Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 3:17 PM, "Stormy Peters" wrote: > > I disagree quite strongly. > Fair enough, let me be clearer: my stated views do not necessarily represent the views of the GNOME Foundation or the GNOME community. GNOME comprises a variety of viewpoints, of which mine is one; there are plenty of others. This is one of its strengths. > I have a bit of a concern, however, that on the strength of this statement, one might find oneself confronted with the suggestion that one is ³damaging GNOME² somehow by simply expressing a point of view: in fact, such a suggestion has been made in this thread at one point. Again, thisto meseems to demand a sort of self-censorship. Who¹s to make the judgment of what constitutes a ³good job representing GNOME²? Am I doing a ³good job representing GNOME²? (This is intended as a completely rhetorical question, lest anyone misunderstand me here; I am not requesting a ³performance review², and I¹ll look askance at anyone who tries to deliver one on this list.) Some may feel so, but I¹d bet any amount of money that you¹d get some distinct disagreement to that suggestion if you asked around. Not that this bothers me, especially. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > > I speak as "part of GNOME", perhaps, but I don't speak _for_ GNOME. The > distinction is critically important. "Speaking _for_ GNOME" is a job for > Stormy and the Board, and those to whom they might choose to delegate that > responsibility. My opinions don't reflect the views of anyone other than > myself. > > I disagree quite strongly. All of you can speak for GNOME. All of you should represent and speak for GNOME.[1] You all represent GNOME when you are out in the world. Please go and spread the word and do a good job representing GNOME. Stormy [1] And if you'd like to formally represent GNOME at a conference, please, please do. See http://live.gnome.org/GnomeEvents/Speakers for opportunities. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
Hi, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > One further comment on this: I stand by my view that Stormy's mission > statement should not use the terminology "free software" to the exclusion of > the term "open source software". In fact, in light of what you've said, I > believe I feel even a little more strongly about it: FWIW, when I was on the board, my summary of board policy at that time was: * When I speak for myself, I use free software * When speaking for GNOME, use "free and open source software" - avoid abbreviations "FOSS and FLOSS" * Avoid using either "Linux" (except when talking about the kernel) or "GNU/Linux" if possible - talk about GNOME itself. It was always tricky to start talking about OSes - if you say "GNOME is a desktop environment for Linux", you have some requests asking that you say GNU/Linux, other requests to mention BSD, Solaris and other unices, making the phrase awkward & long, and reducing its impact. So we tend to avoid that particular discussion in writing. > (I'd note in passing that, from the point of view of an "open source > developer", "free software" is a subset of "open source software"; to a > "free software developer", they're mutually exclusive sets.) As a free software developer, I see them as synonyms. I identify the freedom that we give to users as the key attribute of the software, so I call it free software. Other people call the same software open source, perhaps because the availability of the source is the key attribute for them? Perhaps because it is a better known & less ambiguous phrase in English? Anyway - as I say, for me they're essentially synonyms. For others, including RMS, they're not. There are very few (I think 2 or 3) OSI approved licences which are not free software licences also. And there are none in the other direction - all free software licences are open source licences. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member dne...@gnome.org ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 1:58 PM, "Dave Neary" wrote: > > Having gone through 10 years of "Open Source" vs "Free Software" > debates, I know that (like emacs vs vim, bsd vs linux, gnome vs kde, bsd > vs gpl, reply-to for mailing lists, code indentation styles, and other > religious debates) that nothing will come of it. One further comment on this: I stand by my view that Stormy's mission statement should not use the terminology "free software" to the exclusion of the term "open source software". In fact, in light of what you've said, I believe I feel even a little more strongly about it: Since it _is_ a "debate", as we agree, there must be a minimum of two sides to it. To simply use "free software" in that statement would constitute an endorsement of one of the two opinions to the detriment of the other(s). (I'd note in passing that, from the point of view of an "open source developer", "free software" is a subset of "open source software"; to a "free software developer", they're mutually exclusive sets.) ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 1:58 PM, "Dave Neary" wrote: > > So proposing that GNOME as a project adopt one or the other amounts to a > troll, in that it will create an endless discussion with no result. Well, I'll be sure not to propose that, then. Again, my impression has been that there are unquestioned and unexamined beliefs about the attitudes and views of the FLOSS community at large; I happen not to think that those beliefs are true. I'm attempting to test that hypothesis, and I went to some pains to try to do so even-handedly. >> If you're suggesting that _this_ survey is somehow biased, as your example >> question would appear to, I'd appreciate more specific information. > > Not at all. I even voted in it. I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of > Phillip's suggestion that the only way to "respect" a survey is to > implement whatever results from it. Okay, that was unclear to me. I personally haven't asked anyone to implement anything. I've limited myself to saying (I believe, correct me if I'm wrong) that I found the results interesting and worth thinking about. As I said to Owen, there's no way to single out "GNOME respondents" from any other respondents in this particular survey. Thus, I'd personally hesitate to say that any particular results were indicative of anything have to do specifically with GNOME: without a relevant cross-tabulation, the data won't support that. If we _want_ to survey GNOME members, we certainly can. But let's be clear that this isn't what I'm doing here, not to the exclusion of KDE members, NetBSD advocates, Microsoft employees or Bronx zookeepers (should any members of the latter two groups choose to participate: they're more than welcome to). >> I'm most certainly not proposing that the Board necessarily do or not do >> anything based on the results. I do, however, think they're worthy of >> consideration. Note that I have not suggested that anyone "respect" the >> results. I do think that people should consider them, but that's entirely up >> to them. > > Absolutely - the results are a useful data point. If nothing gets done > with the results, because our leaders adopt a stance on behalf of the > project, I hope that the people who voted don't feel disrespected. I certainly hope not, especially since the survey was never intended by me to lead to any specific action on the part of anyone in particular. I certainly haven't represented it as having that intention. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 1:22 PM, "Owen Taylor" wrote: > >> I think you may be reading quite a bit more into this than I'd intended. Do >> you have an objection to the questions in the survey simply being _asked_, >> Owen...? > > It's very hard not to take the survey as a continuation of the recent > discussions on this list, which I felt at the time to be highly > unproductive. It was long and acrimonious discussion largely about > changes to planet.gnome.org policy that hadn't actually been proposed. That may be, but I can only encourage try not to take it in that fashion. > I don't think I'm at all alone in taking the survey that way. The > purpose of the survey seems to be to collect data to support (or > possibly refute) your position. I have an _opinion_, but since the other matter was, in fact, fairly well-settled by the editors, I'm not staking out any "position" here. Assertions were made which I don't personally happen to believe are actually the case. My goal with this survey is to test my hypothesis. If people feel that reporting the results would be unhelpful here, I certainly won't report them. I find them quite interesting, myself. > I also feel that the survey is quite flawed, and after going through > most of it decided not to submit my answers because by submitting it I > would be misrepresenting my opinion on proprietary software. I'd be interested in knowing how a less "flawed" survey to get some concrete data on these issues would be constructed. I got feedback in comments that an "Other" was needed on the "illegitimate"/"immoral"/"antisocial" questions, so I added one. > Imagine that somebody wrote an article based on the results of your > survey. The results would show that: > > Many "FOSS" developers don't consider proprietary software >immoral, or illegitimate. > > Many "FOSS" developers sometimes use proprietary software. All I've pointed out so far is that, apparently, many "FOSS" _users_ also use proprietary software, by choice. I've done no cross-tabulations on "developers", and I won't for a while yet. Now, if in fact, the survey _were_ to show that, say, many FOSS developers actually _don't_ consider proprietary software to be "immoral" and use it by choice, that's significant, I'd say. Facts are facts. If they're _inconvenient_ facts, I can't really help that, but to proffer fictions instead is simply deceitful. You would seem to be suggesting here that I should not conduct the survey for fear someone might report the results. I may be misunderstanding you. > And in fact I'd up in both of those categories. And somebody reading the > article would get the impression that "FOSS" developers don't think > there is a moral dimension to Free Software. Yet I strongly believe: > > - That picking Free Software over proprietary software is the right >thing to do even when there is a cost to me such as less >functionality. > > - That a world where a task can't be done with Free Software is a >worse world. Then you can choose "Other" and say precisely that. > And that wouldn't be represented at all. See immediately above. Problem solved. Go; be represented, please. > In that way, it felt a bit like > the sort of surveys you see taken by political