? (Will there be a public education system to warn people not to burn charcoal indoors? Who administers it? Who pays for it?) > 2. Are people in the anarchy free to setup a dictatorship, with guns > and cannons? Is this power limited? If it is, how is this an > anarchy? I find anarchy represents freedom. Anarchy means that above, do what you wish, but don't force others. As soon as you start forcing others to do anything, that is government. We don't need governments, we need consciousness. [citation needed] You seem to be saying that if everyone were reasonably well-educated, there would be no predators, no people working in bad faith, no short-sighted people who insist that it's fine if they dump toxic waste in the river near their house because it'll just wash out to sea and not be a problem. Modern corporate shenanigans says this is not true. Education and resources do not bring empathy. I'm not sure what "consciousness" means here, but a few million years of human history show that it's never going to be a universal trait. I understand the appeal of "if people would just pay attention and try to get along, we could sort out all these problems! We have the resources to make the world a much better place!" Where I disagree, is the apparent assumption that there is some magic-button method that will switch the majority of people from however they are today, to whatever kind of people they'd need to be for this method to work. > not only because direct democracy doesn't scale (this could be > overcome with blockchains and decentralized networking), it's also Blockchain and decentralized networking cannot fix the problems with democracy, because "decentralized" anything cannot fix the problems of identity scams. We have plenty of decentralized systems right now. The entire
Re: A mathematical, non-corruptable, algorithmic, democratic and free system of government and society
* Andrew Yu via libreplanet-discuss [2022-01-21 18:18]: > Good idea. I use the Guix package manager on my system. I've tried > Guix System, but there was a problem---Guix is still heavily integrated > with UNIX-like operating systems (GNU/Linux), where everything is > supposed to be a file in specific locations. How /gnu/store and Guix > profiles work causes insane compatibility and maintainance issues in > UNIX-like systems. My impression on Guix is quite contrary as /gnu/store is installed on any compatible hardware such as x86_64, i686, armhf, aarch64, and powerpc64le, see: https://guix.gnu.org/en/download/ Guix as package manager may be run as separate system on the host system. So as long as hardware is compatible, your Guix as guest system will be compatible. Maintenance issues are actually minimized, I cannot see what you see. Guix is everything but not causing insane compatibility and maintenance issues. If you have any real issue, report it to Guix bug trucker. > As far as I know, Guix is written in Scheme, a dialect of Lisp. It may > be a good idea to implement a fork of it in > http://metamodular.com/Common-Lisp/lispos.html. I would like to see that for reason that I know Common Lisp so much better than Scheme, though there are technical advantages for scheme and GNU Guile in particular. If you ask me I would like GNU Emacs to run as PID 1 hanling all other processes. > We might use Lisp machines instead of poorly designed modern > processor architecture, utilizing functional programming to a great > extent. (Or Haskell, but that's not the point lol) Yes, please. Show us. Though so much work has been put in Guix, why simple not improve the existing OS? > > The way I look at the issue, though, is that the problem is with Statist > > society in general. Hierarchical societies are not natural for humans, > > so I maintain. I like GNU for its American sort of approach to this. I > > don't share a lot of American culture, but GNU reminds me of Henry David > > Thoreau's famous epithet: "the best government is that which governs > > least of all, that is to say: not at all". > > What a government should do is a crucial question to be discussed in > this project. I believe that the government must keep some control over > people. Life is a sacrifice between (protection and liberty) => freedom. > Please take a look at my notes below. Oh my. Of course, we are all either individualists or collectivists. https://opinionfront.com/individualism-vs-collectivism But OK, I don't mind, as I am aware that society is full of robots, prisoners who wish to become prisoners' ward. And so it goes. > > I come from an anarcho-communist approach. Perhaps we should have a > > discussion about attracting attention to the radical elements of GNU--we > > could convince people to join on that basis? > > I live in China, with communism. Not going to comment here. I'd be > willing to discuss that in private, though. My OpenPGP key is > https://www.andrewyu.org/andrew.asc. Ahahaha you see, government is keeping control over you. > Definitely understandable, but consider two simple problems: > > 1. What if, in an anarchy, people get murdered? Is that okay? It is not okay. Freedom is easy, do whatever you wish but don't force other people to do it. If we all follow that simple principle, we would not have any troubles. Create agreements and do it with people in