Re: On new and lost opportunities for free software

On Monday, 29 July 2024 08:18:50 CEST Carsten Agger wrote: > > It's a good and thought-provoking read: > > https://is.efeefe.me/stuff/open-for-all Indeed. Here's a part which is quite insightful: "An example of competitiveness-oriented questionable practice coming from the digital world that i

Re: banking and Free Software

On Thursday, 22 February 2024 19:35:24 CET Florian Snow wrote: > Hello everyone, > > As part of my job at the FSFE, I have been working on the topic of > Free Software in banking and I would like to share some of my findings > and thoughts with you. This is part of the larger topic of > appificati

Re: Op/ed about Free Software in Danish newspaper Information

On Wednesday, 31 August 2022 10:39:39 CEST Carsten Agger wrote: > Øjvind from our Danish FSFE team had a feature/opinion piece in the > Danish newspaper Information the other day, print edition and online: > > > https://www.information.dk/debat/2022/08/baeredygtige-it-fremtid-benytte-fri > -softw

Re: DevOps inspiration from Toyota Production System and Lean considered harmful

On Sunday, 15 May 2022 19:22:43 CEST Carsten Agger wrote: > I wrote a rant against the idolization of Lean and Toyota among certain > DevOps people. Sorry to follow up again, but at least this message is shorter! Previously, I've noted the cult of "innovation" in academia, but I haven't provided

Re: DevOps inspiration from Toyota Production System and Lean considered harmful

On Sunday, 15 May 2022 19:22:43 CEST Carsten Agger wrote: > I wrote a rant against the idolization of Lean and Toyota among certain > DevOps people. > Originally it was the synopsis for a more thorough article which I don't > have the time to write, so instead I present only the conclusions. Maybe

Re: US cryptocurrency legislation (Re: FSFE and the war in Europe)

On Friday, 18 March 2022 17:04:27 CET f...@centromere.net wrote: > On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 12:41:44 +0100 Paul Boddie wrote: > > On Friday, 18 March 2022 10:18:06 CET f...@centromere.net wrote: > > > Perhaps a statement about this pending legislation would be > > > rel

US cryptocurrency legislation (Re: FSFE and the war in Europe)

On Friday, 18 March 2022 10:18:06 CET f...@centromere.net wrote: > Perhaps a statement about this pending legislation would be relevant and on > topic for FSFE: > > https://www.coincenter.org/new-crypto-sanctions-bill-targets-publishing-code > -facilitating-transactions/ A statement about US legi

Re: FSFE and the war in Europe

On Thursday, 17 March 2022 10:13:28 CET Vitaly Repin wrote: > > Yes, FSFE is not a polictical organisation. But what happens now is beyond > any politics. This is a full-scale war which happens now and here, in > Europe. > > I feel that FSFE MUST issue an official statement about the war and acti

Re: Criticisms and choices

März 2022 16:33:05 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > There's a pervasive attitude in Free Software thanks to the influence of > > broader commercial and social culture, particularly American-style > > capitalism, > > A lot of Free Software initiatives are located around the world,

Criticisms and choices (was Re: Is Matrix a good choice?)

On Wednesday, 16 March 2022 12:37:26 CET Max Mehl wrote: > > On a personal and general note, I sometimes wonder about the energy some > people put into badmouthing certain projects in lengthy posts because of > personal taste or disliking a person behind the project. This did not > happen in this

Re: Mozilla: "We’re taking a break from Facebook"

On Friday, 24 September 2021 08:17:04 CEST Nico Rikken wrote: > Interesting remarks and helpful to the discussion. Happy to hear that > the Norwegian Data Protection Authority came to that decision. They aren't the only ones: "Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board leaves Facebook" https://www.bi

Re: Mozilla: "We’re taking a break from Facebook"

Hello, Remember this thread? ;-) On Friday, 23 March 2018 17:48:35 CEST Florian Snow wrote: > > If we meet those conditions, I think we can gain from being on platforms > like Facebook because we can reach people that we would not reach > otherwise and hopefully, in the process, they will become

