Patrick, I see your point, but then I have this question: if those
companies don't care about the terms of the GPL, why would they care if
they are banned from using the software altogether? They would use it
anyway. If you couldn't bring them to court for violating the GPL, what
makes you think
http://www.ocsmag.com/2016/05/28/free-software-artists-and-their-tools-part-i-david-revoy-krita/
http://www.ocsmag.com/2016/05/31/free-software-artists-and-their-tools-part-ii-evelyne-schulz-gimp/
...is professionals from various fields (especially outside programming)
sharing their positive
On 05/14/2016 05:48 PM, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
>
> On that note, this article discusses issues related to the problem of
> source code and reporoducibility from a scientific perspective. We may
> not (or may) agree with all of it, but it's a useful perspective:
>
>
Some scientists go to great lengths to make sure their experiments are
reproducible and can be peer reviewed, but then often use proprietary
programs to achieve their results.
It seems a bit contradictory to me. For starters, the proprietary
programs themselves aren't peer reviewable, so the
On 04/29/2016 11:12 AM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
>
> And even if you think they don't have it, they probably have the data
> of everybody else you know... so they have it.
We all have a Facebook account actually, some of us just haven't
activated it yet:
On 04/28/2016 10:03 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> That applies to day and month, but not year
That's why I said classmates, since they can safely be assumed to be the
same age (or in a close range).
Also, you are assuming this person (or any of his acquaintances on
Facebook or WhatsApp) never once
On 04/28/2016 09:30 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> Is it better for people to go through their profile more vigorously
> though, messing up all the data? For example, changing their date of
> birth to something random (if they actually used their real DoB to begin
> with), deleting the groups used to
Just by chance, I came across a seemingly unrelated (and a bit old)
article which lists pros and cons of various package managers ([0]).
According to it, PyPI (Python), RubyGems (Ruby), NPM and Bower
(JavaScript) and Lein (Clojure) allow packages without any explicit
licensing info into their
On 04/22/2016 11:23 AM, Andrea Trentini wrote:
> I stumbled upon this:
>
> http://www.opensourceschool.fr
>
> Apart from the poor name choice ("opensource" vs. "free/libre") do
> you think it's a valuable initiative?
Extremely so! It seems that it's affiliated with a private school (EPSI)
but
On 04/13/2016 08:04 PM, Alexander Prokudin wrote:
> Not sure if that's the kind of reply you expected from me, but here it is :)
I did not expect any particular reply, and I'm thankful for the
thoughtful and informative one I got :)
I agree with you that educating users might be the only way to
On 04/08/2016 11:38 PM, Will Hill wrote:
> Multiple tool kits with long term continuity that work well together are a
> free software strength. I regularly use best of class applications from KDE,
> Gnome, Trinity, Window Maker, and others on E16. I'm able to share
> information between these
One of the accusations made against GNU/Linux is that there is no
established "native" look-and-feel on it - GTK programs look different
from Qt programs, JUCE programs look different from Qt programs, Tk
programs and FLTK programs look different from everything else and so on.
This claim isn't
Forwarding Yui's message.
Forwarded Message
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] My First of Five
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 15:31:22 +0300
From: Yui Hirasawa <y...@cock.li>
To: Fabio Pesari <fab...@gnu.org>
> DRM in hardware is a whole another issue: monitors a
On 04/06/2016 06:17 PM, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
>
> Do you know if anyone has suggested Piwik?
I am pretty sure I did but in any case Matt Lee did mention they were
looking into using Piwik in another ticket, so I think they are already
aware of it.
On 04/06/2016 09:17 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
> There are various lists of free hardware being maintained in different
> places, e.g.
>
> https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Group:Hardware/Freest
> http://wiki.fsfe.org/Migrated/Hardware%20Vendors
> https://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox/TargetedHardware
>
Hi Julien,
I am sorry but your post isn't really clear or easy to follow, so I'll
address the parts which I could understand:
On 04/05/2016 12:49 PM, Julien Kyou wrote:
>
> -FSF was suggesting that a central server that runs a program for you is a
> bad idea. Although their point is good (that
On 04/05/2016 04:28 AM, Pen-Yuan Hsing wrote:
> Thanks for bringing up Snap! I've been wondering if there is a
> more-freedom-respecting replacement for Scratch. A few quick questions:
>
> (1) Can Snap! be run completely offline and locally?
