Re: הצעה לשינוי תקנון
äàñôä äùðúéú äáàä úäéä òåã ùðä, àìà àí ëï îúåëððú ôâéùä ùðúéú ÷åãîú. àí éù òåã ùéðåééí ìú÷ðåï, ëãàé ìäòìåú àåúí ìãòúé áàñôä ä÷øåáä. øåá äçáøéí ìà îâéòéí ìàñôä äîéåòãú ìàéùåø äãå"çåú äëñôééí áìáã. ìôâéùåú îîùéåú áäï îú÷áìåú äçìèåú îäåúéåú (ëâåï áçéøú ååòã àå ùéðåéé ú÷ðåï), äçáøéí èåøçéí ìáæáæ çöé éåí ëãé ìäâéò åìäùôéò. öáé Quoting Dotan Mazor: > > öáé, ëåìí, ùìåí, > > > éùðí îñôø ùéðåééí îåöòéí ìáéöåò áú÷ðåï äòîåúä. áøí, ò÷á äæîï äîåòè áéï > ääåãòä òì ÷éåí äàñéôä ìáéï äàñéôä òöîä, äçìèðå ùæä éäéä ìà øàåé ìäòìåú > òì ñãø äéåí ùéðåééí áú÷ðåï, ëãé ùæä ìà ééøàä ëîå îçèó. > > > àðé îöéò ìäîúéï òí ääöòä äæå òã ìàñéôä äáàä. > > > ááøëä, > > ãåúï îæåø > > çáø åòã òîåúú "äî÷åø" > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > ùìåí ìëåìí. > > àðé øåöä ìäåñéó ììå"æ ùì äàñôä äëììéú ä÷øåáä äöòä ìùéðåé áú÷ðåï. > äåñôú ñòéó 8à': > ì÷ãí åìúîåê áùéîåù åáéöéøú úåëï çåôùé (Free Content) åúåëï ùéúåôé > (Open Content). > > øöéåðì: > úåëï çåôùé åúåëðä çåôùéú äí ùðé öããéí ùì àåúä àéãéàåìåâéä, åîåâðéí > ò"é øùéåðåú ãåîéí. ëê, âí äàéåîéí òì ùðéäí ãåîéí. ùðéäí îåùôòéí ò"é > çå÷é æëåú-éåöøéí áöåøä ãåîä. ìëï éù ìàôùø ìòîåúä ìôòåì âí áúçåí æä, > áäðúï äøöåï åäéëåìú. > > äòøåú, äàøåú åùéðåéé ðåñç éú÷áìå ááøëä. > > ááøëä, >öáé ãáéø > > - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: הצעה לשינוי תקנון
Hey, that seems to happen very often. Maybe we should next time annonced the date and then the date till when suggestions can be submited. Something like we are thinking on having asefa in the next month please send suggestions. Or even better finally allow electronic voting!:) Ely On 12/18/06, Dotan Mazor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: צבי, כולם, שלום, ישנם מספר שינויים מוצעים לביצוע בתקנון העמותה. ברם, עקב הזמן המועט בין ההודעה על קיום האסיפה לבין האסיפה עצמה, החלטנו שזה יהיה לא ראוי להעלות על סדר היום שינויים בתקנון, כדי שזה לא ייראה כמו מחטף. אני מציע להמתין עם ההצעה הזו עד לאסיפה הבאה. בברכה, דותן מזור חבר ועד עמותת "המקור" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ùìåí ìëåìí. àðé øåöä ìäåñéó ììå"æ ùì äàñôä äëììéú ä÷øåáä äöòä ìùéðåé áú÷ðåï. äåñôú ñòéó 8à': ì÷ãí åìúîåê áùéîåù åáéöéøú úåëï çåôùé (Free Content) åúåëï ùéúåôé (Open Content). øöéåðì: úåëï çåôùé åúåëðä çåôùéú äí ùðé öããéí ùì àåúä àéãéàåìåâéä, åîåâðéí ò"é øùéåðåú ãåîéí. ëê, âí äàéåîéí òì ùðéäí ãåîéí. ùðéäí îåùôòéí ò"é çå÷é æëåú-éåöøéí áöåøä ãåîä. ìëï éù ìàôùø ìòîåúä ìôòåì âí áúçåí æä, áäðúï äøöåï åäéëåìú. äòøåú, äàøåú åùéðåéé ðåñç éú÷áìå ááøëä. ááøëä, öáé ãáéø - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Dotan Mazor http://www.dotanmazor.com
Re: הצעה לשינוי תקנון
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, E L wrote: So why have anything in the takanon about it? Lets just make it the amuta for everything, this way we'll never need to change the takanon. When you write something as the goal of the amuta people joining the amuta will expect it to act on those manners. If you write in the takanon that hamakor promote both foss and free content people who wants to promote free content will rightly join the amuta and expect it to act on the manner as much as it invests in the FOSS part. Not doing so will just hurt the reputation of hamakor and make us look like liers. Not to mention that if 2 of the vaad people will feel that free content is more important than foss you just gave them the right not to invest anything into foss at all. You can't make the amuta for "everything" because the Rasham needs to verify the goals. An NPO may have secondary goals, and they do not have to give any funding towards these goals. For example, one of the goals of Hamakor is to invite open-source figures to Israel and cater for them. We have never done such activity. Many well-known NPOs have secondary goals that allow them to take part in inter-NPO