Re: banking and Free Software

On Thursday, 22 February 2024 19:35:24 CET Florian Snow wrote: > Hello everyone, > > As part of my job at the FSFE, I have been working on the topic of > Free Software in banking and I would like to share some of my findings > and thoughts with you. This is part of the larger topic of >

Re: DevOps inspiration from Toyota Production System and Lean considered harmful

On Sunday, 15 May 2022 19:22:43 CEST Carsten Agger wrote: > I wrote a rant against the idolization of Lean and Toyota among certain > DevOps people. Sorry to follow up again, but at least this message is shorter! Previously, I've noted the cult of "innovation" in academia, but I haven't provided

Re: DevOps inspiration from Toyota Production System and Lean considered harmful

On Sunday, 15 May 2022 19:22:43 CEST Carsten Agger wrote: > I wrote a rant against the idolization of Lean and Toyota among certain > DevOps people. > Originally it was the synopsis for a more thorough article which I don't > have the time to write, so instead I present only the conclusions. Maybe

Re: US cryptocurrency legislation (Re: FSFE and the war in Europe)

On Friday, 18 March 2022 17:04:27 CET f...@centromere.net wrote: > On Fri, 18 Mar 2022 12:41:44 +0100 Paul Boddie wrote: > > On Friday, 18 March 2022 10:18:06 CET f...@centromere.net wrote: > > > Perhaps a statement about this pending legislation would be > > > rel

US cryptocurrency legislation (Re: FSFE and the war in Europe)

On Friday, 18 March 2022 10:18:06 CET f...@centromere.net wrote: > Perhaps a statement about this pending legislation would be relevant and on > topic for FSFE: > > https://www.coincenter.org/new-crypto-sanctions-bill-targets-publishing-code > -facilitating-transactions/ A statement about US

Re: FSFE and the war in Europe

On Thursday, 17 March 2022 10:13:28 CET Vitaly Repin wrote: > > Yes, FSFE is not a polictical organisation. But what happens now is beyond > any politics. This is a full-scale war which happens now and here, in > Europe. > > I feel that FSFE MUST issue an official statement about the war and

Re: Criticisms and choices

2022 16:33:05 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > There's a pervasive attitude in Free Software thanks to the influence of > > broader commercial and social culture, particularly American-style > > capitalism, > > A lot of Free Software initiatives are located around the world, > e.g.

Criticisms and choices (was Re: Is Matrix a good choice?)

On Wednesday, 16 March 2022 12:37:26 CET Max Mehl wrote: > > On a personal and general note, I sometimes wonder about the energy some > people put into badmouthing certain projects in lengthy posts because of > personal taste or disliking a person behind the project. This did not > happen in this

Re: Mozilla: "We’re taking a break from Facebook"

On Friday, 24 September 2021 08:17:04 CEST Nico Rikken wrote: > Interesting remarks and helpful to the discussion. Happy to hear that > the Norwegian Data Protection Authority came to that decision. They aren't the only ones: "Norwegian Biotechnology Advisory Board leaves Facebook"

Re: Constitution violation with the use of GitHub

On Monday, 9 August 2021 12:39:37 CEST André Ockers wrote: > > Jacob Hrbek schreef op za 07-08-2021 om 13:44 [+]: > > As mentioned in https://github.com/fsfe/reuse-tool/issues/361 the use > > of GitHub for REUSE is to my understanding an obvious violation of > > the constitution of the Free

Re: GPLed code on github (given the copilot controversy)

On Monday, 12 July 2021 23:16:22 CEST marc wrote: > Hi, me again > > So I am going to respond to multiple comments in one go: > > I had a look at Julia Reda's post, and as far as I can > make out, she only focuses on the fact that individual > snippets are very short - but doesn't make any

Re: GNOME fndn. is actively violating the Freedom 3

On Wednesday, 12 May 2021 23:52:28 CEST Heiki Lõhmus wrote: > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 07:14:51PM +, krey...@rixotstudio.cz wrote: > > > > This is not as GNOME is seemingly intentionally making their libraries > > to work only with their solutions and even trying to make their > > library to

Re: FSFE-defined coding standards?

