Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
On Jan 6, 2015, at 2:54 PM, Magdalen Berns m.be...@thismagpie.com wrote: The stigma related to bitcoin is just the media doing their thing to try and discredit it, in my humble view. A lot of people do not buy into that stuff. With that said, it is reasonable for anyone to be uncomfortable with something and not be made to feel pressured so yeah, I think people should be willing to accept that this is how you feel. I’d like to take this opportunity to point out that, over the past year, the RUBLE has outperformed Bitcoin, financially. If you get some, I’d certainly convert them to Real Money™ as quickly as possible. (I’m not sure it’s responsible to encourage people to indulge in what’s clearly a waste of good capital.) signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 10:28:02PM +, Magdalen Berns wrote: The point about that really is that the recent campaign seems to have demonstrated that in principle, GNOME already has the infrastructure which could allow them to accept money for any given crowdfunding campaign on behalf of community driven projects (and any general fundraising too, of course). Assuming that this infrastructure is based on free software and that it comes without the same kinds of fees as all the crowdfunding sites do. It might be possible to create something like this, but at the moment GNOME doesn't have the same setup. The same set up as what? Something similar to IndieGoGo. AFAIK there's a difference between accepting money yourself and an organization on your behalf. It might not be as easy as it appears. Tax wise it is a different form of expense. Whoever the treasurer is would have to clarify. With that said it seems that the treasurer for a charity of this size would have to be used to managing large sums of money from donations as well as paying salaries, freelancers and expenses as they already have to fill in tax forms every year. I don't want to be harsh, but there's a known working solution vs something that probably will work. Instead of talking about what should not be done, I'd prefer if we encourage something to be done. I will assume you are not talking to me here, since that is exactly what I am doing already. I mean that instead of having a list of: - don't link to Facebook - don't link to Google+ - don't use IndieGoGo - don't link to Twitter I rather see how people can improve on spreading the idea and usage of free software. It seems FSF is too much about first restricting ourselves to a group who pretty much only uses free software. Seems too much preaching to the choir. In this case there wasn't anything available, a decision was taken that is not ideal, but best at that time. If you look at e.g. GNOME applications, loads of new applications have been written over the years. The number of commits and authors have stayed relatively the same. Looking at that per application the maintenance is decreasing. Builder is just one item to attract people to work on free software. I think too much burden is put on this. The person wanting to make Builder should also figure out a free software version to raise funds. I rather go for an imperfect solution, acknowledge that, put that on a list of things to solve and move on. Then this list of things to solve might read: - convince Google+ to use free software license in their javascript - convince IndieGoGo to use free software license in their javascript - create an alternative to IndieGoGo just for GNOME - create an alternative to IndieGoGo for everyone Above list can be worked upon by multiple people and maybe entire teams. I don't see how having a banner which endorses an campaign automatically leads to endorsing something else (the company making the campaign possible). Maybe sometimes, but at the moment we link to Facebook, Twitter and Google+ for IMO entirely logical and practical reasons. Social links are indeed, a tough call in a question like this. Off hand. twitter does not seem so terrible, but does GNOME actually gain anything from being on facebook to make it worth that, though? I don't think it is a tough call at all. I agree with the idea of free software. I don't like that turning into a list of things you cannot do. With free software I still have non-free software running on my machine. There's multiple ways to support and stand by the way of supporting free software. Regarding gaining anything: How would more people ever know about free software if the only people we reach out to is free software people? -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
Because the issue is so specific, it is ethically simple -- it's wrong to recommend the operation if the operation requires running nonfree software (including JS code). That makes sense. It is a lot easier than dealing with sites that run non-free software but who don't require it so I imagine a more folks would be likely to tend to agree that this is something reasonable, too. Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