Re: Constitution violation with the use of GitHub

On Monday, 9 August 2021 12:39:37 CEST André Ockers wrote: > > Jacob Hrbek schreef op za 07-08-2021 om 13:44 [+]: > > As mentioned in https://github.com/fsfe/reuse-tool/issues/361 the use > > of GitHub for REUSE is to my understanding an obvious violation of > > the constitution of the Free So

Re: GPLed code on github (given the copilot controversy)

On Monday, 12 July 2021 23:16:22 CEST marc wrote: > Hi, me again > > So I am going to respond to multiple comments in one go: > > I had a look at Julia Reda's post, and as far as I can > make out, she only focuses on the fact that individual > snippets are very short - but doesn't make any mentio

Re: GNOME fndn. is actively violating the Freedom 3

On Wednesday, 12 May 2021 23:52:28 CEST Heiki Lõhmus wrote: > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 07:14:51PM +, krey...@rixotstudio.cz wrote: > > > > This is not as GNOME is seemingly intentionally making their libraries > > to work only with their solutions and even trying to make their > > library to br

Re: Fairphone should officially sell FP3 with a Free Software Only option

On Sunday, 7 March 2021 17:26:40 CET Carsten Agger wrote: > I just bought a new Fairphone 3, and the experience inspired me to write > the following on their official forum. I think I was called to do this > mainly because I really like th project and think it's a shame they > focus so little on fr

Re: FSFE-defined coding standards?

Trimming to get the context back... On Saturday, 13 February 2021 05:11:23 CET Jacob Hrbek wrote: > >> The (F)LOSS ecosystem is currently mostly focusing on quantity over > >> quality [...] > I would also argue that not everyone in (F)LOSS cares about their future > job in Computer Science to ha

Running Online Conferences

Hello, On the topic of online events, I noticed that the EuroPython Society had made some documents available describing their experiences with planning this year's conference: https://www.europython-society.org/post/617463429296472064/sharing-our-research-and-licenses-for-going-online Althoug

Re: Fwd: Best video conferencing/distance learning tools?

On Thursday 28. May 2020 11.55.05 V F wrote: > I have had very good experience with whereby.com (company from Norway > though not hosted by me). They seem to have very decent privacy policy > and you do not need any app install for using it. I have had to use whereby.com (formerly appear.in) for w

Re: Best video conferencing/distance learning tools?

On Thursday 30. April 2020 20.39.01 Carsten Agger wrote: > I'm thinking og buying a low-power-consumption but powerful computer to > set up as a video conferencing/communication server at home as a > contribution to a very apparent need and as an alternative to FaceTime, > Zoom and whatever. I wou

Re: COVID19-Tracing/-Tracking App in Singapore under GPL-3.0

On Friday 10. April 2020 22.09.06 Sebastian Silva wrote: > Thanks for sharing! > > I just passed it on to a government mailing list in my country (Peru). > > I did a quick search and found an article by the Singaporean government > explaining their logic, which I shared also. > >

Re: COVID19-Tracing/-Tracking App in Singapore under GPL-3.0

On Friday 10. April 2020 12.00.34 Jan Wey. wrote: > I was made aware of this just 5 minutes ago. Sorry, if this was already > mentioned on this ML in the past few days. > > Singapore decided to release their Tracing-App under GPL-3.0 [0], which > obviously would establish better trust and would be

Re: rich services dominating in media (Re: Wiki page about Free Software for remote working)

On Wednesday 1. April 2020 11.39.32 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > Am Dienstag 31 März 2020 21:29:12 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > the media narrative seems to be dominated by technologies like > > videoconferencing, "feature-rich" real-time chat, > > To understand why peo

Re: Wiki page about Free Software for remote working

On Tuesday 31. March 2020 17.30.12 Sandro Santilli wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 04:45:28PM +0200, Erik Albers wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > last week some people created the a FSFE-wiki page about Free Software > > solutions for remote working. I think it has grown quite cool and gives a > > good