partnerships. Even if a separate open-content NPO will emerge, having open content on Hamakor's charter will allow for easier colloboration on joint ventures with that NPO. Alon -- This message was sent by Alon Altman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ICQ:1366540 GPG public key at http://8ln.org/pubkey.txt Key fingerprint = A670 6C81 19D3 3773 3627 DE14 B44A 50A3 FE06 7F24 -- -=[ Random Fortune ]=- There are a few things that never go out of style, and a feminine woman is one of them. -- Ralston - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: הצעה לשינוי תקנון
On 12/18/06, Alon Altman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, E L wrote: > You are wrong, once you put something like that in the takanon it means that > people can come and say now hamakor promote 2 things > foss and free content, why not split the resources? More than that all the > sudden people from wikipedia or any other project will ask for our help > and since free content is part of hamakor objectives their request will need > to get the same priority as any other foss. It will also encourage people > who support free content to join hamakor and work to tipping the balance in > the free content direction. > Free content is a huge subject and hamakor doesn't even have enough > resources to help all the FOSS goals. I am sorry, but you are wrong. The goals of an NPO specify what an NPO is allowed to do, and does not by any means assign proirities between these goals. NPOs commonly add goals to their charter which they do not actively pursue in order to not limit their activities. An NPO is not allowed to use funds or other resources for anything but furhtering the goals, but the allocation of funds is entirely to the discretion of the board (or the general assembly). So why have anything in the takanon about it? Lets just make it the amuta for everything, this way we'll never need to change the takanon. When you write something as the goal of the amuta people joining the amuta will expect it to act on those manners. If you write in the takanon that hamakor promote both foss and free content people who wants to promote free content will rightly join the amuta and expect it to act on the manner as much as it invests in the FOSS part. Not doing so will just hurt the reputation of hamakor and make us look like liers. Not to mention that if 2 of the vaad people will feel that free content is more important than foss you just gave them the right not to invest anything into foss at all. Alon Ely -- This message was sent by Alon Altman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ICQ:1366540 GPG public key at http://8ln.org/pubkey.txt Key fingerprint = A670 6C81 19D3 3773 3627 DE14 B44A 50A3 FE06 7F24 -- -=[ Random Fortune ]=- Facts are the enemy of truth. -- Don Quixote
Re: הצעה לשינוי תקנון
On 12/18/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Quoting E L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Free content is a huge subject and hamakor doesn't even have enough > resources to help all the FOSS goals. Maybe if HaMakor will deal with some other subjects, some more people will volunteer to help with those subjects. The Amuta greatest resources are its volunteers and their actions, not the threads in the mailing-lists. Then maybe we should deal with poor kids? or hungry people in somalia? Should get a lot of people to help. And you still haven't told me how you will make sure that those people won't take over the amuta and completly change its ajenda. Quoting E L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > BTW, > What do you call free content anyhow? Under which license? > Some concider most of the CC license as non free. > > Ely > Let me ask you similar questions. What do you consider open source? Is BSD license more open