You may want to take look at the sneer project. www.sneer.me
It doesn't solve all the "hardware sharing" problems, but it's a start. With it
we may start learning more about the hardware sharing challenges.
--
E-mail enviado do meu celular Android usando K-9 Mail.
"Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak" escr
If we're going to be talking about SETI@Home and suchlike, I might as well
mention the World Community Grid:
http://www.worldcommunitygrid.org/
My machine has been on WCG for several years. Does the humanitarian research
being done here relate to our discussion? You decide.
Joel
Dnia wtorek, 24 lipca 2012 o 22:57:45 Robert Martinez napisał(a):
> On 24/07/12 22:34, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak wrote:
> > Dnia wtorek, 24 lipca 2012 o 22:27:53 Robert Martinez napisał(a):
> >> Nobody "owns" xmpp, mail, status.net, friendica, ...
> >
> > But somebody owns Twitter, Facebook, etc...
Robert Martinez wrote:
> You're trying to elevate data-transfer services to common infrastructure.
If by "common" you mean "government owned", then no, that is not my goal.
If by "common" you mean "user owned", then yes, that is my goal.
> This is another political question and depends extremel
On 24/07/12 22:34, Michał 'rysiek' Woźniak wrote:
Dnia wtorek, 24 lipca 2012 o 22:27:53 Robert Martinez napisał(a):
Nobody "owns" xmpp, mail, status.net, friendica, ...
But somebody owns Twitter, Facebook, etc...
Stop using the services and replace it with alternatives.
(Or steal Facebook an
On 24/07/12 22:31, Patrick Anderson wrote:
But corporations own the *physical* network.
Well if you want to change *physical* stuff, and of that magnitude -
maybe the free-*software* movement is not the place to look for support.
Who owns and controls the copper or fiber-optics
or satell
Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> Where is the repository or wiki with your partially written or
> outlined document? Project mailing list?
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/General_Public_Law is my
latest, very simplified version.
More lengthy ideas can read at:
http://SocialSufficiencyCoalition.BlogSpot.com
h
Dnia wtorek, 24 lipca 2012 o 22:27:53 Robert Martinez napisał(a):
> Nobody "owns" xmpp, mail, status.net, friendica, ...
But somebody owns Twitter, Facebook, etc...
> We can do this in "isolation".
>
> We don't have to learn how to share hardware. (I guess it works
> just like with all other phy
Robert Martinez wrote:
> Nobody "owns" xmpp, mail, status.net, friendica, ...
But corporations own the *physical* network.
Who owns and controls the copper or fiber-optics
or satellites that those protocols must use?
> We can do this in "isolation".
If you can do this in isolation, then why ar
On 24/07/12 22:09, Patrick Anderson wrote:
Robert Martinez wrote:
http://freedomboxfoundation.org
But who owns the network?
We cannot do this in isolation.
We must learn to share hardware.
(sorry for reposting)
Nobody "owns" xmpp, mail, status.net, friendica, ...
We can do this in "isola
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Patrick Anderson wrote:
> Ted Smith wrote:
>> What would you have us do?
>
> We must write a "Terms of Operation" analogous to the GNU GPL, but in
> a form that can be applied to physical property.
...
> I have been working on this document for some time now, and
Robert Martinez wrote:
> http://freedomboxfoundation.org
But who owns the network?
We cannot do this in isolation.
We must learn to share hardware.
On 24/07/12 20:39, Patrick Anderson wrote:
We can solve this problem by learning how to
share the hardware needed to host that software.
Maybe that is one solution.
But you can keep using your hardware, too:
In the case of FreedomBox that would be a small plug server that runs
all your mail
Ted Smith wrote:
> What would you have us do?
We must write a "Terms of Operation" analogous to the GNU GPL, but in
a form that can be applied to physical property.
This Terms of Operation will be a legally-binding "social contract"
that hardware co-owners can then choose to apply to some of thei
This is not true. The FSF makes a lot of good work. Otherwise, Ecuador
(where I live) would not have a free software government policy.
