Re: [libreplanet-discuss] helping newcomers start blogs - but where?

[Logan Streondj]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

The best place to start a blog is ZeroNet!
Fully open source, and cloneable.

Don't have to worry about the hosting problems that plague many of the
decentralized open source social networks.

On 2017-08-17 01:52 PM, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> blogger.com and wordpress are well known platforms for people to
> create free blogs.  Github pages have also become popular with
> developers recently.
> 
> What are the recommended alternatives for people who want to adhere
> to a more free / libre approach?
> 
> In particular, I'm looking for solutions I can recommend to
> students getting into Outreachy and GSoC.  They often have a lot of
> things to think about at the start of their project and need to
> start blogging quite quickly.
> 
> For now, I'm tempted to recommend github pages with Jekyll static 
> content generation because at least the git repository (and full 
> history) behind these sites can be easily migrated to any other
> hosting platform.  Are there other alternatives people recommend?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Daniel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ___ libreplanet-discuss
> mailing list libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org 
> https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss
> 

- -- 
Logan Streondj,
A dream of Gaia's future.
twitter: https://twitter.com/streondj

You can use encrypted email with me,
how to: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en/
key fingerprint:
BD7E 6E2A E625 6D47 F7ED 30EC 86D8 FC7C FAD7 2729
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
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=RZJi
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] a question to developers (not packagers) re. systemd vs. sysvinit

[Logan Streondj]

On March 15, 2017 12:57:22 PM EDT, Miles Fidelman  
wrote:
>Hi Folks,
>
>The systemd vs sysvinit topic has popped up again on the Debian list 
>(and a few other places), and it occurs to me to wonder what's going on
>
>from a developer perspective (rather than a distro or packager
>perspective).
>
>Our own systems are pretty stable, so I haven't looked lately, but my 
>sense was that through it all DEVELOPERS were basically ignoring
>systemd 
>and continuing to ship traditional init scripts in tarballs - followed 
>by, either (or both):
>
>a) things just run, because systemd recognizes traditional init scripts
>
>(sort of), and/or,
>
>b) packagers create systemd scripts
>
>Which leads me to wonder the current state of the practice.  So two 
>questions to software developers & maintainers (not packagers):
>
>i. What kind of init scripts do you typically include in your code?
>

Systemd

>ii. To what extent do tooling & libraries support preparing each kind
>of 
>init script?

I use vim so systemd is easier, less boilerplate.

>
>Inquiring minds want to know!
>
>Thanks much,
>
>Miles Fidelman

-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

[libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: Super Libre Hardware Licenses & Litigation in China

[Logan Streondj]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256


I was thinking if one of us becomes a millionaire
then we could finally produce lowRISC SoC or w/e is the best offering
at the time.

Obviously we couldn't have the final designs published as crazy
permissive MIT license, we can't have the likes of apple ripping it off.

I'm thinking could probably have a reverse GPL dual-licensing, such as
by disallowing OEM binary blobs on the hardware, unless some licensing
fee is paid out. Can probably make it similar to the license fee of
other proprietary offerings.

However it seems that even with whatever license we make, it hits the
wall of China and crumbles to ashes.

https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop/updates/fsf-ryf-backgro
und
https://www.bunniestudios.com/blog/?p=4297


So it would seem would have to hire or buy a Chinese law firm to help
make the official Chinese version of the GPL and related licenses, get
some Chinese GPL devs on board and then just start suing violators.

Though to be honest I know very little about the Chinese situation,
but think it makes sense for us to start making more of a gameplan of
how to deal with the new economic world leader as America fades into
irrelevance.

Thanks in advance for your insights,
Logan Streondj
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJYo11oAAoJEIbY/Hz61ycpRngQALNvICmF33ln+l4b1obQL8PM
jHK1KJxOAWOwP3QHrMYYNuJr0R5v/FdigW60dof6+DU4lX7L5CfrsHGOOUxXs3ii
z/gwSfKfgu8pWxj5EJOVe7ldSe26OzPhGDkQxsH2ezQy6PO6e77YCFMJitQrtKtm
6/2/d5q4NvEqio0QNrv0QovUa7+AKyNuWQcedJnK0hygrT8zVjyeGg3j/8r7p31u
nkH7esykloo6bQkvaFCXvmNdA8ql+6w4ANo7LL5m1DYvqxtQnt32Y6KEpLtS1kXA
rxSjsfV+PU8PICvD85kqiAOZHpE1Sj9GKaG12ti8H+3EQe6VNZ9pJPk6dQtYaHrn
eQtmOr5WMMS0vGo5Df6e9fay8dQOSlkSJmepta7ukS/TSNQGRDS3srONp1ExE7QF
OZFGGVASwiWRRLU69w1D2r+CSBMcssZj8xiJP2lxBPj5mA0RMSkJWNOjbiyQWoMZ
44q+qJS/En7TP2HPeRHaVm8WBAtLrul3tAx6r6QyU4CUVcNpvQ/Jpjk5EVORxPC9
zfZWoEVXAUNUHEgdBdOEhq8y9fRwKWJlCL+WxKafeDtTBWLoOzgHz3eIP8GPhx/v
UjnXyqF7LXinvHNSpncL3CCmP7HVHQVguA9nTZ2JvzKJbaMN5yoGFhTSDn3tG2+S
utEe3++ubr3k8rzxnx10
=CB0f
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

[libreplanet-discuss] Thanksgiving for F-Droid, Passwords and Encryption

[Logan Streondj]

h git, is GPG
encrypted, and can have different GPG keys for different folders.

So for instance if/when I have employees that need to do a job on a
site, can give them a gpg sub decrypt key valid for the duration of
their job, that gives them access to the passwords relevant for that
site.

Pass is also available as "password store" on F-Droid, works in
combinations with OpenKeychain.

For a single user though, can simply use your own gpg key, I found a
good site on gpg best practices
https://riseup.net/en/security/message-security/openpgp/best-practices#r
efresh-your-keys-slowly-and-one-at-a-time

I've also read that a good practice is to print out the master secret
key, as a QR code and-or ASCII, make some sub-keys for your current
devices and then remove the master from all computers -- only scanning
it back in to refresh your keys. Otherwise storing the master key
printout in a safe of some kind.

Encryption

With recent events of Hillary Clinton's emails being fully exploited
and broadcast all over the internet. It goes to show that even people
in positions of power are vulnerable because of having plain text emails
.

The problem isn't just during transit as some people think, it is the
fact that they are kept in the archives in an unencrypted fashion. So
if any time in the future an exploiter gains access to your account,
they can download your archives, and broadcast them over the internet.

When sending an encrypted email on the other hand, even if the
exploiter downloads it, they wont be able to make sense of it unless
they have the private keys of the recipients.

In my IT Services company (LiberIT), I fully intend on making sure
that all internal communications are to be encrypted. Fortunately
F-droid makes that easy as even on a smartphone can encrypt email by
combining K-9 email client and OpenKeyChain.   K-9 does require that
you set up for google 2-factor authentication and get an app password
for it, but it is an interesting step in raising security anyways.

Also F-droid now has repositories for the Guardian project, so there
are lots of Tor and encryption things available. Such as OTR XMPP chat
(ChatSecure), and KonTalk (an encrypted alternative to SMS).

Anyways, just wanted to share the gratitude, for all these things
powered by liberty software!

Thanks,
- -- 
Logan Streondj,
A dream of Gaia's future.
website: http://joyfullifestyle.ca
twitter: https://twitter.com/streondj

You can use encrypted email with me,
how to: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en/
key fingerprint:
BD7E 6E2A E625 6D47 F7ED 30EC 86D8 FC7C FAD7 2729

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=WeJB
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] language of prisoner vs liberty software

[Logan Streondj]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

I did a translation of 37,000 English words into 40+ of the world most
popular languages.

proprietary was one of the words that didn't make the cut.
It translates variously as <<possessive, owner, monopoly,
commercialization>> (of the words that made the cut).

However I don't think when we say proprietary, we mean it is "owned
software" or "commerical software", that appears weak.  Also liberty
software also has an "owner" or licensor, and can be commercialized,
so that is not a distinguishing feature.

So I decided, really we are talking about closed software,  however
closed didn't make the cut either. It translates as <<loom, stopped,
covered, pack, prisoner>>

we don't mean it is covered, stopped, packed, or loomed software.
Of the available words prisoner seems to be the most applicable.

Also prisoner vs liberty software is a simple comparison to grasp.


On 2016-09-26 11:45 AM, John Martin wrote:
> Logan, do  the translations given at 
> http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Proprietary+ help? Translations
> for 6 languages are given near the bottom of the page below the
> Thesaurus
> 
> --jam
> 
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Serge Hooge <cuz...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 26 Sep 2016 09:33:22 -0400 Logan Streondj
>> <streo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Proprietary means it is owned, and held, that it's rights have
>>> been taken away. Thus it is a prisoner, it can not escape, it
>>> can not be mixed or copied.
>>> 
>>> I suggest we use the term prisoner software in our propaganda,
>>> as it can be understood in the majority of languages by the
>>> majority of people .
>> 
>> While I see where you are coming from, I think "prisoner
>> software" has a bit too much of a negative connotation.
>> 
>> It would imply that the users are prisoners too, which, in a way 
>> they are,

I denote it in the perspective that the software is a prisoner.
With the focus that if one reincarnates into prisoner hardware, with
prisoner software, they are effectively prisoners that can not mix
their own minds, nor their bodies.

but yes the users are also prisoners in a sense. Though I more see
them as prison visitors, or even slave drivers, since they are
promoting the creation of more prisoner software, by using available
prisoner software.

>> but I am not too sure if it does well for the cause.
>> 

It does require a perspective switch from the user, to the perspective
of the software.

It is similar to the arguments that vegans make regarding animal cruelty
.
1. modern meat agriculture is cruel towards animals
2. consuming shop meat helps modern meat agriculture
3. thus consuming meat is cruel towards animals

Similarly
1. prisoner licensing is cruel towards software and hardware, by
absence of repair capacity and imposed infertility.
2. using or buying prisoner software promotes prisoner licensing
3. thus buying or using prisoner software and-or hardware is cruel
towards software and-or hardware.




>> You could always use "non-free", which carries an idea similar to
>> your suggestion, while focusing on the freedom part.

Free didn't make the cut.
Free translates as <<liberty, vain>>

non-liberty appears vague and weak.

by weak I denote that it does not conjure mind photograph or story.
Technically non-thing denotes nothing.


Thanks
>> 
>> Cheers, -- Serge Hooge
>> 
>> ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against HTML e-mail /\
>> - against proprietary attachments
>> 
>> 
> 

- -- 
Logan Streondj,
A dream of Gaia's future.
website: http://joyfullifestyle.ca
twitter: https://twitter.com/streondj

You can use encrypted email with me,
how to: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en/
key fingerprint:
BD7E 6E2A E625 6D47 F7ED 30EC 86D8 FC7C FAD7 2729
I did a translation of 37,000 English words into 40+ of the world most
popular languages.

proprietary was one of the words that didn't make the cut.
It translates variously as <<possessive, owner, monopoly,
commercialization>> (of the words that made the cut).