than GPL, or not? Is LGPL less pure than GPL? Do you think that the Takanon is the place to specify which license is open source and which one is not? The same goes with open content licenses. Yes, maybe then we wouldn't have had stupid BSD vs GPL arguments. YYou want to make the same mistake again? From the few discussions we had on the list, not many people agree which license is concidered free for content. For example a lot of the people around here support the definion given by debian, which doesn't treat CC as free. The answer is that it's not an issue. The board will have to use its collective judgment and decide on each case. If you do not trust the board judgment then it is totally different issue, also irrelevant to the current suggestion. No, I don't. isn't it my right to agree with the board of hamakor about free software licenses and not agree with them about other political matters? Now you want people to chose a board which they are with on both free software and free content? Zvi PS. As said, my perspective is irrelevant, but according to my POV, CC should be covered by this chapter.
Re: הצעה לשינוי תקנון
צבי, כולם, שלום, ישנם מספר שינויים מוצעים לביצוע בתקנון העמותה. ברם, עקב הזמן המועט בין ההודעה על קיום האסיפה לבין האסיפה עצמה, החלטנו שזה יהיה לא ראוי להעלות על סדר היום שינויים בתקנון, כדי שזה לא ייראה כמו מחטף. אני מציע להמתין עם ההצעה הזו עד לאסיפה הבאה. בברכה, דותן מזור חבר ועד עמותת "המקור" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > ùìåí ìëåìí. > > àðé øåöä ìäåñéó ììå"æ ùì äàñôä äëììéú ä÷øåáä äöòä ìùéðåé áú÷ðåï. > äåñôú ñòéó 8à': > ì÷ãí åìúîåê áùéîåù åáéöéøú úåëï çåôùé (Free Content) åúåëï ùéúåôé (Open > Content). > > øöéåðì: > úåëï çåôùé åúåëðä çåôùéú äí ùðé öããéí ùì àåúä àéãéàåìåâéä, åîåâðéí ò"é øùéåðåú > ãåîéí. ëê, âí äàéåîéí òì ùðéäí ãåîéí. ùðéäí îåùôòéí ò"é çå÷é æëåú-éåöøéí áöåøä > ãåîä. ìëï éù ìàôùø ìòîåúä ìôòåì âí áúçåí æä, áäðúï äøöåï åäéëåìú. > > äòøåú, äàøåú åùéðåéé ðåñç éú÷áìå ááøëä. > > ááøëä, >öáé ãáéø > > - > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > -- Dotan Mazor http://www.dotanmazor.com
Re: הצעה לשינוי תקנון
Quoting E L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Free content is a huge subject and hamakor doesn't even have enough > resources to help all the FOSS goals. Maybe if HaMakor will deal with some other subjects, some more people will volunteer to help with those subjects. The Amuta greatest resources are its volunteers and their actions, not the threads in the mailing-lists. Quoting E L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > BTW, > What do you call free content anyhow? Under which license? > Some concider most of the CC license as non free. > > Ely > Let me ask you similar questions. What do you consider open source? Is BSD license more open than GPL, or not? Is LGPL less pure than GPL? Do you think that the Takanon is the place to specify which license is open source and which one is not? The same goes with open content licenses. The answer is that it's not an issue. The board will have to use its collective judgment and decide on each case. If you do not trust the board judgment then it is totally different issue, also irrelevant to the current suggestion. Zvi PS. As said, my perspective is irrelevant, but according to my POV, CC should be covered by this chapter. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: הצעה לשינוי תקנון