Trimming to get the context back... On Saturday, 13 February 2021 05:11:23 CET Jacob Hrbek wrote: > >> The (F)LOSS ecosystem is currently mostly focusing on quantity over > >> quality [...] > I would also argue that not everyone in (F)LOSS cares about their future > job in Computer Science to

Running Online Conferences

Hello, On the topic of online events, I noticed that the EuroPython Society had made some documents available describing their experiences with planning this year's conference: https://www.europython-society.org/post/617463429296472064/sharing-our-research-and-licenses-for-going-online

Re: Fwd: Best video conferencing/distance learning tools?

On Thursday 28. May 2020 11.55.05 V F wrote: > I have had very good experience with whereby.com (company from Norway > though not hosted by me). They seem to have very decent privacy policy > and you do not need any app install for using it. I have had to use whereby.com (formerly appear.in) for

Re: Best video conferencing/distance learning tools?

On Thursday 30. April 2020 20.39.01 Carsten Agger wrote: > I'm thinking og buying a low-power-consumption but powerful computer to > set up as a video conferencing/communication server at home as a > contribution to a very apparent need and as an alternative to FaceTime, > Zoom and whatever. I

Re: COVID19-Tracing/-Tracking App in Singapore under GPL-3.0

On Friday 10. April 2020 22.09.06 Sebastian Silva wrote: > Thanks for sharing! > > I just passed it on to a government mailing list in my country (Peru). > > I did a quick search and found an article by the Singaporean government > explaining their logic, which I shared also. > >

Re: COVID19-Tracing/-Tracking App in Singapore under GPL-3.0

On Friday 10. April 2020 12.00.34 Jan Wey. wrote: > I was made aware of this just 5 minutes ago. Sorry, if this was already > mentioned on this ML in the past few days. > > Singapore decided to release their Tracing-App under GPL-3.0 [0], which > obviously would establish better trust and would

Re: rich services dominating in media (Re: Wiki page about Free Software for remote working)

On Wednesday 1. April 2020 11.39.32 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > Am Dienstag 31 März 2020 21:29:12 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > the media narrative seems to be dominated by technologies like > > videoconferencing, "feature-rich" real-time chat, > > To understand why peo

Re: Wiki page about Free Software for remote working

On Tuesday 31. March 2020 17.30.12 Sandro Santilli wrote: > On Tue, Mar 31, 2020 at 04:45:28PM +0200, Erik Albers wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > last week some people created the a FSFE-wiki page about Free Software > > solutions for remote working. I think it has grown quite cool and gives a > >

Re: Supporting more PDF forms in Free Software products (Re: Going beyond advocacy)

romises to fund "partnerships" with public institutions), and vague statements about the supposed merits of trickle-down economics. > Am Dienstag 11 Februar 2020 23:22:59 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > For all I know, my experience was based on a misunderstanding > > PDF is not a good

Re: Going beyond advocacy

On Sunday 9. February 2020 19.57.50 Nico Rikken wrote: > I like your line of thinking. Nice to hear from you again, Nico! :-) Well, I think we cannot just make assumptions about things magically happening all by themselves. Instead, we have to consider the economic models involved, and that

Re: Going beyond advocacy

On Tuesday 11. February 2020 07.46.27 Nico Rikken wrote: > By putting the Reuse project and the GNU project against each other I > tried to favor a small targeted project compared to a large, seemingly > all-encompassing effort. But as you showed me, even GNU has its points > of focus. The aim of

Going beyond advocacy

Hello, Last summer, there was a discussion on this list about "Strategy and serendipity" to which I contributed the following remarks: > Maybe the role of the FSFE is to go beyond advocacy and help knock some > stubborn heads together, to eliminate people's parochial and needlessly >