action groups with an > agenda. That may well not have been your intent - but I think we have to > be aware that survey construction is hard, and the very construction of > a survey and reporting of survey results is not a neutral activity; it's > a form of public relations. Again, I'm open to suggestions as to how it could be improved; none have been forthcoming here. If the suggestion is, "Don't _do_ that!", then I'm afraid I'm disinclined to acquiesce to your request. > And none of us can escape the fact that by being a GNOME member, by > speaking on GNOME forums like foundation-list and planet.gnome.org, and > by being part of GNOME bodies, whether the sysadmin team, or the > advisory board, we speak as part of GNOME. I speak as "part of GNOME", perhaps, but I don't speak _for_ GNOME. The distinction is critically important. "Speaking _for_ GNOME" is a job for Stormy and the Board, and those to whom they might choose to delegate that responsibility. My opinions don't reflect the views of anyone other than myself. The notion that one should have to change or hide one's own opinions because one is "speaking as part of GNOME" seems to me to run directly counter to the goal of GNOME to encompass a diversity of views, approaches and opinions. > That doesn't mean self-censorship, but it does mean that we have to > watch what sort of conversation we are part of, and whether they are > productive, or entertaining at the cost of being damaging to GNOME's > image. I have to disagree, Owen. If the conversation does not run afoul of the Code of Conduct, then that's all that's required as far as I'm concerned. Anything beyond that _is_ "self-censorship". If you feel someoneand that includes meis "damaging GNOME's imag
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
Hi, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > On 1/15/10 9:57 AM, "Dave Neary" wrote: > Dave, I think this is unhelpful. If you must, maybe you should do it > privately, rather than publicly. Having gone through 10 years of "Open Source" vs "Free Software" debates, I know that (like emacs vs vim, bsd vs linux, gnome vs kde, bsd vs gpl, reply-to for mailing lists, code indentation styles, and other religious debates) that nothing will come of it. So proposing that GNOME as a project adopt one or the other amounts to a troll, in that it will create an endless discussion with no result. > If you're suggesting that _this_ survey is somehow biased, as your example > question would appear to, I'd appreciate more specific information. Not at all. I even voted in it. I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of Phillip's suggestion that the only way to "respect" a survey is to implement whatever results from it. > I'm most certainly not proposing that the Board necessarily do or not do > anything based on the results. I do, however, think they're worthy of > consideration. Note that I have not suggested that anyone "respect" the > results. I do think that people should consider them, but that's entirely up > to them. Absolutely - the results are a useful data point. If nothing gets done with the results, because our leaders adopt a stance on behalf of the project, I hope that the people who voted don't feel disrespected. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member dne...@gnome.org ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 11:31 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > On 1/15/10 11:10 AM, "Owen Taylor" wrote: > > > > We certainly all know that RMS believes that. Some other GNOME community > > members may as well, though probably not a large number. It, is however, > > your choice to focus on it, and I don't understand what you are trying > > to achieve by doing that. > > > > - Are you trying to argue down RMS? I've certainly never seen that > >work in 15 years. [ I apologize if this implies any disrespect to RMS; if I was writing for public consumption, I would certainly have added that I've known RMS to be very reasonable when presented with new information or a strong argument about how some goal should be accomplished. He just doesn't compromise on his principles. It's always good to be reminded never to say anything in private email that you would phrase differently in public, since these mistakes do happen. :-) ] [...] > > By posting something on foundation-list, I feel that you are pretty > > explicitly saying it is related to GNOME. > > I can't help how you feel, Owen. I _can_ assure that its only relation to > GNOME is that members of GNOME are most certainly members of the target > audience I'm seeking. [...] > I think you may be reading quite a bit more into this than I'd intended. Do > you have an objection to the questions in the survey simply being _asked_, > Owen...? It's very hard not to take the survey as a continuation of the recent discussions on this list, which I felt at the time to be highly unproductive. It was long and acrimonious discussion largely about changes to planet.gnome.org policy that hadn't actually been proposed. I don't think I'm at all alone in taking the survey that way. The purpose of the survey seems to be to collect data to support (or possibly refute) your position. I also feel that the survey is quite flawed, and after going through most of it decided not to submit my answers because by submitting it I would be misrepresenting my opinion on proprietary software. Imagine that somebody wrote an article based on the results of your survey. The results would show that: Many "FOSS" developers don't consider proprietary software immoral, or illegitimate. Many "FOSS" developers sometimes use proprietary software. And in fact I'd up in both of those categories. And somebody reading the article would get the impression that "FOSS" developers don't think there is a moral dimension to Free Software. Yet I strongly believe: - That picking Free Software over proprietary software is the right thing to do even when there is a cost to me such as less functionality. - That a world where a task can't be done with Free Software is a worse world. And that wouldn't be represented at all. In that way, it felt a bit like the sort of surveys you see taken by political action groups with an agenda. That may well not have been your intent - but I think we have to be aware that survey construction is hard, and the very construction of a survey and reporting of survey results is not a neutral activity; it's a form of public relations. And none of us can escape the fact that by being a GNOME member, by speaking on GNOME forums like foundation-list and planet.gnome.org, and by being part of GNOME bodies, whether the sysadmin team, or the advisory board, we speak as part of GNOME. That doesn't mean self-censorship, but it does mean that we have to watch what sort of conversation we are part of, and whether they are productive, or entertaining at the cost of being damaging to GNOME's image. Here, if there are specific changes that you think should be made to GNOME's policies, I think those should be the things we should be discussing, rather than abstract attitudes toward proprietary software. - Owen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 1:05 PM, "Alan Cox" wrote: > >> 2. not legitimate; not sanctioned by law or custom. > > I don't see what the fuss is about. I don't know that there _is_ a "fuss". That's one of the things I hope to determine via the survey. > "Not sanctioned by custom" precisely describes Richard Stallman's belief > that Free Software as a concept does not include considering proprietary > software as acceptable in most cases. I understand that. What I'm interested in, however, is the degree to which that belief is reflected in the community. It's an open question, in my mind, whether this view is, in fact, "customary" in the broader community. Early results would seem to suggest otherwise. If, in factas the survey results apparently showamong the virtually 100% of respondents who use free/etc. software on their own time, about two-thirds also use proprietary software on their own time (i.e. by their own choice), this would seem to suggest that the actual "custom" may be rather different than what it's being represented to be. > The EU uses "Free, Libre and Open Source Software " when it wants to talk > about the general space and ensure that the usual misinterpretations of > 'free' do not occur and that nobody is offended, mislabeled or wastes all > their meeting time with stupid arguments. I provided "FLOSS" as a choice, as well as "FOSS" and "Other", with a comments box. I don't want anyone to feel as though they're unrepresented. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
> 2. not legitimate; not sanctioned by > law or custom. I don't see what the fuss is about. "Not sanctioned by custom" precisely describes Richard Stallman's belief that Free Software as a concept does not include considering proprietary software as acceptable in most cases. Whether that is true of the majority use of the term today is open to debate, but it was his term in the first place 8) The EU uses "Free, Libre and Open Source Software " when it wants to talk about the general space and ensure that the usual misinterpretations of 'free' do not occur and that nobody is offended, mislabeled or wastes all their meeting time with stupid arguments. A bit cumbersome but a good deal more all embracing. Given GNOME has always tended to keep core libraries LGPL that's perhaps also more descriptive too. Alan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
Le ven. 15 janv. 2010 à 18:57:52 (+0100), Dave Neary a écrit: > Philip Van Hoof wrote: > > I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open > > source. > > Please stop trolling. This is not going to lead to anything productive > (again). Thanks Dave. I am coming late into this, but I feel you should be seconded. Philip, this a new year and I think it would be nice if you could make an effort to not be part of at least ONE troll on foundation-list, just one. Of course, you are not obliged to be nice. It's your call. Dodji ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
My Apologies to Owen