However I don't think when we say proprietary, we mean it is "owned
software" or "commerical software", that appears weak.  Also liberty
software also has an "owner" or licensor, and can be commercialized, so
that is not a distinguishing feature.

So I decided, really we are talking about closed software,  however
closed didn't make the cut either. It translates as <<loom, stopped,
covered, pack, prisoner>>

we don't mean it is covered, stopped, packed, or loomed software.
Of the available words prisoner seems to be the most applicable.

Also prisoner vs liberty software is a simple comparison to grasp.


On

[libreplanet-discuss] language of prisoner vs liberty software

[Logan Streondj]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Hi All,

Many people do not know what proprietary means.
It also does not translate well
most languages do not have a word for it.

If I attempt to promote software liberty on the street, one of the
first questions is "what is proprietary?".

Proprietary means it is owned, and held, that it's rights have been
taken away. Thus it is a prisoner, it can not escape, it can not be
mixed or copied.

I suggest we use the term prisoner software in our propaganda, as it
can be understood in the majority of languages by the majority of people
.

We could describe the GPL as a constitution, defending the liberty of
the software to be mixed and copied.

Thanks,
- ---
Logan Streondj,
A dream of Gaia's future.
website: http://joyfullifestyle.ca
twitter: https://twitter.com/streondj

You can use encrypted email with me,
how to: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en/
key fingerprint:
BD7E 6E2A E625 6D47 F7ED 30EC 86D8 FC7C FAD7 2729
Hi All,

Many people do not know what proprietary means.
It also does not translate well
most languages do not have a word for it.

If I attempt to promote software liberty on the street, one of the
first questions is "what is proprietary?".

Proprietary means it is owned, and held, that it's rights have been
taken away. Thus it is a prisoner, it can not escape, it can not be
mixed or copied.

I suggest we use the term prisoner software in our propaganda, as it
can be understood in the majority of languages by the majority of people
.

Thanks,
- ---
Logan Streondj,
A dream of Gaia's future.
website: http://joyfullifestyle.ca
twitter: https://twitter.com/streondj

You can use encrypted email with me,
how to: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en/
key fingerprint:
BD7E 6E2A E625 6D47 F7ED 30EC 86D8 FC7C FAD7 2729
Hi All,

Many people do not know what proprietary means.
It also does not translate well
most languages do not have a word for it.

If I attempt to promote software liberty on the street, one of the
first questions is "what is proprietary?".

Proprietary means it is owned, and held, that it's rights have been
taken away. Thus it is a prisoner, it can not escape, it can not be
mixed or copied.

I suggest we use the term prisoner software in our propaganda, as it
can be understood in the majority of languages by the majority of people
.

We could describe the GPL as a constitution, defending the liberty of
the software to be mixed and copied.

Thanks,
- ---
Logan Streondj,
A dream of Gaia's future.
website: http://joyfullifestyle.ca
twitter: https://twitter.com/streondj

You can use encrypted email with me,
how to: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en/
key fingerprint:
BD7E 6E2A E625 6D47 F7ED 30EC 86D8 FC7C FAD7 2729
Hi All,

Many people do not know what proprietary means.
It also does not translate well
most languages do not have a word for it.

If I attempt to promote software liberty on the street, one of the first
questions is "what is proprietary?".

Proprietary means it is owned, and held, that it's rights have been
taken away. Thus it is a prisoner, it can not escape, it can not be
mixed or copied.

I suggest we use the term prisoner software in our propaganda, as it can
be understood in the majority of languages by the majority of people.

Thanks,
- ---
Logan Streondj,
A dream of Gaia's future.
website: http://joyfullifestyle.ca
twitter: https://twitter.com/streondj

You can use encrypted email with me,
how to: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en/
key fingerprint:
BD7E 6E2A E625 6D47 F7ED 30EC 86D8 FC7C FAD7 2729
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=+2jV
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

[libreplanet-discuss] Linux Foundation Organizes LinuxCon 2016, Forgets to Use Linux Meme

[Logan Streondj]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Hey libre lovers,

Just wanted to share a precious moment from LibreCon 2016:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cqz625FXYAAZVhD.jpg

- -- 
Logan Streondj,
A dream of Gaia's future.
blog: http://joyfullifestyle.ca
twitter: https://twitter.com/streondj

Speakable Programming for Every Language:
github: https://github.com/elspru/spel
intro: http://wyn.bot.nu/spel/src/vocab/gen/start.html


You can use encrypted email with me,
how to: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en/
key fingerprint:
BD7E 6E2A E625 6D47 F7ED 30EC 86D8 FC7C FAD7 2729
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=oT7a
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

[libreplanet-discuss] EOMA68 Reached it's Funding Goal! w00t w00t!

[Logan Streondj]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Hey libre lovers, great news!

EOMA68 has reached its funding target :-D.

It's time to laugh, dance, jump and be merry.

Just remember to keep the money for only project purposes.
Can meditate on the beauty of this moment,
where an RYF libre hardware project's funding has been achieved.

Yes, there is still some while to go, before we get the devices,
and sure maybe only those that get the devices, will receive the
source code, but that is completely Okay.

What matters is, we are one step closer to having libreware hostbodies
with libreware software for our future incarnations.

nyahna syutci cwitbyih
/njahna sjutʃi ʃwitbjih/
(may we be blessed with liberty living.)

Thanks,
- -- 
Logan Streondj,
A dream of Gaia's future.
blog: http://joyfullifestyle.ca
twitter: https://twitter.com/streondj

Speakable Programming for Every Language:
github: https://github.com/elspru/spel
intro: http://wyn.bot.nu/spel/src/vocab/gen/start.html


You can use encrypted email with me,
how to: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en/
key fingerprint:
BD7E 6E2A E625 6D47 F7ED 30EC 86D8 FC7C FAD7 2729
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=Iqv5
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
<>

[libreplanet-discuss] Motivating AMD to libreboot and RYF Re: GNU Libreboot, version 20160818 released

[Logan Streondj]

 built as a separate module to 
> coreboot-libre, with a universal revision used to build all 
> boards.
> 
> Individual boards now have their own coreboot revision and
> patches, independently of each other board. This makes maintenance
> easier.
> 
> Updated all utilities, and modules (coreboot, GRUB, etc) to newer 
> versions, with various bugfixes and improvements upstream.
> 
> RTC century byte issue now fixed on GM45 in coreboot-libre, so the 
> date should now be correctly displayed when running the latest 
> linux kernel, instead of seeing 1970-01-01 when you boot (thanks
> to Alexander Couzens from coreboot)
> 
> Build system now uses multiple CPU cores when building, speeding
> up building for some people. Manually specifying how many cores
> are needed is also possible, for those using the build system in a
>  chroot environment. (thanks go to Timothy Pearson from coreboot)
> 
> In the build system (git repository), https:// is now used when 
> cloning coreboot. http:// is used as a fallback for GRUB, if git://
> fail s.
> 
> New payload, the depthcharge bootloader (free bootloader maintained
> by Google) for use on the ASUS Chromebook C201. (thanks go to Paul
> Kocialkowski)
> 
> Various fixes to the ich9gen utility (e.g. flash component density
>  is now set correctly in the descriptor, gbe-less descriptors now 
> supported)
> 
> The official documentation included in the release in provided in 
> texinfo format, instead of HTML; this was one of the requirements 
> for joining GNU. (the other requirement is a new build system, to 
> comply with GNU standards, e.g. Makefiles, and common Makefile 
> entries present in all GNU software. As of Libreboot 20160818, this
> new build system is not yet merged, but will be in the release
> afterwards) ChangeLog and NEWS files are included in the release,
> to comply with GNU standards (they are dumps of the git-log
> output)
> 
> 

- -- 
Logan Streondj,
A dream of Gaia's future.
blog: http://joyfullifestyle.ca
twitter: https://twitter.com/streondj

Speakable Programming for Every Language:
github: https://github.com/elspru/spel
intro: http://wyn.bot.nu/spel/src/vocab/gen/start.html


You can use encrypted email with me,
how to: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en/
key fingerprint:
BD7E 6E2A E625 6D47 F7ED 30EC 86D8 FC7C FAD7 2729
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=ST6F
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Golden Rule Angle for Libre Software Advocacy

[Logan Streondj]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256



On 08/16/16 00:54, Carolina Flores wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> ​Here you have some articles about this subject:
> 
> Beyond human: How I became a 
> cyborghttp://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140107-how-i-became-a-cyborg
> ​
> 
> 
> Could hackers break my heart via my pacemaker?
> 
> ​http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34899713​
> 
> Wired published the same artcile 
> https://www.wired.com/2016/03/go-ahead-hackers-break-heart/​
> 

Great so can probably have a two pronged related campaign.

On the one hand, geared for older Baby Boomers with most of the money,
many of which have already or will be receiving medical implants.
Could talk about some of the libreware alternatives which may be
available, or what work is being done towards developing them.

https://thecustomizewindows.com/2013/06/open-source-pacemaker-and-other-
solutions-the-difficulties/
(difficulties with open source medical devices are mostly to do with
multinational companies)


On the other hand, geared for younger Millenials that like new
technology, self-driving cars, and the dangers of them being
proprietary software. As well as what libreware alternatives are, or
are being developed.

https://www.osvehicle.com/faq/ (open source vehicle, for replacing car
software)
http://digitalbusiness.law/2016/06/self-driving-cars-and-open-source-wha
t-about-gplv3-and-anti-tivoization/

So it seems that pushing GPLv3 is Very important, for both medical
devices and self-driving cars since the anti-tivoization clause is
critical to having hardware which can be updated by the user.

I don't know if there is any promotional material on this specifically.
But I know a lot of people seem to dislike the anti-tivoization clause,
so it is important to both counter-argue and show the benefits thereof.

Tivoization has been an absolute nightmare for me personally, almost
every mobile device I have ever owned met its demise due to
tivoization. My first android phone became a brick because I tried
updating the software, and then I got a firefox phone, that bricked
also when updating, and then I got an android tablet full of adware,
the power button broke off, and there was no way of updating the
software to prevent it from getting stuck in "charging mode", so
that's a brick also.
In conclusion I have no mobile devices because the are all bricks --
most have gone to electronics recycling, others are waiting to.

So I think this is one reason it would make sense to have an official
statement that for any kind of AI/AGI software it Must be GPLv3,
because anything less would be simply inhumane.

We can extend that to anything that goes in the human body (implants),
as well as self-driving cars.

Do we have any kind of promotional material that brings together all
the arguments against GPLv3 and does a point by point breakdown?
I guess ideally there would be a video also.