On Wed, Jan 7, 2015 at 4:26 AM, Richard Stallman r...@gnu.org wrote: Now, to the subject of whether GNOME should or should not link to non-free websites The expression nonfree website is one we do not use, because it is not clear what that would mean. Web sites raise various kinds of ethical issues. The issue here is very specific: a web site requires visitors to run nonfree software in order to use the site to do the job in question (in this case, to donate). If a web site runs nonfree software internally, that doesn't affect the site's visitors, so we have no reason to concern ourselves with that. Whist I don't disagree with what you are saying. There are only so many hours in the day. I can't reasonably drop in replace non-free websites with all that text or I would never get to the points I am trying to make about it. As I suggested earlier on this point, unless someone contradicts your definition (which I don't believe anyone has done, yet), I am acting on the assumption that people reading this thread have already seen what we are talking about and that we have defined what we mean already: For us to collectively be able to answer the question of whether GNOME should be endorsing links to non-free sites, we first need to be able to answer a couple of relevant questions. 1. In what situations can any published link on GNOME's servers be representative of the GNOME Foundation (i.e. how are we defining GNOME as a trademark/brand) such that that link could be perceived as being an endorsement/advertisement. 2. What is a link to a non-free site (I believe Richard might have gone some way to covering that already, though there might yet be some debate to be had, yet) Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
The issue at hand is not a matter of endorsement. At least, not in the usual sense of the word. I am not sure I agree. It seems like what we are talking about here is whether or not we should be using certain services and advertising that we use those services on GNOME websites. If a link suggests hey, we at GNOME, use this and in some cases (e.g. indieGoGo) goes further, Hey, we at GNOME prefer to use this over everything else available (where this is an offending service/site/whatever), then how would that not be an endorsement? Atheletes endorse certain products just by using them all the time. Sometimes these can be products they don't actually personally like using, either. I think that a banner ad for Builder endorses Builder. (That's fine.) It does not really endorse Indiegogo, but it does urge people to go to the Indiegogo site and donate. I would still have to say that the banner *advertises* Builder (and of course, endorses it too) but that it also inadvertently *endorses* the use of indiGoGo, in the process. Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
On Wed, Jan 07, 2015 at 02:47:00PM +, Magdalen Berns wrote: So the GNOME infrastructure can't figure that one out but Christian, an already overburdened volunteer who is trying to scape funds for his project, somehow can do it all by himself? That makes absolutely no sense. From your response it seems you haven't tried to understand anything I said. You come across as trying to give ridicule what I've stated. RMS has an issue with non-free javascript and usage of IndieGoGo for this campaign. In some of the responses you seem to actually agree, while thinking I mean something totally different. Good luck, I am out of this. -- Regards, Olav ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] I've added a section to the campaign borrowed from crowdsupply. Alternative Payment We understand that credit cards aren't for everyone. If you cannot or do not want to pay by credit card, eCheck, or paypal, contact christ...@hergert.me to make alternate arrangements. That is the right basic idea, but in order to do the job fully, it is important to mention the nonfree Javascript issue. How about this? We understand that credit cards aren't for everyone. If you cannot or do not want to pay by credit card, eCheck, or paypal, or don't want to run the nonfree Javascript code that IndieGoGo requires for those methods, contact christ...@hergert.me to make alternate arrangements. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] I think that a banner ad for Builder endorses Builder. (That's fine.) It does not really endorse Indiegogo, but it does urge people to go to the Indiegogo site and donate. I would still have to say that the banner *advertises* Builder (and of course, endorses it too) but that it also inadvertently *endorses* the use of indiGoGo, in the process. I think we don't need to argue about this subtle shade of meaning. The substantial point is that this issue is NOT about endorsement in general. It's about a very specific kind of case: a recommendation that people go to a certain web site and perform a certain kind of operation there. Because the issue is so specific, it is ethically simple -- it's wrong to recommend the operation if the operation requires running nonfree software (including JS code). -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
The same set up as what? Something similar to IndieGoGo. It does not need to be similar to indieGoGo. Let's review: GNOME is a charity. IndiGoGo is a business. They do not have the same tax set up, no. As far as I am aware, they do not need to have the same tax set up either. GNOME does not need to make a profit. AFAIK there's a difference between accepting money yourself and an organization on your behalf. It might not be as easy as it appears. Tax wise it is a different form of expense. Whoever the treasurer is would have to clarify. With that said it seems that the treasurer for a charity of this size would have to be used to managing large sums of money from donations as well as paying salaries, freelancers and expenses as they already have to fill in tax forms every year. I don't want to be harsh, but there's a known working solution vs something that probably will work. I am 99.99% sure it would work but as I am not based in the US, I do not know how the tax system works for Californian charitable organisations, off hand. I will give you another example so you can see why what you suggest, doesn't make any real financial sense: GNOME volunteer contributors are sometimes put in a position which asks them to do consultancy work. I know this is so because I have been consulting Oracle who approached me with an awful lot of