Re: [libreplanet-discuss] The most appreciable URL Shortener?...

[Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo]

On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 03:14:09PM -0400, Don Saklad wrote:
> What do folks around here consider to be 
> the most appreciable URL Shortener?...

None! Why would you even consider using one for? If it's not for print
and memorable, I see no use for one at all. And if you are really going
to print it and want it to be memorable, it should rather be one under
your control, so let's hope you already picked a memorable domain, now
let's put your software freedom to use and make your CMS allow you to
create a memorable URL.

Sorry, but "Twitter restricts me to 140 characters" doesn't cut it. Just
put markup language to use and https://domain.com/my-url-could-be-as-long-as-I-like;>click
here.

The only good excuse I ever had for a URL shortener is a choice of
technology combination or misuse, like one is browsing on a desktop and
want to send a message using a mobile containing something they just
browsed. There should not be any restrictions on using the desktop
itself to share that URL with someone, or even yourself on your mobile.
There is where I find the problem.

Please, please, give me a very good reason to use a URL shortener at
all. I am very likely missing something.

Cascardo.

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

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] What's the best URL shortener?

[Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo]

On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 09:44:30AM -0300, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> I go for the same recommendation that some gave: buy a short domain and
> run a simple webserver that is responsible for shortening URLs.
> 
> One can, of course, rely on some third-party to do this, but I found out
> that most common URL shorteners *do more nasty stuff* --- such as
> requiring you to automatically run non-free software using JavaScript in
> your web browser --- than just shortening the addresses. Even so,
> suppose a given service is found by you to be "good", it doesn't mean it
> will be "good" in the future. I remember back in 2005 when some good URL
> shorteners decided to misuse their popularity.

I am still clueless as to why the need to use an URL shortener at all.
They are either "digital", which means people should be able to just
click them; or they are on paper and people need to write them down or
remember them, to which I say: use a rememberable URL, not a short one
that people won't remember. Compare example.com/tuesday_meetings to
yy.zz/A1G8P9.

Cascardo.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
libreplanet-discuss mailing list
libreplanet-discuss@libreplanet.org
https://lists.libreplanet.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss

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

[Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo]

On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 10:39:37PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> On 17/08/17 20:57, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 08:24:34PM +0200, Daniel Pocock wrote:
> >> On 17/08/17 20:17, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 07:52:51PM +0200, 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
> >>> I love ikiwiki, and there is branchable [1].
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://www.branchable.com/
> >> The fees there - $9.99 per month - are actually quite expensive in some
> >> of the countries where we attract students and interns
> >>
> >> I'm going to a hackathon event this weekend where there will be 25
> >> students and it would be great if all 25 start a blog but if they need
> >> to get out their credit card, I suspect some will be reluctant to try it.
> >>
> >> Are there similar options without cost?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Daniel
> > Well, at least I am glad cost is the first issue you have with using
> > branchable.com. There is ikiwiki-hosting at Debian, so setting up
> > something that allows all those 25 to use a single cheap VPS host should
> > not be a year's work. I have no idea how simple it is, but I understand
> > you don't have time for that, and it's something that you need to be
> > maintained and involve some money cost.
> >
> > Still, there is the first free month, and then you can test how the
> > migration really works out.
> >
> > Also, http://www.branchable.com/news/free_hosting_for_Free_Software/.
> 
> Good in principle but the process they describe looks a little bit
> complicated.
> 
> > The other way of thinking about it is: what is the sustaining model for
> > a "free" hosting?
> 
> Whatever it is, it probably needs to involve bringing together a range
> of services into a single package, giving a lengthy free trial (2-3
> years) for students and potentially being helped by subsidies from some
> of the non-profit organizations.

I wonder if Debian and/or SFC could help with that somehow.

Cascardo.

> 
> Regards,
> 
> Daniel

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

[libreplanet-discuss] Software Freedom Day RMS video subtitle available

[Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo]

Hi, my fingers are on fire, it's almost morning in here, so excuse the
so many mistakes and not perfect sync with the video, and that this is
not yet under a version control system.

But here it is: a subtitle for Richard Stallman's video about Software
Freedom Day 2016.

Hope that can be useful around there.