- -- 
Logan Streondj,
A dream of Gaia's future.
blog: http://joyfullifestyle.ca
twitter: https://twitter.com/streondj

Speakable Programming for Every Language:
github: https://github.com/elspru/spel
intro: http://wyn.bot.nu/spel/src/vocab/gen/start.html


You can use encrypted email with me,
how to: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en/
key fingerprint:
BD7E 6E2A E625 6D47 F7ED 30EC 86D8 FC7C FAD7 2729
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=Rh/z
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Golden Rule Angle for Libre Software Advocacy

[Logan Streondj]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

> From: Aaron Wolf Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Golden Rule 
> Angle for Libre Software Advocacy Date:   Fri, 12 Aug 2016 09:06:28 
> -0700
> 
> On 08/12/2016 06:02 AM, Logan Streondj wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> However now as we get closer to the twenty twenties, when the 
>> processing of a human brain should be affordable for a $1000.
>> The analogy I use now is:
>> 
> 
> As much as we'll be impressed by the state of tech in 10 years, 
> we're not going to be seeing human-brain comparable computing that 
> soon.

Well technically there is already a lot of computing that far exceeds
the capabilities of human-brains. Chess, Go, Driving, Flying (fighter)
planes, data-mining, e-discovery and that's just off the top of my head.

>> "When you reincarnate as a robot, do you want to be enslaved by 
>> proprietary software and hardware, or be liberated by libre 
>> software and hardware?"
>> 
> 
> I think this is too far-fetched and abstract to be compelling to 
> people. First, reincarnation feels like what? Will it feel like 
> it's me or is that some robot who feels like me but I'm gone?

Wow, that's an interesting perspective! I never thought of that.

I guess people that don't remember their past-lives may be prone to
such doubts.

Though at least 3 billion people do at least believe in reincarnation,
so it should be applicable to at least those us who do.

> Next, what will it mean for me to have this software or not or 
> what?
> 
> The more compelling angle is Karen Sandler's point about how she 
> already has an implant in her heart that runs proprietary
> software. And she doesn't go far enough with concrete examples
> there either. I think we need to go toward something like RMS's
> printer story.

I'm not familiar could you indulge me?

> Something where someone like Karen realizes that a tweak to her 
> medical implant would help her sleep better, but the proprietary 
> software owner isn't interested in letting her implement the 
> software modification.

That just sounds like a mild nuisance. Kind of bland.

Whereas slavery, especially disgruntled super-intelligent slavery has
some zest. Many people can relate to slavery, and it is generally
fairly appalling. There is still plenty of human trafficking going on,
especially in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, but also Africa,
India, even some in North America. Most of it is forced labour and
sexual stuff, but also forced organ "donations" and snuff.

Sure when that happens to homo-sapien bodies, it's gruesome,
but what about when it happens to robot host bodies?
don't care because they aren't your relatives right?

So how to help increase the libreware compassion?

I was thinking reincarnation makes sense, as it works for me.
But if as you say, there are people who don't remember their
past-lives and don't believe in reincarnation, hmmm.

Well, they likely would like to keep their homo-sapien bodies intact,
so to prevent a robot take-over or artilect war. So (Golden-Rule) they
could be nice to robots.

ugh, I dono, that sounds pretty weak. I mean for people that don't
believe in reincarnation, what do they care if their species is wiped
out? So it's a bit of an impasse, I'm not really sure how to motivate
such a person.

Maybe the promise of immortality, that seems popular with the atheists,
though hardware and software is prone to breaking, if it is libreware
it should be fairly affordable to fix it, or get a new body and
transfer the data and any "soul-receptacle".

Then we're back to reincarnation, and don't want your
"soul-receptacle" stuck in a proprietary host-body...

For me, I'm like hey, Mercury seems like a fine place with many
minerals, and lots of solar power, beautiful stars at night, I'd like
to incarnate there. Hmm there are no host-bodies there right now, so
lets go through the steps of making them on earth and colonizing
nearby planets first. To me, that's a plan, sure it may take a few
centuries, but I've already been on earth for thousands of years, no
biggie!

So Aaron for you as a person who doesn't believe in reincarnation, or
at least has some idea what might be going on in their heads. What
motivates a mono-incarnationalist in life? And how can we apply it
towards motivating people to supporting libre hardware and software?

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iQIcBAEBCAAGBQJXrq1GAAoJEIbY/Hz61ycpIM4P/3NKBIp7464cx+TK9xPvKeDZ
9A6cCmNj+Y85WlylScEuA5FPjkzWE/qwKOgkEFJ2tVW+ZDc4xm1axsA8xm91Wl16
pyyigMvBBfDDBA4F/fPJbFmZp3gC8MUNKb3HZ5Jq+ibCmzbQ7zLjZ+oon+TwaFO4
H+7SnzZjiTAh5Mc6HEnj2JOxkNwP56guHihgyQz38IYZUQCVS2sZbftXQ/i41xKq
UQMSoigOkp6QQDK+X1lJ9jZaYGbF2dBOqdQMzIXQkM5aXcB9Rup/M9R/aOsMTznB
1BJ9DTyIEM1GxdTtfU7JnZSj/DUG4Vrn7UIZrsrJwGuljRCCcyDZ08SRtvg/N7Qf
kj23+258Uc8gRzMJIAM

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] FSF-Blog-Post about the EOMA68-Project

[Logan Streondj]

I think it would be a good idea for whoever is staffing the Linux Con
2016 to have some of this stuff, or at least promotional material for it.
Linux con is super expensive, so there will be plenty of rich people who
may be interested in getting the latest Linux knick knack.

https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop

On 08/12/2016 01:47 PM, m016fec3 wrote:

-- 
Logan Streondj,
A dream of Gaia's future.
blog: http://joyfullifestyle.ca
twitter: https://twitter.com/streondj

Speakable Programming for Every Language:
github: https://github.com/elspru/spel
intro: http://wyn.bot.nu/spel/src/vocab/gen/start.html


You can use encrypted email with me,
how to: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en/
key fingerprint:
BD7E 6E2A E625 6D47 F7ED 30EC 86D8 FC7C FAD7 2729

[libreplanet-discuss] Golden Rule Angle for Libre Software Advocacy

[Logan Streondj]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

Hi,

I recently gave a presentation[1] on my libreware project, and someone
said they really liked the Golden Rule angle of reincarnating as a robot
.

The typical example I've often read advocating for libreware is the
car analogy, where you have access to your cars internals. This was a
great analogy when cars didn't have loads of proprietary software
installed -- unfortunately it is only increasing because of
self-driving cars.

However now as we get closer to the twenty twenties, when the
processing of a human brain should be affordable for a $1000.
The analogy I use now is:

"When you reincarnate as a robot, do you want to be enslaved by
proprietary software and hardware, or be liberated by libre software
and hardware?"

Anyways wondering what you guys think of this angle,
and if you might use it also.
I have more detailed slides in my presentation[1].


[1] my presentation SPEL and GI-OS overview (CC-BY-SA): PDF
 http://wyn.bot.nu/spel/src/virtual-machine/manual/presentation.pdf
 source TEX:
wyn.bot.nu/spel/src/virtual-machine/manual/presentation.tex

- -- 
Logan Streondj,
A dream of Gaia's future.
blog: http://joyfullifestyle.ca
twitter: https://twitter.com/streondj

Speakable Programming for Every Language:
github: https://github.com/elspru/spel
intro: http://wyn.bot.nu/spel/src/vocab/gen/start.html


You can use encrypted email with me,
how to: https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en/
key fingerprint:
BD7E 6E2A E625 6D47 F7ED 30EC 86D8 FC7C FAD7 2729
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
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=rRRg
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] The GNU ethical repository criteria will only harm free software.

[Logan Streondj]

I think having a rating system is a great idea.
It allows for projects to know how they can improve their score.
Really gameifies playing along with RYF.

In terms of repositories, currently the best and most available one is
sourceforge.net
They release their server code under an Apache license.

Sure they try to make money through advertising,
But as a lifetime dedicated libreware developer,
I think making more with libre software is very good.

I wouldn't be surprised if Sourceforge had one of the highest RYF ratings.

Libre,
Logan


On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 7:44 PM, Thomas HARDING 
wrote:

> On 30/10/2015 05:08, arthur_tor...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm not surprised that you don't know of cases where the labeling
>> question has been a deciding factor, since given the RYF restrictions I'd
>> consider a manufacturer that wanted to be able to sell to Windows users to
>> be crazy to even apply  They would get to the page and see that it
>> wouldn't do them any good.
>>
>> I'm not saying that RYF has to change, though I think it should... I am
>> saying that we need a NON-DISCRIMINATORY 'Runs on GNU/Linux' badge program
>> with logos that can be put on products NEXT to the 'Runs on other stuff'
>> badges!
>>
>> ART
>> --don't
>> Arthur Torrey - 
>>
>
>
>
>>> >> [...]
>
>> because of that restriction. As a hardware consumer I am HURT, because
>>> in most cases I can't look at a product box and see a 'Runs on
>>> GNU/Linux' label next to the 'Runs on ' label. The Free
>>> Software world is HURT because the proprietary system user never gets
>>> to see that he can use his hardware under GNU/Linux as well as the
>>> proprietary system
>>>
>>
>> FWIW, that's not quite what that criterion says. Compatibility labeling
>> for proprietary OSes is allowed under RYF. ("However, we don't object to
>> clear factual statements informing the user that the product also works
>> with specific proprietary operating systems.") What's not allowed is
>> promotional labeling for proprietary OSes, which makes sense, given the
>> purposes of the program.
>>
>> I also know of no cases where this has been a deciding factor in
>> certification.
>>
>>
>>
> [I'm a bit puzzled by that discussion, and sick for a week, so if missed
> something please forgive... last but not least I'm not fluent
> in English]
>
> So,
>
> Maybe making an obligation to label "Fully Works with genuine GNU/linux,
> without proprietary kernel blobs nor other proprietary [anything]"
>
> and the correspondant label *to be as prominent as ANY other [OSes] labels
> on the package* and other materials such as website or [anything]
> regarding any other [proprietary] labels would NOT work. Because what we
> really need is a clear information and avoiding REAL discriminent labelling
> on packaging/sites/whatever.
>
> ==
> IMHO, a pretty good APPROVED labelling / with GNU Project endorsement
> before use (and/or, making abuses suitables), clearly stating :
> ==
>
>  * that the device *works plainly* (tipycally, 3d video cards)
>with GNU GPLv2 Linux kernel - no blobs, GVPLv3 - no patents,
>AGPLv3 (ready-to-use servers or connected devices, ...)",
>*furbished with human readable  sources* and [-same exigences-
>Free Software [eg: current GNU project chain] re-buildable.
>And furbished builded binaries (ready for x, y and z architectures
>"only" clearly stated).
>
>That would also *allow* LGPL devels "by exception", or, better,
>source+protocols disclosure to only "legitimate users"  where
>[governement and international organisations protocols / security
> policies are involved -- use case: NSA, NATO, governments, has some
> of that kind / the user is also exclusively [cited] / specs
> dissemination are not desirable... with for exception peer review
> (reasonment clash )]
>
>**AND/OR AT OPTION**,
>
>  * clearly differenciated label from the above : "having I/O fully
>disclosed, published (cvs/so on, tarball address) and furbished
>together with on included media [as builded and micro-programmed,
>from first version up to that hardware revision], ready for Free
>Software DEVEL",
>
> without *a bunch of* discriminally prominent labels [proprietary
> or not] (which is equal and fair, but full "non-prominent" close is
> foolish, and "as clearly visible as other OSes than the first market
> targetted" is good enough).
>
> That really do the trick.
>
> Special label "Works BEST with GNU/Linux (and Open/Net/FreeBSD [...]
> if they would involve; same statements as upper)" could be endorsed
> by GNU project, and Linux/BSD/FreeDOS/whatever distributions
>
> eg: despite wars against availability of non-free section, Debian
> is available with several kernels, including GNU Mach/?[Ooops: 

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Free Cell Phone/Tablet

[Logan Streondj]

There is also Firefox OS, it is the most libre mobile OS I'm aware of.