I inadvertently replied publicly to what had been a private message from Owen, and for that, I apologize. It was accidental, and I apologized to Owen offline as soon as he pointed my error out to me. As I was getting ready to send it off, I noticed that Owen was the sole recipient, assumed I'd hit "Reply" rather than "Reply all", and added foundation-list to the cc, rather than going back and taking a look at the original message. My bad. Sorry, Owen. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 11:10 AM, "Owen Taylor" wrote: > > We certainly all know that RMS believes that. Some other GNOME community > members may as well, though probably not a large number. It, is however, > your choice to focus on it, and I don't understand what you are trying > to achieve by doing that. > > - Are you trying to argue down RMS? I've certainly never seen that >work in 15 years. No, that would be futile, I suspect. I _am_ trying to discern how well RMS' views reflect the views of the "free software"/"open source software"/FLOSS/FOSS community at large, an effort I believe to be completely legitimate. > - Are you trying to create a split between the Free Software Foundation >and GNOME? How would that be helpful to GNOME? No, I don't have the power to do that, nor is it up to me. > - Are you trying to get some change made in how the GNOME project >does business? What? No, as I said, I'm trying to see how the community views these issues. > By posting something on foundation-list, I feel that you are pretty > explicitly saying it is related to GNOME. I can't help how you feel, Owen. I _can_ assure that its only relation to GNOME is that members of GNOME are most certainly members of the target audience I'm seeking. I would point out, again, that given the construction of the survey, there's no way to pull out response from Foundation members as opposed to the public at large. Given that there's no possible cross-tabulation on that factor, it's flatly impossible to draw conclusions regarding GNOME on the basis of these particular survey results. That was, as I mentioned, fairly deliberate. That said, if some future survey were to demonstrate that the views expressed by the FSF represented the views of only a minority of the members of the Foundation or the GNOME community at large, then that would represent data to which the Foundation and the Board should give serious consideration, in my view. I am NOT claiming that this is the case, by any means, see the preceding paragraph. Now, I've similarly posted announcements of this survey on Twitter, identi.ca, Facebook, the FOSDEM general mailing list, the FSF-Europe's Legal & Licensing Network mailing list, and I forwarded the information on the survey to Simon Bridge, one of the moderators of the FSF Community Response Team list. I am, similarly, not trying to create splits between FOSDEM, FSF-Europe, or the FSF Community Response Team and the FSF, nor am I trying to change how any of them "do business". I am simply seeking a broad cross-section of respondents. I think you may be reading quite a bit more into this than I'd intended. Do you have an objection to the questions in the survey simply being _asked_, Owen...? If anyone wants to put notice of this survey out anywhere where it'll get uptake from members of the "free software"/"open source software"/FLOSS/FOSS community, I'd appreciate their doing so. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 9:57 AM, "Dave Neary" wrote: > > Please stop trolling. Dave, I think this is unhelpful. If you must, maybe you should do it privately, rather than publicly. > How about I do a poll whether people think PCs should run Windows or > another desktop environment? If we respect the results we should stop > developing GNOME. This survey is not specifically related to GNOME, as I've said. I mentioned it here mainly in order to ensure getting the broadest participation. I am conducting it mainly for my own interest, in order to see how well expressed beliefs reflect actual realities. If you're suggesting that _this_ survey is somehow biased, as your example question would appear to, I'd appreciate more specific information. > Isn't leading by survey one of the issues you had with the Bush & Blair > administrations? I'm most certainly not proposing that the Board necessarily do or not do anything based on the results. I do, however, think they're worthy of consideration. Note that I have not suggested that anyone "respect" the results. I do think that people should consider them, but that's entirely up to them. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
I think what Lefty was trying to do was show that the list/community/group has lots of different opinions and we all make lots of assumptions whenever we talk about "the community". That said, I believe surveys are a very hard way to make definitive statements. Stormy 2010/1/15 Andy Tai > Lefty, you don't go to an organization of iphone developers and use a > survey to try to convert them to be Android developers. > > What you are doing is kind of like that here. > > 2010/1/15 Lefty (石鏡 ) > >> Thanks to Bruno and the rest of the Membership team. It pleases me for >> some reason to be on the same list of new members as my friend, Jim Vasile. >> >> On a different matter, I am currently conducting a brief (< 5 minute) >> survey on attitudes and viewpoints on FLOSS and proprietary software and I >> invite all to participate in it. We have on the order to 400 respondents so >> far, but I’d like to get as broad a level of coverage as possible. >> >> The survey can be found at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/F8DG25Q >> >> A summary of the responses received so far can be found at >> http://bit.ly/74WQBI >> >> Thanks in advance for your participation. I’ll be making a formal report >> of the results in a few weeks. >> >> ___ >> foundation-list mailing list >> foundation-list@gnome.org >> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list >> >> > > > -- > Andy Tai, a...@atai.org > Happy New Year 2010 民國99年 > 自動的精神力是信仰與覺悟 > 自動的行為力是勞動與技能 > > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
Lefty, you don't go to an organization of iphone developers and use a survey to try to convert them to be Android developers. What you are doing is kind of like that here. 2010/1/15 Lefty (石鏡 ) > Thanks to Bruno and the rest of the Membership team. It pleases me for > some reason to be on the same list of new members as my friend, Jim Vasile. > > On a different matter, I am currently conducting a brief (< 5 minute) > survey on attitudes and viewpoints on FLOSS and proprietary software and I > invite all to participate in it. We have on the order to 400 respondents so > far, but I’d like to get as broad a level of coverage as possible. > > The survey can be found at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/F8DG25Q > > A summary of the responses received so far can be found at > http://bit.ly/74WQBI > > Thanks in advance for your participation. I’ll be making a formal report of > the results in a few weeks. > > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > > -- Andy Tai, a...@atai.org Happy New Year 2010 民國99年 自動的精神力是信仰與覺悟 自動的行為力是勞動與技能 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
Dave, Philip, Can you take this one offline unless there's another point you'd like to discuss with the whole Foundation list? Stormy On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:31 AM, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 18:57 +0100, Dave Neary wrote: > > > Philip Van Hoof wrote: > > > I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with > open > > > source. > > > > Please stop trolling. This is not going to lead to anything productive > > (again). > > As Lefty is clarifying here, this isn't trolling at all: > > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2010-January/msg00041.html > > I think the discussion about replacing free software with open source > has actually produced a very fruitful discussion and is creating a > productive outcome. > > > > This is an excerpt of a private E-mail that Lefty sent me. The survey's > > > results are open for everybody so this ain't a secret anyway: > > > > > > "There's about twice the uptake for the term "open source software" as > > > there is for "free software"." > > > > > > If the board respects the results of the survey, which I think it > should > > > do, it takes this into account. > > > How about I do a poll whether people think PCs should run Windows or > > another desktop environment? If we respect the results we should stop > > developing GNOME. > > Surveys should be conducted among foundation members. Not all PC users. > > And when you represent my views, it's helpful to acknowledge what I > wrote in front of your reply in the same discussion thread. > > > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 18:05 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > > > > Although I would accept that the foundation board has a decisive > > > role in this. Why else do we elect you guys and don't replace you > > > with surveys? > > > Isn't leading by survey one of the issues you had with the Bush & Blair > > administrations? > > This is completely besides the point. > > (When did I say this, anyway? - reply privately -) > > > Cheers, > > -- > Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer > home: me at pvanhoof dot be > gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org > http://pvanhoof.be/blog > http://codeminded.be > > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: New GNOME Foundation Members
Hello, all. Thanks for the warm welcome. I'm happy to be part of the team. -J At Fri, 15 Jan 2010 16:41:50 +0100, Dave Neary wrote: > > And a special congrats to the guys I know on the list - Adam Reviczky, > Ben Konrath, David Schlesinger, James Vasile, Jeff Schroeder and > Mark-Andre Lureau. Welcome to the foundation. > > And to Frank, Ke, Thibault, hi, I'm Dave. Nice to meet you. > > Cheers, > Dave. > > Bruno Boaventura wrote: > > Hello everybody! > > > > I was quite busy due to my daughter. And now, she is almost three > > months older, so... I'm back. Really. :-) > > > > The GNOME Foundation Membership Committee is proud to present the new > > members: > > > > - Adam Janos Reviczky > > - Benjamin Konrath > > - David Schlesinger > > - Frank Solensky > > - James Vasile > > - Jeff Schroeder > > - Ke Wang > > - Marc-Andre Lureau > > - Thibault Saunier > > > > If your name is on the list above, you're welcome!!! Feel embraced! > > Being part of GNOME Foundation you're contributing more with GNOME. > > > > If you aren't on the list, and you are close of one of them, please > > say "Welcome to GNOME Foundation" and embrace them. > > > > At your service, > > > > GNOME Foundation Membership Committee > > ___ > > foundation-list mailing list > > foundation-list@gnome.org > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > > > > -- > Dave Neary > GNOME Foundation member > dne...