Regards.
Thadeu Cascardo.
1
00:00:08,911 --> 00:00:11,040
Hello, and welcome to Software Freedom Day.

2
00:00:11,948 --> 00:00:14,463
I am Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Movement.

3
00:00:15,503 --> 00:00:18,429
To explain basic ideas of Free Software.

4
00:00:19,854 --> 00:00:22,736
Freedom means having control of your own life.

5
00:00:23,623 --> 00:00:26,507
Having control of the activites you do in your life.

6
00:00:27,614 --> 00:00:30,268
Now that we use software for some many of the things we do,

7
00:00:30,368 --> 00:00:36,757
to have control of our own lives, we need control of the software that we are 
using,

8
00:00:36,757 --> 00:00:38,568
that is doing our computing.

9
00:00:38,568 --> 00:00:43,534
With any program, the are two possibilities:

10
00:00:43,634 --> 00:00:46,656
either the user controls the program,

11
00:00:46,756 --> 00:00:49,644
or the program controls the users.

12
00:00:49,744 --> 00:00:51,945
It's always one or the other.

13
00:00:52,045 --> 00:00:54,244
When the users control the program,

14
00:00:54,344 --> 00:00:57,551
that's free software.

15
00:00:57,651 --> 00:01:00,937
That software respects the user's freedom and community.

16
00:01:01,037 --> 00:01:07,136
It's ethic, legitimate, in a way, it's made available for people to use.

17
00:01:07,236 --> 00:01:12,583
When the user does not control the program,

18
00:01:12,683 --> 00:01:16,969
then the program controls the user,

19
00:01:17,069 --> 00:01:21,738
and the program's owner or developer controls the program.

20
00:01:21,838 --> 00:01:27,205
So that non-free program puts the developer in a position

21
00:01:27,305 --> 00:01:29,994
of power over the users.

22
00:01:30,094 --> 00:01:33,071
And that is why it is an injustice.

23
00:01:33,171 --> 00:01:38,018
So, every program is either free software,

24
00:01:38,118 --> 00:01:41,355
which is distributed in a just and ethical way.

25
00:01:41,455 --> 00:01:46,023
Or it is proprietary software and injust.

26
00:01:46,123 --> 00:01:48,796
And we need to kick it out of our lives.

27
00:01:48,896 --> 00:01:53,667
In order for a program to be free software,

28
00:01:53,767 --> 00:01:57,147
it has to give us the four essential freedoms.

29
00:01:57,247 --> 00:02:02,595
Freedom 0 in the freedom to run the program as you wish,

30
00:02:02,695 --> 00:02:05,927
for any purpose.

31
00:02:06,027 --> 00:02:09,081
Freedom 1 is the freedom to study the program source code,

32
00:02:09,181 --> 00:02:13,781
and change it so it does your computing activity the way you wish.

33
00:02:13,881 --> 00:02:19,683
These two freedoms give us separately control over the program.

34
00:02:19,783 --> 00:02:25,099
I am free to change my copies and you are free to change your copies.

35
00:02:25,199 --> 00:02:29,302
But separately control is not enough.

36
00:02:29,402 --> 00:02:32,641
Most users are not programmers.

37
00:02:32,741 --> 00:02:34,918
They don't know how to study and change source code.

38
00:02:35,018 --> 00:02:39,417
But they deserve in participating in the control of what the program does.

39
00:02:39,517 --> 00:02:45,806
That means we need collective control of the program,

40
00:02:45,906 --> 00:02:48,798
as well as separately individual control.

41
00:02:48,898 --> 00:02:52,798
Collective control means you are free to work with others.

42
00:02:52,898 --> 00:02:57,870
To control together what that program does when you run it.

43
00:02:57,970 --> 00:03:03,683
And collective control requires two more essential freedoms.

44
00:03:03,783 --> 00:03:10,388
Freedom 2 is the freedom to make exact copies and distribute it to others when 
you wish.

45
00:03:10,488 --> 00:03:16,893
And freedom 3 is the freedom to make copies of your modified versions,

46
00:03:16,993 --> 00:03:20,807
and distribute it to others when you wish.

47
00:03:20,907 --> 00:03:24,702
These two freedoms make it possible for users that wish to collaborate

48
00:03:24,802 --> 00:03:26,853
to do so.

