Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
Hi there, Right now I think we should do the vote Behdad is calling for. I'm waiting until the discussion about it goes to sleep to make up my mind about it (and then either add or don't add my name to the wiki page). I think the implementation should be broader than only foundation members. I think foundation members should always be allowed to join, and then other people can ask the foundation members to be voted in. I think the vote should present us with a few such implementation ideas. Cheers, Philip ps. The rest is off topic. It's a bit silly that yet another off topic thread is starting. Richard, the topic is Behdad's call for a vote. Not your ethical believe system. No matter how important you think that is. Brendan also wasn't talking about your movement, but about open source. People who want to reply to this part: consider taking it private. On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 01:01 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: Doesn't this undermines the values of the open source community? To cite the values of open source as an ethical standard is ironic, because the motive for open source was to avoid presenting an ethical standard. To deny a group or a person the legitimacy to keep intellectual property proprietary goes against criteria five of the Open Source Definition: http://opensource.org/docs/osd 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. And against criteria number six: 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. And very much against criteria number nine: 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software. And when broadly interpreted against criteria number ten: 10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface. I conclude that would the Free Software Foundation's (= your) ethics have been written down in the form of a license, that it wouldn't be compatible with the Open Source Definition at all. In fact, would the minimal support for GNU be that the FSF's ethics would have to be compatible with the soul of the GPL (which you summarized in The Foundations of the GPL), then neither would FSF's ethics be compatible: o. The freedom to use the software for any purpose. You, however, as as head of the FSF, claim that proprietary software is illegitimate. Meaning that you say that it's 'unlawful' under FSF's ethical code. This suggests (strongly) that the FSF's ethics denies a person the right to choose a proprietary license for his own work (you called it illegitimate. In multiple posts and under that context). The founders of open source split off from the free software movement in 1998 with the aim of rejecting our ethical principles and values -- for instance, the idea that we must respect the freedom of the users when we develop software. They decided to present the matter as purely a practical recommendation, and not as principle at all. (See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html for more explanation of how open source differs from free software.) So it is ironic that some see it as a principle in itself. Openness as a principle is no substitute for freedom, which is why GNOME needs to remember the free software ideals and not identify primarily with open source. But openness does have value, so I'd prefer not to limit access to this list. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list -- Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://pvanhoof.be/blog http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
Hi, On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Philip Van Hoof pvanh...@gnome.org wrote: ps. The rest is off topic. It's a bit silly that yet another off topic thread is starting. Richard, the topic is Behdad's call for a vote. Not your ethical believe system. No matter how important you think that is. People who want to reply to this part: consider taking it private. I agree but I think you can set a better example by not yourself getting into the debate and explaining in great details (mostly irrelevant) about the open-source and it is all about ethics and morality. Are you in some way special? -- Regards, Zeeshan Ali (Khattak) FSF member#5124 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On 12/15/09 1:25 PM, Miguel de Icaza mig...@novell.com wrote: Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger connection to mass media and be ready to articulate public responses properly framing discussions and correcting any incorrect reporting. Actually, this is something I'd suggested in the Marketing BoF at the last GUADEC: GNOME needs people who (ideally) have been media trained, have appropriate contacts, and are willing and able to talk to press representatives when needed. I volunteered to be one, I don't know whether that are others, but we haven't followed up on it so far... ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
Typically, you work with a public relations firm. Media training is mostly a bunch of pointers (Never say, 'No comment'; Never cite specific numbers, unless you are confident you can back them up) and a bunch of structured practice in question-and-answer situations, confrontational and non-. We should probably collect a list of those who are willing (and able). On 12/16/09 3:51 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote: Hi, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: On 12/15/09 1:25 PM, Miguel de Icaza mig...@novell.com wrote: Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger connection to mass media and be ready to articulate public responses properly framing discussions and correcting any incorrect reporting. Actually, this is something I'd suggested in the Marketing BoF at the last GUADEC: GNOME needs people who (ideally) have been media trained, have appropriate contacts, and are willing and able to talk to press representatives when needed. I volunteered to be one, I don't know whether that are others, but we haven't followed up on it so far... I've done this in the past, and would be happy to again. Can't speak for anyone else. How do you get media training, by the way? :) Cheers, Dave. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
