Vincent Untz posted our Mono policy yesterday, which states very clearly
GNOME's stance on the issue. No part of the core platform can depend on
Mono, and no part of the desktop suit can pick up a new Mono dependency
without going through the module approval process again. A Mono
The patent clauses of GPLv3 are designed to make Microsoft give us all
patent safety thru its involvement in distribution of SuSe GNU/Linux,
if and when programs under GPLv3 and not under GPLv2 are included in
SuSe GNU/Linux.
(If they aren't included in SuSe GNU/Linux, they don't affect Novell
at
> And for as much threatening as Microsoft does around IP, they're not
> particularly active in litigating on it.
> When the issue is about patent law, saying "intellectual property"
> instead of "patents" only tends to confuse the issue, by spuriously
> extending it to
Microsoft haven't done so publicly thus far, but the risk is there,
(Reports are that they often do this privately to great effect.)
and we
will endeavour to make it absolutely clear that our participation does not
Also to not clutter mailboxes even more, I don't see how an optional
dependency on anything can be worse than the fact that GNOME optionally
compiles on MS Windows systems.
That GNOME can work on Windows has no effect on what GNOME does in a
GNU/Linux system. However, a dependency for
> The reason this is not so is that Microsoft is trying to spin the
> apparent "support" of GNOME into proof that OOXML is not bad for
> free software.
Such a risk is always there. People who base their information on what
one side of a story says are doomed to hear everything
That is a decision left entirely up to those who create such Free Software.
I don't believe that we can tell them what to do or how to do it. We can ask
politely.
We are talking at cross purposes. The issue I raised is not whether a
person _can_ write a program in C#; Microsoft might
The patent danger to Mono comes from patents we know Microsoft has, on
libraries which are outside the C# spec and thus not covered by any
promise not to sue. In effect, Microsoft has designed in boobytraps
for us.
Indeed, every large program implements lots of ideas that are
patented. Indeed, t
And for as much threatening as Microsoft does around IP, they're not
particularly active in litigating on it.
When the issue is about patent law, saying "intellectual property"
instead of "patents" only tends to confuse the issue, by spuriously
extending it to copyrights, trademarks, and o
So although there will be a few people up in arms if I describe this as a
"storm in a teacup", what do they seriously think we have to gain by making
*political* statements about ODF or OOXML when it's not massively relevant
to the GNOME community in the first place? If the GNOME Fo
There are some components in GNOME that optionally integrate with Mono-based
tools, particularly Beagle. Yelp can depends on 'libbeagle' which provides
an interface to Beagle for C-based applications, but itself does not depend
on Mono at all.
That is a relief. However, this state
What funding? No one is paying Jody to do what he does on OOXML;
again, he is a volunteer, doing things voluntarily. If someone were to
volunteer for ODF, the board would facilitate it. But the board isn't
going to pay anyone to work on either standard.
We have analogous situations
> Right on, but you could make sure not only geeks noticed the many poison
> pills of OOXML. This discussion is an evident proof one of the poison
> pills is getting at people.
This discussion is not about supporting OOXML.
The discussion is about how to prevent OOXML from becomin
I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with
great concern.
Since I am not an expert, I cannot tell on my own if that description
of the situation is accurate. If part of it is not accurate, I hope
someone will explain. However, if it is accurate, GNOME has a serious
problem.
> We should then back that up by only providing
> a oneway OOXML to ODF converter.
Doesn't that lock our users in?
Data in a publicly documented standard format is not locked-in.
Isn't that bad by principle?
Locking people in is bad, but that's impossible to do with free
software
The sell here for Microsoft is very very easy. The small businesses
that I do consulting for here in the US all use Microsoft operating
systems and office products.
Do you talk to them about moving to free software?
___
foundation-list maili
1. Would you change anything in the GNOME Foundation statement about
OOXML?
2. How do you think the GNOME Foundation should support the Free
Software Movement in general?
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/ma
The page says
The work to standardise OpenXML has been
carried out by Ecma International with representatives from Apple,
Barclays Capital, BP, The British Library, Essilor, Gnome
Foundation, Intel, Microsoft, NextPage, Novell, Statoil, Toshiba,
and the United States Library of
This statement seems to be taking a long time; the delay reduces the
effect. When will it be published?
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Heh, then should a question be whether you're a member of the FSF?
Sometimes what is good for the FSF isn't good for GNOME and vice versa.
Neither of those two is the right basis to decide what we should do.
Companies have no goal beyond what is "good for them", so that is what
they aim f
Even if you don't do that right now and was never asked to do, it's not
impossible that you may be pressured to so in the future, which is why
the affiliation is important
A very nasty company, whose internal culture is cynical and has little
idea of loyalty, might put heavy-handed pre
The first term is the
preferred/correct one while the one in brackets helps connecting a
phrase familiar to many people. I personally don't have any problem
with either one.
That is a legitimate approach, and it can be helpful as you say.
However, those precise words are subject
I don't think "major KDE developers announce their rejection of OOXML"
is a correct description of that page. First, it's an interview, not an
announcement.
It is indeed an interview, but the point of concern here is that in it
they announce their rejection of OOXML.
So, in short
In http://dot.kde.org/1194021253/, major KDE developers announce their
rejection of OOXML. It would be a good thing for GNOME to make
announcement equally unhelpful to Microsoft's promotion of OOxXML.
GNOME and KDE should stand side-by-side in this.
__
I've seen projects like Plone do that... it's clearly an open source
project, but they list quite a few companies that can provide for-pay
support.
What's more significant for our purposes is that Plone is a free
software package. That makes it relevant for comparison.
_
Is someone working on a statement that the GNOME Foundation does not
support acceptance of OOXML as an ISO standard?
I would be glad to offer confidential suggestions about a draft.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.g
I think that one requisite of a good board member is a visible
commitment to the goal of a world in which software is free.
GNOME's purpose is not merely to be a convenient desktop;
it is to provide the Free World with a convenient desktop.
___
foundatio
Umm, never occurred to me... Maybe extend the Friend of GNOMEs
program... with Benefits... donno..
Would we call this the "GNOME Lovers" program?
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/
That is a stretch. It's undeniably that improvements made in MOOX
at my request will tangentially facilitate ISO acceptance.
> Thank you. If you make a public commitment to stay out of the
> activity of satisfying ISO, and to stay inactive in the committee
> while its focus
> OOXML will be a de facto standard entirely due to Microsoft's dominant
> position in the computing industry... the fight is about preventing it to
be
> a formal standard.
I remain open to being convinced (1) that that distinction matters and
(2) that anyone actually thinks G
> The membership can still push for a change from "not supporting" to
> "actively opposing" given the debate now is more active.
What does 'actively oppose' mean in concrete terms ?
- Asking frivolous questions ?
- Writing bad documentation ?
- Starting flame wars on the ma
> If that is the case, anyone who is represented on the ECMA committee
> is helping to promote the ISO acceptance of OOXML
The latter does not necessarily follow from the former. Intentions
do matter.
Intentions do matter, especially in influencing others. But if you
don't state
You said:
> OOXML is going to be the defacto standard whether we like it or not.
"The" defacto standard implies there is only one, and the sentence
says it is not ODF.
It is only by forcing that dichotomy that we set
ourselves up for problems when MS eventually gets OOX through
Here's something IBM's Rob Weir said about what ECMA is doing now:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The practical difficulty here is that of timing. While I have no doubt
that Jody was instrumental in getting additional technical disclosures
from Microsoft back in 2006, Ecma TC45 is not in that mo
OOXML is going to be the defacto standard whether we like it or not.
To pretend otherwise is to deny that the sun will rise in the East
tomorrow.
Please don't be defeatist!
We can and should try to make free software read OOXML, because that will be
a useful feature -- but that doesn'
> Microsoft's goal is, by one means or another, to defeat free software
> which it now considers a serious threat. Whatever they do, it will not
> be a sincere standardization effort that offers no obstacle to free
> software implementions.
This is just your opinion, Richard.
> I think that The GNOME participating in OOXML lends it a credibility
> it does not deserve. Joining ECMA TC45 would be like joining of the
> political party you dislike the most to improve their politics.
It's like starting a competing political party and going to the same
la
Are you seriously suggesting that it's in the best interests of our
users, of GNUmeric users and Abiword users, not to be able to open OOXML
files? I disagree with your statement that most in the community want
the standardisation process to fail - I would suggest that most want the
We'll be making a statement about the issue soon. Don't expect it to please
everyone.
I hope it will displease those that seek to cite the GNOME Foundation
to advocate greater use of OOXML.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.
Although I disagree with the tone and content of your email, an
announcement is pending about a related issue, which may address
concerns (legitimate or not) raised about GNOME's involvement in
TC45-M. Participation in the TC45-M process does not imply
approval or support for IS
Is it really a too difficult and too time consuming task to spend a
minute to cast one's vote in a fortnight for an average GNOME Foundation
member?
I had no strong opinion so I left it up to the others.
___
foundation-list mailing list
found
I think about this issue pretty much every time I write "open source" --
and it is your fault :)
Good ;-). I've been working hard at this for 9 years, and it is nice
to know I have had influence on some people's thoughts.
If I can also influence your actions so that you too will spread
This is very timely. I've been asked to head up a pilot project here at
the University of Toronto with a goal of engaging students in open
source development.
If you launch a project of "open source development", you can teach
students how to participate in useful projects of collabo
Boston MA, USA -- August 15, 2007 -- A one month, world-wide celebration of
GNOME's tenth anniversary begins this week, culminating in mid-September
with Software Freedom Day and the release of GNOME 2.20. During the
celebration month, GNOME contributors will create a scrapbook wiki
The original reason that the FSF was advised to get copyright
assignments from all contributors to a program is that simplifying the
copyright status of the program facilitates going to court.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
htt
If the developers of some component of GNOME want to make it formally
a GNU package, they can assign copyright to the FSF.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
And put in different words: if anybody is concerned about how this
issue affects the GNOME Foundation and the GNOME project in general
please expose these concerns in a way we can do or say something.
I think the GNOME Foundation should lend its support to the campaign
against acceptan
Since I do not read what Microsoft says in standards group meetings, I
thank Rui for informating us that it matches what Miguel de Icaza said
here. Putting that similarity together with the nature of his
statements (vague claims that that the criticism of OOXML is flawed),
it becomes a cogent argu
Sure; however - in the presence of resource scarcity such as
face-time,
or credibility etc. it's necessary to make hard choices: do we promote
ODF instead of Free Software in a given time slot ?
In such situations the optimum is usally a mixture of both.
__
Instead of using an ad-hominem attack, you could point us why Larry
Rosen is wrong and you are right, his credentials seem pretty solid to
me:
Larry Rosen persistently spreads misinformation about the GNU GPL and
what it implies for linking with non-free software. We cannot treat
him
The analysis on that page is based on a different patent license than
the OSP for OOXML.
If it isn't about OOXML and isn't about the OSP, it seems doubly
irrelevant.
In regard to what he says this about the OSP:
âI see Microsoftâs introduction of the OSP as a good step by
> OOXML is a sham as a free/open standard, due to dozens of flaws
> described in http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections.
The problem is that the above url is far from being truthful. You do
not have to go too far to find problems with it, starting with the
discussi
Interest groups have used standards to club their opponents for many
years. Its nothing new.
It is insulting because of the contemptuous attitude it shows.
Really that speaks about you, not about me.
I would not go as far as saying
that OOXML is a sham just because ODF helps us
OOXML is for the most part a much simpler version to process than the
old file formats.
If you know of something else more complex than OOXML's 6000-page
incomplete spec, does it matter? Even supposing you are right, I
don't see that it changes anything about OOXML.
> Thus we remain
I'll try to forward you my
collection of arguments, counter-arguments and counter-counter-arguments
I'm preparing for the meeting next monday
A long article full of details is useful for your meeting; however, in
other contexts, a shorter article can be more persuasive. A long list
o
> Here in Portugal, in the OOXML fake-standard debate, the position of
> Free Softwar activists has been that it's impossible to fully implement,
> or might even be downright illegal to do it independently, closed formats.
Well, neither OOXML nor ODF have been fully implemented by
Does that wiki page roughly match your professional legal advice ? (or
even experience ?).
I haven't got any legal advice about this question yet. Have you?
Anyhow - I am interested at your interest in the Open-Standards debate.
As a tactic, I have noticed that ODF (or just Open
Here in Portugal, in the OOXML fake-standard debate, the position of
Free Softwar activists has been that it's impossible to fully implement,
Yes. The spec has 6000 pages, and that isn't even the complete spec,
since it refers to other Microsoft specs which it has not given
permission to
The 2006 Microsoft patent policy does not eliminate the patent
obstacles to implementing OOXML.
See
http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Patent_rights_to_implement_the_Ecma_376_specification_have_not_been_granted
(and the following questions too).
That page also presents other reaso
In relation to Hubert's comment I'm interested to hear your view on the
Microsoft Open Specification Promise (OSP) that Microsoft applies to
OOXML since last October.
I had not heard of that before yesterday. Today I obtained a copy.
I am not sure whether the license applies to parti
In concrete terms, what sort of things would people reasonably
hope to achieve by joining ECMA?
Of course, I'd be more comfortable with it if we put out a press
release saying something to the effect of 'we see no way to avoid
implementing OOXML without screwing our users, so we're joi
I use the:
GNOME / KDE / SAMBA / OpenOffice.org / PHP / FreeDesktop.org /
Python / Apache foundation / X.org / Perl / [and 10,000 other
packages ] / GNU / Linux as packaged by the huge communities of
contributors to Gentoo / Debian / Fedora / and
CELF Embedded Linux Conference
Sometimes Linux is used alone in embedded systems, without the GNU
system. However, when a project is thinking of using GNOME, it must
plan to use the GNU/Linux system, not Linux alone.
Would you please help inform the visitors to the booth about this, and
ad
I endorse the candidacy of Dave Neary and Anne Oestergaard, because of
their strong support for free software and its freedoms.
Most practical improvements to GNOME will advance the Free Software
Movement--but there are exceptions. There are also specific things
the GNOME Foundation can do to hel
It unfortunately does not at this time, and that's something
I'd really like to address. But right now, the documentation
isn't even doing a good job of being documentation (although it
is better than it used to be, thanks in large part to Joachim),
and that's a higher priority
> In general, a free program that runs in a completely free system is a
> contribution to freedom; but GNOME is special: it was launched
> specifically to defend our freedom. We stated GNOME to blunt the
> danger of the (then) non-free QT library. I think most GNOME users
> an
I believe in the values of this freedom myself, but never use it as an
argument when I want to switch someone to GNU/Linux.
Explaining to these people about freedom is important even if it
doesn't bring immediate results in the sense of convincing them to
switch.
The most important thing
I must say, I hadn't read Joachim's other comments until
after I'd sent my endorsement. I stand by my assertion
that he's been a highly motivated contributor to the GDP,
although it's now somewhat hard to understand why.
It shouldn't be a surprise. People have lots of different m
> To build awareness among GNOME _users_, what do candidates think about
> putting an "About free software" button, by default, in the "Help" memu?
Honestly, I think this would be almost futile.
Isn't that Help menu being customized radically by each GNOME-based
distribution?
Your message provides a clear example of the need to spread awareness
of the issues of software freedom, even inside our community. Many
hackers come to appreciate free programs for practical reasons, and
even contribute to their development, without appreciating freedom.
What freedoms exactl
In general, a free program that runs in a completely free system is a
contribution to freedom; but GNOME is special: it was launched
specifically to defend our freedom. We stated GNOME to blunt the
danger of the (then) non-free QT library. I think most GNOME users
and developers today are not awa
I suggest talking with Eben Moglen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> before
giving Perelyubskiy an answer. He can help you determine what the
license means, so that you don't accidentally say something is permitted
which the license doesn't really permit.
(I don't know what this license says.)
___
Alan was pointing out that you don't have permission to create a trademark
derivative from the owners of the Linux trademark.
According our legal advice, from Eben Moglen of the Software Freedom
Law Center, no special permission is needed for this.
_
You've mis-spelled "correctly" as commonly and ignored the view of the
owners of the Linux kernel and the Linux mark. Unfortunate.
We ought to heed the wishes of the developers of Linux, when
considering how to refer to their work, the Linux kernel. But this
doesn't apply to the GNU/Linux
I think the board made a good decision--it dealt with the problem at
hand, in a practical way.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
One problem of associating GNOME with the name Linux is that it could
tend to encourage the widespread tendency to think of GNOME and all of
GNU as part of Linux. Arranging sponsorship through gnome.conf.au
instead of linux.conf.au would be a small step to avoid encouraging this.
_
You know about the meeting that GNOME Chile have in November, one day of
the "VII Encuentro Linux" is for "d=EDa de GNOME".
Would you please call it the "VII Encuentro GNU/Linux" whenever you
talk about it?