49
00:03:26,953 --> 00:03:31,305
Because whoever makes the modified version with freedom 3,

50
00:03:31,405 --> 00:03:34,352
can make copies and distribute them to others in the group.

51
00:03:34,452 --> 00:03:38,581
And they, using freedom 2, can make more copies of that same version,

52
00:03:38,681 --> 00:03:41,685
and distribute them to others in the group

53
00:03:41,785 --> 00:03:43,155
until they will all get it.

54
00:03:43,255 --> 00:03:46,932
But in addition they are free to offer copies to others,

55
00:03:47,032 --> 00:03:53,102
even publishing their versions meaning offering them to everyone in general.

56
00:03:53,202 --> 

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] GNU GPL vs Consumer Guarantees Act

[Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo]

On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 08:24:36PM +1200, Kesara Rathnayake wrote:
> Hi Cascardo,
> 
> Thanks for the reply.
> Your explanation makes sense.
> I think I have to looked into see how NZ Consumer Guarantees act applies
> to goods and services distributed for free.
> 

See Part 5, Section 41 "Exceptions".

"
(1) Nothing in this Act shall apply in any case where goods or services are
supplied otherwise than in trade.

(2) Nothing in this Act shall give any person a right of redress against
a charitable organisation in any case where goods or services are
supplied by the charitable organisation for the principal purpose of
benefiting the person to whom the supply is made.
"

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

I guess item 1 would apply here.

Cascardo.

> Cheers,
> Kesara
> On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 08:12:12PM -0300, Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 12, 2016 at 10:12:31PM +1200, Kesara Rathnayake wrote:
> > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > > Hash: SHA512
> > > 
> > > Hi all,
> > > 
> > > In one of the talks [1] on 2016 Kiwi PyCon (New Zealand's annual Python 
> > > conference) [2], the presenter mentioned that GNU GPL's "Disclaimer of 
> > > Warranty" is invalid against New Zealand consumer guarantee act [3] which 
> > > offers warranty against any goods or services consumed by consumers.
> > > 
> > > Does that mean if someone sells a GNU GPL software, is there a chance 
> > > that license could be invalid?
> > > 
> > > Can the “Consumer Guarantees acts" like these affect the original 
> > > authors, even though they didn't sell the software?
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > Kesara
> > > 
> > 
> > That's a very good question. Too bad it has been posed as truth, or so
> > you seem to have understood the speaker's statement.
> > 
> > Usual disclaimers: I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.
> > Further disclaimers: I haven't read the referred act, and don't know NZ
> > law.
> > 
> > Nonetheless, the comments below are generic and may as well apply here.
> > And if they don't, I think it's important to try to clarify such kind of
> > doubts.
> > 
> > Now, I just watched the segment, and I guess Tim just meant that it is
> > important to know law in general, and how copyright works, but
> > unfortunately made the comment about guarantees, and misread the GPL
> > that you may not offer any warranty as in "absolutely no warranty".
> > 
> > Let's shake this GPL thing off first. GPLv2 section 1 says:
> > 
> > "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
> > you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."
> > 
> > That is to say that any one who distributes verbatim copies of the
> > software may offer warranty. If the law requires you to do so, the GPL
> > does not forbid you to.
> > 
> > Now to your question of whether the license could be invalid, this would
> > be in detriment of the consumer, as copyright by default is a "CAN'T".
> > You can't copy the software, you can't modify the software, you can't do
> > this, you can't do that, in some jurisdictions, one might even interpret
> > that you can't use the software, not without the copyright holder
> > permission. The license in the tool that copyright holders use to give
> > some such permissions. If the license is entirely invalid, then the
> > consumer could be in violation of copyright law (usually, civil not
> > criminal offense, but watch out for some jurisdictions and some special
> > cases).
> > 
> > Now, if the distribution of the software is done for free, would it be
> > fair to require any kind of warranty? Well, in case the law requires
> > such warranties any way, the GPL is nicely crafted to protect the author
> > as much as possible. Take a snippet of Section 12, for example:
> > 
> > "IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
> > WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
> > REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR
> > DAMAGES, ..."
> > 
> > Note the "UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW". So, if the law doesn't
> > require it, the license is advising the user that the author should not
> > be held liable for damages. Now, if the law requires some liability,
> > then, that should be the most that you would have "UNLESS AGREED TO IN
> > WRITING", that is to say, some distri