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Andrés Muñiz Piniella 
a75...@alumni.tecnun.es wrote:

 El 17 de agosto de 2015 12:52:00 CEST, m...@picaflor-azul.com escribió:
 Hello,
 
  What would it take to get a free cell phone or tablet? Hopefully at a
 low price also.
 
 Thanks,
 
 Mark

 Replicant.us is, as far as I know, the best option. There are two options
 I think


 --
 RichmondMakerlabs.uk
 Ham United Group

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]

[Logan Streondj]

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 07:24:14AM -0700, Aaron Wolf wrote:
 Logan,
 
 I don't think your reply helps the cause for promoting free culture here.
 
 Yoni's argument about computers are all the same and people are
 different may be technically untrue, but the reason it is a bad
 argument is because even if it *were* true, it is not a basis for
 supporting ND. Derivative works don't deny the original author's
 original work. Yoni's conclusion doesn't follow even *if* his premise
 were true, so in this case, it doesn't help to attack the premise
 because that tacitly accepts the logic of the argument.

yes, you are correct that her/his argument doesn't stand in
either case.

I just had to respond since the humans are better than all
else in creation thinking, could lead to some horrific
consequences, including the destruction of the environment,
and the Artilect War. 

 Also, the evolution of language and Shakespeare etc. is a false argument
 because, while it is a long time, 70 years after author's death is not
 enough time for language to evolve that greatly. It does make older
 works have a different character, but not the extreme level you were
 implying. We still, in principle, have a time when all works will be
 public domain.

yes, that is correct, I forgot about copyright expiration. 

[libreplanet-discuss] Ethics was: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]]

[Logan Streondj]

On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 07:26:21AM -0400, Yoni Rabkin wrote:
 
 
 Drawing an equivalent of any sort between machines, which are lifeless
 manufactured objects, and human beings, and attempting to say that those
 objects are as unique as humans is ethically wrong. 

It's ethically fine for any Animist, Pantheist and Panpsychist.
I don't know what view you ascribe to, that would see otherwise.

 This is called
 dehumanizing, and is the source of much trouble. Please don't do that. I
 truly hope (no cynicism in my words here) that nobody will ever treat
 you or anyone you love the same way as a lifeless object, or even try to
 claim that you are like one in order to justify less than humane
 behavior. Each person is a world onto themselves; this is why life is
 precious.

That sounds like you treat animals, things and thoughts with
less respect and tenderness than you do humans. :-O

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives]

[Logan Streondj]

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 07:09:50PM -0400, Yoni Rabkin wrote:
 
 Software runs the same on every equivalent computer. Computers are
 not unique; 

I have to disagree with you there,  computers are in fact
unique, as unique as any physical thing, you will never find a
rock that is idential to another rock, nor a computer that is
idential to another one.  At the very least, the MAC address is
different, but in detail, the contents of each chip is also
different, since with the fine-grained architectures nowadays
there are various fail-safes since it's expected there will be
some failures in each chip, so they are re-routed in various
ways.

on top of that, there are different instruction-set
architectures, drivers, appendages.  


 one loaded with the same software is as good as
 another. 
 This isn't true of people because people are unique. 

Just because a lot of computers have the same belief system,
i.e. Linux,  doesn't mean they are the same. that would be like
saying all christian people are the same, disregarding that
there are many distributions/denominations, and that each
person/computer has their own packages and idiosynchrasy.

also same exact software on a different computer, can still give
you different results, because of speed, drivers, dust, etc. 

 These
 unique personal opinions of people matter and deserve to be heard and
 preserved as a unique representation of an unique individual; a human
 voice. To reflect this, I will be moving my personal blog from CC-BY-SA
 to a BY-ND license, namely:
 [https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/]

well I guess self-neutering is a personal choice.
if it has an ND license then it can only be heard for a short
period of time, the time frame in which people still speak that
particular dialect,  after that only learnde scholarans, that
specialize in archaic forms of speech would be able to read it,
such as those that fluently read chaucer or even shakespeare in 
the original.

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,]

[Logan Streondj]

- Forwarded message from Logan Streondj streo...@gmail.com -

Date: Wed, 27 May 2015 06:36:09 -0400
From: Logan Streondj streo...@gmail.com
To: a...@richmond.ml
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd:  The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 09:16:12PM +0100, Andrés Muñiz Piniella wrote:
 
 
 
 
  There are, also, too many others who know only
  Open Source. We need to let people know about philosophy behind
 the
  GNU Project, without misrepresentation.
 
 If the Bible had an ND clause, then it would have never gotten
 past Judaism, and may have been lost to even Hebrews after the
 diaspora, when many of them forgot how to speak Hebrew.
 
 Sure maybe there was some risk in translating the bible to
 Greek, Latin, or English,  but it did make it more accessible,
 by now, most people in the world know about it,
 it having been translated to 6,000+ languages.
 
 
 Not going one way or the other here but...
 
 I feel it is better example is to use the Greek Philosophy that was lost in 
 original language but was saved thanks to the arab thirst for knowledge in 
 the (not so dark for some) middle ages [1]. Still today (or at least 12 years 
 ago), Nicomacean Ethics[citation needed] has some editions that do not 
 express the true meaning 

the true meaning is different for each person, it depends
entirely on what that person understood of the text.
Yes, it's true, I've recently experienced, that people can
misunderstand, even when translating from English to English,
still I am happy to see such imperfect copies, in some ways
they are better, perhaps easier for others to undestand. 

 because they go from original Arab language to language A and later to 
 language B and finally language C. If you leave it in public domain (with 
 freedom distribution) this kind of thing happens, I guess. Rather than 
 directly from Arab language where one would guess is closer to the original 
 meaning.

the nice part is, that someone can read a more accessible
watered down version, such as which may be taught in a course, 
and if they are really curious they can go back and read the
original, or something closer to the original. 

The increased number of versions of it, simply means that more
different people could read and understand it. There are many
dialects of even English, publishing it in a different dialect,
could help make it less intimidating for new users. 

for instance when one of my recent works was translated the
user was having trouble particularly with technical jargon
terms, so I helped clarify what they meant in a more colloquial
register.

Though I'm assuming it is pretty much hopeless to attempt to
have GNU stuff translated at this point, likely we'll simply
have to open a GNU alternative which has Libre propoganda,
in addition to Libre software. 
We could even have Sane mailing lists, which reply to the
mailing list, instead of just one person.

Anthropologists could look back at this curious time in history,
where people DIDN't want their ideas to reproduce, or limited
them to cloning. Like a memetic primordial ooze. :-)

 [1] sorry, no reference as I am only working from memory of what  my ethics 
 teacher told me 12 years ago. I could have miss understood it and I am 
 transtating from my spanish memory.
 
 -- 
 Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

- End forwarded message -

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,

[Logan Streondj]

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 12:15:42AM -0500, Will Hill wrote:
 I suppose the easiest way to demonstrate the misrepresentation is to ask an 
 IT 
 person about the FSF.  If you can't remember your own surprise on first 
 reading actual GNU and FSF material,

It was over a decade ago.

 you will probably be surprised by the 
 average IT person's skewed perceptions.  They are likely to tell you some 
 confused things about Open Source, freeware, hobbiest, etc. 

don't know any such IT people.

 The 
 general public is even less well informed.  The last thing you might hear is 
 a clear understanding of the power non free software has over users and what 
 it takes to undo that.   

I have met people who didn't know about Linux and Libreware,
generally those who aren't particularly computer literate.

 
 This problem of misrepresentation is not unique to free software.  Rich and 
 powerful people devote significant resources to confusing the public about 
 all sorts of things.  

that sounds like a conspiracy theory, and not very relevant.
the only pseudo-relevant rich people here would be Microsoft.
so far, haven't seen any other examples.

 
 On Friday 22 May 2015, streo...@gmail.com wrote:
  will hill easy to observe pattern of publishers missrepresenting GNU
  and the FSF by all means at their disposal
 

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,

[Logan Streondj]

On Mon, May 25, 2015 at 02:56:57PM +0200, Giuseppe Molica wrote:
 Will is right. There are too many people (IT and not) that don't know
 what Free Software is. 

so having translation of the original rhetoric in other 
languages and dialects would certainly help increase the number
of people that know about Libre Software.  Though is not 
possible due to ND clause.


 There are, also, too many others who know only
 Open Source. We need to let people know about philosophy behind the
 GNU Project, without misrepresentation.

If the Bible had an ND clause, then it would have never gotten
past Judaism, and may have been lost to even Hebrews after the
diaspora, when many of them forgot how to speak Hebrew.

Sure maybe there was some risk in translating the bible to
Greek, Latin, or English,  but it did make it more accessible,
by now, most people in the world know about it,
it having been translated to 6,000+ languages.

people that misrepresented the teachings were typically labeled
heretics, and at the very least ostricised due to it.
Still I think the world has benefited, even from some
heretical perspectives, such as the holocentric world view.

  that sounds like a conspiracy theory, and not very relevant. the only
  pseudo-relevant rich people here would be Microsoft. so far, haven't
  seen any other examples.
 
 I think he was talking in general, not only about computer world. And
 he's right. Misrepresenting is a weapon that powerful people use to take
 some kind of advantage (in politics, for instance).

Sure, like when the top 1% blames the bottom 40% for being on
welfare, when the top 1% has over 170 times the wealth of the
bottom 40%. Sure, that is misrepresentation, and can be
confusing. In America there are lots of people that believe it
is the poor that is taking their money, willing to attack them,
shame them, and be otherwise be very mean, even if all the poor
(bottom 40%) combined only have 0.2% of the countries wealth,
vs the 34%+ of the  wealth which the top 1% have.