questions relating to the atk wrapper (and linux) recently. When they first approached me, I would have liked to have been in a position to say, sure I can help you, but you need to speak to GNOME first so they can bill you for consultancy because that would have been a reasonable way to ensure a company which may profit from this work would be urged to something back into the community, value our time and resources but for some unfathomable reason, GNOME has not taken a stance. If we are not able to value our own time and resources, how can we expect anybody else to do that, for us? When would it ever be beneficial to the free software community for a charitable community resource (i.e. GNOME), to not know how to take money and allocate it to paying volunteers for their time every once in a while? If we are not gain clarity from this list to confirm that this is not rocket since, soon then no problem. I will find out for myself, once I have found time to look into it (as long as some people here are able to show some amount of willing to get behind the idea in principle, that is) at the moment I am still trying to figure out whether enough people are on board with the idea itself at this stage, because that is not yet, clear. Instead of talking about what should not be done, I'd prefer if we encourage something to be done. I will assume you are not talking to me here, since that is exactly what I am doing already. I mean that instead of having a list of: - don't link to Facebook - don't link to Google+ - don't use IndieGoGo - don't link to Twitter I rather see how people can improve on spreading the idea and usage of free software. Are we making a choice between supporting free software and not using these things, now? Also. for the record, I am not 100% sure, but I do not believe that twitter is an offending case. I only got a twitter account because the GNOME community encouraged me to do that. I trust that the community would not do that if twitter was in the practice of running non-free scripts on my browser. Please correct me if I am wrong about twitter though. It seems FSF is too much about first restricting ourselves to a group who pretty much only uses free software. Seems too much preaching to the choir. Here you seem to be working on the assumption that everyone who uses GNOME's website is the choir. A lot of people only get to find out about free or open source software because they arrive on websites like GNOME's and read about it which brings me back to the point I made earlier about GNOME being in the unique (and privileged), position of being able to set an example. Have you considered the possibility that by networking on something like Facebook we might actually exclude those members of the community from participating in conversations that happen, on there? Should we shrug our shoulders to that, rather than seek ways to include everyone to all our sources of communication? Could we be inadvertently sacrificing some of our transparency there, too? In this case there wasn't anything available, a decision was taken that is not ideal, but best at that time. I think we have all agreed that in that case about Builder. However this does not mean we need to throw our hands up and give up, altogether. If you look at e.g. GNOME applications, loads of new applications have been written over the years. The number of commits and authors have stayed relatively the same. Looking at that per application the maintenance is decreasing. You wonder why the number of maintainers has decreased? I don't. It seems
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
...it seems totally reasonable that people might loosely refer to crowdfunding as fundraising in this sort of context. If you were confused, then you only needed to ask for specifics. :D I wasn't confused, and I wasn't speaking about the recent Groupon fundraiser. There's been a few calls here for free software alternatives to Indiegogo as well as GNOME becoming involved with those alternatives. Many of the proposed alternatives were not crowdfunding and shouldn't be treated as drop-in replacements. I don't feel I'm being pedantic making that point. As a side note, I really don't think the Groupon experience should be held up as a shiny example. That issue went viral in a matter of hours and carried with it an urgency that's impossible to replicate. What's more (as far as I'm aware) funds were not disbursed to any community projects. I would hesitate to say the Groupon event proves GNOME could or should be involved in project fundraising. That said, I'll leave the propriety (or reality) of GNOME being involved in project fundraising to others. I do think it is fair to concede that a banner is an endorsement. That's what I meant by context. If the discussion had stayed with a banner on the GNOME home page, I wouldn't have brought the link question up. When the discussion veered into a link policy on the wiki and blogs, that's where I felt the need to speak out. -- Jim ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
I wasn't confused, and I wasn't speaking about the recent Groupon fundraiser. There's been a few calls here for free software alternatives to Indiegogo as well as GNOME becoming involved with those alternatives. Many of the proposed alternatives were not crowdfunding and shouldn't be treated as drop-in replacements. I don't feel I'm being pedantic making that point. This is not new information so the same response as before is appropriate. As a side note, I really don't think the Groupon experience should be held up as a shiny example. I never said it was a shining example. I said that the recent campaign seems to have demonstrated that in principle GNOME already has the infrastructure which could allow them to accept money for any given crowdfunding campaign on behalf of community driven projects (and any general fundraising too, of course). That's exactly what I said. Being hosted by GNOME did not prevent it from being successful either, by the way. Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