I've just tried and yes, you can. You can just clone
On 04/05/2016 02:38 AM, IngeGNUe wrote:
>
> What I mean by that is not even a warning. A programmer is sophisticated
> enough of a user to look at the license of a package if she cares enough
> about the issue. Therefore, i find it dubious what value it adds to
> bother with this.
You'd be
Scratch by MIT Media Lab ([0]) is a free Smalltalk-based visual
programming language and environment aimed at teaching programming.
The Scratch website lists 13,909,161 projects, all under the libre
CC BY-SA license ([1]). That's a *huge* amount of free programs, even if
a lot of them are a
On 04/03/2016 03:38 AM, Pen-Yuan Hsing wrote:
>
> Finally, RMS said that since making copies of hardware is costly
> compared to software, free hardware is not as urgent of an issue right
> now. That might be true, but I propose that since technology will
> progress and one day copying hardware
On 04/03/2016 04:46 AM, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
>
> Git repositories are source code repositories and are not necessarily
> distributions---especially if a build process is needed. Now, some
> people do use sites like GitHub for distributing packages. Whether or
> not I agree with that practice is
The recent left-pad fiasco on NPM just showed that in order for free
software to be reliable, it must be stored permanently (since the
license allows it).
Github, the most popular project hosting platform at the moment, allows
users to delete their repositories. That's very dangerous considering
A piece of news: a Japanese company (DWANGO) did exactly this and bought
the rights for the animation program used by the Studio Ghibli (on
Princess Mononoke, Spirited Away and Howl's Moving Castle to name some),
Futurama, Balto and Anastasia animators, and released it under the BSD
3-clause
On 03/23/2016 11:49 PM, Andrés Muñiz Piniella wrote:
>
> JAWS is loosing market share to nvda but of course that only works on windows.
It seems that NVDA is not fully free software, as its repository on
GitHub lists proprietary dependencies.
It too uses eSpeak though, so I think that rather
Ali, how would you feel about putting all the information you shared
with us in a wiki or website? I can help, of course.
Would LibrePlanet be suited for it?
All this information is great, Ali. I think the fact that blind users
can operate a *libre* distro like Trisquel speaks volumes about how far
free software has gotten, even compared to proprietary software.
I have a few other questions, if you don't mind. What about window
management? Which
On 03/22/2016 03:10 PM, Ali Abdul Ghani wrote:
>
> The blind do not use the mouse they use only the keyboard
Good to know. So I assume all programs should give users the possibility
to be operated completely from keyboard only, without ever needing mouse
interaction.
Now I understand why you
On 03/22/2016 10:29 AM, Ali Abdul Ghani wrote:
>
> THNX,
> its seme They dont listed accessibility as a high priority project
> I cant find it
> se
> http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority-projects/
> have fun and be free
> ali miracle
Sorry, I meant it's in the proposals for the next list:
On 03/19/2016 04:29 AM, Andrew A. Adams wrote:
>
> I must also admit, that since I don't generally get paid for my academic
> writing (*) that I don't really care if someone makes a derivative work and
> makes some modest money from it. So long as they don't do so by trying to
> restrict
On 03/03/2016 10:25 AM, Yui Hirasawa wrote:
> It's another category of hardware if anything. I hope it won't be as
> proprietary and closed down as the smartphone market is currently.
Hardware is not really the issue, in my opinion. The Oculus Rift, for
example, is a relatively simple device. A
On 02/29/2016 11:28 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> Oh, this approach works just fine. +114 votes for my top comment that
> killed the entire FUD of a super-active bunch of arguing:
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/3e395n/why_i_am_progpl/ctb923f
Nice! But I'd like to see you try somewhere
On 02/29/2016 08:08 PM, Paul M wrote:
>
> Its important to realize that this is not actually an argument against
> the GPL, even if its presented as one.
>
> As an example there are some proprietary programs I rely upon as
> disability aids. There is no reasonable argument so say that I shouldn't
On 02/29/2016 05:33 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> So, with this approach, we end the GPL / copyleft focus and the
> arguments then become about free software vs non-free broadly, and
> that's a further different argument to deal with.