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] [Dev] Misleading information in EOMA68 news

[Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo]

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:26:42PM +0300, Tiberiu-Cezar Tehnoetic wrote:
> On 26.08.2016 21:48, pelzflorian (Florian Pelz) wrote:
> > and *not a problem* if all available sources
> > will eventually be released.
> 
> Well, if it's not true that said hardware is libre hardware now (or
> since "the very beginning" until now) and we consider it "not a problem"
> if at some unspecified point in time it's going to be libre hardware,
> than we are justifying the practice of falsely marketing hardware as
> free-design hardware. And the same logic ("not a problem") can apply to
> GPL-violaters who at some point in time they comply with GPL.

Hi, Tiberiu-Cezar.

I have to disagree here. Comparing this to GPL violation is outrageous.
Taking out from recipients the freedoms the original authors intendend
them to have is a very serious thing. You can't compare that to a
hypothetical "not giving the information one said was libre to random
people".

First, in the GPL violation case, not only the recipients rights to
freedom are being violated, but also the original authors rights, one
that is also recognized by law.

Second, in the GPL violation case, we are talking about something that
exists, has been shipped and is in the hands of the recipients.

I would like to address other points you brought, but I will leave that
to another time, because I think this point is much more important now.

By the way, thanks for your work on Tehnoetic.

Regards.
Cascardo.

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Brand Names, loyalty and ill Effects

[Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo]

On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 11:21:52AM +0530, A. Mani wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Pen-Yuan Hsing  
> wrote:
> > Sorry I don't quite get what you mean by "sense of brand loyalty" and
> > "corporate world concerns". Can you explain specifically what you mean by
> > those terms?
> 
> 
> Distros like Fedora and Ubuntu are mostly developed on the lines set
> by their respective corporate groups.
> 
> I am talking about the nature of local ecosystem of these and similar
> communities. The dynamics of development within these groups suggests
> that the active developers have accepted the state of affairs.
> 
> What may be a possible solution?
> 

I will contribute my 2 cents to the discussion with some personal
opinions based on my experience.

I have contributed small fixes for some software for 15 years now. At
first, I did it as a student, playing and hacking with free software on
my free time, which helped me a lot to grow as a hacker and
professional.

Even before I finished college, I started doing some consulting and was
able to contribute on my terms, keeping copyright and such. After I
graduated, I kept doing that and even started my own company. Again, I
kept my own copyright, released software under GPL or other free
software license, contributed upstream, etc. Though my clients were
chosing what I was going to do with their money, I still had some
leverage on chosing clients and what kinds of contributions we would do:
contribute to an existing project, start a new project, choose the
license, direction to go, etc. As long as we provided a solution,
clients would be fine with that. And I also had some free time to work
on projects of my choosing, sometimes in the expectation to create a
product, sometimes not. But always on my own terms, and I always
preferred copyleft licenses, for example.

Then, I got employed by big companies. I still had/have jobs related to
working on upstream projects, but the employer kept the copyright, the
employer chooses the license, its clients, the project direction, etc.
Having started a family, any free time left is hardly dedicated to free
software, though I still try to instead of a full night sleep once in a
while.

And that's your concern, I guess. That many people who contribute to
free software these days do that on an employer's time and terms. That
most contributions come from large companies, who give the direction to
the project, keep their copyright, choose non-copyleft licenses, or
don't enforce the GPL, etc.

I agree that's something we need to be worried about and take action. A
very good talk about GPL enforcement and copyleft use is Bradley Kuhn's
talk "Copyleft For The Next Decade: A Comprehensive Plan", given at LCA
2016. One of his suggestions is that we go back to contributing at our
free time, which is one thing I am trying to do.

The other suggestion I would have is talking more about free software
and contributing back to free software. Sure, we should not be exclusive
to Computer Science students, but they sure are an important audience.
We should talk about copyleft and how nice it is to contribute to other
free software, fixing bugs, developing alternatives to non-free software
and creating new projects and releasing them as free software,
preferably copyleft-licensed, with an open community and governance,
etc.