On 01/06/2015 02:54 PM, Magdalen Berns wrote: The stigma related to bitcoin is just the media doing their thing to try and discredit it, in my humble view. A lot of people do not buy into that stuff. With that said, it is reasonable for anyone to be uncomfortable with something and not be made to feel pressured so yeah, I think people should be willing to accept that this is how you feel. It's usually possible to generate any number of addresses so it is plausible to generate a new one dedicated for a single specific purpose, if that helps. I made no claim as to whether or not I use bitcoin. Simply about whether or not I share that publicly. Email me with a donation over bitcoin to find out ;) -- Christian ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
I understand that you can't move the campaign now. But can you post a bitcoin address, and invite people to send money that way if they don't want to run nonfree JS code? I've added a section to the campaign borrowed from crowdsupply. It's great this is resolved. As for bitcoin, I'm not comfortable 1) publishing publicly if i have a bitcoin wallet. The stigma related to bitcoin is just the media doing their thing to try and discredit it, in my humble view. A lot of people do not buy into that stuff. With that said, it is reasonable for anyone to be uncomfortable with something and not be made to feel pressured so yeah, I think people should be willing to accept that this is how you feel. 2) what that wallet's address would be. It's usually possible to generate any number of addresses so it is plausible to generate a new one dedicated for a single specific purpose, if that helps. Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
Now, to the subject of whether GNOME should or should not link to non-free websites The expression nonfree website is one we do not use, because it is not clear what that would mean. Web sites raise various kinds of ethical issues. The issue here is very specific: a web site requires visitors to run nonfree software in order to use the site to do the job in question (in this case, to donate). If a web site runs nonfree software internally, that doesn't affect the site's visitors, so we have no reason to concern ourselves with that. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] Second, linking to a web site is not an automatic endorsement of its script licensing or the practices of its operator. For the most part, I think you are right: making a link to a site does not endorse most aspects of how the site operates. However, linking to the site and suggesting people do a certain job with the site does make one very specific statement about the site. It says that such use of the site is something we approve of. If such use of the site requires running nonfree softare on your machine, we shouldn't say we approve of that. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] 1. In what situations can any published link on GNOME's servers be representative of the GNOME Foundation (i.e. how are we defining GNOME as a trademark/brand) such that that link could be perceived as being an endorsement/advertisement. The issue at hand is not a matter of endorsement. At least, not in the usual sense of the word. I think that a banner ad for Builder endorses Builder. (That's fine.) It does not really endorse Indiegogo, but it does urge people to go to the Indiegogo site and donate. Unfortunately, that is exactly where the problem enters, because donating thru Indiegogo means users must run nonfree software on their own machines. This issue of nonfree software is different in nature from endorsement and can arise even in the absence of an endorsement. I agree that GNOME should study the question of endorsements and when to make them, but that's a different issue. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
I understood you to be talking about labelling links as non-free even on wiki pages and Planet GNOME. Were you only talking about links to fundraising pages? In physics, problem solving is seen as a case of starting with the most simple model of a given system, stating assumptions to account for any uncertainty in the predictions made. There is a fair amount of evidence to suggest that it is possible to anticipate pretty much everything you can think of in the physical world if we are able to access enough relevant information, that is. Perhaps it was a little premature to make suggestions with that in mind so I will try to clarify to you what I was actually talking about. For us to collectively be able to answer the question of whether GNOME should be endorsing links to non-free sites, we first need to be able to answer a couple of relevant questions. 1. In what situations can any published link on GNOME's servers be representative of the GNOME Foundation (i.e. how are we defining GNOME as a trademark/brand) such that that link could be perceived as being an endorsement/advertisement. 