@gnome.org > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 18:57 +0100, Dave Neary wrote: > Philip Van Hoof wrote: > > I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open > > source. > > Please stop trolling. This is not going to lead to anything productive > (again). As Lefty is clarifying here, this isn't trolling at all: http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2010-January/msg00041.html I think the discussion about replacing free software with open source has actually produced a very fruitful discussion and is creating a productive outcome. > > This is an excerpt of a private E-mail that Lefty sent me. The survey's > > results are open for everybody so this ain't a secret anyway: > > > > "There's about twice the uptake for the term "open source software" as > > there is for "free software"." > > > > If the board respects the results of the survey, which I think it should > > do, it takes this into account. > How about I do a poll whether people think PCs should run Windows or > another desktop environment? If we respect the results we should stop > developing GNOME. Surveys should be conducted among foundation members. Not all PC users. And when you represent my views, it's helpful to acknowledge what I wrote in front of your reply in the same discussion thread. > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 18:05 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > > Although I would accept that the foundation board has a decisive > > role in this. Why else do we elect you guys and don't replace you > > with surveys? > Isn't leading by survey one of the issues you had with the Bush & Blair > administrations? This is completely besides the point. (When did I say this, anyway? - reply privately -) Cheers, -- Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://pvanhoof.be/blog http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:15 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > On 1/15/10 10:01 AM, "David Schlesinger" wrote: > > > >> Free software isn't a synonym for open source, and by only using 'free > >> software' you aren't including all the OSI definitions which GNOME also > >> endorses. > > > > This is actually an excellent, and an important, point. > > Having poked around a little bit, I think this needs to be stated more > strongly. We certainly have software in GNOME that's being made available > under the Apache license. (The keyring is an example a little Google'ing > turned up...) > > With respect to the v2 GPLand we still don't accept v3 GPL software as > GNOME components, last I heardsoftware under the Apache license can't be > reasonably described as "free software", since it is incompatible with what > is uncontrovertibly a "free software license", i.e. the v2 GPL. It is, > regardless, unequivocally "open source software". It's practically speaking a problem if GNOME ships any code under a GPL incompatible license. This is something that should be red-flagged by the release team, because it will cause problems in effectively sharing and moving code between GNOME components. But it has very little to do with "Free Software" vs. "Open Source Software". E.g. the FSF page on licensing has a section called: "GPL-Incompatible Free Software Licenses" http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses Including the Apache license. > Given this, we cannot legitimately simply use the term "free software" to > describe what's included under the GNOME umbrella. Doing so would exclude > any software which is licensed under terms which the FSF says are > incompatible with the GPL. GNOME has strong historical ties to the Free Software movement and believes in Free Software/Open Source Software as a positive societal good, and not just a convenient business strategy. For this reason, I think "Free Software" should be our preferred term. There are of course, audiences for which "Free Software" can be a confusing and unfamiliar term and in communicating with these audiences we may want to refer to "Open Source Software" additionally or even alternatively. - Owen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:14 AM, Owen Taylor wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:34 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote: >> I believe we can state it this way ... >> >> The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free >> software but that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary >> software. We believe, promote, use and write free software. >> >> We are excited when companies and individuals use GNOME technologies >> because we believe it brings us closer to our mission and vision of a >> free desktop (or mobile interface) accessible to everyone. Sometimes >> those companies are proprietary software companies and while we hope >> that they move closer to free software in the future (and that we are >> helping them do so with the use of GNOME), we are delighted that they >> have chosen to use GNOME and will help them and their customers. > > This is a great, positive way of saying things that I consider to > reflect the long-standing views of the GNOME community and is inclusive > of the diversity of opinions that we have. > > Continuing a negatively framed debate like "does the GNOME community > believe that proprietary software is immoral" is not helpful. I hope > Lefty will take a step back and consider whether his survey actually has > a real purpose in guiding the activity of the GNOME project. > > We have a lot of software to write, we have a lot of users to get our > message to. I think there's a responsibility on all of us, and > especially those who could be seen (by virtue of holding a position on a > GNOME board) as representing GNOME, not to get sidetracked into argument > for the sake of argument. +1 to both Owen and Stormy's statements. Luis ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
I will amend to say free and open source in the least awkward way I can. Stormy On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > On 1/15/10 10:10 AM, "Stormy Peters" wrote: > > > I have no objections to "free and open source" other than it's awkwardness. > (I too have used it quite a bit.) > > As I point out in my previous message, I’d say we *have* to use it, > awkward or not. > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 10:10 AM, "Stormy Peters" wrote: > > I have no objections to "free and open source" other than it's awkwardness. (I > too have used it quite a bit.) > As I point out in my previous message, I¹d say we have to use it, awkward or not. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 10:01 AM, "David Schlesinger" wrote: > >> Free software isn't a synonym for open source, and by only using 'free >> software' you aren't including all the OSI definitions which GNOME also >> endorses. > > This is actually an excellent, and an important, point. Having poked around a little bit, I think this needs to be stated more strongly. We certainly have software in GNOME that's being made available under the Apache license. (The keyring is an example a little Google'ing turned up...) With respect to the v2 GPLand we still don't accept v3 GPL software as GNOME components, last I heardsoftware under the Apache license can't be reasonably described as "free software", since it is incompatible with what is uncontrovertibly a "free software license", i.e. the v2 GPL. It is, regardless, unequivocally "open source software". Given this, we cannot legitimately simply use the term "free software" to describe what's included under the GNOME umbrella. Doing so would exclude any software which is licensed under terms which the FSF says are incompatible with the GPL. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:34 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote: > I believe we can state it this way ... > > The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free > software but that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary > software. We believe, promote, use and write free software. > > We are excited when companies and individuals use GNOME technologies > because we believe it brings us closer to our mission and vision of a > free desktop (or mobile interface) accessible to everyone. Sometimes > those companies are proprietary software companies and while we hope > that they move closer to free software in the future (and that we are > helping them do so with the use of GNOME), we are delighted that they > have chosen to use GNOME and will help them and their customers. This is a great, positive way of saying things that I consider to reflect the long-standing views of the GNOME community and is inclusive of the diversity of opinions that we have. Continuing a negatively framed debate like "does the GNOME community believe that proprietary software is immoral" is not helpful. I hope Lefty will take a step back and consider whether his survey actually has a real purpose in guiding the activity of the GNOME project. We have a lot of software to write, we have a lot of users to get our message to. I think there's a responsibility on all of us, and especially those who could be seen (by virtue of holding a position on a GNOME board) as representing GNOME, not to get sidetracked into argument for the sake of argument. - Owen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
Hi, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open > source. Please stop trolling. This is not going to lead to anything productive (again). > This is an excerpt of a private E-mail that Lefty sent me. The survey's > results are open for everybody so this ain't a secret anyway: > > "There's about twice the uptake for the term "open source software" as > there is for "free software"." > > If the board respects the results of the survey, which I think it should > do, it takes this into account. How about I do a poll whether people think PCs should run Windows or another desktop environment? If we respect the results we should stop developing GNOME. Isn't leading by survey one of the issues you had with the Bush & Blair administrations? Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member dne...@gnome.org ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
Hi, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > Lefty gave accurate definitions for the words he used. For example the > word "illegitimate": Richard clearly questioned the legitimacy of > proprietary software and asked us to mirror this statement. This is > archived if you don't believe me. "illegitimate" is not a synonym for "illegal". The way Stallman uses sthe word, it is more accurate to consider it a synonym of "immoral". > Secondly: > > Lefty's last survey's exact words: > > "Legitimate" means both "not contrary to existing law" and "in accordance > with recognized or accepted standards or principles". Do you believe > that proprietary software is "illegitimate"? > > Possible meanings according to an English dictionary: > > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illegitimate > > > 1. born of parents who are not > married to each other; born out of > wedlock: an illegitimate child. > > -> Not relevant here > > > 2. not legitimate; not sanctioned by > law or custom. > > 3. unlawful; illegal: an > illegitimate action. > > -> Relevant, Richard used "illegitimate" within the context of >laws and legality. When talking about the proprietary nature > of a work, you are discussing legal aspects of its license. > > > 4. irregular; not in good usage. > > -> Somewhat relevant, it's clear that "proprietary" sets the > context firmly to law systems and legality. Richard could > have used less ambiguity if he meant this. He didn't. It appears to me that RMS is using illegitimate in the sense "not sanctioned by custom" perhaps - or more likely, "irregular; not in good usage". From the two options Lefty lists, "not in accordance with recognized or accepted standards or principles" Dave. -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member dne...@gnome.org ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: New GNOME Foundation Members
And a special congrats to the guys I know on the list - Adam Reviczky, Ben Konrath, David Schlesinger, James Vasile, Jeff Schroeder and Mark-Andre Lureau. Welcome to the foundation. And to Frank, Ke, Thibault, hi, I'm Dave. Nice to meet you. Cheers, Dave. Bruno Boaventura wrote: > Hello everybody! > > I was quite busy due to my daughter. And now, she is almost three > months older, so... I'm back. Really. :-) > > The GNOME Foundation Membership Committee is proud to present the new members: > > - Adam Janos Reviczky > - Benjamin Konrath > - David Schlesinger > - Frank Solensky > - James Vasile > - Jeff Schroeder > - Ke Wang > - Marc-Andre Lureau > - Thibault Saunier > > If your name is on the list above, you're welcome!!! Feel embraced! > Being part of GNOME Foundation you're contributing more with GNOME. > > If you aren't on the list, and you are close of one of them, please > say "Welcome to GNOME Foundation" and embrace them. > > At your service, > > GNOME Foundation Membership Committee > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > -- Dave Neary GNOME Foundation member dne...@gnome.org ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 11:01 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > On 1/15/10 9:45 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote: > > > > I think it's a great idea to (at least) use both. > > I'd favor this as well. What it gains in possible awkwardness (which > doesn't > bother me, I used to say "free and open source software" all the time) it > also gains in clarity, I think. > I have no objections to "free and open source" other than it's awkwardness. (I too have used it quite a bit.) Stormy ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 9:45 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote: > > I think it's a great idea to (at least) use both. I'd favor this as well. What it gains in possible awkwardness (which doesn't bother me, I used to say "free and open source software" all the time) it also gains in clarity, I think. > Free software isn't a synonym for open source, and by only using 'free > software' you aren't including all the OSI definitions which GNOME also > endorses. This is actually an excellent, and an important, point. > What about the companies and people, like me, who don't feel attached to > free software ideology and yet develop for and with GNOME technologies? Also an important point. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:37 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote: [CUT] > We could also amend the statement to say "free and open source > software" but it gets awkward. I think it's a great idea to (at least) use both. Free software isn't a synonym for open source, and by only using 'free software' you aren't including all the OSI definitions which GNOME also endorses. What about the companies and people, like me, who don't feel attached to free software ideology and yet develop for and with GNOME technologies? If anything I think this debate and the survey's data legitimizes the claim that GNOME is far from only a free software community. This the GNOME foundation should be unambiguously clear about in its statements and texts. In my opinion. Cheers, -- Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://pvanhoof.be/blog http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
I too usually prefer to use the term open source software. However, in this context, I think the term free software is more appropriate. To me, open source software is any software that meets the OSI definition, http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd. It is also the way most companies talk about free and open source software. Free software, to me, also meets the same definition but in addition shows a preference for free software and support for free software in general. I think the GNOME Foundation definitely prefers free software - see the statement. (And that does not mean it is anti-proprietary software.) The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free software but that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary software. We believe, promote, use and write free software. We are excited when companies and individuals use GNOME technologies because we believe it brings us closer to our mission and vision of a free desktop (or mobile interface) accessible to everyone. Sometimes those companies are proprietary software companies and while we hope that they move closer to free software in the future (and that we are helping them do so with the use of GNOME), we are delighted that they have chosen to use GNOME and will help them and their customers. That said, I don't have any objections to companies or individuals referring to GNOME as open source software. I actually consciously try to decide whether I mean free software or open source software whenever I use either term now. You'll see me use both in the same paragraph - intentionally - as I think they have different meanings and connotations. We could also amend the statement to say "free and open source software" but it gets awkward. Stormy On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 9:58 AM, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > On 1/15/10 8:49 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote: > > > > I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open > > source. > > I have some sympathy with this view. "Open source" is my preference as well > and (based on the survey data) seems to have broader "uptake" among the > respondents. > > That said, I can personally live with "free" (in spite of it not being the > terminology I personally use) if that's the consensus among the members > here. > > > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 9:05 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 08:58 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > > Like you say, the survey's data seems to suggest a broader "uptake" > among the respondents for open source. I don't know but I'm inclined to > believe that the consensus among the members is open source, not free > software then. I didn't put a discriminator on the survey to allow me to cross-tabulate GNOME members; that was fairly deliberate at the time, I was looking for as much of a community-wide response as I could get. In retrospect, I wish I'd asked, though. It may be better to look for data on this in a survey that is presented by the Foundation Board to the members in a more official fashion, rather than by me on my own. That said, if the Foundation would like me to conduct a survey on that, or other matters, I'm more than happy to take the questions and responses, etc., from them and implement it on SurveyMonkey. (Last time I mentioned this, I think I was told that the Board had some survey system on hand already; I don't know that we've used it so far...) > Free software vs. open source isn't a matter of just picking words, in > my opinion. I think we should get this right. Well, I would have to say that the reason it's something to consider at this point in time is that some of the terms seem to have gotten a little "loaded" with additional meaning. That is to say, that if there's an equivalence in people's minds between the phrases "favors free software" and "thinks proprietary software is illegitimate" for example, that's a problem in my view. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 18:05 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 08:58 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > > On 1/15/10 8:49 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote: > > Hi Stormy! Mistake, I was replying to Lefty. Sorry Lefty. You know I like your féminin side ;) > > > I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open > > > source. > > > > I have some sympathy with this view. "Open source" is my preference as well > > and (based on the survey data) seems to have broader "uptake" among the > > respondents. > > > > That said, I can personally live with "free" (in spite of it not being the > > terminology I personally use) if that's the consensus among the members > > here. > > Like you say, the survey's data seems to suggest a broader "uptake" > among the respondents for open source. I don't know but I'm inclined to > believe that the consensus among the members is open source, not free > software then. > > Because we can't be sure it might be wise to do a survey at some point > in future to find out what the actual consensus on this is. > > Although I would accept that the foundation board has a decisive role in > this. Why else do we elect you guys and don't replace you with surveys? > > Free software vs. open source isn't a matter of just picking words, in > my opinion. I think we should get this right. > > > -- Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://pvanhoof.be/blog http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:50 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote: Hi Stormy, > Please refrain from calling people crazy or disruptive. Please keep > the discussion on the actions not people's characters. > > By labelling people with negative terms, these debates turn into > arguments instead of productive discussions. I agree, apologizes for the labelling. -- Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://pvanhoof.be/blog http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 08:58 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > On 1/15/10 8:49 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote: Hi Stormy! > > I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open > > source. > > I have some sympathy with this view. "Open source" is my preference as well > and (based on the survey data) seems to have broader "uptake" among the > respondents. > > That said, I can personally live with "free" (in spite of it not being the > terminology I personally use) if that's the consensus among the members > here. Like you say, the survey's data seems to suggest a broader "uptake" among the respondents for open source. I don't know but I'm inclined to believe that the consensus among the members is open source, not free software then. Because we can't be sure it might be wise to do a survey at some point in future to find out what the actual consensus on this is. Although I would accept that the foundation board has a decisive role in this. Why else do we elect you guys and don't replace you with surveys? Free software vs. open source isn't a matter of just picking words, in my opinion. I think we should get this right. -- Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://pvanhoof.be/blog http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 8:49 AM, "Philip Van Hoof" wrote: > > I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open > source. I have some sympathy with this view. "Open source" is my preference as well and (based on the survey data) seems to have broader "uptake" among the respondents. That said, I can personally live with "free" (in spite of it not being the terminology I personally use) if that's the consensus among the members here. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 8:34 AM, "Stormy Peters" wrote: > > The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free software but > that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary software. We believe, > promote, use and write free software. > > We are excited when companies and individuals use GNOME technologies because > we believe it brings us closer to our mission and vision of a free desktop (or > mobile interface) accessible to everyone. Sometimes those companies are > proprietary software companies and while we hope that they move closer to free > software in the future (and that we are helping them do so with the use of > GNOME), we are delighted that they have chosen to use GNOME and will help them > and their customers. > That certainly strikes me as a lot more sensible than an unqualified, blanket statement that proprietary software is ³illegitimate², etc. I very much do not want to see GNOME sending out, standing behind, or otherwise subscribing to statements that would effectively create a group of ³second class citizens² within the community, or create a context where people felt they somehow less valued (or valid) members of the community based on their own use of proprietary software (and again, 2 out of 3 respondents to the survey used proprietary software on their own time.) I likewise very much do not want to see an impression created the GNOME is hostile to organizations that earn some portion of their revenues from the sale or use of proprietary software, or that it views them as somehow criminal or ³unethical² or whatever. As Voltaire advised: ³Never let the best become the enemy of the good.² ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
Hi Philip, Please refrain from calling people crazy or disruptive. Please keep the discussion on the actions not people's characters. By labelling people with negative terms, these debates turn into arguments instead of productive discussions. Stormy On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 9:43 AM, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 11:05 -0500, john palmieri wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Philip Van Hoof > > wrote: > > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:37 -0500, john palmieri wrote: > > > You are still implying that those who are in opposition are the > > disruptive people. It is a blanket, emotional statement. You could > > have simply left it with open source developers are far more pragmatic > > than some give credit for. > > No because the survey's importance for me is to illustrate to the > disruptive people that they are crazy. > > The opposition contains intelligent people too. I'm not referring to > them. You are trying to skew my words because it would suit you if I > would have said that. But I didn't. > > I think it's clear for everybody who I mean with "disruptive people". > > > Because you are pretty disrespectful in how you deal with debate, this > > is the last time I am replying to you on this thread. > > Yes that's easy. > > " > > I disagree with him so I'm going to reply disrespectfully by trying to > skew his words and cut away the most important part of his E-mail ... > > And then I will claim that HE was disrespectful and that I don't want to > talk with him anymore, that way framing the debate with misinformation. > > " > > Sorry John, but it's not because you use a cleaner writing style than I > do, that you aren't being disrespectful. You did cut context-relevant > sentences and you are misrepresenting what I said. You didn't even had > the respect to write a [CUT], which is netiquette. > > > Cheers, > > -- > Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer > home: me at pvanhoof dot be > gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org > http://pvanhoof.be/blog > http://codeminded.be > > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 09:34 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote: Hi Stormy! > I believe we can state it this way ... > > The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free > software but that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary > software. We believe, promote, use and write free software. I fully agree with this statement if you replace free software with open source. > We are excited when companies and individuals use GNOME technologies > because we believe it brings us closer to our mission and vision of a > free desktop (or mobile interface) accessible to everyone. Awesome (the use of the word free is fine if above you use open source). > Sometimes those companies are proprietary software companies and while > we hope that they move closer to free software in the future (and that s/free software/open source/g > we are helping them do so with the use of GNOME), we are delighted > that they have chosen to use GNOME and will help them and their > customers. Fantastic. In my opinion we can only reconsider to use of the word free software in a text like this when the free-software foundation comes to its senses. This is an excerpt of a private E-mail that Lefty sent me. The survey's results are open for everybody so this ain't a secret anyway: "There's about twice the uptake for the term "open source software" as there is for "free software"." If the board respects the results of the survey, which I think it should do, it takes this into account. -- Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://pvanhoof.be/blog http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 11:05 -0500, john palmieri wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Philip Van Hoof > wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:37 -0500, john palmieri wrote: > You are still implying that those who are in opposition are the > disruptive people. It is a blanket, emotional statement. You could > have simply left it with open source developers are far more pragmatic > than some give credit for. No because the survey's importance for me is to illustrate to the disruptive people that they are crazy. The opposition contains intelligent people too. I'm not referring to them. You are trying to skew my words because it would suit you if I would have said that. But I didn't. I think it's clear for everybody who I mean with "disruptive people". > Because you are pretty disrespectful in how you deal with debate, this > is the last time I am replying to you on this thread. Yes that's easy. " I disagree with him so I'm going to reply disrespectfully by trying to skew his words and cut away the most important part of his E-mail ... And then I will claim that HE was disrespectful and that I don't want to talk with him anymore, that way framing the debate with misinformation. " Sorry John, but it's not because you use a cleaner writing style than I do, that you aren't being disrespectful. You did cut context-relevant sentences and you are misrepresenting what I said. You didn't even had the respect to write a [CUT], which is netiquette. Cheers, -- Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://pvanhoof.be/blog http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
I believe we can state it this way ... The GNOME Foundation believes in free software and promotes free software but that does not mean that GNOME is anti-proprietary software. We believe, promote, use and write free software. We are excited when companies and individuals use GNOME technologies because we believe it brings us closer to our mission and vision of a free desktop (or mobile interface) accessible to everyone. Sometimes those companies are proprietary software companies and while we hope that they move closer to free software in the future (and that we are helping them do so with the use of GNOME), we are delighted that they have chosen to use GNOME and will help them and their customers. Stormy ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:47 -0500, john palmieri wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Philip Van Hoof > wrote: > > The only person who here might have intentionally created the > > ambiguity > > is the person who first used the word to describe proprietary: > > Richard. > > I use "might" wisely, I'm not saying this was the intention. > > Have you ever read his manifesto? While you might not agree with his > conclusions, his logic would pass most any scrutiny. I have, yes. I don't always follow his logic and certainly not his conclusions. I don't know what this has to do with me saying that I agree that ambiguity was likely not Richard's intention when he questioned the legitimacy of proprietary software. Can we stick to the point please? > > Pointing to Lefty for being guilty of intentionally creating > > ambiguity is nothing more than either being a moron, or being so > > disinterested that you don't know who said what first. > > Moron: > > 1. a person who is (notably stupid or) lacking in good judgment. > You always seem to devolve into ad-hominem, personal attacks. When a person falsely accuses Lefty of putting bias in his surveys THEN you apparently don't need to respond with the ad-hominem bomb??!! Strange? I don't think so. Xavier said something pro free software so he can't make ad-hominem attacks. Right? A false accusation like that is an attack on Lefty's integrity too. Stop ignoring it. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://pvanhoof.be/blog http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:37 -0500, john palmieri wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Philip Van Hoof > > wrote: > > > > The results are more than enlightening to me. The surveys definitely > > > are useful and insightful. > > > > > They sharply illustrate that open source developers are far more > > > pragmatic than certain people in the audience would like us to be. > > > > Thanks for relegating the opposing view to "certain people". It is > > certainly intelectually honest of you to put them in all in the same > > bucket and then crap in it. > > These people aren't who I refer to as "certain people". > > In the next section I clarify that "certain people" means the people who > are very disruptive. Cutting it away doesn't change that I wrote exactly > that. > > Let me be helpful and put it back for you: > > > > Given that some of those people have been very disruptive, it for me > > > absolutely was needed to confront them with numerical reality. > > I cut it for brevity, and guess what, your rationalization is off anyway. The above statement states that a subset of "certain people" are disruptive. It doesn't say certain people == the disruptive people. Even if you rephrased it as: They sharply illustrate that open source developers are far more pragmatic than DISRUPTIVE PEOPLE in the audience would like us to be. You are still implying that those who are in opposition are the disruptive people. It is a blanket, emotional statement. You could have simply left it with open source developers are far more pragmatic than some give credit for. Because you are pretty disrespectful in how you deal with debate, this is the last time I am replying to you on this thread. -- John (J5) Palmieri ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 10:05 AM, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 14:38 +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote: > > Hi Xavier, > > > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > > > I disrespect people who claim that this last survey has intentional > > > bias. For me they are being intellectually dishonest. > > > > Giving one definition of a word, > > Lefty gave accurate definitions for the words he used. For example the > word "illegitimate": Richard clearly questioned the legitimacy of > proprietary software and asked us to mirror this statement. This is > archived if you don't believe me. > > Firstly: > > The only person who here might have intentionally created the ambiguity > is the person who first used the word to describe proprietary: Richard. > > I use "might" wisely, I'm not saying this was the intention. > > Have you ever read his manifesto? While you might not agree with his conclusions, his logic would pass most any scrutiny. > Pointing to Lefty for being guilty of intentionally creating ambiguity > is nothing more than either being a moron, or being so disinterested > that you don't know who said what first. > > Moron: > > 1. a person who is (notably stupid or) lacking in good judgment. > > You always seem to devolve into ad-hominem, personal attacks. -- John (J5) Palmieri ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On 1/15/10 5:38 AM, "Xavier Bestel" wrote: > > Giving one definition of a word, then asking if someone else's sentence > containing that word is true is at best partial. Xavier, without defining the term beforehand, I'd be open instead to accusations that I wasn't being fair somehow by not defining what I meant clearly. > Feel free to disrespect me. Well, if people are inclined to find fault beforehand, they'll usually discover that they've found it at the end of things. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 10:37 -0500, john palmieri wrote: > On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Philip Van Hoof > wrote: > > The results are more than enlightening to me. The surveys definitely > > are useful and insightful. > > > They sharply illustrate that open source developers are far more > > pragmatic than certain people in the audience would like us to be. > Thanks for relegating the opposing view to "certain people". It is > certainly intelectually honest of you to put them in all in the same > bucket and then crap in it. These people aren't who I refer to as "certain people". In the next section I clarify that "certain people" means the people who are very disruptive. Cutting it away doesn't change that I wrote exactly that. Let me be helpful and put it back for you: > > Given that some of those people have been very disruptive, it for me > > absolutely was needed to confront them with numerical reality. I'll [cut] the rest of your E-mail away now, because this renders it all not relevant to what I wrote. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://pvanhoof.be/blog http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:02 AM, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 02:01 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: > > Hi Lefty, > > > Thanks to Bruno and the rest of the Membership team. It pleases me for > > some reason to be on the same list of new members as my friend, Jim > > Vasile. > > > On a different matter, I am currently conducting a brief (< 5 minute) > > survey on attitudes and viewpoints on FLOSS and proprietary software > > and I invite all to participate in it. We have on the order to 400 > > respondents so far, but I’d like to get as broad a level of coverage > > as possible. > > Thanks a lot for taking the time to conduct these surveys! > > The results are more than enlightening to me. The surveys definitely are > useful and insightful. > > They sharply illustrate that open source developers are far more > pragmatic than certain people in the audience would like us to be. > > Thanks for relegating the opposing view to "certain people". It is certainly intelectually honest of you to put them in all in the same bucket and then crap in it. As for the survey, we have always known GNOME developers to be pretty practical and pragmatic as evidenced by the selection the LGPL for most of our code. The surveys in question have been adjenda driven as a need to de-legitimize the GPL and Free Software in general and RMSs manifesto in particular. While not many of us would say we 100% follow every word that comes out of RMSs mouth, many of us still believe in the notion behind Free Software as a better, and yes more moral way to develop. It is sad thet the FOSS economy is still in its infancy and can not support all of the developers out there yet but that is one of the goals. So, when a survey asks, is proprietary software immoral, illegitimate or antisocial, you are really asking if people who use or develop proprietary software are immoral, illegitimate or antisocial. It isn't really an interesting question. The original issue that brought this all up is whether GNOME should drop people from the planet for endorsing proprietary applications. I don't think there was anyone in any position to do so who agreed (short of some coordinated advertising campaign). I however do agree that GNOME itself should not help promote proprietary software if part of our goal is to spread FOSS software. That means simply that we don't official endorse any proprietary software other than to say it uses GNOME technologies, or a howto get GNOME technology working under some piece of software (Windows, VMWare, etc.). We should never provide links to download proprietary software on official, non-aggregated sites (including the wiki) unless there are no other equivalent FOSS alternatives. Unfortunately the survey doesn't really address that, nor could it. -- John (J5) Palmieri ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 14:38 +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote: Hi Xavier, > On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > > I disrespect people who claim that this last survey has intentional > > bias. For me they are being intellectually dishonest. > > Giving one definition of a word, Lefty gave accurate definitions for the words he used. For example the word "illegitimate": Richard clearly questioned the legitimacy of proprietary software and asked us to mirror this statement. This is archived if you don't believe me. Firstly: The only person who here might have intentionally created the ambiguity is the person who first used the word to describe proprietary: Richard. I use "might" wisely, I'm not saying this was the intention. Pointing to Lefty for being guilty of intentionally creating ambiguity is nothing more than either being a moron, or being so disinterested that you don't know who said what first. Moron: 1. a person who is (notably stupid or) lacking in good judgment. Secondly: Lefty's last survey's exact words: "Legitimate" means both "not contrary to existing law" and "in accordance with recognized or accepted standards or principles". Do you believe that proprietary software is "illegitimate"? Possible meanings according to an English dictionary: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illegitimate 1. born of parents who are not married to each other; born out of wedlock: an illegitimate child. -> Not relevant here 2. not legitimate; not sanctioned by law or custom. 3. unlawful; illegal: an illegitimate action. -> Relevant, Richard used "illegitimate" within the context of laws and legality. When talking about the proprietary nature of a work, you are discussing legal aspects of its license. 4. irregular; not in good usage. -> Somewhat relevant, it's clear that "proprietary" sets the context firmly to law systems and legality. Richard could have used less ambiguity if he meant this. He didn't. 5. Logic. not in accordance with the principles of valid inference. -> Logic is not relevant here. 6. Obsolete a. of or pertaining to stage plays in which musical numbers were inserted because of laws that gave only a few theaters the exclusive right to produce straight dramas. b. acting in or producing such productions. -> Not relevant, it's not about music, dramas or theaters. Also like point #4 is it clear that "proprietary" sets the context firmly to law systems and legality in case you insist on skewing #6 until it suits you. I know people claimed that with illegitimate Richard meant unethical. To be honest doesn't "illegitimate" mean "unethical". Not according to the English dictionaries that I own, nor the online ones that I know about. Nonetheless has Lefty, being unbiased, added morality to his surveys' questions. The results for those questions aren't ambiguous either. > then asking if someone else's sentence > containing that word is true is at best partial. > Feel free to disrespect me. You didn't illustrate Lefty's intent to put a bias in the survey, nor are you intellectually proving that there is any in it. If that's your claim then I indeed feel myself free to disrespect you for it. I don't see why I need to respect people who falsely accuse others. -- Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://pvanhoof.be/blog http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: New GNOME Foundation Members