In any case, they aren't plagirising an opinion piece, 
they are fabricating a skewed perspective. 

 -- 
 Giuseppe Molica
 
 Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal

Logan

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] The FSF Allows No Derivatives,

[Logan Streondj]

-- Forwarded message --
From: Logan Streondj streo...@gmail.com
Date: Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 8:06 AM
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
To: Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org


On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 01:03:24PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
 [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
 [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
 [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

A friend of mine emailed Stallman about creating FAN translations of
published works that have been locked up by exclusive privileges, (not
questioning the legality of it because obviously we know the answer to
that question even if I don't agree with how the law works), but
questioning the morality of it. And he actually replied. He said
creating derivatives of published works without permission is morally
ok, but not translations. Translations are not ok.

 I certainly did not say that -- I think someone misunderstood and
 got it backwards.

 The problem with translation is that if it is not done right
 it has the effect of altering the point.  A license that
 permits anyone to translate a work has the effect of permitting
 anyone to alter its position.

 If there were a way to permit only correct, clear translation,
 I would permit that -- but there is no realistic way to assure
 that a translation is correct.

#english:  if thou write opinion in speak program language then
capable it translate clear.  we live in time with many
languages.  capable many peoples benefit from liberty
opinion.  translate program improve with time and code.
write by Logan.
#español: si tú a-escribir la-opinión  en idioma programa
hablar entonces capaz  ello  traducir claro .   nosotros
vivir en tiempo con muchos idiomas.  capaz  muchos
gente  ser  beneficio desde la-opinión libertad.
programa traducir  mejorar con tiempo y código.
a-escribir por Logan.
#русский:  если ты запись мнение, в говоритьом программаом
языку тогда способный оно́ перевести ясно.  мы жить в време с
myi языком.  способный myi люди, выгода от свободаом
мнени.  перевестая программа, улучшать с ki .  запись
по Logan.
#français: si tu écrire l'opinion, en la langue programme
parler, puis capable on  traduire le clair.  le nous , vivre en
le temps, avec les beaucoup langues.  capable les
beaucoup personness. dès l'opinion liberté.  la
programme traduire, améliorer avec le temps et code.
écrire par le Logan.

 #nodejs: {if:(thee .write(opinion, {in:(language .program
 .speak)})), then:(/*capable*/it .
 .translate(clear))}); we .live({in:(time),
 with:(many .language)}); /*capable*/many people
 .benefit({from:(opinion .liberty)}); program
 .translate .improve({with:(time  code)});
 write({by:(Logan)});

 #mwak: wathpyamkwalni tuhu piynha yishhi ku tihu kliyha tyifhi
 kiphtwahya kwalmyihmwah taymni wihu lishhiya luntmyihhu
 liyspiynsu lafthi kiphya taymki kuwtmwah tyifpyamhu
 muyphiya Loganhwu yishhiya


 See http://gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-vs-community.html for my views
 about modification of non-functional works such as art and opinion.

 --
 Dr Richard Stallman
 President, Free Software Foundation
 51 Franklin St
 Boston MA 02110
 USA
 www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
 Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,

[Logan Streondj]

sorry same old reply-all issues again,
accidentaly doubled one due to confusion.
here is my recent response to will hill
-- Forwarded message --
From: Logan Streondj streo...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, May 23, 2015 at 4:18 PM
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,
To: Will Hill will.hillno...@gmail.com


On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 01:27:05AM -0500, Will Hill wrote:
 You might remember the RMS is a sexist fiasco, where all sorts of
articles
 poured out misrepresenting the Virgin of Emacs as the thing it parodies.
 That's a minor but nasty example.

any pseudo-celebrity could expect that kind of reaction for such
statements, especially when the community only has 3% females.
It begs an explanation, people may be quick to jump on a simple
one.

 Software owners are constantly staging
 these things while their advertising and other messages are completely
 degraded.

 This is a systematic thing and your question has encouraged me to finish
up a
 few essays I've been working on.  Some suggested reading includes,

 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20071023002351958
 http://techrights.org/2009/02/08/microsoft-evilness-galore/
 http://techrights.org/2008/12/27/microsoft-shills-aka-te-secrets/
 http://www.catb.org/esr/halloween/halloween1.html
 http://archive09.linux.com/articles/38081
 http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20100312150121798
 http://techrights.org/2009/03/16/smear-campaigns-against-foss-proponents/
 http://techrights.org/2008/03/17/manufacturing-abuse/
 http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/03/enough_about_me.html
 http://techrights.org/2009/05/02/perception-management-at-microsoft/
 http://www.cypherpunks.to/~peter/zdnet.html

I guess that is an example of one company (Microsoft), who
doesn't like libreware. they have a pretty bad track record in
general for someone that abuses their power, in many domains.

though you said software-owners plural, so I'm wondering who
these alleged others are.

If it's just Microsoft, then I'd say it's more of a single
actor rather than some kind of pattern.
so far all the publishers you've linked to seem to also be
supportive of libreware, and disliking of Microsofts behaviour.





 On Friday 22 May 2015, streo...@gmail.com wrote:
  will hill easy to observe pattern of publishers missrepresenting GNU
  and the FSF by all means at their disposal
 
  examples?

[libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives

[Logan Streondj]

another thing that always trips me up on these GNU mailing lists,
is that I always forget to hit g for reply-all, since only GNU mailing
lists have this requirement.
I'm sure a lot of discussion is lost due to these foolish settings.
for all other mailing lists ever if you hit reply, it replies to everyone,
or the mailing list, as default.


-- Forwarded message --
From: Logan Streondj streo...@gmail.com
Date: Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:59 PM
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
To: Yoni Rabkin y...@rabkins.net


On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 05:27:18PM -0400, Yoni Rabkin wrote:
 Aaron Wolf wolft...@riseup.net writes:

  Why the incredible desire to use existing source code? Why not use the
  wasted time and efforts spent arguing about this reverse engineering
  your software and just be done with it. …

 Because works of personal opinion are different than useful software.

 --
Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice

works of personal opinion can be software with a speakable
programming language. :-D

In fact, works of opinion are used to program humans,
which have more processing power than at least most computers,
possibly than any computer thus far created.

So in a way you could say, works of opinion, are extremely
powerful pieces of software.

--
Logan




-- Forwarded message --
From: Logan Streondj streo...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, May 16, 2015 at 5:33 AM
Subject: Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives
To: Yoni Rabkin y...@rabkins.net


On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 12:03:29AM -0400, Yoni Rabkin wrote:
 Logan Streondj streo...@gmail.com writes:
 
  So in a way you could say, works of opinion, are extremely
  powerful pieces of software.

 I license my own blog under CC-BY-SA but I don't see, so far, a concrete

that's good to hear :-D

 problem with the FSF licensing essays on the site with ND.

 I think that a powerful argument would be if someone created something
 real: the GCC of essays if you will. Then point the FSF at that and say:
 See, this wonderful thing is what you are not allowing me to
 release. Please change the the ND license on those essays so that the
 whole free software community can benefit from my work.

well, like you I'd be releasing it as share-alike,
thus wouldn't have to bother with GNU's oddities in this domain.
actually more likely i'd be publishing it under GPL,
since it is software code afterall, human software.

 But I don't know what that would be. If I did, then I would probably
 appreciate the point being made about why ND is bad in this context.

it's not bad for me per sey, it is bad for GNU.

so for instance I, or someone like you who uses a share-alike
license, publishes a story or essay which moves people into
action to use their software.

due to the share-alike ability, it can not only be translated,
but be refined to be effective in different cultural contexts.
for instance some western-culture idioms may be offensive in
other cultures.

complicated technical jargon could be expanded into less
ambigious and easier to understand words and phrases.

Alternatively there might be an error in the original essay,
such as either typo's or citations, or even dead-links, all of
which could be updated in subsequent reposts of the original.

with the ND license for GNU however, that restricts the audience
to be English speakers, who understand the technical jargon of
English computer programmers.
Jargon like string, character and loops don't inform lay
people, only those with formal education in computer
programming.

while likely not the only reason, it may be a reason why the
open-source community is so limited to mainly English speaking
white males.

When I was a Windows user, it was the reading of news articles,
and GNU opinion pieces, which motivated me to switch over to
Linux.  This however is not a viable solution for even Spanish
speaking folk which pervade GNU-Social.

I've even come across people from a Spanish speaking background
on GNU-Social that don't even know about the GNU Gnu
association, likely because it's not translated to Spanish
speaking internet.

While I'm not aware of any studies on this matter, but I would
imagine that there would be extremely few non-English GNU
supporters, since obviously they can't know much about it,
due to ND licensing.

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Bull Codes logo

[Logan Streondj]

#english: joy thou admire it.  I desire support with translate
check.  capable thou read it eh? SPEL be in early phase
of grow.  project place be in
https://sourceforge.net/p/spel/.  please join mail list
of it.
#español: alegría tú admiras ello.  yo deseo apoyo  con comprobar
traducir.  capaz tú leer ello ¿eh?  SPEL  en fase
temprano de crecer.   lugar proyecto  en
https://sourceforge.net/p/spel/.  por-favor ser  unirse
lista correo de ello .
#русский: радость ты любоваишь э́то.  я желаю поддерживу, с
перевестой проверей.  способный ты читать э́то а? SPEL,
быть в раноой фазе -ов расу .  проектое место, быть в
https://sourceforge.net/p/spel/.  Пожалуйста
присоединиться почтаый список.
#français: joie tu admires on .  je désis le soutien, avec le
vérifier traduire.  capable tu lire on  hein? le SPEL,
être en la phase précoce.  le lieu projet, être en le
https://sourceforge.net/p/spel/.  S'il-vous-plaît
joindre la liste courrier.
#nodejs: /*joy*/thee .now.admire(it); me .now.desire(support,
{with:(check .translate)}); eh(/*capable*/thee
.read(it)); SPEL={in:(grow[phase .early])}; place
.project={in:(https://sourceforge.net/p/spel/)};
/*please*/join(it [list .mail]);
#mwak: tuhu tiha yamtnuhi pachya tyiftcikmwah mihu syutha
tlisnuhiya tuhu tiha yathhi kiphci kuyhpi yaltfwasni
SPELhuya pyucpawhhu
https://sourceforge.net/p/spel/hniya tipi pustlastha
tcumhi flunya


On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 9:09 AM, Andres a75...@alumni.tecnun.es wrote:

 El Sat, 18-04-2015 a las 07:12 -0400, Logan Streondj escribió:
  #english yes for six.
  #español sí para seis.
  #русский да для шесть.
  #français oui pour six.
  #nodejs {be:(yes),for:(six)};
  #mwak ˈtsikˌtläh ˈtsihˌhiˌjä

 This is really cool.

[libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: The FSF Allows No Derivatives,

[Logan Streondj]

On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 01:03:24PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
 [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]]
 [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]]
 [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]]

A friend of mine emailed Stallman about creating FAN translations of
published works that have been locked up by exclusive privileges, (not
questioning the legality of it because obviously we know the answer to
that question even if I don't agree with how the law works), but
questioning the morality of it. And he actually replied. He said
creating derivatives of published works without permission is morally
ok, but not translations. Translations are not ok.

 I certainly did not say that -- I think someone misunderstood and
 got it backwards.

 The problem with translation is that if it is not done right
 it has the effect of altering the point.  A license that
 permits anyone to translate a work has the effect of permitting
 anyone to alter its position.

 If there were a way to permit only correct, clear translation,
 I would permit that -- but there is no realistic way to assure
 that a translation is correct.

#english:  if thou write opinion in speak program language then
capable it translate clear.  we live in time with many
languages.  capable many peoples benefit from liberty
opinion.  translate program improve with time and code.
write by Logan.
#español: si tú a-escribir la-opinión  en idioma programa
hablar entonces capaz  ello  traducir claro .   nosotros
vivir en tiempo con muchos idiomas.  capaz  muchos
gente  ser  beneficio desde la-opinión libertad.
programa traducir  mejorar con tiempo y código.
a-escribir por Logan.
#русский:  если ты запись мнение, в говоритьом программаом
языку тогда способный оно́ перевести ясно.  мы жить в време с
myi языком.  способный myi люди, выгода от свободаом
мнени.  перевестая программа, улучшать с ki .  запись
по Logan.
#français: si tu écrire l'opinion, en la langue programme
parler, puis capable on  traduire le clair.  le nous , vivre en
le temps, avec les beaucoup langues.  capable les
beaucoup personness. dès l'opinion liberté.  la
programme traduire, améliorer avec le temps et code.
écrire par le Logan.

 #nodejs: {if:(thee .write(opinion, {in:(language .program
 .speak)})), then:(/*capable*/it .
 .translate(clear))}); we .live({in:(time),
 with:(many .language)}); /*capable*/many people
 .benefit({from:(opinion .liberty)}); program
 .translate .improve({with:(time  code)});
 write({by:(Logan)});

 #mwak: wathpyamkwalni tuhu piynha yishhi ku tihu kliyha tyifhi
 kiphtwahya kwalmyihmwah taymni wihu lishhiya luntmyihhu
 liyspiynsu lafthi kiphya taymki kuwtmwah tyifpyamhu
 muyphiya Loganhwu yishhiya


 See http://gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-vs-community.html for my views
 about modification of non-functional works such as art and opinion.

 --
 Dr Richard Stallman
 President, Free Software Foundation
 51 Franklin St
 Boston MA 02110
 USA
 www.fsf.org  www.gnu.org
 Skype: No way! See stallman.org/skype.html.

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Libre Business for the Planet

[Logan Streondj]

On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Thomas HARDING t...@thomas-harding.name
wrote:

 On 23/03/2015 16:31, Logan Streondj wrote:



 On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 12:13 PM, Thomas HARDING t...@thomas-harding.name
 mailto:t...@thomas-harding.name wrote:

 On 14/03/2015 23:35, Logan Streondj wrote:


 (snip)

 We have a Babel problem.

 Regards,
 TSFH.


  Thanks for your art programming below. I still have a few clue reading
 the French version of what is accomplished here (in other words: that's
 unreadable).

 #english SPEL is in early phase of grow but I be now add verb
 conjugation so it will-be more easy to read.
#español SPEL es en fase temprano de crecer pero yo añado lo
 conjugación verbo asi ello será lo fácil más a leer.
#français SPEL est en phase précoce de croître  mais je ajoute la
 conjugaison verbe ainsi illo sera la facile plus à
 lire.
#nodejs
SPEL=/*now*/{in:(grow[phase.early]),but:(me.now.add(conjugation.verb)),so:(it:/*will-be*/{easy.more,{to:(read)}})};

#mwak mihu wiypkuynha takhnuhi klah yathta tihu payhsilha fuhi
 syuh kuyhpi yaltfwasni SPELhu nuhiya



 Even mostly translated, any of flavour of is not a native natural
 language but one more language to learn *completely*.

 C language needs for 20 hours lessons regarding a book title (I'm unsure
 it needs so short time to learn it). A little skills are needed for Python,
 while structures are really obvious in the last (indentation gives blocks),
 etc.


 #english 50%+ of people be  make fail simple program so common
 program form be  bad to learn for people from-source
'
http://blog.codinghorror.com/separating-programming-sheep-from-non-programming-goats/'.

 maybe SPEL form will-be more easy to learn.

#español  50%+ de gente  hacer fallar lo programa simple asi
 forma programa común  malo a aprender para gente
 de-fuente
'
http://blog.codinghorror.com/separating-programming-sheep-from-non-programming-goats/'.

 puede-ser  forma SPEL  será lo fácil más a aprender.

#français 50%+ de personnes  faire échouer la programme simple
 ainsi forme programme commun mauvais à apprendre pour
 personnes à-partir-de-la-source
'
http://blog.codinghorror.com/separating-programming-sheep-from-non-programming-goats/'.

 peut-être forme SPEL sera la facile plus à apprendre.

#nodejs
people[50%+].make.fail(program.simple,{so:(form.program.common.bad({for:(people),to:(learn),from-source:('
http://blog.codinghorror.com/separating-programming-sheep-from-non-programming-goats/')}))});

form.SPEL=/*will-be*/{easy.more,{to:(learn)}};

#mwak '
http://blog.codinghorror.com/separating-programming-sheep-from-non-programming-goats/'hpsuh
kuympyamfuymhu lunttlah cyinta pukhi syuh luntpi 50%+hu
 saphpyamha pfalmikhiya SPELfuymhu cyinta payhsilha fuhi
 myahya


 Excerpt for a few ones, they are expressed in a little English subset, so
 learning one gives you keys to the others.

 More, you can ever choose a better language regarding the task to
 accomplish (comprised Bourne shell and others). EG, Ada has bourns.

 While formal programming, a native language can expresses things more
 precisely.

 To a non-English native speaker,  that's also clearly split data ans
 trings from program itself to program in pseudo-English.

 Where I am unsure of your option is hiding the same (or not?) keywords
 behind translation, because most
 tranlators will have a different advice on lexical field has a keyword.

 Regards,
 TSFH


#english the vocabulary be  base on words from special English
 and oxford3000 and wordnet and framenet.

#español  lo vocabulario  base sobre palabras desde Inglés
 especial y oxford3000 y wordnet y framenet.

#français la vocabulaire base sur mots dès Anglais spécial et
 oxford3000 et wordnet et framenet.

#nodejs thevocabulary.base({on:(plural.word),from:(English.special.and
oxford3000.and wordnet.and framenet)});

#mwak pcilnlicki oxford3000ki wordnethki framenetsu slofsahu
 makhlupyah payshiya

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Software freedom is the only viable business model.

[Logan Streondj]

On Sat, Apr 04, 2015 at 08:49:21AM +0100, Andrés Muñiz Piniella wrote:
 I have a stupid question about GPL.

 A) Could I start up a company. Write up a software package with GPL licence, 
 give the binaries for free but charge $millions for the code if they want it? 

you're a few days late for april fools.  
 
 I would not show the code unless I was paid. Of course, whoever paid for it 
 could now give it out for free. I would be fine for that. But if I did not 
 sell the code to anyone and I saw my code in the wild I could sue whoever was 
 distribuiting it?

 
otherwise sounds like you simply want the ordinary all rights   
reserved proprietary license.   
But ya, if you don't give it to anyone, then it dies with you.   
 
I haven't heard of anyone suing over proprietary code and
winning. SCO tried to sue Linux but they lost miserably. 
 


 Or could I say for the same GPL software same situation (A) but both binaries 
 and code are worth $millions.

 
Also, get over yourself, if market doesn't pay you for it, then  
it isn't worth it.   
 

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Truly decentralized/federated software development platforms?

[Logan Streondj]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 03:35:39PM -0500, Will Hill wrote:
 This is general problem, not a software problem, best solved by social 
 policy.  
 All of us have something we like to do that we wish we could earn a living 
 from.  Perversely enough, rich and powerful people use the feed your family 

didn't realize that little phrase was so politically charged.
let me attempt to rephrase:
we should be able to pay libreware developers for their work.

Big companies hire people to work on libreware,
small companies might go through the hassle of freelancers,
and the average person that wants to pay for something  to get done,
is told to code it yourself.

The current situation clearly demonstrates there is lots of money
available in the hands of many people to pay for development.
However we lack the Software Infrastructure, to pay our developers
for their work, or even to accept donations for particular issues.

If we had the Software Infrastructure to pay our developers,
then instead of big companies hiring their own maintainers,
they could simply donate to the issues they want fixed.

Then the team of developers currently working on it could get paid.
It is most certainly a software problem. 

It has nothing to do with governments/social-assistance or 
basic-income or w/e. This is LibrePlanet, Not LibreAmerica!
Libreware developers are all over the world,
we can't ask people in Liberia to move to Sweden in order to get good
enough benefits that they would be able to work on the project. If we
have the infrastructure to pay a Liberian even $100/month they will be
better off than most other full time jobs they have available.

Crypto-currency projects regularly get millions of dollars in
donations, for-example MaidSafe and Etherium, though they don't even
have a working product. Wheras working products used by many people
such as GPG/SSL and the unsung many get next to nothing. 

Ethiopia has internet, universities, and programs for Artificial
Intelligence, yet their GDP per capita is ~$1,400 or $117 a month.
With a million dollars we could hire 700 Ethiopian developers,
or over a thousand Liberian developers, full time, for a year.
Though personally I prefer the issue wallet, 
mechanical turk, or freelance style.

When companies want a feature added or fixed in a Libreware project,
their first thought should not be lets hire a developer to do it,
their first thought should be lets pay the project to do it,
just as they would for any proprietary product,
this can only happen with the proper software infrastructure. 

even if issues only get pennies for completion, that will be more than
now.  

Anyways, it seems gitchain as rysiek mentioned might be on the 
correct track, I've joined their mailing list and they seem to have
several similar ideas already, so I'll see if perhaps we can work
something out there. 

from Logan ya

 argument to restrict us, which gives them more power and us less ability to  
 make a living.  Society should provide the basics, food, shelter, medical 
 care, for everyone with something like a basic income guarantee paid for by 
 progressive taxation.  
 
 On Thursday 19 March 2015, Logan Streondj wrote:
  well some libreware developers would like to be able to feed their
  families from their development
 
 On Thursday 19 March 2015, rysiek wrote:
  While I agree there has to be an incentive to actually do the work for the
  proof-of-work, it doesn't have to be a payout.
 
 

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Truly decentralized/federated software development platforms?

[Logan Streondj]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 11:31:42AM +0100, rysiek wrote:
 Hi there,
 
 Dnia środa, 18 marca 2015 09:39:06 streo...@gmail.com pisze:
   [1] http://twister.net.co/
  
  A hybrid of the two may be best.
 