And we need to take back community/personal participation on key
projects. Of course, every one will have its own opinion on which
projects are these, and which ones they want to contribute to. For some,
it will be system and toolchain software, like Linux, GNU libc, GCC,
etc. For others, it will be desktop software, like GNOME, KDE, GTK+, QT.
Or distributions, either existing ones or creating new ones. The
important thing is that we get back to have more community participation
as we used to have, instead of so much companies taking over most of the
project contributions.

Cascardo.

> 
> Best
> 
> A. Mani
> 
> 
> 
> Prof(Miss) A. Mani
> CU, ASL, AMS, ISRS, CLC, CMS
> HomePage: http://www.logicamani.in
> Blog: http://logicamani.blogspot.in/
> http://about.me/logicamani
> sip:girlprofes...@ekiga.net
> 


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] EOMA68 - libre software, libre hardware, and eco-friendly too!

[Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 10:52:36AM +1200, Koz Ross wrote:
> I just came across this amazing project:
> https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68/micro-desktop
> 
> Needless to say - I've supported it, because I believe we need more projects
> like this one if we are to free our computing. The fact that they're going
> full libre *and* seeking RYF certification is great *just by itself*, but
> the use of recycling, the eco-friendliness of the project and the *wooden*
> casings are just icing on an amazing cake for me.
> 
> I'm just posting it to this list, as I want as many people as possible to hear
> about something which I believe deserves our support (and money).

Note that the A20 SOC comes with a Mali GPU, which does not have a free
driver that I know of. There are reverse engineering efforts, in the
Lima project, but lack of manpower means it has yet to produce a driver
users could install.

You probably can use it as a framebuffer with some simple framebuffer
driver, but this is hardly ideal as the project page seems to imply.

I am always cautious when I see something that says 100% Free when it
comes to hardware support. Of course, they can ship something that they
can claim is 100% Free, but not without missing some important hardware
support. I would love for some future where we will reach an ideal
situation and I try to build it when possible. I think they are trying
to do that too, but the lack of this important information is
disappointing.

Cascardo.

> -- 
> Koz Ross 
> www.retro-freedom.nz
> 
> If you aren't using GPG, you should be! https://emailselfdefense.fsf.org/en.
> 
> Please don't send me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html for why.
> 
> Proud member of the Open Wireless Movement.
> Find out more at https://openwireless.org/
> 
> Proud member of Peers, at http://peers.community/ . We grow freedom.




signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [libreplanet-discuss] How to verify a GPL binary - practically?

[Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 07:50:30PM -0400, Jamie Hale wrote:
> Forgive me if this has been asked before.
> 
> I've purchased a copy of "ethOS", a GNU/Linux distribution that comes
> ready to mine ether, the cryptocurrency that backs the Ethereum network.
> The mining program bundled, ethminer, is distributed GPL.
> 
> The distro owner claims that no modifications have been made to
> ethminer, that he compiled from a certain label in a public repo.
> Because of the possibility of backdooring the software and stealing
> private keys, I want to confirm his statement. (Note: I am in no way
> accusing him of doing anything like that! Just performing due diligence!)
> 
> ... but I can't think of a way to do it.
> 
> It looks like my only option to be safe is to download the same source
> and compile it on my own and *not* use his. And hope it works even
> though it's not the binary he's tested with.
> 
> (I can't think of a way to reproduce a binary with the identical hash
> without having access to the original build environment. Too many things
> would have changed.)
> 
> Is there another option I've overlooked?
> 
> J
> 

https://reproducible-builds.org/

In the last few years, there has been an effort to provide reproducible
builds inside many distributions. Most of the people involved in the
project are also involved in Debian, but they are pushing this into
other distros as well. I know Holger has given a talk to Fedora people
at Devconf.cz and is going to give a talk at the OpenSuse conference as
well.

Some of the products of this effort include changes to the toolchain
that builds software packages in order to remove some of the
differences, like file ordering when packing and timestamps, some of the
most common problems.

You should build it from source code yourself, using most of the same
dependencies as possible, and try diffoscope, one tool that they have
produced that will try to summarize the changes for you. So instead of
using something like cmp that will only tell you that byte  differs,
it will show you that timestamps differ, but there are no other changes,
for example.

It would be interesting to know the results of your efforts in this
thread.

Regards.
Cascardo.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature