Thanks to Bruno and the rest of the Membership team. It pleases me for some
reason to be on the same list of new members as my friend, Jim Vasile.
On a different matter, I am currently conducting a brief (< 5 minute) survey
on attitudes and viewpoints on FLOSS and proprietary software and I invite
On 12/15/09 4:09 PM, "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Dave Neary wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Lefty wrote:
>>> Given the proposition that proprietary software is "illegitimate", and
>>> the statement above, do you believe that the GNOME Foundation and
>>> community sh
Hello everybody!
I was quite busy due to my daughter. And now, she is almost three
months older, so... I'm back. Really. :-)
The GNOME Foundation Membership Committee is proud to present the new members:
- Adam Janos Reviczky
- Benjamin Konrath
- David Schlesinger
- Frank Solensky
- James Vasile
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 02:01 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
Hi Lefty,
> Thanks to Bruno and the rest of the Membership team. It pleases me for
> some reason to be on the same list of new members as my friend, Jim
> Vasile.
> On a different matter, I am currently conducting a brief (< 5 minute)
> surve
Le vendredi 15 janvier 2010, à 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof a écrit :
> I also hope the foundation board will respect the results of these
> surveys.
What do you mean?
Vincent
--
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.
___
foundation-list mailing list
f
El vie, 15-01-2010 a las 06:50 -0300, Bruno Boaventura escribió:
> Hello everybody!
>
> I was quite busy due to my daughter. And now, she is almost three
> months older, so... I'm back. Really. :-)
>
Congrats Bruno, thanks for keep working on this despite your (highly
likely) 3 hours of sleep pe
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:11 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
Hi Vincent,
> Le vendredi 15 janvier 2010, à 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof a écrit :
> > I also hope the foundation board will respect the results of these
> > surveys.
>
> What do you mean?
I don't (didn't) mean any immediate action is need
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> They sharply illustrate that open source developers are far more
> pragmatic than certain people in the audience would like us to be.
The results show 38 % of people non involved with free software, there
should be a way to temporary remov
On 01/15/2010 03:50 AM, Bruno Boaventura wrote:
> Hello everybody!
>
> I was quite busy due to my daughter. And now, she is almost three
> months older, so... I'm back. Really. :-)
Congrats on the birth of your daughter!
>
> The GNOME Foundation Membership Committee is proud to present the new
Hi Philip,
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> I disrespect people who claim that this last survey has intentional
> bias. For me they are being intellectually dishonest.
Giving one definition of a word, then asking if someone else's sentence
containing that word is true i
Aloha Wang and all the others, welcome to GNOME Foundation!
Regards,
Aron Xu
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Bruno Boaventura
wrote:
> Hello everybody!
>
> I was quite busy due to my daughter. And now, she is almost three
> months older, so... I'm back. Really. :-)
>
> The GNOME Foundation Memb
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 14:38 +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote:
Hi Xavier,
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > I disrespect people who claim that this last survey has intentional
> > bias. For me they are being intellectually dishonest.
>
> Giving one definition of a word,
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 02:01 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
>
> Hi Lefty,
>
> > Thanks to Bruno and the rest of the Membership team. It pleases me for
> > some reason to be on the same list of new members as my friend, Jim
> > Vasile.
>
> > On a
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:37 -0500, john palmieri wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Philip Van Hoof
> wrote:
> > The results are more than enlightening to me. The surveys definitely
> > are useful and insightful.
>
> > They sharply illustrate that open source developers are far
On 1/15/10 5:38 AM, "Xavier Bestel" wrote:
>
> Giving one definition of a word, then asking if someone else's sentence
> containing that word is true is at best partial.
Xavier, without defining the term beforehand, I'd be open instead to
accusations that I wasn't being fair somehow by not defin
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 14:38 +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote:
>
> Hi Xavier,
>
> > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > > I disrespect people who claim that this last survey has intentional
> > > bias. For me they are be
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:37 -0500, john palmieri wrote:
>
>
> > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Philip Van Hoof
> > wrote:
>
> > > The results are more than enlightening to me. The surveys definitely
> > > are useful and insightful.
> >
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:47 -0500, john palmieri wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Philip Van Hoof
> wrote:
> > The only person who here might have intentionally created the
> > ambiguity
> > is the person who first used the word to describe proprietary:
> > Richard.
> > I use "might"
I believe we can state it this way ...
The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free software
but that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary software. We
believe, promote, use and write free software.
We are excited when companies and individuals use GNOME technologies b
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 11:05 -0500, john palmieri wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Philip Van Hoof
> wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:37 -0500, john palmieri wrote:
> You are still implying that those who are in opposition are the
> disruptive people. It is a blanket, emo
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:34 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
Hi Stormy!
> I believe we can state it this way ...
>
> The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free
> software but that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary
> software. We believe, promote, use and write free so
Hi Philip,
Please refrain from calling people crazy or disruptive. Please keep the
discussion on the actions not people's characters.