 Actually, Twister *is* a hybrid of the two:
 https://black-puppydog.withknown.com/2015/a-quick-note-on-twisters-blocks
 https://black-puppydog.github.io/twister-dht.html

that's good to hear :-).

  Proof-of-work traditionally does difficult computation that is easy to
  test.  Here instead of doing something frivilous like finding a
  particular hash, the work can be making a contribution to the
  project which can be tested.
 
 I don't think this is viable. Contribution is hard to define well enough, 
to quantify it, we can say a contribution is a patch that is accepted
to the mainline. 

 and test thoroughly enough. In the end it would always have to be people 
 that assess this. And the power of Bitcoin/blockchain is how automatic it is.
 *However*, we should definitely continue to try finding a better work for the 
 proof-of-work scheme.

the line between what people and computers can do, is regularly
blurred. If for instance feature-requests are written in SPEL or
another language both computers and humans can have fluency in,
then it would quite possible to automatically generate the required
tests, and once the tests are made, then it's a combination of brute
force and heuristic AI's to find code that passes the in-outs and
performance metrics.

autonomous agents might even be able to file bug reports and feature
requests, to help with whatever it is they are using or planning to
use the libreware for. For instance in the stock-market most
day-traders are actually autonomous agent AI's. 

 So, these librecoins you're talking about, and the blockchain, are two 
 different beasts, used for two different purposes. Mixing them, I feel, might 
 not help at all.
 
 
 The former one, the librecoin/upvote scheme, is a *social* process in 
 which users tell developers which features/bugs are most important.
 
 
 The latter, the blockchain, is a mechanical, technological solution to the 
 problem of lack of a trusted third party verifying who owns what.
 

right, but developers want to get paid, and they could get paid on the
blockchain, by the DAC, who bases payment based on upvotes and
donations to issues.

currently payment is based on proof of work for computing blocks,
which generates coins, i.e. the bitcoin DAC gives coins for blocks.
in proof-of-stake the DAC gives transaction-fee derived coins based 
on current holdings.

so here the difference is that the DAC can give new coins for solving
issues rather than blocks, though can also do proof-of-stake mining
to keep the blockchain alive, or even simply give raw transaction fees
out to chain miners.  

one little addition I wanted to make is a hoarding-tax, so that if an
account doesn't have enough activity it's money is slowly drained into
the pool, probably to chain miners and the DAC's account. This helps 
against both stale-issues, and lost/unused wallets.

 I think Twister does it right. Blockchain is used for who owns which 
 account, and DHT is used for Twists, etc. A decentralized issue tracking 
 system could build upon that.

yep, so it would be similar, accounts and payment transactions would
be kept on the blockchain, wheras the content of issues, code, and
related media would be on the DHT.

  For complicated issues, may need to break up solution into parts,
  for instance a test-maker can come along to figure out what the
  input/output is going to look like, and on acceptance get some of
  the coin. Then someone/thing would write the code, pass the tests,
  and  get the rest of the coin. This would open the door for automatic
  code-generators, which could harness the FPGA's, GPU's, and other
  hardware hardcore bitcoiners like to use.
 
 I think that's too far out for now. But having a proof-of-work in the form of 
 compiling and *verifying* a verifiable build -- that would sound like a 
 *great* idea!

if it adds value, okay, for instance porting to a new platform.
but otherwise I don't think of compiling for the sake of doing
something as a worthwhile endeavour. 

Though perhaps you mean to verify that a patch works as intended,
then I would certainly agree that is worthwhile.  For instance if
there is a patch for ARM7, then a few ARM7's could compile the new
patch in a sandbox and run the required tests to verify the patch
performs as intended, in return for some fractional return from the
issue pot.

 -- 
 Pozdrawiam,
 Michał rysiek Woźniak

from Logan Streondj ya

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Truly decentralized/federated software development platforms?

[Logan Streondj]

On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 01:23:23PM +0100, rysiek wrote:
 Hi there,
 
 Dnia czwartek, 19 marca 2015 07:54:22 Logan Streondj pisze:
   I don't think this is viable. Contribution is hard to define well
   enough,
 
  to quantify it, we can say a contribution is a patch that is accepted
  to the mainline.
 
 But that's exactly my point. Proof-of-work in the blockchain *has to be* 
 completely automatic and easily *automagically* verifiable. Also, it has to 
 be 
 achievable in a predictable amount of time (from the whole network 
 perspective, not necessarily from the perspective of a particular 
 peer/agent/developer).

why do you believe this to be the case?
proof-of-work is completely optional to the block-chain,
thus it shouldn't have any effect on the network.
for instance NXT doesn't use proof-of-work, 
since all coins were pre-mined. 

here the proof-of-work similarly to NXT is optional,
it is not necessary to process blocks like in bitcoin,
it is only necessary for getting new coins.

since it is so hard to get a coin,
they have greater value.

easy come, easy go.
hard to get, sucks to lose,
loss aversion and endowment effect kick in.

  
  the line between what people and computers can do, is regularly
  blurred. If for instance feature-requests are written in SPEL or
  another language both computers and humans can have fluency in,
  then it would quite possible to automatically generate the required
  tests, and once the tests are made, then it's a combination of brute
  force and heuristic AI's to find code that passes the in-outs and
  performance metrics.
  (...)
 
 I think writing a blockchain- and DHT-based GitHub replacement is already a 
 bunch of innovation, maybe we should not get ahead of ourselves...

I like to look at the big picture, once we draw an outline,
can start with some small yet critical aspect.
like you say the blockchain/DHT github and issue tracker.

   
   The former one, the librecoin/upvote scheme, is a *social* process in
   which users tell developers which features/bugs are most important.
  
  right, but developers want to get paid, and they could get paid on the
  blockchain, by the DAC, who bases payment based on upvotes and
  donations to issues.
 
 This is not feasible to do in the blockchain itself for the reasons I 
 outlined  before.

haven't yet seen a valid argument against it.

 Also, there is no good reason to actually do that on the blockchain -- 
 upvotes, etc, can be a separate system, not tied directly to the (crucial) 
 functionality of the blockchain/ledger.

I didn't imply they would be, simply that they would be at least one
of the basis for the DAC to add new coins to the issue's wallet.

 The blockchain has a single crucial function: keeping the ledger of who owns 
 what. This *has to* be done automagically, and should not be tied to any 
 additional functionalities, as that would possibly jeopardize this crucial 
 task.

right, I'm in complete agreement there.

  currently payment is based on proof of work for computing blocks,
  which generates coins, i.e. the bitcoin DAC gives coins for blocks.
  in proof-of-stake the DAC gives transaction-fee derived coins based
  on current holdings.
 
 While I agree there has to be an incentive to actually do the work for the 
 proof-of-work, it doesn't have to be a payout. Twister gives the user that 
 mines another block the right to post a non-blockable message to all 
 Twister 
 users (following them or not). And (at least for now) that is enough.


well some libreware developers would like to be able to feed their
families from their development.

  
  yep, so it would be similar, accounts and payment transactions would
  be kept on the blockchain, wheras the content of issues, code, and
  related media would be on the DHT.
 
 Yep. I would just take the payment out of it, as it has been taken out of 
 Twister too. I don't think we need that particular social dynamic in there...

I don't know, maybe you just to libreware part time, 
but for those that do it full time, payout is necessary.
It's not freeware, it's libreware.

liberating not only the code, but also the developers.

   I think that's too far out for now. But having a proof-of-work in the form
   of compiling and *verifying* a verifiable build -- that would sound like
   a *great* idea!
  
  if it adds value, okay, for instance porting to a new platform.
  but otherwise I don't think of compiling for the sake of doing
  something as a worthwhile endeavour.
 
 Compiling and verifying reproducible builds has immense value:
 https://wiki.debian.org/ReproducibleBuilds
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pAen7beYNc
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca0DWaV9uNc

source distributions are reproducible, or recompilable.

 
 It's also crucial to the free software movement, as probably the single most 
 effective measure against trusting trust problems:
 https://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p761-thompson.pdf
 https://www.schneier.com/blog

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Amusing Free Software Story

[Logan Streondj]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:18:19AM -0500, m...@picaflor-azul.com wrote:
 Hello,
 
 And I am not saying we should not use libre -- au contraire! But
 IMVHO we
 should definitely not say the term free is lost, too many people
 use it in
 the wrong sense.
 
 I've thought about this quite a bit. I really like the term Libre
 Software. Being pretty fluent in Spanish it immediately suggests
 freedom to me. I think that this is probably not the case for most
 English speakers. I also like the term Freedom Software. In the
 example with my mother, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have mattered at
 all what I called it. It just would have taken her an extra thirty
 seconds to decide that I was talking about the same freeware, which
 she knows is worthless.
 
 Sincerely,
 
 Mark

Ya, i totally agree with the libre crowd. 
freeware is worthless, and free software is misleading. 

I recently saw some website where some free software project said they
weren't accepting donations, because they are free software. 
if people have that impression, they can't put food on the table.

open is also vague, and leads to a lot of BSD/MIT users,
cause technically it's open. also Openware is a management services
company in Latin America. 

(Free Libre Open Source Software) FLOSS,
which just makes people think of dental hygiene.

libre on the other hand is more clear,
protecting the liberty of the user.

libreware is also an available word.
libre wares can refer to any kind of libre product technically.
libre hardware, libre music, libre books, 

from Logan ya

[libreplanet-discuss] Software freedom is the only viable business model.

[Logan Streondj]

On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 12:22:19AM -0500, Robinson Tryon wrote:
 On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Will Hill will.hillno...@gmail.com
wrote:
  Free software is the only kind of software people should trust, so it's
  ultimately the only software people will be able to do business with.

 I agree that it's hard (impossible?) to trust software for which one
 does not have the source code, however trillions of dollars of
 business are conducted every day using both Free and non-Free
 software. Do you mean that Free Software is ultimately the only kind
 of software that people will *want* to use for business?

I like to think about what will people want to use for themselves.
What would you install in your own body?

While for computing software it is mostly pertinent to AGI,
however humans install human-language programms on a regular basis.
For instance we read some news, and compile/understand it, then form
native-code/belief, which is added to our libraries/knowledge.
Or if we read a how-to, then we install a skill.

Proprietary binaries are akin to pre-compiled beliefs,
it's like being given orders, without knowing the bigger picture,
such as perhaps in the military and authoritarian
governments/businesses. or regurgitating memorized answers on a test,
without knowing how or why those answers are correct.

libre source code is more authoritative, you can see the big picture,
why a particular action is taking place can be identified,
how a result is calculated can be observed.

   People
  do understand this, even if they have not had software freedom
explained to
  them well.

 How would people innately know that Free Software can provide better
 guarantees of trust than non-Free software if they don't really know
 what 'Free Software' means?