Re: Supporting more PDF forms in Free Software products (Re: Going beyond advocacy)

h as promises to fund "partnerships" with public institutions), and vague statements about the supposed merits of trickle-down economics. > Am Dienstag 11 Februar 2020 23:22:59 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > For all I know, my experience was based on a misunderstanding > > PDF is n

Re: Going beyond advocacy

On Sunday 9. February 2020 19.57.50 Nico Rikken wrote: > I like your line of thinking. Nice to hear from you again, Nico! :-) Well, I think we cannot just make assumptions about things magically happening all by themselves. Instead, we have to consider the economic models involved, and that req

Re: Going beyond advocacy

On Tuesday 11. February 2020 07.46.27 Nico Rikken wrote: > By putting the Reuse project and the GNU project against each other I > tried to favor a small targeted project compared to a large, seemingly > all-encompassing effort. But as you showed me, even GNU has its points > of focus. The aim of

Going beyond advocacy

Hello, Last summer, there was a discussion on this list about "Strategy and serendipity" to which I contributed the following remarks: > Maybe the role of the FSFE is to go beyond advocacy and help knock some > stubborn heads together, to eliminate people's parochial and needlessly > competitive

FSFE 2018 Financials (was Re: transparency about the fellowship)

On Tuesday 10. September 2019 13.58.14 Paul Boddie wrote: > On Tuesday 10. September 2019 12.04.25 Reinhard Müller wrote: > > Am 09.09.19 um 17:44 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > > However, summarised information for 2018 is not yet available. Is this > > > overdue or is

Re: suggestions/request for fsfe

On Friday 10. January 2020 15.50.47 V F wrote: > Agree a lot with PB and apologies in advance. No apologies necessary! :-) > > I suggest you join forces with some friends/your local hacker space to set > > up your own pihole instance. Sadly privacy means hard work but its worth > > it ;) > > This

Re: New Organisation directory tool

On Thursday 9. January 2020 22.07.24 Carsten Agger wrote: > > "OS2mo keeps tabs on the hierarchical links between units, manages lists > of employees, per unit, project and task. It provides a management > interface that shows for each unit, department, project team and person > who is responsible

Re: suggestions/request for fsfe

On Tuesday 7. January 2020 15.17.12 Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote: > > On a grander scale, I think a better solution would be that relying on > a server is not necessary. Imagine instead that a distribution might > include a `spyware-dns-hosts` package that modifies `/etc/hosts` with > the same kind

Re: suggestions/request for fsfe

On Wednesday 1. January 2020 13.15.21 V F wrote: > > Over the holidays I (being the crazy family geek) speaks about adblock > (µblock origin) and many in family are bored but a bit thinking it is > a good idea. With many smartphone + TVs - I sent (whatsapp) links to > these people but realized soo

Re: Adgangforalle.dk - public money, proprietary license

On Wednesday 11. December 2019 12.57.10 Carsten Agger wrote: > > There's one very curious thing about this product: Often, organizations > have software made by private vendors, and the private vendors will > retain their copyright and their right to keep it proprietary. In this > case, it's the A

Re: Forcing students to use nonfree network services and software as a topic of a future campaign

On Friday 29. November 2019 23.02.39 Nico Rikken wrote: > > Privacy: schools migrating their infrastructure to cloud SaaS > companies, with questionable licenses. I managed to see this more closely again at a former, then current, now former employer: employees and students get the opportunity t

Re: How FSFE is organised

On Monday 21. October 2019 07.20.49 Florian Snow wrote: > > Paul Boddie writes: > > I am sorry for the confusion here. In fact, I wasn't referring to the > > FSFE with my remark, but the following crowdfunding campaign promoted > > on this mailing list four years a

Re: How FSFE is organised

On Wednesday 16. October 2019 16.24.37 Harald Welte wrote: > > Not only is there a mixture of different positions and agendas, but it's > also a mixture of people with [formal] legal background with people from > the developer communities, including some very high-profile developers from > the Lin