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, E L wrote: You are wrong, once you put something like that in the takanon it means that people can come and say now hamakor promote 2 things foss and free content, why not split the resources? More than that all the sudden people from wikipedia or any other project will ask for our help and since free content is part of hamakor objectives their request will need to get the same priority as any other foss. It will also encourage people who support free content to join hamakor and work to tipping the balance in the free content direction. Free content is a huge subject and hamakor doesn't even have enough resources to help all the FOSS goals. I am sorry, but you are wrong. The goals of an NPO specify what an NPO is allowed to do, and does not by any means assign proirities between these goals. NPOs commonly add goals to their charter which they do not actively pursue in order to not limit their activities. An NPO is not allowed to use funds or other resources for anything but furhtering the goals, but the allocation of funds is entirely to the discretion of the board (or the general assembly). Alon -- This message was sent by Alon Altman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ICQ:1366540 GPG public key at http://8ln.org/pubkey.txt Key fingerprint = A670 6C81 19D3 3773 3627 DE14 B44A 50A3 FE06 7F24 -- -=[ Random Fortune ]=- Facts are the enemy of truth. -- Don Quixote - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: הצעה לשינוי תקנון
On 12/18/06, Zvi Devir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: למען ההבהרה, הסעיף *מאפשר* פעילות של המקור, לא מחייב אותה. כפי שנדב הראל כתב, בזמנו התעוררה השאלה האם עפ"י המנדט של המקור (כלומר התקנון), והיה אם קהילת הוויקיפדיה העברית תבקש מהמקור עזרה, האם מותר לוועד המקור לפעול, אם יחליט לעזור. למרות שהיתה זאת שאלה היפוטטית, התשובה היתה ככל הנראה לא. מכאן הצעתי להוספת סעיף 8א' לתקנון. האם יש עוד ארגונים בארץ שפועלים עבור תוכן חופשי? התשובה היא לא. למרות שיש ל-CC ייצוג בארץ, הם אינם עמותה. הפרוייקטים של בן-יהודה והוויקיפדיה גם אינם ארגונים או יישויות משפטיות במדינת ישראל. BTW, What do you call free content anyhow? Under which license? Some concider most of the CC license as non free. Ely
Re: הצעה לשינוי תקנון
On 12/18/06, Zvi Devir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: למען ההבהרה, הסעיף *מאפשר* פעילות של המקור, לא מחייב אותה. כפי שנדב הראל כתב, בזמנו התעוררה השאלה האם עפ"י המנדט של המקור (כלומר התקנון), והיה אם קהילת הוויקיפדיה העברית תבקש מהמקור עזרה, האם מותר לוועד המקור לפעול, אם יחליט לעזור. למרות שהיתה זאת שאלה היפוטטית, התשובה היתה ככל הנראה לא. מכאן הצעתי להוספת סעיף 8א' לתקנון. You are wrong, once you put something like that in the takanon it means that people can come and say now hamakor promote 2 things foss and free content, why not split the resources? More than that all the sudden people from wikipedia or any other project will ask for our help and since free content is part of hamakor objectives their request will need to get the same priority as any other foss. It will also encourage people who support free content to join hamakor and work to tipping the balance in the free content direction. Free content is a huge subject and hamakor doesn't even have enough resources to help all the FOSS goals. האם יש עוד ארגונים בארץ שפועלים עבור תוכן חופשי? התשובה היא לא. למרות שיש ל-CC ייצוג בארץ, הם אינם עמותה. הפרוייקטים של בן-יהודה והוויקיפדיה גם אינם ארגונים או יישויות משפטיות במדינת ישראל. I think CC is also an amuta, but if not they should go ahead and make one. With people are free content oriented, and you know what maybe some of the people will be both in hamakor and that amuta. And maybe then we'll even collabirate with them against or for certain rules and events. צבי. Ely
Re: Re: ��¦�¢� ��(c)�� �� �×�§� ��
On 12/18/06, Orna Agmon Ben-Yehuda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, E L wrote: > Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:23:43 +0200 > From: E L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Nadav Har'El <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > discussions@hamakor.org.il > Subject: [UTF-8] Re: ן�½�"ן�½�¦ן�½�¢ן�½�" ן�½�ן�½(c)ן�½�ן�½ ן�½�ן�½� > ן�½�ן�½�§ן�½ ן�½�ן�½� > > On 12/18/06, Nadav Har'El <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On Mon, Dec 18, 2006, E L wrote about "Re: ן�½?ן�½�¦ן�½�¢ן�½? > ן�½?ן�½(c)ן�½?ן�½ן�½?ן�½? >> ן�½�ן�½�§ן�½ן�½?ן�½?": >> > I think previous discussions proved that there is no agreement amount >> the >> > members of Hamakor when it comes to free content. >> > (Look at the achieve for the discussion about the law offered by >> meretz). >> >> I don't think that discussion was relevant to "free content". "Free >> content", >> just like "free software" talks about the situation where the creators of >> this content decided, of their own free will, to give the content away >> freely. The "arguments" you remember about the Meretz law were about >> people >> who did *not* want to give away their content freely. But I didn't hear >> anyone say that free content shouldn't exist, and that we shouldn't >> encourage it (while not forcing everyone to publish their content as free >> content). > > > Some people were supportive of drm, then yea you can encourage free content, > but while you enter the word content into the takanon > you need to decide about all aspects of it. > >> Therefore I don't see any point in changing the takanon as it is already >> > covered by it. >> >> A couple of years ago, a discussion on this list concluded that the >> Takanon >> does *not* cover free content, and therefore the Amuta cannot support open >> content projects like, for example, Wikipedia. So perhaps the Takanon does >> need changing in this respect. > > > Why? > There is a reason why not all members of Hamakor are members of CC israel > and the other way around. > Once hamakor support and encourage free content it means part of its > resources are going to go to wikipedia > part of it is going to go to the very importent ben yehoda project and so > on. Spreading such a small amuta over so many subjects is dangrous. > Let CC do its work, we can back them up from the software aspect, but I > think it's a not so wise idea to make it an official goal. > > Ely > > -- >> Nadav Har'El| Monday, Dec 18 2006, 27 Kislev >> 5767 >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> |- >> Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |A professor is one who talks in >> someone >> http://nadav.harel.org.il |else's sleep. >> > Both wikipedia and the Ben Yehuda project(there is a lecture about it today in Haifux, BTW) raise a lot more money than hamakor's yearly budget, without hamakor's help. Yes, so we should concentrate on FOSS IMOH. However, wikipedia in Israel are considering creating an NPO. Using hamakor for wikipedia's needs may help wikipedians by reducing the need for beaurocracy, and by being entitled already for being tax deductable donations, NOT by giving wikipedia money from the FOSS budget. You are talking about completly different thing, about specifically helping wikipedia people in a certain way, not about making hamakor deal with both foss and free content. Even then why will hamakor want to do such a thing? handling other people money involve legal risk ( hamakor will need to monitor how they spend their money). This can also cause fighting between what hamakor people might find risky or unethical to what wikipedia people will want. Also it might cause wikipedia people to want to change certain things in how hamakor is managed and since wikipedia has much more resources hamakor is taking a risk of being sollowed with no apperent gain to its FOSS purpose. Ely Orna. -- Orna Agmon Ben-Yehuda http://ladypine.org/ ICQ: 348759096
Re: הצעה לשינוי תקנ ון
