It would be very useful for discussions like these if there were
a list of licenses which are open source but not free software,
I agree that the list would be useful for some things. However, I
would not want to publish it on gnu.org; that could undermine our main
message about those
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 04:24 +0300, Osama Khalid wrote:
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:00:06AM +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
I do agree with this. Being condemned to freedom means that only we
ourselves are responsible for justification. Giving freedom means
allowing justifying the use of
Hi!
Sure, however, why not open-source software?
As far as I see it, there is a clear definition for free software while
Open Source can refer to many things and while all free software is open
source not all open source software is free software.
The minimal definition of open source is that
Hi!
IMHO this is leading to nothing and it is far easier to stick to open
source...
...stick to free software of course...
Regards,
Johannes
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 10:41 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote:
Hi Johannes!
Sure, however, why not open-source software?
As far as I see it, there is a clear definition for free software while
Open Source can refer to many things and while all free software is open
source not all open source
It does appear that the inclusion of open and not free packages in
GNOME is an exception, not rule.
If a program is not free, it cannot be in GNOME. Its inclusion would
be a serious mistake.
Has there been such a mistake? The cases you cite don't show any.
On my system out of 109
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 18:37 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
There are some licenses which are open source but not free software.
Fortunately they are not used very often. You can find them, more or
less, by comparing the OSI's list of approved licenses with
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 04:33 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
Which applications are involved? There are some desktop apps that are
LGPL'd or even [X11'd], for which non-free addons could legally be
developed.
In those cases, nonfree addons would be lawful, but they are still
wrong.
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 19:33 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
It's not really a question of morality, how would we prevent a user
from installing both a GPL and a non-OSI plugin for Tomboy at the same
time?
As someone already pointed out, we don't aim to _stop_ users from
installing
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 19:21 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote:
Hi!
Forgive my ignorance, but isn't that perfectly allowed as long as the
user doesn't then distribute the combination?
Yeah, that's perfectly OK as Tomboy as LGPL. And for me, Freedom also
includes the freedom to use proprietary
On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 03:00 +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 19:21 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote:
[...]
Why not open-source software?
So far, I'm all but convinced that free software is good enough to
be the only possible option. Making this the only possible option
is
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 03:00:06AM +0200, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
I do agree with this. Being condemned to freedom means that only we
ourselves are responsible for justification. Giving freedom means
allowing justifying the use of proprietary software.
1. Everyone is, more or less, free to do
Philip,
It does appear that the inclusion of open and not free packages in
GNOME is an exception, not rule.
You can type the following (or equivalent apt) query on you system and
analyze the result:
sudo yum info installed *gnome*x86_64 *gnome*noarch | grep -E
Name|License
On my system out
Hi!
As all the applications involved are GPL'd
Which applications are involved? There are some desktop apps that are
LGPL'd or even MIT'd, for which non-free addons could legally be
developed.
Could you give examples inside the GNOME Desktop release set (not libraries)?
Otherwise, we would
Which applications are involved? There are some desktop apps that are
LGPL'd or even [X11'd], for which non-free addons could legally be
developed.
In those cases, nonfree addons would be lawful, but they are still
wrong. So we should make sure not to include them in any list.
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de wrote:
Hi!
As all the applications involved are GPL'd
Which applications are involved? There are some desktop apps that are
LGPL'd or even MIT'd, for which non-free addons could legally be
developed.
Could you give examples
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 06:38 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de wrote:
Hi!
As all the applications involved are GPL'd
Which applications are involved? There are some desktop apps that are
LGPL'd or even MIT'd, for which
El dv 13 de 08 de 2010 a les 10:12 -0400, en/na Shaun McCance va
escriure:
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 06:38 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote:
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:18 PM, Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de wrote:
Hi!
As all the applications involved are GPL'd
Which applications are
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Shaun McCance sha...@gnome.org wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 06:38 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote:
Tomboy is LGPL2.
Right, so some developers may choose to license their apps
or plugin frameworks liberally to allow proprietary plugins.
We don't need a morality
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 4:12 PM, Shaun McCance sha...@gnome.org wrote:
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 06:38 -0700, Sandy Armstrong wrote:
Tomboy is LGPL2.
Right, so some developers may choose to license their apps
or plugin
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Sandy Armstrong
sanfordarmstr...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 7:26 AM, Patryk Zawadzki pat...@pld-linux.org wrote:
It's not really a question of morality, how would we prevent a user
from installing both a GPL and a non-OSI plugin for Tomboy at the
Hi!
Forgive my ignorance, but isn't that perfectly allowed as long as the
user doesn't then distribute the combination?
Yeah, that's perfectly OK as Tomboy as LGPL. And for me, Freedom also
includes the freedom to use proprietary software if someone wants to.
Anyway, a.g.o will obviously only
It's not really a question of morality, how would we prevent a user
from installing both a GPL and a non-OSI plugin for Tomboy at the same
time?
As someone already pointed out, we don't aim to _stop_ users from
installing whatever they wish. The question at hand is what we
_suggest_
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 16:01, Gil Forcada gforc...@gnome.org wrote:
El dt 10 de 08 de 2010 a les 09:43 -0400, en/na Jose Aliste va escriure:
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de wrote:
Hi!