agreement. > 2. Are people in the anarchy free to setup a dictatorship, with guns > and cannons? Is this power limited? If it is, how is this an > anarchy? I find anarchy represents freedom. Anarchy means that above, do what you wish, but don't force others. As soon as you start forcing others to do anything, that is government. We don't need governments, we need consciousness. > > Society should be, so we say, directly democratic. That is, the people > > who are affected by decisions should be the ones making them. People > > in houses should be the ones controlling them. People who work should > > should be the ones who decide how and why that work is done. That does not work, as that is manipulated and controlled by few. In companies people don't accept any staff members, right? So they ask for qualifications of staff members, as such people have to have specific skills, knowledge, experience, analytical capabilities. In direct democracy, which never truly existed in history by the way, people are asked to decide about things they have no adequate knowledge. > Another problem: it's hard to keep up educating people on things that > affect them. Few people are good at all of: economics, environmental > protection, mathematics, political science, psychology, and all other > things that must be considered while running a country. We may be able > to work out this education, not in the forseeable future, but a good > idea nevertheless. Ancient Greece (especially Athens) is > democratic, That is one way of looking
Re: RE : Ideas to promote making and using free hardware designs (was Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware)
* Jacob Hrbek [2022-01-21 18:22]: > I am strictly against paying for freedom, Never in the history of mankind freedom was every free of charge. We all pay for freedom, and we never get it. And if anyting is worth, it is worth paying for freedom. > but i am not against limiting freedom until the development is paid WTF? Am I on the wrong mailing list or you? > assuming that the freedom to study and improve is not violated > (freedom to redistribute can require fee for commercial use) If you require fee for commercial use that is not free software by definition, thus also outside of the scope of subjects on this mailing list. Feel free to exchange though. > and the party is mandated to be transparent about their financing > and license enforces that "when the development cost is paid then > this license automatically removes all restrictions on use and > redistribute" (would be a great if GPLv4 had this clause). Well, it will never be. But keep dreaming. > That said I would like to highlight the case of Purism with Librem 5 > which allegedly does this approach, I did not see they do that approach, maybe you misunderstood something. I find Purism and their hardware some of best attempts to come to free software with free hardware in the world. So their project is just to be supported. They are smaller company, unlike IBM or other hardware companies, and their products will cost rather more than less. That is quite understandable. Try to make computer yourself and you will understand. > but they are not transparent My impression is quite contrary, they are so much transparent. > and are likely abusing their trust by constantly hiring new people > to claim that the development cost increased to infinity which is > terrible for user freedom. That is generalization, I cannot say I condone that neither I agree to that. I do not see problem with user freedom in Purism. Can you be more specific? Then also if you wish to tell something to Purism, why don't you tell it specific to them? Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns In support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/ ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Can we liberate OSVR?
Open-Source Virtual Reality ("OSVR") is a project working on an open
standard, software and hardware for Virtual Reality, see
[1]https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=OdZ9fKw_DGw for their
promotion video.
In terms of Hardware OSVR already produced a working VR headset
OSVR-HDK [2] which license is
incompatible with GPLv3[email forward from [3]licens...@fsf.org] this
discussion is about investigating the reasons for this decision and
what we can do to liberate it.
I believe that through liberating it the project can substentially
increase it's networth while giving us a strong platform for VR which
can be utilized in Free Hardware Designs projects such as relativty
[4] to ensure cross-platform
compatibility and functionality thus this discussion should be about
why they made the decision for non-free and what can be done about it.
#1 Economical cost
OSVR project partnered with Razer to produce the OSVR-HDK development
kit for 199 USD so they are most likely in a net-loss.
To work with somewhat realistic figure i estimated that the production
cost loss should be at around 20K EUR/USD minimum so lets work with
this figure.
Q: What can we do on an GPLv3-compatible model to offset this
economical loss?
Q: How can we prove to OSVR and Razer that Free Software, Free Hardware
Designs and Free Firmware are more economical?
Forwarded Message
Subject: [gnu.org #1799743] Re: Is OSVR compatible with GPLv3 ?
