On Monday 21. August 2017 13.51.49 Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> I think you mean "private software" which is only used by yorself, and
> not shared to anyone, not even co-workers. Once you share it at least
> with someone, it ought to be free/libre because it's no longer
> "private".
Sorry,
I think you mean "private software" which is only used by yorself, and
not shared to anyone, not even co-workers. Once you share it at least
with someone, it ought to be free/libre because it's no longer
"private".
Also, I disagree in the statement that Facebook can simply be considered
only a
Thanks Vitaly! It's true that many license compliance tools are now
taking security into account, which is an interesting development.
Also on topic:
https://www.esmt.org/sites/default/files/dsi_ipr5_engl-dt.pdf
Best,
Hugo
↪ Vitaly Repin / août 14, 2017 12:11:
Hello,
I think I have to add my
Hi,
I think that this reasoning perfectly expresses my point of view on this
topic.
Thanks Bastien.
Best regards
Vicen
El lun, 14-08-2017 a las 17:11 +0200, Bastien Guerry escribió:
> Here is my position, stated as "logically" as possible.
>
> My premisses are these:
>
> A. FSFE
I think that's an understandable reaction in the circumstances.
best wishes.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
> I completely disagree.
Okay. That sounds emphatic. I don't want to cut in on how you feel Bastien but
simply to point out the confusing motivations at play here.
> Knowing that FSFE is using Facebook provokes two reactions in me: one is my
> "gut feeling" ("guys??"), another one is the one
> Here is my position, stated as "logically" as possible.
Okay, although I'm not sure this is the best way to approach things
because I suspect we may be arguing about tactics, not ethics.
Discouraging people from using FB for example can be restated as
'encouraging people to use FS'.
I prefer