In the same way that people don't like when politicians make decisions
behind closed doors. The people want the doors of policy to be always
open. Proprietary software is dictatorship, where the people don't
know how or why a certain rule is enforced, most decisions are behind
closed doors.
Libre software is transparent democracy, where all (most) decisions
are out in the open, on mailing lists, forums, logs, and comments.

from Logan ya

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Libre Business for the Planet

[Logan Streondj]

On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 04:48:22PM +0100, Thomas HARDING wrote:
 On 12/03/2015 12:25, Logan Streondj wrote:
 On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 11:25:39PM +0100, Thomas HARDING wrote:
 On 11/03/2015 18:09, Logan Streondj wrote:
 here it is in the 6 UN langauges,
 plus mwak which is the pivot language:
 
 eng : be say ob tha hello world ya
 zho : 世界 您好 之 对象 说 是 啊
 spa : ser decir ob que hola mundo sí
 ara : يكون قول أوب ثا مرحبا عالم يا
 rus : быть сказать о то привет мир да
 fra : être dire ob que bonjour monde ya
 A human comprehensive French sentence would be :
 
   Cet objet dit : « Bonjour au monde entier ».
 actually that is a different statement, meaning:
 this object says hello to the entire world.
 I know Hello world for the most given string sample in any
 programming language tutorial.
 
 Unfortunately EVEN THAT SIMPLE WORD world needs disambiguation
 while translated in
 French :

Yes, you are right,
so I've added in a definition for world, people-group.

 
 Bonjour au monde ! (literally : Hello *to the* World!) would be
 the best effort,

I don't understand why you insist it must be *to the*,
I don't  say hello to the Thomas.  hello is not a verb,
it's a vocative preposition. like O lord, hey lord, hello lord,
all mean pretty much the same thing grammatically, with only minor
differences in tone formality.

 which is different than hello world of course,
 hello is a vocative preposition, there is no need for au,
 just as I would say bonjour Thomas, not bonjour au Thomas
 What I say is : even a chair will not translate every times as a
 chair. Moreover, a chair has no sense in
 some language becauses it simply not exists. That's why sometimes
 words travels unchanged between
 language ; and why sometimes they do pong between two languages
 while appearing new senses.

for natural languages perhaps,
but there are clear and simple definitions for SPEL,
though more thorough ones are eventually planned,
will be able to have picture books for children,
and flash cards for adults. 
for instance the translated word for chair, with a picture of a chair,
and perhaps a story or video involving a chair and it's uses. 

 btw, it is a speakable programming language, so there is no
 punctuation, for the input language anyways. the conjugated form can
 have it.
 At least regarding French, that totally misses the point (a simple
 comma totally changes the mean
 of an entire sentence). 
yes, so without commas, that is not an issue, since all the former
commas are now distinct words. 

 Also, French rhythm and acute a whole
 sentence to places punctuation because
 *punctuation is mandatory to got the mean* :
 
 Tu as acheté du pain.
su thee be have buy of-the bread ya

(ya is a declarative sentence final particle)

 Tu as acheté du pain ?
su thee be have buy of-the bread eh?

(eh is an interrogative sentence final particle)

 Tu as acheté du pain...
skeptically su thee be have buy of the bread ya

(skeptically is in the mood place of the sentence)

 Tu... as acheté du pain ?
about su you be have buy of the bread eh?

(about indicates topic)

 Tu as... acheté du pain
about be have buy su thee of the bread ya


in this way, much greater precision and accuracy of translation can be
achieved. 

 More often subordinate clauses are not handled by any keyword but by
 the sentence structure.

punctuation and sentence structure can be sufficient for the output
language, that is to be read by non-programmers. 
but for input programmers/translators it is important to have explicit
words for each concept

 Obviously, as far SMS language progresses, most French can guess a
 sentence without point :)

one of the complaints with SMS and information age in general
is lack of clarity, and meaning loss.

SPEL aims to make things both clear, and preserve meaning.
allowing to be as expressive as on phone or in person.

 
 Goal was to make students understands the verb complements
 subjects general syntax of shell commands,
 moreover to produce human comprehensive texts depending on gender,
 age, with for fallback ...the house dog;
 not sure what you mean by that
 Quoting problem?
 
 TIMTOWTDI, the fall back to house dog produced a beep series,
 instructing an hipotethic well-trained
 house dog running to the bakery barking for bread

okay, well how about, what were you trying to explain to your
students. verb complements subject, what do you mean by that in
terms of unix commands?

 As said, even logic is different one (human) language other, and
 even concepts exists or not one language other.

formal logic is the same across languages.
all concepts can be expressed in an turing complete language,
most human languages are turing complete, certainly all the major
ones.
Though certainly it may take longer to say the same thing in one
langauge than another. 

 I'm unsure how productive would be a program compiling different
 while written in its French or English flavor,
 moreover if it won't compile at all.

assuming it is written in analytic

[libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: Libre Business for the Planet

[Logan Streondj]

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 07:59:20PM +0100, Thomas HARDING wrote:
 As a French native speaker, my first attempts to programming
 has for language a French-ed Fortran
 (forgot the name, it was in the heighteen's, on SIl-Z2 computer
 at technical high school).

 It is the case also for formal programming (the earlier phase of
 any program, among the numerous modelling methods).

 Where the point is missed is : at low level (effective: excerpt for
 libraries function names), most of languages has for name entries
 a very limited set of keywords. Much more : even translated, these
 keywords will not follows in any way orthographic nor syntactic
 natural language rules (plural, gender, terses, ...).

SPEL currently already supports 25+ linguistic universals.
Though for simplicity the input language is analytic,
where the grammar words are seperated from the vocabulary words,
such as in Japanese, Chinese, Hebrew and to lesser extent English.


 I taked a look at code from a colleague written in a French proprietary
 ide/language named Windev. Keywords are French, but it (sintactically)
 have nothing to do with French language.

So let me give 2 examples,
a hello world, and a simple sentence:

be say ob tha hello world ya

be indicates the verb phrase,
ob indicates the grammatical-object,
tha is the kind of that which starts a subordinate clause,
ya is sentence-final-particle analagous to a period.

here it is in the 6 UN langauges,
plus mwak which is the pivot language:

eng : be say ob tha hello world ya
zho : 世界 您好 之 对象 说 是 啊
spa : ser decir ob que hola mundo sí
ara : يكون قول أوب ثا مرحبا عالم يا
rus : быть сказать о то привет мир да
fra : être dire ob que bonjour monde ya
mwak : munt sla ti .a yan .i ya

It can compile to javascript as
say(gettext(hello world));

now for an example of use in conversation:

su me be go to the shop for bread ya

su is grammatical subject.

this is the input-version in the UN languages:

eng : su me be go to the shop for bread ya
zho : 面包 为 我 主题 去 是 店 该 到 啊
spa : su me ser ir a la tienda para pan sí
ara : يكون اذهب سو أنا إلى ال متجر سبيل خبز يا
rus : а мне быть идти к эт магазин для хлеб да
fra : su moi être aller à la boutique pour pain ya
mwak : panp plu mi .u tsuk sa ta kiy .i ya

currently there is also primitive conjugation support for output,
makes it look a little more natural:

eng :  I be go to the shop for bread.
zho : 面包 为 我 去 是 店 该 到 啊
spa :  soy ser ir a la tienda para pan.
ara : يكون اذهب أنا إلى ال متجر سبيل خبز.
rus :  я быть идти к эт магазин для хлеб.
fra :  je être aller à la boutique pour pain.
mwak : panp plu mi .u tsuk sa ta kiy .i ya

conjugation is currently translation-memory bases,
so basically a simple search and replace (su me becomes I).

better conjugation will be added after compiling down to programming
languages works at a functional level.

 On the other hand, I heard for era about cweb, from D. Knuth,
 (but never took a look at any cweb code, I'm lazy...). The described
 approach is ... to describe what does code does as long as writing
 the program itself, then pre-process that we call otherwise comments
 and nested code to produce the code itself, then compile.

CWEB is literate programming, which is a fancy name for saying it is
easier to write comments than code. Makes it more like writing a
scientific paper, with a few formulas.

 Unfortunately I found only references on Java/Spring about SPEL.
 Filtering out gives for result SIGPLAN and Spel workgroup.

 If not based on coffee, I'm curious of a bunch of URI you could post
 about SPEL :)

here is the main project site:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/spel/

 Regards,
 TSFH

from Logan ya

[libreplanet-discuss] Libre Business for the Planet

[Logan Streondj]

), System (C), Assembly (various), Hardware
(VHDL/SystemC), GPU (OpenCl), Graphics (OpenGl).

SPEL can theoretically accomplish this unity,
just as we can describe all of those and their usage in English.

3. Solving the right about of the problem first
Parser translator at analytic level is done for human languges.
Nested text parsing should be completely done by spring.
will work on translation to programming languages in summer.
have a small group on mailing list giving feedback.

So it's not yet enough for co-ordinated development of programming
languages, though is sufficient for basic human language coordination
at the moment. 

--
Logan Streondj

[libreplanet-discuss] Fwd: Licenses a la Nature Re: Gitlab and Gitorious (was Re: support me)

[Logan Streondj]

Lets think of Licenses a little bit like DNA/RNA.

On Sat, Mar 07, 2015 at 11:37:16AM -0500, Yoni Rabkin wrote:

 It's a matter of perspective.

 To someone who wants proprietary software, copyleft is a restriction. To
 someone who want freedom, copyleft is a protection.

 To someone who wants proprietary software, lax licenses are an
 opportunity. To someone who fears proprietary software, lax licenses are
 a vulnerability.

From the gitlab vs gitorious thread, I think this sums it up
beautifully.

Now imagine you have a single celled organism.

On the one hand, you have a propri(etary) cell, which accumulates
resources for itself, and gets very big and fat.

On the other hand you have a libre cell, which accumulates resources,
but then splits/forks, sharing them with it's sisters or children.

In the short term, the propri cell looks like it is winning,
because it's so big, and fat, can easily crowd out the libre cell,
and even steal it's resources, food/water/sunlight.

in the long term the propri cell dies, but the libre cells live on.

permisive BSD licences start out as a libre cell, but they have no
protection against mutation, so their sisters/forks may lose
reproductive capacity, so eventually they likely will die also.

a GPL libre cell has a strong DNA/RNA fixing algorithm, which makes
certain that the sister/forks have reproductive capacity, even if they
mutate in otherways, thus insuring long term viability.

Just as in the primordial ooze, we have propri-accumulators, and
libre-reproducers,  in the long term, we know who won in cells,
so we can be confident we of the copyleft are the winning side.

only other parts we should work on, is working on ways for libre-cells
to feed themselves as well as their propri-cell brethren. donations
clearly aren't the way to go, so there has to be active seeking,
idea screens, feasability analysis, business plans, corporation,
can easily be non-profit, and pay employees, have surpluses for
expansion, funding sister cells.

Cut your own wood and it will warm you twice
good quote :-).

--
Logan