Aloha Wang and all the others, welcome to GNOME Foundation! Regards, Aron Xu On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 5:50 PM, Bruno Boaventura wrote: > Hello everybody! > > I was quite busy due to my daughter. And now, she is almost three > months older, so... I'm back. Really. :-) > > The GNOME Foundation Membership Committee is proud to present the new members: > > - Adam Janos Reviczky > - Benjamin Konrath > - David Schlesinger > - Frank Solensky > - James Vasile > - Jeff Schroeder > - Ke Wang > - Marc-Andre Lureau > - Thibault Saunier > > If your name is on the list above, you're welcome!!! Feel embraced! > Being part of GNOME Foundation you're contributing more with GNOME. > > If you aren't on the list, and you are close of one of them, please > say "Welcome to GNOME Foundation" and embrace them. > > At your service, > > GNOME Foundation Membership Committee > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
Hi Philip, On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > I disrespect people who claim that this last survey has intentional > bias. For me they are being intellectually dishonest. Giving one definition of a word, then asking if someone else's sentence containing that word is true is at best partial. Feel free to disrespect me. Xav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: New GNOME Foundation Members
On 01/15/2010 03:50 AM, Bruno Boaventura wrote: > Hello everybody! > > I was quite busy due to my daughter. And now, she is almost three > months older, so... I'm back. Really. :-) Congrats on the birth of your daughter! > > The GNOME Foundation Membership Committee is proud to present the new members: > > - Adam Janos Reviczky > - Benjamin Konrath > - David Schlesinger > - Frank Solensky > - James Vasile > - Jeff Schroeder > - Ke Wang > - Marc-Andre Lureau > - Thibault Saunier > > If your name is on the list above, you're welcome!!! Feel embraced! > Being part of GNOME Foundation you're contributing more with GNOME. > > If you aren't on the list, and you are close of one of them, please > say "Welcome to GNOME Foundation" and embrace them. Welcome to all the new members! I'm glad to see David Schlesinger (thanks for your help in GNOME Marketing) and Jeff Schroeder (who has been rocking on the Sysadmin team! Paul > > At your service, > > GNOME Foundation Membership Committee > ___ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote: > They sharply illustrate that open source developers are far more > pragmatic than certain people in the audience would like us to be. The results show 38 % of people non involved with free software, there should be a way to temporary remove their answer for analysis and see the difference. > I hope that the foundation board will learn from your surveys and will > conduct them for most of the future foundation-board decisions too. > I also hope the foundation board will respect the results of these > surveys. The results are invaluable. The board should listen to the foundation members, without being blind to the external world. For them to get a better view, I am sure there could be more statistically interesting ways to present the data (such as coupling answers: is the answer to question View on Floss/1 different per age group? per region of the world? per first language?). As far as I remember from my stats classes, for surveys to be most valuable, have to have a representative set of people filling it in. Being an open form on the web, I believe it is hard to determine if the people who completed the survey are the people we really want an opinion from and if they are representative of the community. Surveys can be useful, let's make sure they are done properly (if not already). Anyone with a maths degree here to set me right? :) Pierre-Luc signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 13:11 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote: Hi Vincent, > Le vendredi 15 janvier 2010, à 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof a écrit : > > I also hope the foundation board will respect the results of these > > surveys. > > What do you mean? I don't (didn't) mean any immediate action is needed. I do believe that these results should be kept in mind for future decisions. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://pvanhoof.be/blog http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: New GNOME Foundation Members
El vie, 15-01-2010 a las 06:50 -0300, Bruno Boaventura escribió: > Hello everybody! > > I was quite busy due to my daughter. And now, she is almost three > months older, so... I'm back. Really. :-) > Congrats Bruno, thanks for keep working on this despite your (highly likely) 3 hours of sleep per day :-) > The GNOME Foundation Membership Committee is proud to present the new > members: > > - Adam Janos Reviczky > - Benjamin Konrath > - David Schlesinger > - Frank Solensky > - James Vasile > - Jeff Schroeder > - Ke Wang > - Marc-Andre Lureau > - Thibault Saunier > Welcome and thanks for your work helping GNOME! :-) ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
Le vendredi 15 janvier 2010, à 13:02 +0100, Philip Van Hoof a écrit : > I also hope the foundation board will respect the results of these > surveys. What do you mean? Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Thanks, and a Brief Survey
On Fri, 2010-01-15 at 02:01 -0800, Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote: Hi Lefty, > Thanks to Bruno and the rest of the Membership team. It pleases me for > some reason to be on the same list of new members as my friend, Jim > Vasile. > On a different matter, I am currently conducting a brief (< 5 minute) > survey on attitudes and viewpoints on FLOSS and proprietary software > and I invite all to participate in it. We have on the order to 400 > respondents so far, but I’d like to get as broad a level of coverage > as possible. Thanks a lot for taking the time to conduct these surveys! The results are more than enlightening to me. The surveys definitely are useful and insightful. They sharply illustrate that open source developers are far more pragmatic than certain people in the audience would like us to be. Given that some of those people have been very disruptive, it for me absolutely was needed to confront them with numerical reality. I hope that the foundation board will learn from your surveys and will conduct them for most of the future foundation-board decisions too. I also hope the foundation board will respect the results of these surveys. The results are invaluable. I disrespect people who claim that this last survey has intentional bias. For me they are being intellectually dishonest. > The survey can be found at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/F8DG25Q > A summary of the responses received so far can be found at > http://bit.ly/74WQBI > > Thanks in advance for your participation. I’ll be making a formal > report of the results in a few weeks. It would be nice to know the results of the people who claim that they are working on or contributing to a GNOME project. Cheers, Philip -- Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer home: me at pvanhoof dot be gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org http://pvanhoof.be/blog http://codeminded.be ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
New GNOME Foundation Members
Hello everybody! I was quite busy due to my daughter. And now, she is almost three months older, so... I'm back. Really. :-) The GNOME Foundation Membership Committee is proud to present the new members: - Adam Janos Reviczky - Benjamin Konrath - David Schlesinger - Frank Solensky - James Vasile - Jeff Schroeder - Ke Wang - Marc-Andre Lureau - Thibault Saunier If your name is on the list above, you're welcome!!! Feel embraced! Being part of GNOME Foundation you're contributing more with GNOME. If you aren't on the list, and you are close of one of them, please say "Welcome to GNOME Foundation" and embrace them. At your service, GNOME Foundation Membership Committee ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
On 12/15/09 4:09 PM, "Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)" wrote: > > On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Dave Neary wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Lefty wrote: >>> Given the proposition that proprietary software is "illegitimate", and >>> the statement above, do you believe that the GNOME Foundation and >>> community should distance itself from companies which produce proprietary >>> software? >>> >>> Specifically, should the Advisory Board be dissolved, and should the >>> Foundation refuse further financial support from the companies that >>> are currently on the Ad Board? >> >> I for one am interested in Richard's position on this. Mine is clear: I have >> no problem at all working with companies who want to improve GNOME or the >> GNOME platform, even if they develop proprietary software. And the money they >> give to GNOME gets used to improve GNOME, so as long as there are no strings >> attached, I don't care particularly why they give it. >> >> On the other hand, I feel under no obligation to promote their non-free >> software offerings, or guilt in encouraging free equivalents of their >> proprietary components & products. > > I fee like you took thoughts out of my mind but unlike me were able > to express them very nicely. :) I'm actually still hoping to get a response on this... ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Thanks, and a Brief Survey
Thanks to Bruno and the rest of the Membership team. It pleases me for some reason to be on the same list of new members as my friend, Jim Vasile. On a different matter, I am currently conducting a brief (< 5 minute) survey on attitudes and viewpoints on FLOSS and proprietary software and I invite all to participate in it. We have on the order to 400 respondents so far, but I¹d like to get as broad a level of coverage as possible. The survey can be found at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/F8DG25Q A summary of the responses received so far can be found at http://bit.ly/74WQBI Thanks in advance for your participation. I¹ll be making a formal report of the results in a few weeks. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