2. What is a link to a non-free site (I believe Richard might have gone some way to covering that already, though there might yet be some debate to be had, yet) I saw it necessary for us to establish how we are defining links as well as to determine GNOME is (and isn't). That way, we would be able to figure out the difference between any kind of link from GNOME's server and GNOME publishing any kind of link. I did this by using examples so we could narrow things down and it seems like it is generally agreed that publishing as GNOME and publishing on GNOME's servers as an individual members of GNOME are two different things and I agree that this is a reasonable distinction to make. So no, I was not talking about labelling of blog posts on planet gnome. The short answer to your question though is also no: I was not just talking about links to fundraising pages either. To me, it seems like GNOME endorsement would be a banner of some description on their servers. The example that has triggered the discussion is concerns fundraising pages. So let's explore another example to further the point about where a banner might be interpreted as an endorsement: If you read the minutes of the board meetings you will see that the possibility of GNOME using adwords/adsense banner advertisements to generate revenue is currently under discussion.[1] GNOME who only recently successfully raised over $100,000 (in less than a week) to save its trademark because the brand means something to the free and/or open source community?[2] Are you kidding me? GNOME is in the unique position of actually being able to lead others by example. GNOME is influential in the wider community. Should we be comfortable endorsing non-free sites when given when you consider what the mission of the charity is?[3] Of course not. That is what I am talking about. Hope that clarifies, Magdalen [1] www.gnome.org/groupon/ [2] https://wiki.gnome.org/FoundationBoard/Minutes [3] http://www.gnome.org/foundation/ ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] Does crowdsupply accept software projects at all? I will ask them. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
First, there's a lot of talk (here and the earlier thread) that loosely equivocates fundraising with crowdfunding. They're not the same. To tell a project that it should simply accept donations rather than use a crowdfunding platform is a false equivocation. Crowdfunding's mixture of elements -- the presentation, the pitch of the vision, the element of a deadline, staggered donation levels and gifts -- is not replicated by publishing a Donate! banner. #NotAllFundraising huh? :D I apologise in advance but if pedantry needs to be done, it needs to be done right and I feel compelled to correct this: Whilst not all fundraising is crowdfunding, it is true that all crowdfunding is fundraising #YesAllCrowdfunding. So, whilst they are not the same, it seems totally reasonable that people might loosely refer to crowdfunding as fundraising in this sort of context. If you were confused, then you only needed to ask for specifics. :D With that said, I can't really speak for anyone else so the reason I personally chose to liken GNOME's recent fundraiser campaign to a crowdfunding campaign (on indigogo et al) was because overall, it was organised in a similar way to how a crowdfunding campaign would be done and it is fair to consider that particular effort turned out to be great success. It should be easy to concede that the donation levels were not staggered in that case. Granted gnome's groupon campaign was a lot more primitive in various ways than if they had chosen to use a proper crowdfunding platform but there is no question what they came up with was fit for purpose, because it managed to do very well in raising plenty of money over a very short space of time to assist GNOME in dealing with a very specific issue under severe time constraints. The point about that really is that the recent campaign seems to have demonstrated that in principle, GNOME already has the infrastructure which could allow them to accept money for any given crowdfunding campaign on behalf of community driven projects (and any general fundraising too, of course). Assuming that this infrastructure is based on free software and that it comes without the same kinds of fees as all the crowdfunding sites do. Second, linking to a web site is not an automatic endorsement of its script licensing or the practices of its operator. Lacking semantic operators for hyperlinks, context is everything. Personally, I trust my readers to understand this. I think I would have to agree with you when it comes to arbitrary links. If for no other reason than that it would be practically impossible to regulate. See my most recent for discussion on that though. In particular the comment on banners. I do think it is fair to concede that a banner is an endorsement. If it wasn't, then banner advertisement would not have become the billion dollar market that it undeniably is. Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] I hadn't realized others had used indiegogo to crowdfund for your travel though. Were there lessons learned from that we should know about? They did that without consulting me. When I found out about it, I was concerned (on general principles) that indiegogo might require nonfree JS. I asked a volunteer people to investigate that. When he reported that donating on Indiegogo required running nonfree software, that campaign was over, but the issue of Indiegogo's nonfree JS remained important. I had the FSF ask Indiegogo to free its JS code. Indiegogo declined. Since then I have tried other ways to fix this -- and I am still trying. I will not give up until the job is done. Is the continued existence of the page https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/richard-stallman-s-air-ticket-to-speak-in-south-africa/x/8947753 giving people the wrong idea? If so, I will ask the people who invited me to try to get rid of the page or add a note to it. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] The problem is that it takes *months* to prepare a proper crowdfunding campaign. So if you didn't suggest crowdsupply to me back at the hackfest, it was simply *too late* to be reasonably actionable (despite that I might agree it would be a good idea). I understand that you can't move the campaign now. But can you post a bitcoin address, and invite people to send money that way if they don't want to run nonfree JS code? -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