El mié, 16-12-2009 a las 01:01 -0500, Richard Stallman escribió: Doesn't this undermines the values of the open source community? To cite the values of open source as an ethical standard is ironic, because the motive for open source was to avoid presenting an ethical standard. You are (once again) deviating the discussion out of its main topic. Since I've noticed that you have a tendency to do this frequently, as a fellow GNOME Foundation member, I'd like to respectfully ask you to please avoid this and allow GNOME Foundation discussions to remain on-topic. Kind regards, Claudio -- Claudio Saavedra csaave...@gnome.org ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
Hi, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: On 12/15/09 1:25 PM, Miguel de Icaza mig...@novell.com wrote: Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger connection to mass media and be ready to articulate public responses properly framing discussions and correcting any incorrect reporting. Actually, this is something I'd suggested in the Marketing BoF at the last GUADEC: GNOME needs people who (ideally) have been media trained, have appropriate contacts, and are willing and able to talk to press representatives when needed. I volunteered to be one, I don't know whether that are others, but we haven't followed up on it so far... I've done this in the past, and would be happy to again. Can't speak for anyone else. How do you get media training, by the way? :) Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member dne...@gnome.org ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Tobias Mueller mue...@cryptobitch.dewrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1On 15.12.2009 15:50, Jason D. Clinton wrote: No, do not detract it. There's a reason there's a debian-devel-private and a kde-private. According to Jeff in 20091215033304.ge4...@node.waugh.id.au there is gnome-private as well: http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-private Problem solved. This referendum would probably rename that list to foundation-private and establish with clarity what the list is to be used for. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
I bet I could find such training. I'd like to do some of the media work. I'm a natural talker, but I need some rules to make sure that I say the right things as I can spew garbage from time to time. sri On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier j...@zonker.netwrote: On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Dave Neary dne...@gnome.org wrote: How do you get media training, by the way? :) It's usually a pre-requisite for companies (like Novell) before they'll turn someone loose with the press. They usually have a consultant or in-house PR folks go through some guidelines, mock interviews, etc. What you should expect from an interview, the do's and don'ts and things you can/can't comment on. (For instance, I have a pretty free hand when talking about things with Novell, but you won't ever see me giving any answers/opinions on our financials. Which is A-OK with me...) Best, Zonker -- Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier j...@zonker.net openSUSE Community Manager Get openSUSE 11.2! http://bit.ly/EOV8a Twitter: jzb | Identica: jzb About: http://www.dissociatedpress.net/about/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Heya, On 15.12.2009 15:50, Jason D. Clinton wrote: No, do not detract it. There's a reason there's a debian-devel-private and a kde-private. According to Jeff in 20091215033304.ge4...@node.waugh.id.au there is gnome-private as well: http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-private Problem solved. Cheers, Tobi -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkso+gwACgkQPuBX/6ogjZ5m0ACfSKghqro25d4BA86IFQIUGD3v kK4AoIdbkLnNghHgQMGtU6dVbGRvn3xw =SQJM -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Stormy's Update: Week of December 7th
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Luis Villa l...@tieguy.org wrote: 2009/12/14 Stormy Peters sto...@gnome.org: Had a great GNOME Advisory Board meeting about events and copyright assignments. The copyright assignment discussion in particular was very dynamic. Care to expand on that one? :) The result of the discussion should show up from the board soon. That said, the discussion started because of Clutter and its copyright assignment and the fact that that is blocking it's inclusion in GNOME 2.28. However, since nobody from Intel was on the call, we tried to keep the discussion to copyright assignments in general. We wanted the Board of Advisors input on whether we should have a policy about copyright assignments and what it should be. (As our downstream partners, it's important to have their input.) There were a lot of good points made by both sides. Interestingly enough the sides were not divided by company employees vs community. There were pro and anti copyright assignment folks in both the board of directors and the board of advisors. It was also a very good debate with everyone bringing passion but not anger. (Which I really appreciate right now. :) Some points that came up: * Copyright assignments done by companies are different than those done by a nonprofit. * You can assign copyrights back to the contributor too. * Bradley Kuhn made some of the points he made in his blog post: http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/10/16/open-core-shareware.html. * Copyright assignments are a barrier to entry. * Copyright assignments can create paperwork. * Some good projects (that we might want to include in GNOME) have copyright assignments. * Copyright assignments help companies invest more in open source software projects. * There's a need for an industry standard copyright assignment. (Strange and different clauses just increase the problems.) * You can get some of the benefits of copyright assignments (and other benefits) by instead allowing multiple entities to hold copyright like GNOME does. * Copyright assignment policies may cause forking. * Copyright assignments enable easier relicensing. (Which can be both good and bad.) These are not all my points but points that came up during the meeting. Stormy ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