למען ההבהרה, הסעיף *מאפשר* פעילות של המקור, לא מחייב אותה. כפי שנדב הראל כתב, בזמנו התעוררה השאלה האם עפ"י המנדט של המקור (כלומר התקנון), והיה אם קהילת הוויקיפדיה העברית תבקש מהמקור עזרה, האם מותר לוועד המקור לפעול, אם יחליט לעזור. למרות שהיתה זאת שאלה היפוטטית, התשובה היתה ככל הנראה לא. מכאן הצעתי להוספת סעיף 8א' לתקנון. האם יש עוד ארגונים בארץ שפועלים עבור תוכן חופשי? התשובה היא לא. למרות שיש ל-CC ייצוג בארץ, הם אינם עמותה. הפרוייקטים של בן-יהודה והוויקיפדיה גם אינם ארגונים או יישויות משפטיות במדינת ישראל. צבי. E L wrote: I think previous discussions proved that there is no agreement amount the members of Hamakor when it comes to free content. (Look at the achieve for the discussion about the law offered by meretz). Software is a tool and has a lot of points of connection with any other field which is somehow computer related, by concentrating in the software part of things we don't need to look at the content at all for example: be anti software patents, against closed for implementation drm technologies and like Shachar so will described against putting the limitation on the software side. Therefore I don't see any point in changing the takanon as it is already covered by it. Ely On 12/18/06, Zvi Devir wrote: שלום לכולם. אני רוצה להוסיף ללו"ז של האספה הכללית הקרובה הצעה לשינוי בתקנון. הוספת סעיף 8א': לקדם ולתמוך בשימוש וביצירת תוכן חופשי (Free Content) ותוכן שיתופי (Open Content). רציונל: תוכן חופשי ותוכנה חופשית הם שני צדדים של אותה אידיאולוגיה, ומוגנים ע"י רשיונות דומים. כך, גם האיומים על שניהם דומים. שניהם מושפעים ע"י חוקי זכות-יוצרים בצורה דומה. לכן יש לאפשר לעמותה לפעול גם בתחום זה, בהנתן הרצון והיכולת. הערות, הארות ושינויי נוסח יתקבלו בברכה. בברכה, צבי דביר - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: ��¦�¢� ��(c) �� �� �×�§� ��
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, E L wrote: Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 13:23:43 +0200 From: E L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Nadav Har'El <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, discussions@hamakor.org.il Subject: [UTF-8] Re: ן�½�ן�½�¦ן�½�¢ן�½� ן�½�ן�½(c)ן�½�ן�½ ן�½�ן�½� ן�½�ן�½�§ן�½ ן�½�ן�½� On 12/18/06, Nadav Har'El <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, Dec 18, 2006, E L wrote about "Re: ן�½?ן�½�¦ן�½�¢ן�½? ן�½?ן�½(c)ן�½?ן�½ן�½?ן�½? ן�½�ן�½�§ן�½ן�½?ן�½?": > I think previous discussions proved that there is no agreement amount the > members of Hamakor when it comes to free content. > (Look at the achieve for the discussion about the law offered by meretz). I don't think that discussion was relevant to "free content". "Free content", just like "free software" talks about the situation where the creators of this content decided, of their own free will, to give the content away freely. The "arguments" you remember about the Meretz law were about people who did *not* want to give away their content freely. But I didn't hear anyone say that free content shouldn't exist, and that we shouldn't encourage it (while not forcing everyone to publish their content as free content). Some people were supportive of drm, then yea you can encourage free content, but while you enter the word content into the takanon you need to decide about all aspects of it. Therefore I don't see any point in changing the takanon as it is already > covered by it. A couple of years ago, a discussion on this list concluded that the Takanon does *not* cover free content, and therefore the Amuta cannot support open content projects like, for example, Wikipedia. So perhaps the Takanon does need changing in this respect. Why? There is a reason why not all members of Hamakor are members of CC israel and the other way around. Once hamakor support and encourage free content it means part of its resources are going to go to wikipedia part of it is going to go to the very importent ben yehoda project and so on. Spreading such a small amuta over so many subjects is dangrous. Let CC do its work, we can back them up from the software aspect, but I think it's a not so wise idea to make it