So to stress things, the site should clearly state that the
On Mo, 09.08.2010 12:28, Johannes Schmid wrote:
The idea is simple (but long and complex to implement). I would love
to have a site addons.gnome.org, so we can have nice database with
plugins and other addons for desktop apps. The idea would be to
borrow ideas from the addons
On 08/08/2010 02:55 PM, Jose Aliste wrote:
Hi All,
I sent this to the gnome-web-list but there was instructed to send it
here, so it can be more widely discussed (and maybe also in the next
gnome foundation meeting)
The idea is simple (but long and complex to implement). I would love
to have a
Hi!
So to stress things, the site should clearly state that the plugins
are property of their developers and that problems should go to them
(as the addons.mozilla.org does) Of course we could also showcase
GNOME-blessed plugins with some logo of Gnome. For me blessedw
would mean are to be
Hi,
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de wrote:
Hi!
So to stress things, the site should clearly state that the plugins
are property of their developers and that problems should go to them
(as the addons.mozilla.org does) Of course we could also showcase
The idea is simple (but long and complex to implement). I would love
to have a site addons.gnome.org, so we can have nice database with
plugins and other addons for desktop apps. The idea would be to
borrow ideas from the addons site of mozilla and it should support
different
Tomeu, is the source of addons.mozilla.org or activities.sugarlabs.org
publicly available under an open source license? If so, could you
point me out to it?
For our use, being open source is not sufficient.
We would need it to be available under a free software license.
Most open
Hi!
The idea is simple (but long and complex to implement). I would love
to have a site addons.gnome.org, so we can have nice database with
plugins and other addons for desktop apps. The idea would be to
borrow ideas from the addons site of mozilla and it should support
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 14:55, Jose Aliste jose.ali...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
I sent this to the gnome-web-list but there was instructed to send it
here, so it can be more widely discussed (and maybe also in the next
gnome foundation meeting)
The idea is simple (but long and complex to
On Sun, 2010-08-08 at 08:55 -0400, Jose Aliste wrote:
The idea is simple (but long and complex to implement). I would love
to have a site addons.gnome.org, so we can have nice database with
plugins and other addons for desktop apps. The idea would be to
borrow ideas from the addons site of
HI Tomeu, thanks for answering.
Sugar Labs maintains its own fork of addons.mozilla.org for Sugar
activities: http://activities.sugarlabs.org/
Would be great if more people wanted to adapt AMO to non-Mozilla uses
and share the cost of upstreaming those modifications.
Implementation wasn't
Hi!
Also, there should be a clear distinction whether an addon is Gnome
approved (meaning it is reviewed, translated, probably hosted in the
gnome git somewhere) or the work of a freelance dev. Distributions are
welcome to keep packaging any of the addons, as they do now, but
normally the
El dg 08 de 08 de 2010 a les 08:55 -0400, en/na Jose Aliste va escriure:
Hi All,
I sent this to the gnome-web-list but there was instructed to send it
here, so it can be more widely discussed (and maybe also in the next
gnome foundation meeting)
Hi,
Thanks for taking the time to re-send on
El dg 08 de 08 de 2010 a les 15:07 +0200, en/na Tomeu Vizoso va
escriure:
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 14:55, Jose Aliste jose.ali...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
I sent this to the gnome-web-list but there was instructed to send it
here, so it can be more widely discussed (and maybe also in the
Le dimanche 08 août 2010 à 15:07 +0200, Tomeu Vizoso a écrit :
Implementation wasn't really long nor complex, but you need to decide
if you really want to replace distributions as the means to distribute
your software.
It would be great to find a way to integrate with distributions package
On Sun, 2010-08-08 at 15:28 +0200, Johannes Schmid wrote:
Hi!
Also, there should be a clear distinction whether an addon is Gnome
approved (meaning it is reviewed, translated, probably hosted in the
gnome git somewhere) or the work of a freelance dev. Distributions are
welcome to keep
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 15:50, Gil Forcada gforc...@gnome.org wrote:
El dg 08 de 08 de 2010 a les 15:07 +0200, en/na Tomeu Vizoso va
escriure:
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 14:55, Jose Aliste jose.ali...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi All,
I sent this to the gnome-web-list but there was instructed to send
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org wrote:
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 15:50, Gil Forcada gforc...@gnome.org wrote:
El dg 08 de 08 de 2010 a les 15:07 +0200, en/na Tomeu Vizoso va
escriure:
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 14:55, Jose Aliste jose.ali...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Johannes Schmid j...@jsschmid.de wrote:
Hi!
Also, there should be a clear distinction whether an addon is Gnome
approved (meaning it is reviewed, translated, probably hosted in the
gnome git somewhere) or the work of a freelance dev. Distributions are
welcome
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 16:36, Jose Aliste jose.ali...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 10:28 AM, Tomeu Vizoso to...@sugarlabs.org wrote:
On Sun, Aug 8, 2010 at 15:50, Gil Forcada gforc...@gnome.org wrote:
El dg 08 de 08 de 2010 a les 15:07 +0200, en/na Tomeu Vizoso va
escriure:
43 matches
Mail list logo