When they call the system "Linux", they diminish the status of GNOME
along with al
Arguments against the term "GNU/Linux" commonly use straw men, double
standards, unfair accusations, factual errors, and tangents. Alan
Cox's message illustrates all of them.
A straw man argument criticizes something that nobody's arguing for.
The valid links in these arguments are often elaborat
I am forwarding Eben Moglen's explanation of trademark issues
concerning the code of GNOME. Eben Moglen is a law professor and
founded the Software Freedom Law Center. He specifically addresses
the case of an error message, but I expect it is the same for any sort
of string in the code, and comme
> Do you really think that writing down "Be nice" makes us nicer and makes
> us look nicer to the outsiders?
That's the funny thing - YES!
Just reminding people nicely can make a big difference. The reminder
can make people think, and a considerable fraction, after thinking,
will co
It is very gratifying to see how global GNOME is.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
How about encouraging some sort of cooperation between GNOME user
groups and the GNU Project? Most of GNOME users use the GNU system,
and all of them use one important GNU package.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gn
Just to note that things are more complicated than this, applying your
recommendation now would put GUADEC 2006 at risk.
GUADEC will be finished a week from now; after a few more weeks go by,
it surely won't be hard to use pen and paper for the remaining bills.
Online banking is a new feature for this bank. We told them we were
planning on switching banks if they didn't support Firefox or other
browsers, and they said that they would look into it. I wouldn't expect
them to support it overnight,
It would be counterproductive to hurry the
As Jonathan pointed out, our bank has a website which does some rather
evil platform detection, and refuses to run on anything other than IE.
This is worse than I realized. The Foundation is not only using
user-subjugating software, it is using a bank that pressures its
customers to do so
In reality, we will likely hire someone who is already competent in the
use of free software - but I agree with Quim that this should not be a
requirement (obviously (at least to me), *using* free software will be
part of the job, where possible).
I think the Foundation should abso
Even when you are right regarding the probably-irrelevant-in-context
GNU/Linux issue, it worths noting that the Foundation is looking for an
administrator, not a hacker. That is clearly stated in Federico's e-mail
title and body.
You're right; I had forgotten that. (I was looking
Linux is a trademark in the USA. The use of GNU/Linux without indicating
the trademark is inappropriately confusing the registered mark.
I could ask lawyers whether you are right, but I think there is no
need to ask them unless someone makes a legal complaint. The FSF
has never received o
Federico> 10. Be computer literate. Preferably Linux literate.
Unless you're looking for kernel hackers,
please make that "GNU/Linux literate".
You probably want people who know how to edit with Emacs,
write code to compile with GCC, debug with GDB, and call
functions in GLIBC and GTK+.
__
So I would definitely agree that given an idea of contributing (code),
women will easily ask who will pay for it where men might not. Maybe
they consider open source more as "working" than as a hobby or a way
social networking or even as a way to educate oneself.
Perhaps this is a
LSB today includes non-Linux companies implementing Linux compatibility
(I presume you mean GNU/Linux compatibility.)
for applications this way, and not all will use GNU code. The "Linux" in
LSB is today arguably wrong, but for different reasons to those you
assume.
I take your
http://rit.mellon.org/awards
The GNOME Foundation qualifies for these awards, surely.
GNOME clearly qualifies, but if it wins, accepting the award will
create a touchy situation.
3. Includes the development of intellectual property that is freely
available to the academic comm
The "Linux Standards Base" is a plan to develop a specification for
the GNU system. Not, in this case, for the GNU/Linux combination,
just for GNU, because these specs don't concern the kernel, Linux.
It is purely for GNU, but they call GNU "Linux".
If we want to develop specs for the GNU system,
I really like the slogan of Ubuntu: "Humanity to others". It gives me a
valid reason for doing opensource development. An important reason.
The slogan is a good one. Sad to say, Ubuntu doesn't entirely follow
the implied philosophy: it distributes non-free programs with its
version of GNU
The GPL has always had command line apps covered on the "dont remove the
GPL/credits" it just has to evolve to graphics.
We're looking at doing just that, but we don't yet have a draft of
such a change.
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation
Up till now it has been men_defining what it hot and what is not_.
Writing good code is very high ranking. Doing documentation,
translation, bug fixing and writing manuals is lower on the staircase to
software heaven and stardom.
I've been saying for years that we need more good wr
401 - 496 of 496 matches
Mail list logo
