Is cuban people allowed to participate in Fedora development, sames as
UK people do?
Software is one side, project is the other side.
El 4/8/19 a les 6:57, enduz...@riseup.net ha escrit:
> How is this any different from Fedora's export ban? You can use Fedora
> in Cuba (the Cubans do not
They say it doesn't apply to them: "Fedora software in source code and binary
code form are publicly available and are not subject to the EAR in accordance
with §742.15(b)." Most of GitHub is probably also "publicly available" too
and exempt. But, Microsoft takes it further than they need
How is this any different from Fedora's export ban? You can use Fedora in
Cuba (the Cubans do not prohibit it), but you need to take it there first,
which is illegal (circumventing the US sanctioned embargo).
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legal:Export
It seems that the same countries have been blocked from GitLab since GitLab
moved to Google Cloud Platform.[1][2] This doesn't affect third-party
instances like framagit.org or self-hosted instances, but note that in this
respect GitLab's own instance is not more accessible than Github.
Be careful, gogs version of NAB is a fork and not an standalone version.
Yes, framagit service uses GitLab software.
Both are free software. There is no problem because they are self-hosted
instances.
There may be a slight misunderstanding. That's not quite what I was
mentioning. Let's back up for a moment to what nadebula.1984 said.
nadebula.1984's original statement that I was responding to about was exactly
this: "I can publish a GNU GPL v3-or-Later licensed free/libre software, but
You decide your refusals.
Microsoft/Github decide their refusals.
What freedoms decide Trisquel project to deny or restrict?
(not only on software code context but also on participation)
El 31/7/19 a les 5:13, xliang9...@live.cn ha escrit:
> I don't violate Freedom 0 if I deny someone to access
notabug.org service uses gogs.io software
framagit.org service uses gitlab.com software
El 31/7/19 a les 3:09, e...@disroot.org ha escrit:
> https://notabug.org/hp/gogs/issues/236
>
> I think it would be a better option using https://framagit.org
No free/libre license forces the author to grant everyone access to the
free/libre software, and GNU GPL is no exception.
I don't violate Freedom 0 if I deny someone to access a free/libre software.
https://notabug.org/hp/gogs/issues/236
I think it would be a better option using https://framagit.org
"can also explicitly prohibit anyone from using it without violating GNU GPL"
A point of order: Publishing a program under the GPLv3 and including that
would probably be a "further restriction" within the meaning of section 10 of
GPLv3.
This seems similar to what happens when programs are
On 30/07/19 07:22, wrote:
> It's not good to censor the developers in "Enemies of United States".
> But this is not relevant to freedom. "Accessibility" is not an
> inherent requirement of freedom. (See "Four Essential Freedoms", there
> is no "accessibility".)
Access != Accessibility
this!
publickey - davidpgil@protonmail.com - 0x01EB3346.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
I understand that article talks about denying use of services, and about
using currently hosted projects to exclude some people participation.
https://github.com/1995parham/github-do-not-ban-us
Important projects are still hosted in Github.com and are affected by
this political exclusion:
Every "user" who have one copy of free/libre software can exercise his
re-distribution freedom (Freedom 2 and 3) to share it with "non-user". So,
total censorship is technically impossible.
And this is why companies and governments want to make sharing illegal.
Sure, you are free (for example) to select your project members by race,
and anti-racist people are free to migrate to another platform.
Let's fitght to keep freedom on platform selection.
gitlab.org is another example for self-hosting and/or self-management.
El 30/7/19 a les 7:22,
It's not good to censor the developers in "Enemies of United States". But
this is not relevant to freedom. "Accessibility" is not an inherent
requirement of freedom. (See "Four Essential Freedoms", there is no
"accessibility".)
To be more specific, I can publish a GNU GPL v3-or-Later
I guess the only way that you can do version control in the most free way is
storing your own repos. Do any of you know how good is notabug.org?
"The end"? GitHub's been proprietary since the beginning so there never was
any freedom to be lost in the first place.
Microsoft-Owned GitHub Blocks Devs in US Sanctioned Countries
https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/microsoft-owned-github-blocks-devs-in-us-sanctioned-countries/
--
Ignacio Agulló · grafot...@grafotema.com
21 matches
Mail list logo