Excellent post as usual, Aaron! If someone is still interested in
On 02/29/2016 01:10 PM, Yui Hirasawa wrote:
> Sure they might later bring up money. But I don't think we should be the
> ones to do that when the discussion is about freedom and "restrictions".
I didn't suggest that, I merely said that a developer that
philosophically agrees with copyleft might
On 02/29/2016 12:43 PM, Yui Hirasawa wrote:
>
> This discussion wasn't about making money. It's about freedom to do
> whatever you want with other people's code, even making it proprietary.
But the point is that people make it about money pretty soon, and that
it's an argument that needs to be
On 02/29/2016 11:18 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
> Very good, but not every person will respond like that
One should be prepared for the worst case scenarios: that includes
taking into consideration emotional, irrational and ignorant arguments.
Those are very common among both professional
On 02/29/2016 10:54 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
> "Have you ever had a program that didn't just work exactly the way you
> wanted though?"
"Yes, but that also happens with FOSS programs. Even if a program is
open and in theory I could modify it, I can't program, so it's the same."
or
"Even so,
On 02/29/2016 02:12 AM, J.B. Nicholson wrote:
> So I'd bet other proprietors are in a similar position: they don't mind the
> GPL when they're the copyright holder and they can't effectively relicense
> a GPL'd program without competing against their own code. But they complain
> when they're
On 02/27/2016 08:23 PM, Harsh Gupta wrote:
>
> As a current student in India, I feel this point is very valid.
> We have a clean slate out here, not only in terms of opinions of
> developers but also in terms of users and bureaucracy. Our
> bureaucracy is willing of listen to the voices of the
Many people (especially in the open source community) hate the GPL more
than they hate proprietary software, especially the GPLv3. I never found
an approach that works with those people.
Mention "freedom" and they'll say the GPL is "restrictive" and "viral".
Mention practical advantages and
On 02/26/2016 06:45 AM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
> I think Snowdrift.coop can't succeed enough without copyleft in
> practice, but these are tactical arguments still. People who believe in
> other tactics are still welcome to participate in the discussion. In
> this case, if the people in question
On 02/25/2016 09:57 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
> Copyfree represents the critique of copyleft that isn't coming from a
> pro-proprietary view. We like the idea of including diverse viewpoints
> and not being just an echo chamber. We found the Copyfree people to be
> sensible and reasonable.
A
On 02/25/2016 06:08 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
> I didn't say they were insane extremist anarchists. If they were, I
> wouldn't associate with them at all. They are specifically people who
> oppose copyright and patent laws, not *all* laws. (which is my position
> too, I just want copyright and
On 02/21/2016 06:31 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
>
> BountySource is never going to be a broad solution. There have literally
> been *dozens* of completely operating versions of bounty sites tried
> over the past 15 years. It is literally the first thing almost everyone
> thinks about when they decide
On 02/20/2016 02:25 AM, J.B. Nicholson wrote:
>
> There are sources that distribute DRM-free recordings that work excellently
> with free software. Magnatune.com, for instance, will sell you unlimited
> access to their library in a variety of formats (including FLAC) for a
> one-time fee and
On 02/19/2016 04:11 PM, Cardoza, Michael wrote:
> So I know I am probably beating a dead horse at this point. What are
> peoples opinions on this age old topic?
For now CDs are tolerable, even though we should try to support libre
music. What happens when the last working physical copy of a rare
On 02/19/2016 04:41 PM, Adam Van Ymeren wrote:
> Since there are more funders than developers shouldn't you favour
> developers instead?
Developers can rip off funders but funders can't rip off developers
(i.e. do a chargeback) with an escrow, so developers are favored already.
You can even the
Alice wants to build X, and Bob wants to fund Alice's effort. X is to be
released under a free license.
There's a problem, though: Bob doesn't want to pay in advance, because
he's afraid Alice will not deliver X as promised. In a typical
crowdfunding scenario, there are hundreds of Bobs, so this
On 02/18/2016 12:12 PM, Bram de Jong wrote:
> Hi Fabio,
Hi Bram,
> I believe much of the confusion comes from the interpretation of the
> word free. We are freesound as in GRATISsound rather than LIBREsound.
> Freesound is a research project, with clear research-driven goals, and
> so many of
On 02/17/2016 03:58 PM, Bram de Jong wrote:
> Hi Fabio,
Hi Bram,
> This is correct and we do it for a few reasons. The biggest reason is
> that Freesound is run by the Music Technology Group (
> http://www.mtg.upf.edu ) of the Universitat Pompeu Fabra which uses
> all the data in Freesound for
As someone who wanted to make videogames back in the days, I came across
Freesound.org, which is a helpful resource for finding audio samples but
had (and still has) the following problems:
1. Users can't download any sounds without logging in
2. It isn't really free as in freedom, since many
On 02/17/2016 08:46 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
> There is nothing wrong with giving non-free products to children at that
> age.
>
> I once saw a baby, probably about 1 year old, pick up his mother's
> iphone from a table in a restaurant and the way he threw it and smashed
> it on the floor was
On 02/17/2016 01:14 AM, Lori Nagel wrote:
> Hi, I have a just turned 2 year old and I would like to find some simple
> press any key game geared for babies and young toddlers that are free (as in
> freedom) software. I tried a web search but I've only seen things geared for
> older children.
Wouldn't it be great if the FSF organized something similar to Google
Summer of Code for projects which need more attention?
It could be completely crowdfunded (the FSF could just manage the
money), and give the free software community a common focus on issues
that affect everyone (those can be
On 02/11/2016 07:04 PM, Patrick Anderson wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Here is an idea I have been working on to help us host Free Software,
> build Free Hardware, and also to generally gain more User Freedom in
> the physical world.
> [...]
Hello Patrick,
I think your ideas are quite forward-thinking
On 02/12/2016 02:29 PM, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> There are cases of misuse of the material published by the Free
> Software Foundation, at least here in Brazil. Although, as far as I
> know, there's no evidence that they were brought to the consent of the
> FSF, or (supposing the existence
On 02/12/2016 06:47 PM, Blaise Alleyne wrote:
> [...]
>
> The FSF is a guiding light for software freedom. That light is made less
> bright
> by its inconsistent commitment to freedom for non-software works, but it's
> frequent and prominent use of non-free licenses for non-software. That light
On 02/10/2016 08:54 PM, al3xu5 / dotcommon wrote:
>
> Also if we had a very good 2D/3D CAD libre software but missing a full DWG
> support, CAD users still would not use it.
> But having a full DWG support is really hard... I think quite impossible: DWG
> is closed and Autodesk change it often
I know this is going to be controversial and I understand that the FSF
is about software and not culture but in truth, I disagree with the
FSF's (and the GNU project's) usage of nonfree cultural licenses (like
the CC-BY-ND).
I disagree with the idea that things that express a subjective point of
On 02/11/2016 03:58 PM, Alexander Berntsen wrote:
>
> The FSF should be about software, and the staff should strive not
> express their feelings regarding other things. As you correctly
> identify, free culture benefits the free software struggle (and vice
> versa) -- however, being anti-non-free
On 02/11/2016 05:05 PM, Joshua Gay wrote:
> Out of curiousity, for those that do strongly believe all works should
> be freely licensed, do you believe that GNU GPL, is therefore itself a
> work that is an injustice to those who recieve it and that it should be
> condemned and avoided?
Trick
On 02/11/2016 05:25 PM, Aaron Wolf wrote:
> I don't think the GPL example is a good one as it would be fair use to
> create a license very similar to the GPL. If the GPL itself were CC
> BY-SA, then the FSF could insist on derivatives *not* carrying the "GNU"
> name anyway. Regardless, if someone
On 02/10/2016 01:06 AM, arthur_tor...@comcast.net wrote:
> This seems like something that MIGHT be helped, or at least encouraged, by
> the folks in the "Digital Right to Repair" movement. They are trying to
> produce a legal REQUIREMENT that companies release the information needed for
>
On 02/07/2016 11:02 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> d) use (what?) for
> building online community,
There are various way to do it. GNU Social or Diaspora is one such way,
otherwise you could just use MediaWiki.
You can make a website easily using a static site generator like Jekyll,
and host it at
https://www.aclu.org/news/joseph-gordon-levitt-asks-public-submit-videos-project-tech-and-democracy
> Actor and filmmaker Joseph Gordon-Levitt launched a new
> community-sourced video project today with his production
> company hitRECord and the American Civil Liberties Union,
> putting out a
On 02/07/2016 09:49 AM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
>
> Some of you may have seen my recent blog about another group starting up
> to "democratize" Europe[1], with a heavy reliance on undemocratic
> platforms like Facebook that seems contrary to their aims.
>
> If people from this campaign or any other
On 02/06/2016 04:06 PM, Andrés Muñiz Piniella wrote:
> trisquel 7.0 does not do it AFAIK.
Trisquel does not distribute programs that have what F-Droid calls
"antifeatures", AFAIK, except perhaps those which support external
services like Pidgin (but do not require any nonfree software or assets)
On 02/06/2016 06:50 AM, Koz Ross wrote:
>
> With respect to Libreboot, no amount of reverse engineering will help -
> the Intel ME is cryptographically signed, and no replacement we make
> will ever run, full stop, unless Intel gives us the signing keys. While
> I admire your desire to help, it's
On 02/06/2016 01:16 AM, arthur_tor...@comcast.net wrote:
> The thing I've been grumbling about almost since I started using Free
> Software all to many years ago is the lack of a competent 3-D CAD package
> LibreCAD is OK for 2D, and it is being actively maintained and worked on,
> but it
On 02/06/2016 01:29 PM, Andrés Muñiz Piniella wrote:
>
> I just realized that there isn't a distro package manager that does this
> either. nor do package managers warn you about antifeatures. OK desktops and
> laptops are not as transportable as mobile and Tablets.
Of course there isn't - this
On 02/06/2016 01:18 PM, Daniel Martí wrote:
>
> Anti-feature filtering is the way to do this:
>
> https://gitlab.com/fdroid/fdroidclient/issues/564
>
> Multiple repos is not only harder to use and maintain, but also more
> limited. You can either show all apps with anti-features, or none of
>
On 02/06/2016 01:15 PM, Andrés Muñiz Piniella wrote:
> Agreed, it is a good idea, sounds easy to me like a user. But I bet it is
> difficult to do and maintan. the gaurdian project repo is maintained by the
> gaurdian group AFAIK. who would want to maintain an Anti-feature repo?
> already
F-Droid is great for finding libre Android programs, however I do have
an issue with their inclusion policy, and in particular their acceptance
of "Antifeatures":
https://f-droid.org/wiki/page/Antifeatures
I disagree with all of those compromises (except "Upstream Non-free",
since they patch
On 02/05/2016 04:22 PM, J.B. Nicholson wrote:
>
> I believe this has been done before. According to
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blender_(software)#History Blender, the free
> rendering/editing program, was originally developed at Neo Geo and used
> internally, then later distributed as
On 02/05/2016 02:10 PM, Fabian Rodriguez wrote:
>
> product go. I lack the time to elaborate at the moment but this is
> certainly something we already have all the pieces around for, just not
> clearly or actively proposed to proprietary software companies that I
> know of.
Livecode indeed
On 02/05/2016 11:34 AM, Koz Ross wrote:
>
> I believe that *theoretically* this is possible - assuming whoever it
> is is willing to sell under those conditions. It'd certainly be
> something I'd support - financially if needs be - especially if we're
> also releasing the assets behind the
On 02/05/2016 05:20 AM, Mike Gerwitz wrote:
>
> I get this error, without the document loading:
>
> "JavaScript isn't enabled in your browser, so this file can't be
> opened. Enable and reload."
>
> Even so, Google Docs is foremost the worst of both worlds: a proprietary
> web application
We hear about companies like Facebook and Google buying out startups all
the time and I thought, why don't we use crowdfunding to buy the rights
to proprietary programs ourselves and release their code under the GPL?
(Of course, we have to be sure all their dependencies are also free).
New
On 02/04/2016 02:48 PM, Fabian Rodriguez wrote:
> Over the years I've helped and continue helping people migrate to better
> and more IT freedom, but now all these devices are imposing themselves
> and giving proprietary software a huge comeback I didn't expect. It's
> getting harder to argue
On 02/03/2016 09:04 PM, aurelien wrote:
> Sorry, I was thinking that programming language are under license like
> software.
>
> So we can learn any programming language without risk in time to see it
> becoming more (close, proprietary, restricted ...) than another one?
Well, for starters I
tl;dr: The free software community should teach as many people as it
can about programming and free software. The best that can
happen is that those people contribute to free software, and the
worst is that they become aware of free software and learn how
computers
81 matches
Mail list logo