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 09:36:03 -0500
From: Yoni Rabkin via RT [5]
Re ply-To: [6]licens...@fsf.org
To: [7]krey...@rixotstudio.cz
Hello and thank you for writing in.
Is this license compatible with GPLv3?
[8]https://github.com/OSVR/OSVR-HDK/blob/master/LICENSE.md
License review is a lengthy process which often involves legal counsel,
so I cannot provide you with an official review of the OSVR license.
However, a cursory look at the terms of the license indicate to me that
it is not even a free software license, and therefore like any other
proprietary license would surely be incompatible with any version of
the
GPL.
For instance, section j.3 states that:
"You agree and acknowledge that the MDK, Modules or Module Interface
Technology available on the OSVR Project are solely for the purposes of
the OSVR Project and Your personal use. Except as permitted in this
Clause, you may not use, sell or distribute the MDK, Modules or Module
Interface Technology nor the IPR contained therein for any purposes
whatsoever, whether for commercial gain or otherwise. Any attempts to
do
so will automatically terminate this License."
This section alone would make this a proprietary license which merely
grants you a kind of limited permission to work on OSVR projects. There
may be other reasons this license would be non-free and
GPL-incompatible.
With the caveats above, I hope this is of help.
--
I am not a lawyer, the above is not legal advice
Regards, Yoni Rabkin
The services of the GPL Compliance Lab are made possible by
donations from people like you. Please consider supporting us
today by becoming a member [[9]https://my.fsf.org/join] or by making
a donation [[10]https://www.fsf.org/donate].
References
1. https://redirect.invidious.io/watch?v=OdZ9fKw_DGw
2. https://github.com/OSVR/OSVR-HDK
3. mailto:licens...@fsf.org
4. https://github.com/relativty/Relativty
5. mailto:licens...@fsf.org
6. mailto:licens...@fsf.org
7. mailto:krey...@rixotstudio.cz
8. https://github.com/OSVR/OSVR-HDK/blob/master/LICENSE.md
9. https://my.fsf.org/join
10. https://www.fsf.org/donate
publickey - kreyren@rixotstudio.cz - 1677db82.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: RE : Ideas to promote making and using free hardware designs (was Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware)
> Perhaps there could be a way to work with the hardware makers and free cad developers to create a similar set up where for a reasonable cost you can obtain the required drivers, firmware etc. -- Torrey I am strictly against paying for freedom, but i am not against limiting freedom until the development is paid assuming that the freedom to study and improve is not violated (freedom to redistribute can require fee for commercial use) and the party is mandated to be transparent about their financing and license enforces that "when the development cost is paid then this license automatically removes all restrictions on use and redistribute" (would be a great if GPLv4 had this clause). That said I would like to highlight the case of Purism with Librem 5 which allegedly does this approach, but they are not transparent and are likely abusing their trust by constantly hiring new people to claim that the development cost increased to infinity which is terrible for user freedom. On 1/21/22 10:20, Paul Sutton via libreplanet-discuss wrote: Perhaps there could be a way to work with the hardware makers and free cad developers to create a similar set up where for a reasonable cost you can obtain the required drivers, firmware etc. -- Jacob Hrbek publickey - kreyren@rixotstudio.cz - 1677db82.asc Description: application/pgp-keys signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware
> These three are equivalent because, in all three, we are equally
helplsss. In theory, in case 3 reverse engineering would be able to fix
it. But we can't do any reverse engineering -- we can encourage people
to do such it. -- RMS
I agree that complicated components such as processors can be
problematic as they are very often very difficult to review, change and
fabricate but I don't align with it being a reason to consider Free
Hardware Designs ("FHD") as not worthy of supporting, because as long as
the designs are GPLv3-compatible then they can be changed to use more
appropriate components.
In terms of processors RISC-V would be my quick answer for the
definitive user-freedom as they are open-source and can be fabricated
using a modified 3D printer or custom CNC machine (majority of CNC
machines are GPLv3 compatible and easily changable for this task), but
the process is complicated and i am not yet an expert on the subject to
represent it.