I agree, the FSF does a lot of good things, too, but I've also noted
some serious drawbacks to the harsh tack that's taken by a lot of FSF
members and staff.
El 24/07/12 14:22, Mark Holmquist escribió:
3. Make loud noises at people. This is the FSF way, as well as
(apparently) your way. It doesn't work. People get annoyed with you,
they get confused, and they lash out. This may actually *hurt* your
cause.
This is not true. The FSF makes a lot o
If it is already understood how this is to be done, then why is it not
already done?
This == possibly the first on-topic thing you've posted here.
The free software movement definitely sees this problem all the time--do
you want advice with how to deal with it? There are several schools of
th
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 13:16 -0600, Patrick Anderson wrote:
>
> I need your help and the help of others that understand Freedom to
> design this new way of organizing so we can finally bring ourselves
> out from under the thumbs of the current owners.
What would you have us do?
Please be specifi
Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> What stops you?
The question is "What stops us?".
If it is so easy to share hardware, then why do we continue to grovel
before the corporations that continually terrorize us?
If it is already understood how this is to be done, then why is it not
already done?
Cell-phone
On Tue, 2012-07-24 at 13:06 -0600, Patrick Anderson wrote:
> Free Services require we share hardware ownership.
What specific physical next step do you propose towards this goal?
--
Sent from Ubuntu
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
User Freedom requires Free Services.
Free Services require we share hardware ownership.
We already share with corporations when we use *their* hardware.
We, the Users, finally pay for all the costs of that hardware and for
all the wages to workers and even more when we pay Profit, but we have
no
On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Patrick Anderson wrote:
> If we deny this importance, and intend to stay in
> our individual caves as the cloud providers and
> ISPs and cell-phone network owners harm us in
> various ways to their benefit, then we will become
> less and less relevant as the hardw
Fabian Rodriguez wrote:
> using a commercial service where free open
> source software is behind all the infrastructure
Even if the network service provider uses 100%
Free Software, you are still at their mercy when
it comes to whether they read your emails and
use that data to target advertisemen
Jamalulkhair Bin Khairedin writes:
> Hi John,
>
> I've sent emails on the 3rd, 9th and 18th of July to licens...@fsf.org.
>
>From which address?
> But nevermind. I already received reply form Joshua Gay today responding to
> this mailing list post. The answer is sufficient for our need.
>
I'
Red Hat company uses Zimbra internally instead of MS Exchange for own use.
--
-Alexey Eromenko "Technologov"
There is a Zimbra mail server, which is a corporate Webmail, like
Gmail but more open, and can be deployed on company's servers.
This one has a "viewable source" license, and no Debian packages.
--
-Alexey Eromenko "Technologov"
On 07/23/2012 09:56 AM, Dave Crossland wrote:
> On 23 July 2012 13:47, Fabian Rodriguez wrote:
>> It's up to you to decide if/why you continue to depend on their SMTP (a
>> rather small dependency IMO) or research/reach further freedom
> This is what I don't understand: What further freedom is pos
Hi John,
I've sent emails on the 3rd, 9th and 18th of July to licens...@fsf.org.
But nevermind. I already received reply form Joshua Gay today responding to
this mailing list post. The answer is sufficient for our need.
Thank you so much
On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 09:24:06 -0400, John Sullivan wrote
Jamalulkhair Bin Khairedin writes:
> Dear Libreplanet Members,
>
> I have sent enquiries to the Free Software Foundation, Inc
> (licens...@gnu.org
> & g...@gnu.org) but did not get any reply. So, I have to ask here instead.
> What we need is a clarification regarding GPLv3.
>
Can I ask
I trust the FSF will answer you soon!
I'll write something just so you have a quick reply, but I am not a lawyer
and I'm not sure I am correct.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe the answer is (b), you do not need to have
any patents registered or any plans to.
The purpose of item 11 seems to me to
30 matches
Mail list logo