Re: How FSFE is organised

On Thursday 10. October 2019 18.33.57 Carsten Agger wrote: > On 10/10/19 2:04 PM, Paul Boddie wrote: > > Are we left to assume that whatever consensus was reached at this event is > > the reason for the FSFE being indifferent about possibly the most > > significant licen

Re: How FSFE is organised

On Thursday 10. October 2019 10.45.48 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > Am Mittwoch 09 Oktober 2019 15:16:23 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > I am sorry for the confusion here. In fact, I wasn't referring to the FSFE > > with my remark > > Thanks for clarifying. I think it is clear

Re: How FSFE is organised (was: Organisation democracy)

On Tuesday 8. October 2019 17.44.02 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > Am Freitag 27 September 2019 18:00:28 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > > > Admittedly, the rest of us don't tend to do things like park $10 > > destined for improving Free Software in a bank account for

Re: Organisation democracy (was: Balance relationships with companies)

On Friday 27. September 2019 12.30.19 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > > Sure, "FSFE was founded to rely on a number of trusted individuals”, but > > that was 20 years ago. Outside of this echo chamber, 3/4 of them today are > > invisible or inactive. This hurts FSFEs reputation and impact. > > Depe

Re: Fairphone 3

On Wednesday 25. September 2019 15.17.24 Carsten Agger wrote: > > Today, inspired by this discussion, I send the following question to > Fairphone support: > > "I'm interested in buying a Fairphone 3, but I'm not interested in > getting proprietary Android. > > Is it possible to have the Fairphon

Re: Analysis: The use of open-source software by terrorists and violent extremists

On Wednesday 11. September 2019 11.27.56 Carsten Agger wrote: > On 9/11/19 9:29 AM, Alexander Sander wrote: > > > > Analysis: The use of open-source software by terrorists and violent > > extremists - > > Yes, without having read the report, that's a very weird point to make. > *All* software can

Re: transparency about the fellowship

On Tuesday 10. September 2019 12.04.25 Reinhard Müller wrote: > > Am 09.09.19 um 17:44 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > However, summarised information for 2018 is not yet available. Is this > > overdue or is it expected to be published within the year? > > It will be publishe

Re: transparency about the fellowship

Hello, Quite some time ago, the following topics came up... On Monday 9. July 2018 20.57.17 Daniel Pocock wrote: > > On the transparency page[2], there is a link to donor information[3] > where FSFE identifies the significant corporate donors, especially those > who contribute more than 10% of t

Re: recommendations for a mini laptop

On Thursday 18. July 2019 09.54.59 Michael Kesper wrote: > On 17.07.19 13:30, Paul Boddie wrote: > > And obviously, with everybody loading up the "modern" Web with superfluous > > gadgetry, Firefox will gladly saturate the CPU, I/O channels and take lots > > of RAM.

Re: REUSE 3.0 released: tutorial, FAQ, and helper tool

On Wednesday 7. August 2019 11.34.03 Max Mehl wrote: > > For some more background information, please find the full announcement > here: > > https://fsfe.org/news/2019/news-20190807-01.html > > > I am looking forward to your feedback! Please consider making your > software projects REUSE comp

Re: recommendations for a mini laptop

On Tuesday 16. July 2019 17.07.25 Michel Roche wrote: > Hello, > I've used to be quite fan of eeePcs but in the long run they appeared to > be not powerfull enough, even for basic usage with lighweight desktops > (lxde is he limit). The amount of memory in various devices is now a significant prob

Re: Balance relationships with companies (Re: Who talks at conference for Free Software?)