That said I don't feel like the use of processors is a freedom issue in
general thanks to projects such as Rockchip (Arduino, etc..) that make
the proprietary ARM architecture malware-free to be considered safe
while providing the required components to use the processor (firmware,
bootloader, documentation, linux patches, toolkit, etc..) under
GPLv3-compatible licenses [https://github.com/rockchip-linux] which then
can be declared as safe and through an independent security review with
thanks to the provided tools the results can be verified.
---
But again the main issue about which i want to make a case here is that
FSF supports and endorses proprietary hardware designs at the expense of
Free Hardware Designs and their developers + that GPLv3 is not made with
hardware and is problematic for that use.
---
About Creality the required informations are not public (to my
knowledge), but this is from what i was told, researched and found relevant:
Creality Ender-3 and Original Prusa i3 are both forks of Prusa Mendel
(https://reprap.org/wiki/Prusa_Mendel) which is a fork of RepRap Mendel
(https://reprap.org/wiki/Mendel).
Allegedly this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyVM3-v84I0
inspired Creality to take the Prusa Mendel design and re-engineer it for
production to create Creality Ender-3 which was forked by Josef Průša to
create the Original Prusa i3 (or prusa was first and creality forked it
and optimized it for production cost).
So all of these printers and their forks were forked from RepRap Mendel
so they have to follow GPLv3, but they all fail to credit all the authors.
So assuming that RepRap is the copyright holder, I found this on the
subject:
I was provided a response of a RepRap representative on their forum
explaining most of the issues with GPLv3 and problems with the
enforcement of FHD: https://reprap.org/forum/read.php?33,40874
In short my summary of the discussion would be that GPLv3 is not worded
and made for hardware as it lacks the required protections to enforce
and maintain the values of four freedoms for hardware.
There is also a statement by OSHW/OSWR on GPL that i find relevant, but
note that OSHW/OSWR are seemingly not aligned with 4 freedoms:
https://ohwr.org/project/cernohl/wikis/faq#q-why-not-use-existing-licences-such-as-gpl-and-any-in-the-family-of-creative-commons-licences
And relevant KiCAD (FOSS EDA) forum post:
https://forum.kicad.info/t/using-the-l-gpl-as-an-open-source-hardware-license/1925/2
On 1/19/22 05:16, Richard Stallman wrote:
You're right that the two are similar. But there is a crucial
difference. We can get around the problems at the level above the
processor level by writing software. We can't deal with the problems
inside the processor that way.
Suppose a processor has malicious functionalities. There are three
ways it is likely to be implementd:
1. By unchangeable circuits.
2. By firmware in ROM.
3. By secret firmware in RAM.
These three are equivalent because, in all three, we are equally
helplsss. In theory, in case 3 reverse engineering would be able to
fix it. But we can't do any reverse engineering -- we can encourage
people to do such it.
Thus, we treat all three cases the same.
--
Jacob Hrbek
publickey - kreyren@rixotstudio.cz - 1677db82.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: A mathematical, non-corruptable, algorithmic, democratic and free system of government and society
vidak wrote: > Your email is warmly welcomed. I have had exactly the same thoughts > recently. > > It is interesting to me because, and I have no shame in admitting this, > I am an anarchist. I see Free Software as a way to resist the State and > try and dissolve it completely. These are things that I agree with that I don't usually say because of *practical reasons* and *some type of law that's an exception to article 25 (freedom of expression) in the PRC*. > I would highly recommend you go back to them and show them GNU Guix? > Maybe the point is moot now. Guix is _insanely_ advanced, and that's the > angle you could take to them--the perfect package manager has finally > been built. To my mind, we've now perfectly solved the problem. Good idea. I use the Guix package manager on my system. I've tried Guix System, but there was a problem---Guix is still heavily integrated with UNIX-like operating systems (GNU/Linux), where everything is supposed to be a file in specific locations. How /gnu/store and Guix profiles work causes insane compatibility and maintainance issues in UNIX-like systems. As far as I know, Guix is written in Scheme, a dialect of Lisp. It may be a good idea to implement a fork of it in http://metamodular.com/Common-Lisp/lispos.html. We might use Lisp machines instead of poorly designed modern processor architecture, utilizing functional programming to a great extent. (Or Haskell, but that's not the point lol) > The way I look at the issue, though, is that the problem is with Statist > society in general. Hierarchical societies are not natural for humans, > so I maintain. I like GNU for its American sort of approach to this. I > don't share a lot of American culture, but GNU reminds me of Henry David > Thoreau's famous epithet: "the best government