By labelling people with negative terms, these debates turn into arguments
instead of productive discussions.
Stormy
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Philip Van
On 1/15/10 8:34 AM, "Stormy Peters" wrote:
>
> The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free software but
> that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary software. We believe,
> promote, use and write free software.
>
> We are excited when companies and individuals use GNO
On 1/15/10 8:49 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote:
>
> I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open
> source.
I have some sympathy with this view. "Open source" is my preference as well
and (based on the survey data) seems to have broader "uptake" among the
respondents.
Th
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 08:58 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
> On 1/15/10 8:49 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote:
Hi Stormy!
> > I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open
> > source.
>
> I have some sympathy with this view. "Open source" is my preference as well
> and (based
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:50 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
Hi Stormy,
> Please refrain from calling people crazy or disruptive. Please keep
> the discussion on the actions not people's characters.
>
> By labelling people with negative terms, these debates turn into
> arguments instead of productiv
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 18:05 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 08:58 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
> > On 1/15/10 8:49 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote:
>
> Hi Stormy!
Mistake, I was replying to Lefty.
Sorry Lefty. You know I like your féminin side ;)
> > > I fully agree with this s
On 1/15/10 9:05 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 08:58 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
>
> Like you say, the survey's data seems to suggest a broader "uptake"
> among the respondents for open source. I don't know but I'm inclined to
> believe that the consensus among the members is
I too usually prefer to use the term open source software. However, in this
context, I think the term free software is more appropriate.
To me, open source software is any software that meets the OSI definition,
http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd. It is also the way most companies talk
about free
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:37 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
[CUT]
> We could also amend the statement to say "free and open source
> software" but it gets awkward.
I think it's a great idea to (at least) use both.
Free software isn't a synonym for open source, and by only using 'free
software' you
On 1/15/10 9:45 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote:
>
> I think it's a great idea to (at least) use both.
I'd favor this as well. What it gains in possible awkwardness (which doesn't
bother me, I used to say "free and open source software" all the time) it
also gains in clarity, I think.
> Free softwa
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
> On 1/15/10 9:45 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote:
> >
> > I think it's a great idea to (at least) use both.
>
> I'd favor this as well. What it gains in possible awkwardness (which
> doesn't
> bother me, I used to say "free and open source softwa
And a special congrats to the guys I know on the list - Adam Reviczky,
Ben Konrath, David Schlesinger, James Vasile, Jeff Schroeder and
Mark-Andre Lureau. Welcome to the foundation.
And to Frank, Ke, Thibault, hi, I'm Dave. Nice to meet you.
Cheers,
Dave.
Bruno Boaventura wrote:
> Hello everybod
Hi,
Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> Lefty gave accurate definitions for the words he used. For example the
> word "illegitimate": Richard clearly questioned the legitimacy of
> proprietary software and asked us to mirror this statement. This is
> archived if you don't believe me.
"illegitimate" is not a
Hi,
Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open
> source.
Please stop trolling. This is not going to lead to anything productive
(again).
> This is an excerpt of a private E-mail that Lefty sent me. The survey's
> results are open for everyb
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:34 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
> I believe we can state it this way ...
>
> The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free
> software but that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary
> software. We believe, promote, use and write free software.
>
>
On 1/15/10 10:01 AM, "David Schlesinger" wrote:
>
>> Free software isn't a synonym for open source, and by only using 'free
>> software' you aren't including all the OSI definitions which GNOME also
>> endorses.
>
> This is actually an excellent, and an important, point.
Having poked around a l
On 1/15/10 10:10 AM, "Stormy Peters" wrote:
>
> I have no objections to "free and open source" other than it's awkwardness. (I
> too have used it quite a bit.)
>
As I point out in my previous message, I¹d say we have to use it, awkward or
not.
___
fou
I will amend to say free and open source in the least awkward way I can.
Stormy
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
> On 1/15/10 10:10 AM, "Stormy Peters" wrote:
>
>
> I have no objections to "free and open source" other than it's awkwardness.
> (I too have used it quite a bi
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Owen Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:34 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
>> I believe we can state it this way ...
>>
>> The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free
>> software but that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary
>> softw
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:15 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
> On 1/15/10 10:01 AM, "David Schlesinger" wrote:
> >
> >> Free software isn't a synonym for open source, and by only using 'free
> >> software' you aren't including all the OSI definitions which GNOME also
> >> endorses.
> >
> > This is actu
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 18:57 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
> Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open
> > source.
>
> Please stop trolling. This is not going to lead to anything productive
> (again).
As Lefty is clarifying here, this isn't tro
Hello, all. Thanks for the warm welcome. I'm happy to be part of the
team.