On Friday 28. June 2019 14.55.20 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > Companies and other organisations are taking part in Free Software > communities, other may oppose them. Many companies consists of different > branches. Some are more inclined towards Free Software others are not. > Same with people w

Re: Strategy and serendipity

On Friday 10. May 2019 10.11.40 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > Am Mittwoch 08 Mai 2019 14:41:59 schrieb Carsten Agger: > > > > As for mobile devices, we're not there *at all*. It's definitely not > > realistically feasible for everybody to acquire devices with a free OS > > and run only free apps. >

Re: Who talks at conference for Free Software?

On Thursday 13. June 2019 15.47.40 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > There are already other people speaking, especially for FSFE. > > And two challenges would need to be overcome to make it much more: > > * Many conference organisers mostly care about the fame of the >speaker, so they often in

Re: Fairphone lessons

On Friday 17. May 2019 12.19.36 Johannes Zarl-Zierl wrote: > > While I think that warranties for electronics could and should be longer, I > think the comparison to household appliances is unfair. > > Mobile phones may undergo less physical stress than washing mashines in > absolute terms, but op

Re: Fairphone lessons

On Wednesday 15. May 2019 12.51.36 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > Am Dienstag 14 Mai 2019 13:24:28 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > > > These are presumably the same apologists for phone manufacturers trying to > > cut warranty terms where I live: people who openly said that the

Re: Fairphone lessons (Re: Shiftphones details)

On Tuesday 14. May 2019 08.52.29 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > Am Freitag 10 Mai 2019 17:06:40 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > it surprises me that they have not managed to > > attract broader publicity. > > Shiftphones seem to focus on Germany (or German speaking companies). > It

Re: Shiftphones details

On Friday 10. May 2019 09.35.28 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > Seems they were starting almost at the same time (2013/2014). As someone who > supported fairphone 1 and fairphone 2 users, I know a lot about the good > and bad decisions from Fairphone first hand. I don't about Shiftphone so I > don't

Re: Mobile phone details: Sailfish and Mediatek (Re: Strategy and serendipity)

On Friday 10. May 2019 09.58.09 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > Am Mittwoch 08 Mai 2019 15:05:53 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > > * https://puri.sm/products/librem-5/ > > > * The advances with chipset for MediaTek and other main > > >SOC producers > > > * Sai

Re: Strategy and serendipity

On Wednesday 8. May 2019 11.41.56 Carsten Agger wrote: > On 5/8/19 9:12 AM, Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > The GNU project was started in different times. To me it has reached its > > goals and should have been called concluded for good. (See comments to my > > article [1]). > > It's my understandi

Re: Strategy and serendipity

On Wednesday 8. May 2019 09.03.48 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > Actually I am referring to the history section "For the Long Term" of > https://blogs.fsfe.org/pboddie/?p=2386 > which I believe was written by yourself. Yes, this was written by me. However, I still wanted to clarify that a lot of

Strategy and serendipity (was Re: FSFE "officials" on this list (Re: The "rival" discussion mailing list))

On Monday 6. May 2019 10.27.57 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Am Donnerstag 02 Mai 2019 21:45:40 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > I would also encourage the FSFE leadership to use venues like this list to > > more fully engage with the community, even when this involves enc

GitHub, proprietary services and Save Code Share (was Re: Is there any hope for FSFE?)

On Saturday 4. May 2019 13.42.51 Nikos Roussos wrote: > On 03/05/2019 19:00, Paul Boddie wrote: > > So, in the case of the Copyright Directive, where much fuss was made about > > keeping code sharing platforms free of copyright filters, it seemed that > > the FSFE was acting

Re: Request for Clarifications

On Saturday 4. May 2019 02.51.44 Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote: > > The gist of it is: > > - Elections pit contributors against each other, which is not in the > spirit of collaboration. > > - There are already other ways to become a GA member. > > - And, if you ask me, the idea of a "fellowship r

Unsubscription amusement

Hello, I see that some people are still having fun with the Mailman interface trying to unsubscribe people from this list, specifically 91.64.208.89 or ip5b40d059.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de as they are also known. Perhaps some actual, reasoned discussion about the challenges raised by recent

Re: Is there any hope for FSFE?