is that which governs > least of all, that is to say: not at all". What a government should do is a crucial question to be discussed in this project. I believe that the government must keep some control over people. Life is a sacrifice between (protection and liberty) => freedom. Please take a look at my notes below. > I come from an anarcho-communist approach. Perhaps we should have a > discussion about attracting attention to the radical elements of GNU--we > could convince people to join on that basis? I live in China, with communism. Not going to comment here. I'd be willing to discuss that in private, though. My OpenPGP key is https://www.andrewyu.org/andrew.asc. > Anyway, I have gone on far too long. > Awesome to read your email (: Definitely shorter than many two the previous emails :) Great to hear from people who have thoughts on government power too. > ~vidak > > https://zoinks.one/vidak I get a blank page when I go there, with "To use Pleroma, please enable JavaScript." Apparantly Pleroma is free software, glimpsed through the JavaScript, whitelisted it in LibreJS. --- From your website/profile (you post so much, can't read them all): > We anarchists distinguish ourselves from other movements and political > organisations by holding to a concept of social and political freedom > that is radically different—and for that reason far more > authentic—than any other. Where virtually every other political > tendency seeks to capture or win power through the state—be it merely > some rung or portion of it, or its entire structure—anarchists argue > that we should do away with it. > > We seek the formation of a society where there are no large masses of > people, such as ourselves, who are Governed and coerced by small > numbers of rulers—be they in Parliaments, Centrelink offices, Courts, > or law firms. Our picture of the future imagines a Western Australia > where people are, both individually and through our communities, the > deciders of their own fates. We anarchists have good reason to say > that States and Governments are the places where culture and > creativity go to die. > > Every kind of social power and social domination of a minority over a > majority comes with its own type of slavery. The boss over the > worker. The principal of the State school over a student. The landlord > over the renter. The Centrelink bureaucrat over the unemployed and > impoverished, and so on. We say that when you look at social > organisation this way, you see life in our communities for what it > is—the suffering of the commanded by those who wield command. Definitely understandable, but consider two simple problems: 1. What if, in an anarchy, people get murdered? Is that okay? 2. Are people in the anarchy free to setup a dictatorship, with guns and cannons? Is this power limited? If it is, how is this an anarchy? Boils down to the exact definition of anarchy. > Society should be, so we say, directly democratic. That is, the people > who are affected by decisions should be the ones making them. People > in houses should be the ones controlling them. People who work should > should be the ones who
Re: A mathematical, non-corruptable, algorithmic, democratic and free system of government and society
On 22/01/19 07:26PM, Jean Louis wrote: > > Funding has always been an issue with free software. > > No, not always, I did not get that as personal impression. In fact my > first encounter with free software was that I have paid for it, and > continued paying for quite some time. Majority of companies in Germany > and generally in European countries marketed GNU/Linux CD/DVD ROMs and > later other operating systems. We were paying for books like 100 > German marks which included GNU/Linux on CD-ROM. Today there are many > free software projects which sell their services or otherwise profit > from free software as service providers, example is Amazon, Digital > Ocean, and plethora of hosting providers. Free software runs Internet, > that is fact, and funding comes from its usage and provision, thus > direct and indirect sales. Red Hat is still there > https://www.redhat.com/en and OpenSUSE https://www.opensuse.org and I > can just guess many other companies are still on market making quite a > bunch of money, thus getting the funding, and also contributing back > to Free Software, such as contributing to kernel and various other > programs. True. But look at what Red Hat, for example, gave us. Systemd. I'd argue that systemd isn't evil, but it's damaging the free software movement in subtle (and minor) ways, for example, hardcoding Google DNS servers into the init system (of course you can change that, but most users don't know how, as in the future we don't intend GNU and other free systems to be only used by technical people) which imposes slight reliance on big companies. It's also taking over everything in our system. Probably not evil. Then look at Linux. A mess of Microsoft, Google, name-your-companies. So now? Digital Restrictions Management in the kernel, fun. > > If people can get it for gratis, non only the people who can't > > afford paying (which includes a student like me, sadly) won't pay, > > the others who can afford