On 15/06/18 09:11, Reinhard Müller wrote: > Hi, Carsten! > > Am 2018-06-14 um 12:06 schrieb Carsten Agger: >> I'd limit the scope as such: >> >> * We're talking of the software used by *the association* as part of its >> *operations*, i.e. not about the personal choices of employees or >> volunteers in their spare time. >> >> * We're talking about software used by the organization in its *own* >> operations - not that of vendors and other third parties (e.g., >> designers and accountants - if the designer prefers to use Gimp for >> images that's fine, but they *are* a third party) >> >> * We're talking about *tools*, i.e. mostly userspace software. We should >> include proprietary JavaScript - so using Twitter or Google is not >> "using proprietary software" because the service is proprietary, but >> because they use non-free JavaScript (I mention this to align with the >> FSF's position). Anything proprietary installed on staff computers for >> work purposes would be listed, e.g. Skype, if someone were using that >> (which I have reasons to believe is not the case) >> >> * We're not talking about firmware. > > That sounds like a reasonable scope to me, except for JavaScript, which > I would regard debatable. And if I am not mistaken, apart from > JavaScript, FSFE does not use any proprietary software within this > scope. Actually I'm not even sure about JavaScript, since the services > you mention might also run with JavaScript turned off. > > No proprietary software runs on any of FSFE's servers in userspace, and > of course all software developed by FSFE staff or by contractors paid by > FSFE is free software. >
So what is Jonas referring to in his blog[1]? > Anything further doesn't seem very reasonable to me: I would, for > example, not want our volunteers to spend their time with documenting > which web pages they visited where JavaScript was required. > If it is part of any significant FSFE-related process it should be documented in the process and then it should be obvious to any volunteer who reviews the documentation. If volunteers have non-free stuff that they use for unrelated purposes then I don't expect that to fall under the scope of a motion passed in FSFE's General Assembly. On the other hand, I would contend that people who want to be in leadership positions in the FSF / FSFE family would have a burning desire to make such a list and work constructively to shorten it and they wouldn't be able to sleep at night without doing this exercise. Regards, Daniel 1. https://web.archive.org/web/20170620233433/http://blog.jonasoberg.net/using-proprietary-software-for-freedom/ _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion This mailing list is covered by the FSFE's Code of Conduct. All participants are kindly asked to be excellent to each other: https://fsfe.org/about/codeofconduct