an official goal. Ely -- Nadav Har'El| Monday, Dec 18 2006, 27 Kislev 5767 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |A professor is one who talks in someone http://nadav.harel.org.il |else's sleep. Both wikipedia and the Ben Yehuda project(there is a lecture about it today in Haifux, BTW) raise a lot more money than hamakor's yearly budget, without hamakor's help. However, wikipedia in Israel are considering creating an NPO. Using hamakor for wikipedia's needs may help wikipedians by reducing the need for beaurocracy, and by being entitled already for being tax deductable donations, NOT by giving wikipedia money from the FOSS budget. Orna. -- Orna Agmon Ben-Yehuda http://ladypine.org/ ICQ: 348759096 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: ��¦�¢� ��(c)�� �� �×�§� ��
On 12/18/06, Nadav Har'El <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Mon, Dec 18, 2006, E L wrote about "Re: �?�¦�¢�? �?�(c)�?��?�? �×�§��?�?": > I think previous discussions proved that there is no agreement amount the > members of Hamakor when it comes to free content. > (Look at the achieve for the discussion about the law offered by meretz). I don't think that discussion was relevant to "free content". "Free content", just like "free software" talks about the situation where the creators of this content decided, of their own free will, to give the content away freely. The "arguments" you remember about the Meretz law were about people who did *not* want to give away their content freely. But I didn't hear anyone say that free content shouldn't exist, and that we shouldn't encourage it (while not forcing everyone to publish their content as free content). Some people were supportive of drm, then yea you can encourage free content, but while you enter the word content into the takanon you need to decide about all aspects of it. Therefore I don't see any point in changing the takanon as it is already > covered by it. A couple of years ago, a discussion on this list concluded that the Takanon does *not* cover free content, and therefore the Amuta cannot support open content projects like, for example, Wikipedia. So perhaps the Takanon does need changing in this respect. Why? There is a reason why not all members of Hamakor are members of CC israel and the other way around. Once hamakor support and encourage free content it means part of its resources are going to go to wikipedia part of it is going to go to the very importent ben yehoda project and so on. Spreading such a small amuta over so many subjects is dangrous. Let CC do its work, we can back them up from the software aspect, but I think it's a not so wise idea to make it an official goal. Ely -- Nadav Har'El| Monday, Dec 18 2006, 27 Kislev 5767 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |A professor is one who talks in someone http://nadav.harel.org.il |else's sleep.
Re: ��¦�¢� ��©� � �� �×�§� ��
On Mon, Dec 18, 2006, E L wrote about "Re: �?�¦�¢�? �?�©�?� �?�? �×�§� �?�?": > I think previous discussions proved that there is no agreement amount the > members of Hamakor when it comes to free content. > (Look at the achieve for the discussion about the law offered by meretz). I don't think that discussion was relevant to "free content". "Free content", just like "free software" talks about the situation where the creators of this content decided, of their own free will, to give the content away freely. The "arguments" you remember about the Meretz law were about people who did *not* want to give away their content freely. But I didn't hear anyone say that free content shouldn't exist, and that we shouldn't encourage it (while not forcing everyone to publish their content as free content). > Therefore I don't see any point in changing the takanon as it is already > covered by it. A couple of years ago, a discussion on this list concluded that the Takanon does *not* cover free content, and therefore the Amuta cannot support open content projects like, for example, Wikipedia. So perhaps the Takanon does need changing in this respect. -- Nadav Har'El| Monday, Dec 18 2006, 27 Kislev 5767 [EMAIL PROTECTED] |- Phone +972-523-790466, ICQ 13349191 |A professor is one who talks in someone http://nadav.harel.org.il |else's sleep. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: הצעה לשינוי תקנון