it are just too lazy to donate. > > People like you and many others undergo various changes in their > life. While I did pay first time for free software, and kept paying > for it, that was because I was in the same time awarded with quality > printed manuals, real books, and the whole package looked magically > good. And in reality it was better than good as compared to how much > money and time and effort I have wasted on broken Windoze. But then > later I have not paid anything apart Internet for long time, I have > been downloading it and updating through Internet. Then again I came > to stage where I could donate to free software projects, and so I did. > > Yes, sometimes you will not be able to pay. But sometimes you will pay > either in the form of money, or in the form of your own free software > projects. Payment is not only money. Contributions, bugs, discussions, > initiatives, speeches, there are many forms of "payments". I agree. However in a society where money is needed for the most basic things to a human's life (food and healthcare), those who devote their lives to developing free software and/or activism don't live well. (I'd argue that such a society is unjust.) > > It's probably worse in China: donations aren't in the culture. > > Sales are in the culture in China, so just sell free software. Good idea. > > I can't say much about office suites because I don't use them, not > > even the free ones because I use Groff and TeX. > > Recently for many documents I am using Asciidoctor and Asciidoctor > PDF: > > Asciidoctor | A fast, open source text processor and publishing toolchain for > converting AsciiDoc content to HTML5, DocBook, PDF, and other formats. > https://asciidoctor.org/ > > asciidoctor/asciidoctor-pdf: Asciidoctor PDF: A native PDF converter for > AsciiDoc based on Asciidoctor and Prawn, written entirely in Ruby: > https://github.com/asciidoctor/asciidoctor-pdf/#themes > > Asciidoctor Example > https://jianmin.dev/asciidoctor-example/ > > Using AsciiDoc and Asciidoctor to write documentation - Tutorial > https://www.vogella.com/tutorials/AsciiDoc/article.html Heh! I've actually looked at asciidoc before, pretty cool. Looking for a functional implementation for it. Andrew :) signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: A mathematical, non-corruptable, algorithmic, democratic and free system of government and society
* Andrew Yu [2022-01-20 21:00]: > On 22/01/19 07:26PM, Jean Louis wrote: > > > Funding has always been an issue with free software. > > > > No, not always, I did not get that as personal impression. In fact my > > first encounter with free software was that I have paid for it, and > > continued paying for quite some time. Majority of companies in Germany > > and generally in European countries marketed GNU/Linux CD/DVD ROMs and > > later other operating systems. We were paying for books like 100 > > German marks which included GNU/Linux on CD-ROM. Today there are many > > free software projects which sell their services or otherwise profit > > from free software as service providers, example is Amazon, Digital > > Ocean, and plethora of hosting providers. Free software runs Internet, > > that is fact, and funding comes from its usage and provision, thus > > direct and indirect sales. Red Hat is still there > > https://www.redhat.com/en and OpenSUSE https://www.opensuse.org and I > > can just guess many other companies are still on market making quite a > > bunch of money, thus getting the funding, and also contributing back > > to Free Software, such as contributing to kernel and various other > > programs. > > True. But look at what Red Hat, for example, gave us. Systemd. OK. But still, Systemd is free software and you need not use it. I use that on VPS-es and don't use it on personal computers. I cannot say it works well, it doesn't, it fails to run my daemons with stability, so I add always some supervision software. But that is not a point. It is free software and you can change it as you wish. > I'd argue that systemd isn't evil, but it's damaging the free software > movement in subtle (and minor) ways, for example, hardcoding Google DNS > servers into the init system (of course you can change that, but most > users don't know how, as in the future we don't intend GNU and other > free systems to be only used by technical people) which imposes slight > reliance on big companies. It's also taking over everything in our > system. Probably not evil. You can submit bug reports or use other software. I am using OpenRC, but I would prefer S6 system. > Then look at Linux. A mess of Microsoft, Google, name-your-companies. > So now? Digital Restrictions Management in the kernel, fun. You are free to change it. It is free software. Submit bug reports, make your own versions of kernel. I am using Linux-libre kernel. > I agree. However in a society where money is needed for the most basic > things to a human's life (food and healthcare), those who devote their > lives to developing free software and/or activism don't live well. (I'd > argue that such a society is unjust.) There are many people in free software who live well. There are many people in any kind of business that don't live well. Free software is issues without any warranty or suitability for particular purpose. What you get is freedom. Not guarantee for good life. > Heh! I've actually looked at asciidoc before, pretty cool. Looking for > a functional implementation for it. There is Org mode export to asciidoc. There are many functional implementations, a2x and asciidoctor are most notable and work very well. -- Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns In support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/ ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: RE : Ideas to promote making and using free hardware designs (was Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware)