On Friday 3. May 2019 22.00.24 Reinhard Müller wrote: > Dear Paul, > > thank you for your verbose reply. You're welcome! > Am 03.05.19 um 18:00 schrieb Paul Boddie: > >> Am 03.05.19 um 13:48 schrieb Besnik Bleta: > >>> we give the money to lawyers who "

Re: Is there any hope for FSFE?

On Friday 3. May 2019 15.00.30 Reinhard Müller wrote: > Hi, Besnik, > > all sarcasm aside, > > Am 03.05.19 um 13:48 schrieb Besnik Bleta: > > we give the money to lawyers who "helped" us > > "safeguard" Free Software through Copyright Directive, right? > > what exactly do you refer to in this se

The "rival" discussion mailing list

Hello, Subscribers to this mailing list have recently been introduced to the existence of a new "rival" mailing list [*] in a way that might well be regarded as being both ill-conceived and regrettable. There may be merits in conducting discussion on another list, but the apparent attempt to tr

Re: Fwd: [FSFE PR][EN] Copyright Directive – EU safeguards Free Software at the last minute

On Thursday 28. March 2019 09.47.34 Christian Imhorst wrote: > > in our last press release on the EU Copyright Directive, Alexander > Sander says: > > "The exclusion of Free Software code hosting and sharing providers from > this directive is crucial to keep Free Software development in Europe >

History Repeating

Hello, I don't know whether this is an issue with the FSFE Web site or some real news, but I see the following item on the FSFE front page (https://fsfe.org/): """ Jonas Öberg joins FSFE as Executive Director 02 March 2019 FSFE has recruited long-time Free Software activist Jonas Öberg to be t

Re: FSFE-in-2020: Who are we?

On Friday 11. August 2017 12.54.53 Jonas Oberg wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I wanted to point you to this open internship position at the FSFE: > > https://fsfe.org/news/2017/news-20170811-01.en.html > > As you know, when the FSFE was founded, we put together a document > describing our self conc

Re: Looking for a job as a full stack developer

On Sunday 13. January 2019 14.50.25 Full Stack wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I am currently looking for a new job as a full stack web developer. > Preferred open source based; or at least open source friendly. > > If anyone offers such a job, please contact me. > You're also welcome, if you know an o

Re: Ongoing funding of FS (Re: Innovation, funding and FS)

On Wednesday 19. September 2018 09.48.06 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > Am Montag 17 September 2018 15:14:16 Paul Boddie wrote: > > > > at least if we can ignore those cultural issues around keeping the > > audience happy, because a developer can potentially prioritise their w

Re: Innovation, funding and FS

On Tuesday 18. September 2018 18.25.26 Andreas Nilsson wrote: > > When I think about crowdfunding I have stuff like "smaller hobby > projects" in mind such as a design for an electric circuit that can do > a funky thing. I don't have insight in the crowdfunding projects today. I only tend to keep

Re: Innovation, funding and FS

On Monday 17. September 2018 12.42.18 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > Am Samstag 15 September 2018 17:20:26 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > > > Then again, I am inclined to think that such platforms tend to favour > > transactional work, often underpriced, that is viewed as fashio

Re: Innovation, funding and FS (was: to git or not to git)

On Friday 14. September 2018 09.06.50 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > Am Donnerstag 13 September 2018 17:05:41 schrieb Andreas Nilsson: > > > > The idea is to make an economical funding platform. The platform itself > > only communicates between the two parties users and developers, > > economically

Re: Talos II (FSF RYF candidate)

On Tuesday 12. September 2017 16.07.12 Timothy Pearson wrote: > Just wanted to pass this along from the FSF on this side of the pond in > case you haven't seen it yet: > > https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/support-the-talos-ii-a-candidate-for-respects-your-freedom-certification-by-pre-ordering-b

Re: Aw: Re: improving the tone of discussion in FSFE

On Wednesday 12. September 2018 12.30.55 Daniel Albert wrote: > > Your chart is funny. Why is zero missing in it? The axes are properly labelled and, in any case, I see far worse on major news Web sites every day. What we see is a decline in the Fellowship of just over 100 people from 1650 or so

Re: Microsoft to warn users not to install a different browser

On Wednesday 12. September 2018 16.05.04 Bjoern Schiessle wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm sure some of you remember the anti trust case of the European > Commission against Microsoft in 2009. [...] > Now, 9 years later I read "Microsoft to ‘warn’ Windows 10 users > not to install Chrome or Firefox"[2].