I think previous discussions proved that there is no agreement amount the members of Hamakor when it comes to free content. (Look at the achieve for the discussion about the law offered by meretz). Software is a tool and has a lot of points of connection with any other field which is somehow computer related, by concentrating in the software part of things we don't need to look at the content at all for example: be anti software patents, against closed for implementation drm technologies and like Shachar so will described against putting the limitation on the software side. Therefore I don't see any point in changing the takanon as it is already covered by it. Ely On 12/18/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: שלום לכולם. אני רוצה להוסיף ללו"ז של האספה הכללית הקרובה הצעה לשינוי בתקנון. הוספת סעיף 8א': לקדם ולתמוך בשימוש וביצירת תוכן חופשי (Free Content) ותוכן שיתופי (Open Content). רציונל: תוכן חופשי ותוכנה חופשית הם שני צדדים של אותה אידיאולוגיה, ומוגנים ע"י רשיונות דומים. כך, גם האיומים על שניהם דומים. שניהם מושפעים ע"י חוקי זכות-יוצרים בצורה דומה. לכן יש לאפשר לעמותה לפעול גם בתחום זה, בהנתן הרצון והיכולת. הערות, הארות ושינויי נוסח יתקבלו בברכה. בברכה, צבי דביר - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
הצעה לשינוי תקנון
ùìåí ìëåìí. àðé øåöä ìäåñéó ììå"æ ùì äàñôä äëììéú ä÷øåáä äöòä ìùéðåé áú÷ðåï. äåñôú ñòéó 8à': ì÷ãí åìúîåê áùéîåù åáéöéøú úåëï çåôùé (Free Content) åúåëï ùéúåôé (Open Content). øöéåðì: úåëï çåôùé åúåëðä çåôùéú äí ùðé öããéí ùì àåúä àéãéàåìåâéä, åîåâðéí ò"é øùéåðåú ãåîéí. ëê, âí äàéåîéí òì ùðéäí ãåîéí. ùðéäí îåùôòéí ò"é çå÷é æëåú-éåöøéí áöåøä ãåîä. ìëï éù ìàôùø ìòîåúä ìôòåì âí áúçåí æä, áäðúï äøöåï åäéëåìú. äòøåú, äàøåú åùéðåéé ðåñç éú÷áìå ááøëä. ááøëä, öáé ãáéø - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: דרושה עזרת החברים - דיון בנושא חוק זכויות יוצרים - תוכנה
On 12/17/06, Shachar Shemesh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://knesset.gov.il/agenda/heb/vaada.asp?vaada=3 יום שלישי ב-10:15 בבוקר. מעבר על רשימת המוזמנים מראה הרבה מאוד מייצגים של בעלי זכויות (מיקרוסופט, חברת SAP, איגוד בתי התוכנה) ומעט נציגות לנציגי הצרכנים. יש להניח שצפוי שם מאבק. אני מגיע כנציג "המקור", להציג קצת את הצד הצרכני של העניין. אם מישהו מעוניין לעבור על חומר הרקע ולהוציא נקודות נוספות לאלו שאני מכיר, אני אשמח לשמוע שירשורים פה. הדברים שאני מתכוון להעלות כרגע (לפני שעברתי על החוק עוד פעם): - לא לאסור פעולות טכנולוגיות (העתקה של הביטים ממקום למקום), לאסור פעולות של משתמשים (העתקה והפצה של תוכנה ללא רשות) - החשיבות של לאפשר הינדוס לאחור, ללא תלות במטרה של ההינדוס (יש לי תקדים אחד של מיקרוסופט שחיבלה ב-DR DOS. עוד מקרים שבהם ללא הינדוס לאחור היו אובדות זכויות משתמשים בסיסיות יתקבלו בברכה). - החוק צריך לצאת מנקודת הנחה שהכל מותר למעט מה שאסור - אי אפשר לחזות מה ילד מחר. אני תוהה אם להעלות את הנקודה המעט מסובכת שאומרת שמטרת החוק היא לאזן בין התמריצים לייצור תוכנה, לבין הנזק המובנה במונופול (וכל זכויות יוצרים הם מונופול). האינסטינקט שלי אומר לי שזהו טיעון קצת מורכב מכדי שאפשר יהיה להעביר אותו בהקשר של ועדה של הכנסת בלי להראות כמו פנאטים עם רוק נוזל מזווית הפה. הצעות נוספות, כמו גם סימוכין נוספים לנקודות שכבר העלתי, יתקבלו בברכה. שחר Perhaps Eben Moglen lecture could prove to be useful for the above. http://buytaert.net/community-in-the-21st-century -- Cheers, Maxim Veksler "Free as in Freedom" - Do u GNU ?