* Arthur Torrey [2022-01-21 04:09]: > An excellent post by Paul Fernhout, but I see one really HUGE problem, namely > that I don't know of ANY Free Software tool or tool-chain that can get a > person from 'beer-mat' to 'g-code' (For those not familiar with the CNC > world, g-code is the 'assembly language' of the CNC manufacturing world... > > I am a member of the Artisan's Asylum maker-space (formerly in > Somerville, MA, temporarily shut down while moving to Allston) and > would dearly love to be able to make the hardware that I can draw > and design in LibreCAD (2D) or possibly FreeCAD, gCAD3D or some > other Free Software 3D CAD package, but I have not been able to find > any way to get from those packages to g-code that I can feed to our > CNC machines. OpenSCAD - elegant export to G-code from w/in OpenSCAD? https://forum.openscad.org/elegant-export-to-G-code-from-w-in-OpenSCAD-td4037.html Maybe there are some references there. Jean Take action in Free Software Foundation campaigns: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns In support of Richard M. Stallman https://stallmansupport.org/ ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
Re: RE : Ideas to promote making and using free hardware designs (was Re: FSF continuously harms Free Hardware)
On 21/01/2022 01:05, Arthur Torrey wrote: An excellent post by Paul Fernhout, but I see one really HUGE problem, namely that I don't know of ANY Free Software tool or tool-chain that can get a person from 'beer-mat' to 'g-code' (For those not familiar with the CNC world, g-code is the 'assembly language' of the CNC manufacturing world... I am a member of the Artisan's Asylum maker-space (formerly in Somerville, MA, temporarily shut down while moving to Allston) and would dearly love to be able to make the hardware that I can draw and design in LibreCAD (2D) or possibly FreeCAD, gCAD3D or some other Free Software 3D CAD package, but I have not been able to find any way to get from those packages to g-code that I can feed to our CNC machines. Instead I have to use Proprietary CAD packages (some of which have limited 'Free as in Beer' offerings) to make proprietary format files in order to generate (proprietary) tool-paths to feed to a (proprietary) pre-processor that turns them into machine appropriate g-code (Ironically, at least one of the machines I'm running that g-code on is using LinuxCNC as a controller). I haven't even found a path that would let me move a design from a Free CAD package into one of the proprietary packages to do the tool-path steps. For electronics stuff, KiCAD is amazingly good, I've heard professional board designers say that it can go head to head against the $10K / seat commercial programs. I haven't done anything in the 3D printing world, but I've heard there are some packages that are at least competent for that. However there is NOTHING I've been able to find that is capable of even basic CNC machining g-code, let alone anything close to modern High Speed Machining (as done by things like HSM-Works) As such, Paul's proposals for OSCOMAK and other shared collections of design data seem like they would be of little use if there is no way to get the collected data into a new design that can be manufactured I've been urging the FSF to put CAD onto the 'high priority' list for years, but so far no luck... ART -- Arthur Torrey - --- As I understand it, when the source code to doom was released, the original levels stayed as non-free with a paid option to get them. Perhaps there could be a way to work with the hardware makers and free cad developers to create a similar set up where for a reasonable cost you can obtain the required drivers, firmware etc. FreeCAD would remain free as in freedom, if you wanted to use it with specific hardware you could do so. Just a thought, Ideally they would make their software available for free software available for BSD, Linux etc. If MacOS is based on BSD this can't be that difficult to port over surely. So this is a sort of meet in the middle approach that may work, as long as we, as a community respect the copyright, and pay for these components that should keep the copyright holders happy. The topic of funding projects came up at the meeting on Thursday 20th. So this idea is partly influenced by that and what happened with games such as Doom. Regards Paul OpenPGP_signature Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ libreplanet-discuss mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