Re: to git or not to git

On Saturday 8. September 2018 10.36.08 Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote: > I won't cite any past message because I lost some of them during an > accidental removal of the emails on my computer, so forgive me if this > was already said by someone else. Having just done a distribution upgrade and with A

Re: Daniel on discussion@ (Re: what makes a good president and chairperson?)

On Wednesday 5. September 2018 08.42.17 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > Am Dienstag 04 September 2018 23:22:33 schrieb Daniel Pocock: > > are you trying to change/misrepresent the intention of > > somebody else's email? > > please read the exchange again and look at the quotes, > I was asking what

Free Software economics (was Re: What should the FSFE provide)

On Friday 31. August 2018 13.16.57 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > Am Donnerstag 30 August 2018 21:56:58 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > Thank you for indulging me in this discussion which has probably covered > > more ground already than many previous discussions on some of these > &

Re: to git or not to git

On Friday 31. August 2018 13.03.22 Alessandro Rubini wrote: > > But I have a question for Berhnard, who says among other things I agree > with: > > * Use hg or other trackers if you can. > > why? It's already oh so difficult to get people make decent commits to > git, where at least I can point t

Re: What should the FSFE provide (was: supporting our fellowship representative)

On Thursday 30. August 2018 09.45.15 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > some of your topics are very interesting, thanks for the feedback! Thank you for indulging me in this discussion which has probably covered more ground already than many previous discussions on some of these topics. My apologies

Re: supporting our fellowship representative

On Wednesday 29. August 2018 18.35.52 Reinhard Müller wrote: > Am 2018-08-29 um 18:17 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > Fellowship now apparently being regarded as a failed attempt to increase > > engagement amongst supporters, members and others. > > I have no idea how you c

Re: supporting our fellowship representative

On Wednesday 29. August 2018 09.17.56 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > Am Dienstag 28 August 2018 16:28:44 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > I do recognise the > > effort made by both staff and volunteers within the FSFE, but I do also > > recognise the frustration some people hav

Re: supporting our fellowship representative

On Tuesday 28. August 2018 15.32.24 Reinhard Müller wrote: > > Am 2018-08-28 um 15:04 schrieb Joe Awni: > > As far as I'm concerned, with out elections, my impression is it's a > > staff-office in Berlin that is effectively domain-name-squatting on > > fsfe.org . > > I guess that

Salary details (was Re: supporting our fellowship representative)

On Tuesday 28. August 2018 11.09.09 Bernhard Reiter wrote: > > Am Dienstag 28 August 2018 10:18:11 schrieb lukerog...@tutanota.com: > > The FSFE transparency pages are hilarious. FSFE chose the transparency > > checklist from Transparency International because it lets them have > > transparency c

Re: transparency about the fellowship

On Monday 9. July 2018 22.29.45 Daniel Pocock wrote: > > There have been discussions where people were unclear about the > relationship between FSF and FSFE or the fact that these are different > organizations. I've seen that both publicly and privately. If people > are putting FSF(E) into their

Re: Input on anticompetitive characteristic of public code

On Wednesday 4. July 2018 16.27.52 Mat Witts wrote: > > Free Software is not exclusionary AFAIK I cannot think of any case where > proprietary software has been refused entry to a market because of it, but > am open to studying examples of that happening if anyone can find > examples? There are p

Price transparency (was Re: Input on anticompetitive characteristic of public code)

On Friday 22. June 2018 08.21.00 Bastien wrote: > > Not knowing whether prices of commonly used SaaS are fair (like the > price of Google services paid by many universities) is to me a big > argument -- at least to destroy the naive vision that it's easy to > assess the fairness of a price in a cl

Re: Input on anticompetitive characteristic of public code

On Thursday 21. June 2018 14.33.21 Erik Albers wrote: > > One of these pages shall be dedicated to the topic "market distortion / > anticompetition". The point is that a main argument against publishing > publicly financed software developments under a free licence is said to be > "market distorti

Re: Public Money Public Code: a good policy for FSFE and other non-profits?