-J
At Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:41:50 +0100,
Dave Neary wrote:
>
> And a special congrats to the guys I know on the list - Adam Reviczky,
> Ben Konrath, David Schlesinger, James Vasile, Jeff Schroeder and
> Mark-Andre Lureau.
Dave, Philip,
Can you take this one offline unless there's another point you'd like to
discuss with the whole Foundation list?
Stormy
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 18:57 +0100, Dave Neary wrote:
>
> > Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > > I fully agree
Lefty, you don't go to an organization of iphone developers and use a survey
to try to convert them to be Android developers.
What you are doing is kind of like that here.
2010/1/15 Lefty (石鏡 )
> Thanks to Bruno and the rest of the Membership team. It pleases me for
> some reason to be on the
I think what Lefty was trying to do was show that the list/community/group
has lots of different opinions and we all make lots of assumptions whenever
we talk about "the community".
That said, I believe surveys are a very hard way to make definitive
statements.
Stormy
2010/1/15 Andy Tai
> Left
On 1/15/10 9:57 AM, "Dave Neary" wrote:
>
> Please stop trolling.
Dave, I think this is unhelpful. If you must, maybe you should do it
privately, rather than publicly.
> How about I do a poll whether people think PCs should run Windows or
> another desktop environment? If we respect the results
On 1/15/10 11:10 AM, "Owen Taylor" wrote:
>
> We certainly all know that RMS believes that. Some other GNOME community
> members may as well, though probably not a large number. It, is however,
> your choice to focus on it, and I don't understand what you are trying
> to achieve by doing that.
>
I inadvertently replied publicly to what had been a private message from
Owen, and for that, I apologize.
It was accidental, and I apologized to Owen offline as soon as he pointed my
error out to me. As I was getting ready to send it off, I noticed that Owen
was the sole recipient, assumed I'd hit
Le ven. 15 janv. 2010 à 18:57:52 (+0100), Dave Neary a écrit:
> Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> > I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open
> > source.
>
> Please stop trolling. This is not going to lead to anything productive
> (again).
Thanks Dave. I am coming late into
> 2. not legitimate; not sanctioned by
> law or custom.
I don't see what the fuss is about.
"Not sanctioned by custom" precisely describes Richard Stallman's belief
that Free Software as a concept does not include considering proprietary
software as acceptable in most cases.
Whether that is true
On 1/15/10 1:05 PM, "Alan Cox" wrote:
>
>> 2. not legitimate; not sanctioned by law or custom.
>
> I don't see what the fuss is about.
I don't know that there _is_ a "fuss". That's one of the things I hope to
determine via the survey.
> "Not sanctioned by custom" precisely describes Richard St
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 11:31 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
> On 1/15/10 11:10 AM, "Owen Taylor" wrote:
> >
> > We certainly all know that RMS believes that. Some other GNOME community
> > members may as well, though probably not a large number. It, is however,
> > your choice to focus on it, and I don
Hi,
Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
> On 1/15/10 9:57 AM, "Dave Neary" wrote:
> Dave, I think this is unhelpful. If you must, maybe you should do it
> privately, rather than publicly.
Having gone through 10 years of "Open Source" vs "Free Software"
debates, I know that (like emacs vs vim, bsd vs linux, gnome
On 1/15/10 1:22 PM, "Owen Taylor" wrote:
>
>> I think you may be reading quite a bit more into this than I'd intended. Do
>> you have an objection to the questions in the survey simply being _asked_,
>> Owen...?
>
> It's very hard not to take the survey as a continuation of the recent
> discussio
On 1/15/10 1:58 PM, "Dave Neary" wrote:
>
> So proposing that GNOME as a project adopt one or the other amounts to a
> troll, in that it will create an endless discussion with no result.
Well, I'll be sure not to propose that, then.
Again, my impression has been that there are unquestioned and
On 1/15/10 1:58 PM, "Dave Neary" wrote:
>
> Having gone through 10 years of "Open Source" vs "Free Software"
> debates, I know that (like emacs vs vim, bsd vs linux, gnome vs kde, bsd
> vs gpl, reply-to for mailing lists, code indentation styles, and other
> religious debates) that nothing will c
Hi,
Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
> One further comment on this: I stand by my view that Stormy's mission
> statement should not use the terminology "free software" to the exclusion of
> the term "open source software". In fact, in light of what you've said, I
> believe I feel even a little more strongly abo
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
>
> I speak as "part of GNOME", perhaps, but I don't speak _for_ GNOME. The
> distinction is critically important. "Speaking _for_ GNOME" is a job for
> Stormy and the Board, and those to whom they might choose to delegate that
> responsibility.
On 1/15/10 3:17 PM, "Stormy Peters" wrote:
>
> I disagree quite strongly.
>
Fair enough, let me be clearer: my stated views do not necessarily represent
the views of the GNOME Foundation or the GNOME community. GNOME comprises a
variety of viewpoints, of which mine is one; there are plenty of ot
60 matches
Mail list logo