FSFE 2018 Financials (was Re: transparency about the fellowship)

On Tuesday 10. September 2019 13.58.14 Paul Boddie wrote: > On Tuesday 10. September 2019 12.04.25 Reinhard Müller wrote: > > Am 09.09.19 um 17:44 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > > However, summarised information for 2018 is not yet available. Is this > > > overdue or is

Re: suggestions/request for fsfe

On Friday 10. January 2020 15.50.47 V F wrote: > Agree a lot with PB and apologies in advance. No apologies necessary! :-) > > I suggest you join forces with some friends/your local hacker space to set > > up your own pihole instance. Sadly privacy means hard work but its worth > > it ;) > >

Re: New Organisation directory tool

On Thursday 9. January 2020 22.07.24 Carsten Agger wrote: > > "OS2mo keeps tabs on the hierarchical links between units, manages lists > of employees, per unit, project and task. It provides a management > interface that shows for each unit, department, project team and person > who is

Re: suggestions/request for fsfe

On Tuesday 7. January 2020 15.17.12 Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote: > > On a grander scale, I think a better solution would be that relying on > a server is not necessary. Imagine instead that a distribution might > include a `spyware-dns-hosts` package that modifies `/etc/hosts` with > the same kind

Re: suggestions/request for fsfe

On Wednesday 1. January 2020 13.15.21 V F wrote: > > Over the holidays I (being the crazy family geek) speaks about adblock > (µblock origin) and many in family are bored but a bit thinking it is > a good idea. With many smartphone + TVs - I sent (whatsapp) links to > these people but realized

Re: Adgangforalle.dk - public money, proprietary license

On Wednesday 11. December 2019 12.57.10 Carsten Agger wrote: > > There's one very curious thing about this product: Often, organizations > have software made by private vendors, and the private vendors will > retain their copyright and their right to keep it proprietary. In this > case, it's the

Re: Forcing students to use nonfree network services and software as a topic of a future campaign

On Friday 29. November 2019 23.02.39 Nico Rikken wrote: > > Privacy: schools migrating their infrastructure to cloud SaaS > companies, with questionable licenses. I managed to see this more closely again at a former, then current, now former employer: employees and students get the opportunity

Re: How FSFE is organised

On Monday 21. October 2019 07.20.49 Florian Snow wrote: > > Paul Boddie writes: > > I am sorry for the confusion here. In fact, I wasn't referring to the > > FSFE with my remark, but the following crowdfunding campaign promoted > > on this mailing list four years ago by

Re: How FSFE is organised (was: Organisation democracy)

On Tuesday 8. October 2019 17.44.02 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > Am Freitag 27 September 2019 18:00:28 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > > > Admittedly, the rest of us don't tend to do things like park $10 > > destined for improving Free Software in a bank account for four

Re: Organisation democracy (was: Balance relationships with companies)

On Friday 27. September 2019 12.30.19 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > > Sure, "FSFE was founded to rely on a number of trusted individuals”, but > > that was 20 years ago. Outside of this echo chamber, 3/4 of them today are > > invisible or inactive. This hurts FSFEs reputation and impact. > >

Re: Fairphone 3

On Wednesday 25. September 2019 15.17.24 Carsten Agger wrote: > > Today, inspired by this discussion, I send the following question to > Fairphone support: > > "I'm interested in buying a Fairphone 3, but I'm not interested in > getting proprietary Android. > > Is it possible to have the

Re: Analysis: The use of open-source software by terrorists and violent extremists

On Wednesday 11. September 2019 11.27.56 Carsten Agger wrote: > On 9/11/19 9:29 AM, Alexander Sander wrote: > > > > Analysis: The use of open-source software by terrorists and violent > > extremists - > > Yes, without having read the report, that's a very weird point to make. > *All* software can

Re: transparency about the fellowship

On Tuesday 10. September 2019 12.04.25 Reinhard Müller wrote: > > Am 09.09.19 um 17:44 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > However, summarised information for 2018 is not yet available. Is this > > overdue or is it expected to be published within the year? > > It will be publishe

Re: transparency about the fellowship

Hello, Quite some time ago, the following topics came up... On Monday 9. July 2018 20.57.17 Daniel Pocock wrote: > > On the transparency page[2], there is a link to donor information[3] > where FSFE identifies the significant corporate donors, especially those > who contribute more than 10% of

Re: recommendations for a mini laptop

On Thursday 18. July 2019 09.54.59 Michael Kesper wrote: > On 17.07.19 13:30, Paul Boddie wrote: > > And obviously, with everybody loading up the "modern" Web with superfluous > > gadgetry, Firefox will gladly saturate the CPU, I/O channels and take lots > > of RAM.

Re: REUSE 3.0 released: tutorial, FAQ, and helper tool

On Wednesday 7. August 2019 11.34.03 Max Mehl wrote: > > For some more background information, please find the full announcement > here: > > https://fsfe.org/news/2019/news-20190807-01.html > > > I am looking forward to your feedback! Please consider making your > software projects REUSE

Re: recommendations for a mini laptop

On Tuesday 16. July 2019 17.07.25 Michel Roche wrote: > Hello, > I've used to be quite fan of eeePcs but in the long run they appeared to > be not powerfull enough, even for basic usage with lighweight desktops > (lxde is he limit). The amount of memory in various devices is now a significant

Re: Balance relationships with companies (Re: Who talks at conference for Free Software?)

On Friday 28. June 2019 14.55.20 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > Companies and other organisations are taking part in Free Software > communities, other may oppose them. Many companies consists of different > branches. Some are more inclined towards Free Software others are not. > Same with people

Re: Strategy and serendipity

On Friday 10. May 2019 10.11.40 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > Am Mittwoch 08 Mai 2019 14:41:59 schrieb Carsten Agger: > > > > As for mobile devices, we're not there *at all*. It's definitely not > > realistically feasible for everybody to acquire devices with a free OS > > and run only free apps. >

Re: Who talks at conference for Free Software?

On Thursday 13. June 2019 15.47.40 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > There are already other people speaking, especially for FSFE. > > And two challenges would need to be overcome to make it much more: > > * Many conference organisers mostly care about the fame of the >speaker, so they often

Re: Fairphone lessons

On Friday 17. May 2019 12.19.36 Johannes Zarl-Zierl wrote: > > While I think that warranties for electronics could and should be longer, I > think the comparison to household appliances is unfair. > > Mobile phones may undergo less physical stress than washing mashines in > absolute terms, but

Re: Fairphone lessons

On Wednesday 15. May 2019 12.51.36 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > Am Dienstag 14 Mai 2019 13:24:28 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > > > These are presumably the same apologists for phone manufacturers trying to > > cut warranty terms where I live: people who openly said that the

Re: Fairphone lessons (Re: Shiftphones details)

On Tuesday 14. May 2019 08.52.29 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > Am Freitag 10 Mai 2019 17:06:40 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > it surprises me that they have not managed to > > attract broader publicity. > > Shiftphones seem to focus on Germany (or German speaking companies). > It

Re: Strategy and serendipity

On Wednesday 8. May 2019 11.41.56 Carsten Agger wrote: > On 5/8/19 9:12 AM, Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > The GNU project was started in different times. To me it has reached its > > goals and should have been called concluded for good. (See comments to my > > article [1]). > > It's my

Re: Strategy and serendipity

On Wednesday 8. May 2019 09.03.48 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > Actually I am referring to the history section "For the Long Term" of > https://blogs.fsfe.org/pboddie/?p=2386 > which I believe was written by yourself. Yes, this was written by me. However, I still wanted to clarify that a lot

GitHub, proprietary services and Save Code Share (was Re: Is there any hope for FSFE?)

On Saturday 4. May 2019 13.42.51 Nikos Roussos wrote: > On 03/05/2019 19:00, Paul Boddie wrote: > > So, in the case of the Copyright Directive, where much fuss was made about > > keeping code sharing platforms free of copyright filters, it seemed that > > the FSFE was ac

Re: Request for Clarifications

On Saturday 4. May 2019 02.51.44 Carmen Bianca Bakker wrote: > > The gist of it is: > > - Elections pit contributors against each other, which is not in the > spirit of collaboration. > > - There are already other ways to become a GA member. > > - And, if you ask me, the idea of a "fellowship

Unsubscription amusement

Hello, I see that some people are still having fun with the Mailman interface trying to unsubscribe people from this list, specifically 91.64.208.89 or ip5b40d059.dynamic.kabel-deutschland.de as they are also known. Perhaps some actual, reasoned discussion about the challenges raised by recent

Re: Is there any hope for FSFE?

On Friday 3. May 2019 22.00.24 Reinhard Müller wrote: > Dear Paul, > > thank you for your verbose reply. You're welcome! > Am 03.05.19 um 18:00 schrieb Paul Boddie: > >> Am 03.05.19 um 13:48 schrieb Besnik Bleta: > >>> we give the money to lawyers who "help

Re: Is there any hope for FSFE?

On Friday 3. May 2019 15.00.30 Reinhard Müller wrote: > Hi, Besnik, > > all sarcasm aside, > > Am 03.05.19 um 13:48 schrieb Besnik Bleta: > > we give the money to lawyers who "helped" us > > "safeguard" Free Software through Copyright Directive, right? > > what exactly do you refer to in this

The "rival" discussion mailing list

Hello, Subscribers to this mailing list have recently been introduced to the existence of a new "rival" mailing list [*] in a way that might well be regarded as being both ill-conceived and regrettable. There may be merits in conducting discussion on another list, but the apparent attempt to

Re: Fwd: [FSFE PR][EN] Copyright Directive – EU safeguards Free Software at the last minute

On Thursday 28. March 2019 09.47.34 Christian Imhorst wrote: > > in our last press release on the EU Copyright Directive, Alexander > Sander says: > > "The exclusion of Free Software code hosting and sharing providers from > this directive is crucial to keep Free Software development in Europe >

History Repeating

Hello, I don't know whether this is an issue with the FSFE Web site or some real news, but I see the following item on the FSFE front page (https://fsfe.org/): """ Jonas Öberg joins FSFE as Executive Director 02 March 2019 FSFE has recruited long-time Free Software activist Jonas Öberg to be

Re: FSFE-in-2020: Who are we?

On Friday 11. August 2017 12.54.53 Jonas Oberg wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I wanted to point you to this open internship position at the FSFE: > > https://fsfe.org/news/2017/news-20170811-01.en.html > > As you know, when the FSFE was founded, we put together a document > describing our self

Re: Ongoing funding of FS (Re: Innovation, funding and FS)

On Wednesday 19. September 2018 09.48.06 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > Am Montag 17 September 2018 15:14:16 Paul Boddie wrote: > > > > at least if we can ignore those cultural issues around keeping the > > audience happy, because a developer can potentially prioritise their w

Re: Innovation, funding and FS

On Monday 17. September 2018 12.42.18 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > Am Samstag 15 September 2018 17:20:26 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > > > Then again, I am inclined to think that such platforms tend to favour > > transactional work, often underpriced, that is viewed as fa

Re: Talos II (FSF RYF candidate)

On Tuesday 12. September 2017 16.07.12 Timothy Pearson wrote: > Just wanted to pass this along from the FSF on this side of the pond in > case you haven't seen it yet: > >

Re: Aw: Re: improving the tone of discussion in FSFE

On Wednesday 12. September 2018 12.30.55 Daniel Albert wrote: > > Your chart is funny. Why is zero missing in it? The axes are properly labelled and, in any case, I see far worse on major news Web sites every day. What we see is a decline in the Fellowship of just over 100 people from 1650 or

Re: to git or not to git

On Saturday 8. September 2018 10.36.08 Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote: > I won't cite any past message because I lost some of them during an > accidental removal of the emails on my computer, so forgive me if this > was already said by someone else. Having just done a distribution upgrade and with

Re: Daniel on discussion@ (Re: what makes a good president and chairperson?)

On Wednesday 5. September 2018 08.42.17 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > Am Dienstag 04 September 2018 23:22:33 schrieb Daniel Pocock: > > are you trying to change/misrepresent the intention of > > somebody else's email? > > please read the exchange again and look at the quotes, > I was asking what

Re: to git or not to git

On Friday 31. August 2018 13.03.22 Alessandro Rubini wrote: > > But I have a question for Berhnard, who says among other things I agree > with: > > * Use hg or other trackers if you can. > > why? It's already oh so difficult to get people make decent commits to > git, where at least I can point

Re: What should the FSFE provide (was: supporting our fellowship representative)

On Thursday 30. August 2018 09.45.15 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > some of your topics are very interesting, thanks for the feedback! Thank you for indulging me in this discussion which has probably covered more ground already than many previous discussions on some of these topics. My

Re: supporting our fellowship representative

On Wednesday 29. August 2018 09.17.56 Bernhard E. Reiter wrote: > > Am Dienstag 28 August 2018 16:28:44 schrieb Paul Boddie: > > I do recognise the > > effort made by both staff and volunteers within the FSFE, but I do also > > recognise the frustration some people hav

Salary details (was Re: supporting our fellowship representative)

On Tuesday 28. August 2018 11.09.09 Bernhard Reiter wrote: > > Am Dienstag 28 August 2018 10:18:11 schrieb lukerog...@tutanota.com: > > The FSFE transparency pages are hilarious. FSFE chose the transparency > > checklist from Transparency International because it lets them have > > transparency

Re: transparency about the fellowship

On Monday 9. July 2018 22.29.45 Daniel Pocock wrote: > > There have been discussions where people were unclear about the > relationship between FSF and FSFE or the fact that these are different > organizations. I've seen that both publicly and privately. If people > are putting FSF(E) into

Price transparency (was Re: Input on anticompetitive characteristic of public code)

On Friday 22. June 2018 08.21.00 Bastien wrote: > > Not knowing whether prices of commonly used SaaS are fair (like the > price of Google services paid by many universities) is to me a big > argument -- at least to destroy the naive vision that it's easy to > assess the fairness of a price in a

Re: Public Money Public Code: a good policy for FSFE and other non-profits?

On Friday 15. June 2018 11.21.52 Erik Albers wrote: > > totally agree here. And as a staffer that is also hired for doing a good > outreach I see two problems here: > > a) the work-time I need to invest to "[...] maintain a public inventory on > the wiki listing the non-free software and

Public Money Public Code: a good policy for FSFE and other non-profits?

Hello, A few days ago, I saw Daniel's article about the use of proprietary software and services by the FSFE: https://danielpocock.com/pmpc-for-fsfe-itself This follows up on a long discussion last year, starting here... https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2017-June/011591.html

Re: Constructive measures to help people communicate freely

On Monday 26. March 2018 23.30.31 Daniel Pocock wrote: > > You wrote "telling people that they are bad", but I only said the habits > are bad, not the people. > > If I say a habit is bad, I am not saying the person is bad. Everybody > has some bad habits but that doesn't mean everybody is bad.

Re: Constructive measures to help people communicate freely

On Monday 26. March 2018 20.16.03 Daniel Pocock wrote: > > That is not a good summary of who the plugin is for or how it will help > them Sorry to misrepresent it, but it has previously been framed as "breaking bad habits", which is a little different from helping people comply with

Re: Constructive measures to help people communicate freely

On Monday 26. March 2018 11.12.15 br...@tracciabi.li wrote: > Paul Boddie <p...@boddie.org.uk> ha scritto: > > > > With such considerations in mind, does anyone else think that the topic > > of genuinely free communication might be worthy of a comprehensive > &g

Constructive measures to help people communicate freely

Hello, There has been a lot said recently about Facebook, Google, and other entities that facilitate online communication through services that have hidden impacts on people's freedoms. But as I noted before, it is more constructive to focus on how we in the Free Software community can help

Re: Mozilla: "We’re taking a break from Facebook"

On Friday 23. March 2018 14.40.58 Max Mehl wrote: > > That said, I think the only purpose the FSFE's FB page currently serves > is that 1. the name is taken to prevent hoaxers from imitating an > "official" page, and 2. for people to find us if they – for whatever > crazy reason – try to search

Re: forums, mailing lists and other tools

On Monday 22. January 2018 19.31.44 br...@tracciabi.li wrote: > On 2018-01-22 10:10, Stephane Ascoet wrote: > > [...] Here to be sure to fully use public transports, we need to be > > ultra-connected with a pocket-computer(occasionally doing badly phone > > function). > > I suppose "here" means

Re: breaking bad habits like Doodle and Facebook with plugins?

On Wednesday 17. January 2018 11.56.21 Daniel Pocock wrote: > > One thing that comes to mind: are there browser plugins and Thunderbird > email plugins that can help people avoid visiting or linking to things > like Facebook, Meetup, Twitter and Doodle? I'm not talking about giving > electric

Re: Shouldn't we try to give a boost to the PMPC campaign?

On Wednesday 13. December 2017 11.35.47 Mirko Boehm wrote: > I think that more generally, this distinction makes no sense in the first > place. Why is support from some organization better than support from a > company? Not being involved in formulating this campaign, I can only speculate that it

Re: LWN article on Limux / WiMue and PMPC

On Thursday 30. November 2017 13.00.52 Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote: > Reading the comments that replied to your message there make me feel > like a blind person in a shootout... Well, I guess there is some additional history that isn't readily apparent from reading my remarks and others.

Re: CPU as a service has come!

On Wednesday 29. November 2017 10.01.25 Giovanni Biscuolo wrote: > > in other words (sorry if I'm stressing on this), some computing devices > have become **virtual machines** running in a stealth host with a complete > OS running on it; you have not root access to the host, just to the > virtual

Re: CPU as a service has come!

On Monday 27. November 2017 13.52.55 Giovanni Biscuolo wrote: > > please also consider that many respectable free software supporters are > proposing solutions that are **useless tech workarounds**; e.g. looking at > https://privacylab.yale.edu/ , in the "What we do" box, I read: "Hosting > Tor",

Re: Free software and open source philosophies differ sometimes with radically different outcomes

On Saturday 18. November 2017 07.13.12 Jonas Oberg wrote: > > As has already been said, people sometimes talk about "open source" when > they refer to the four freedoms, or vice versa. I do not think it's > helpful for anyone to try to divide people by the terminology they use. > > I can not

Re: Free software and open source philosophies differ sometimes with radically different outcomes

On Friday 17. November 2017 03.30.40 Mirko Boehm wrote: > > > On 17. Nov 2017, at 09:13, J.B. Nicholson wrote: > > > > That is self-contradictory but begins to get into why the open source > > development methodology and philosophy exists. In short, open source is > > (as

Re: LWN article on Limux / WiMue and PMPC

On Friday 10. November 2017 15.53.26 Matthias Kirschner wrote: > As on Wednesday a committee in Munich decided to do the Windows Munich > Migration Project (let's call that "WiMue" for short in future ;) ) I > thought you might be interested in this LWN article about my talk on the > migration in

Re: Job at European Commission for FOSSA 2 in Brussels

On Wednesday 1. November 2017 20.17.07 Moritz Bartl wrote: > On 01.11.2017 17:09, Paul Boddie wrote: > > Perhaps get them to post the job to... > > https://www.fossjobs.net/ > > It's been listed there since 18.10. :-) > > https://www.fossjobs.net/job/9085/senior-p

Re: Job at European Commission for FOSSA 2 in Brussels

On Wednesday 1. November 2017 15.58.00 Matthias Kirschner wrote: > The European Commission was looking for a project coordinator for their > "Free and Open Source Software Audit" (FOSSA) project. They did not find > someone through their own channels, and now asked Atos/Airbus to make > public

Fwd: FSCONS highlights -- @Ifi, 4-5 november 2017

Hello, I promised to pass this on, but was probably going to ask on this list whether anyone was aware of it. I went to FSCONS a whole five years ago and met quite a few FSFE people, but I think it hasn't been as popular amongst FSFE people in recent years. Paul FSCONS: The Free

Re: [UK] Information about the think tank Doteveryone

On Wednesday 4. October 2017 15.56.46 Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote: > I think there also needs to be more work on their part on how to define > "ethical tech choices", see: > check-your-tech-3c05bcb28faf>. > > Of

Re: Is lack of software freedom a valid reason for refusal?

On Thursday 28. September 2017 17.45.03 Carsten Agger wrote: > > Now, I wouldn't have a big problem with that - if only they had a good > old-fashioned meter that will accept coins. Or even a credit card. Even some kind of SMS payment would be reasonably acceptable, but I guess the money is all

Re: Is lack of software freedom a valid reason for refusal?

On Friday 22. September 2017 15.57.26 Florian Snow wrote: > > Carsten Agger writes: > > * I want to park my car in the city, but it's only possible to pay by > > downloading one of two proprietary apps (real-world situation in > > Copenhagen) on my smartphone. Can I refuse to

Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?

On Sunday 3. September 2017 15.34.55 Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote: > Yes, I was replying to Mat. :) > > Also note that correct copyleft defense should be > collaboration/community-oriented, not based on judiciary/litigation > pressures ([1][2][3]). :) Yes, this was a discussion on LWN recently.

Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?

On Tuesday 22. August 2017 16.47.10 Mat Witts wrote: > > > > Discouraging people from using FB for example can be restated as > > >'encouraging people to use FS'. > > > > Not necessarily. > > The (logical:-/) *necessity* of leaving FB to use FS wasn't a point I > was making as far as I can see,

Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?

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,

Re: negative campaigning?

On Monday 31. July 2017 09.23.18 Mirko Boehm - FSFE wrote: > > “Free Software is good as it gives you choice and control over your data.” > - a positive, user oriented message that tells people what they should > think about when choosing what to use. Good. Agreed. > “Proprietary social

Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?

On Sunday 16. July 2017 18.11.36 Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote: > About the use of non-free social networks in FSF's DefectiveByDesign: > Yet again we must distinguish between free/libre software > activists/supporters/proponents and people who are only free/libre > software users (and that

Re: The United Nations Prohibits Nuclear Weapons

On Sunday 9. July 2017 05.32.27 willi uebelherr wrote: > > Off-Topic? No, i think not. It is off-topic. If everybody flooded every mailing list with everything that interested them or engaged them personally, with the excuse that "you all ought to know about this", none of those lists would

Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?

On Thursday 6. July 2017 19.11.13 Thomas Doczkal wrote: > Thanks for your mail Erik. I fully support what you say. This makes all > sense to me. > > Well one thing is with online activities you can even track down the effect > to single users if you like to. Personalized links is the hint here.

Developing free and open platforms (was Re: Is it acceptable to use proprietary software (platforms) to promote software freedom?)

On Thursday 22. June 2017 21.31.07 Roland Häder wrote: > > There is an idea circulating in the fediverse about writing a free-libre > open source "youtube" ([s]of course, with an other name which I don't > want to name here to not fuel domain sharks[/s] na, they already took > the .org domain ...

  1   2   >