On Friday 15. June 2018 11.21.52 Erik Albers wrote: > > totally agree here. And as a staffer that is also hired for doing a good > outreach I see two problems here: > > a) the work-time I need to invest to "[...] maintain a public inventory on > the wiki listing the non-free software and services

Re: Public Money Public Code: a good policy for FSFE and other non-profits?

might be improved. That's one reason why I posted my message. > Paul Boddie: > >>> I was surprised that Daniel's motion to document the FSFE's proprietary > >>> dependencies, and to describe ways of eliminating them, was so strongly > >>> oppos

Re: Public Money Public Code: a good policy for FSFE and other non-profits?

On Wednesday 13. June 2018 15.47.38 Max Mehl wrote: > # Paul Boddie [2018-06-12 21:53 +0200]: > > I was surprised that Daniel's motion to document the FSFE's proprietary > > dependencies, and to describe ways of eliminating them, was so strongly > > oppose

Public Money Public Code: a good policy for FSFE and other non-profits?

Hello, A few days ago, I saw Daniel's article about the use of proprietary software and services by the FSFE: https://danielpocock.com/pmpc-for-fsfe-itself This follows up on a long discussion last year, starting here... https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2017-June/011591.html ...and

Re: Constructive measures to help people communicate freely

On Monday 26. March 2018 23.30.31 Daniel Pocock wrote: > > You wrote "telling people that they are bad", but I only said the habits > are bad, not the people. > > If I say a habit is bad, I am not saying the person is bad. Everybody > has some bad habits but that doesn't mean everybody is bad.

Re: Constructive measures to help people communicate freely

On Monday 26. March 2018 20.16.03 Daniel Pocock wrote: > > That is not a good summary of who the plugin is for or how it will help > them Sorry to misrepresent it, but it has previously been framed as "breaking bad habits", which is a little different from helping people comply with organisatio

Re: Constructive measures to help people communicate freely

On Monday 26. March 2018 11.12.15 br...@tracciabi.li wrote: > Paul Boddie ha scritto: > > > > With such considerations in mind, does anyone else think that the topic > > of genuinely free communication might be worthy of a comprehensive > > campaign? One that would

Constructive measures to help people communicate freely

Hello, There has been a lot said recently about Facebook, Google, and other entities that facilitate online communication through services that have hidden impacts on people's freedoms. But as I noted before, it is more constructive to focus on how we in the Free Software community can help oth

Re: Mozilla first, now FSFE?

On Saturday 24. March 2018 06.22.41 C. Cossé wrote: > > FB enables people to connect in an ever-disconnected world. Wait a moment! The world is more connected than ever, technologically. Isn't that one of the problems here? "Everyone" is on Facebook, but they are all in their own little bubble

Re: Mozilla: "We’re taking a break from Facebook"

On Friday 23. March 2018 14.40.58 Max Mehl wrote: > > That said, I think the only purpose the FSFE's FB page currently serves > is that 1. the name is taken to prevent hoaxers from imitating an > "official" page, and 2. for people to find us if they – for whatever > crazy reason – try to search us

Re: Mozilla: "We’re taking a break from Facebook"

On Friday 23. March 2018 11.12.14 psutton wrote: > > try and leave facebook and it nags you and you're made to feel guilty > you have left. Yes, one "farewell page" I have seen tries to make you feel like you're betraying your friends by abandoning them. To be fair, you really would be doing th

  1   2   >