On 01/05/2015 03:44 PM, Magdalen Berns wrote: To elaborate on the point about fundraisers a little further: Also though I have to wonder whether future fundraisers could maybe be handled in the same way as the groupon fundraiser was managed. http://www.gnome.org/groupon/ since that did not seem to be too controversial at the time. If that sort of thing would mean more work but ultimately lower fees, then perhaps GNOME could also take an administrative cut off the top for managing the donations on behalf of the relevant project developers? It might also be worthwhile for us to set up a dedicated wiki page guide explaining what alternative fundraising platforms GNOME want projects to use and compile a list of links on there and have some recommendations for standard practices. It might also be handy for those wishing to fund their projects if we compiled and outline the logical steps a project manager and/or project developer might take to get set up and seek permission and support with launch etc. If crowdfunding was a service that the GNOME foundation offered it's members, I would be in favor of that. However, as it stands today, I believe this would cause undue burden on the board. Additionally, I'm against a policy on external links based on their JavaScript, full stop. (However, I'm willing to entertain a policy based on other guidelines). -- Christian ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
Hi all, Whist this is a bit entertaining, I think we can all see where it is headed... On balance, there really is only one practical reason to bring up the past and that is for the sake of being able to reliably anticipate the future. So, I have to urge people again to try to move the discussion away from the particular rights and wrongs of publishing the Builder or other IndiGoGo(hst)s past, for that matter. It really does seem most appropriate to take steps to try to discuss the issue of non-free links/endorsements on neutral territory. That way, nobody has to be made to feel like points of argument about this are being directed at them personally, as individuals. Surely everyone here must be able to recognise that when people feel like they are under attack, that they tend to get into a reactionary mindset and that this does not lead anywhere progressive. Let's move on. Now, to the subject of whether GNOME should or should not link to non-free websites (as is in line with the subject line of this thread :-)) I think that most people would agree that in principle it is probably right that we should take steps to avoid this in future. I have a few suggestions about that: - In personal member blog posts on the blog subdomains, I think it should be discouraged somewhere but generally up to whoever is writing the post to decide given that something like that is practically impossible to regulate, anyway and there is a probably a fine line there between refusing to endorse something and censorship when we get into the realm of what individuals should or should not be saying or doing. - On the wiki: Again, quite difficult to regulate but it when I think when we write on the wiki we do represent GNOME (rather than ourselves as individuals) a bit more than with blogs as far as how the public interpret the content might be concerned,. With that said I can imagine that it could be necessary to post links to nonfree sites sometimes (e.g. some information on a site regarding issue x, y or z. In that case maybe we could think about having some sort of a trigger warning ):D. Perhaps that seems silly but it might be a nice/amusing way to show we don't approve without restricting what we can link to in cases where this is too impractical - For fundraisers (and probably endorsements, in general) it probably should be policy not to do it after Builder but again, where this proves too impractical perhaps the trigger warning idea might be a neat compromise. To elaborate on the point about fundraisers a little further: Also though I have to wonder whether future fundraisers could maybe be handled in the same way as the groupon fundraiser was managed. http://www.gnome.org/groupon/ since that did not seem to be too controversial at the time. If that sort of thing would mean more work but ultimately lower fees, then perhaps GNOME could also take an administrative cut off the top for managing the donations on behalf of the relevant project developers? It might also be worthwhile for us to set up a dedicated wiki page guide explaining what alternative fundraising platforms GNOME want projects to use and compile a list of links on there and have some recommendations for standard practices. It might also be handy for those wishing to fund their projects if we compiled and outline the logical steps a project manager and/or project developer might take to get set up and seek permission and support with launch etc. Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
Hi, On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 7:05 PM, Christian Hergert christ...@hergert.me wrote: On 01/05/2015 03:44 PM, Magdalen Berns wrote: To elaborate on the point about fundraisers a little further: Also though I have to wonder whether future fundraisers could maybe be handled in the same way as the groupon fundraiser was managed. http://www.gnome.org/groupon/ since that did not seem to be too controversial at the time. If that sort of thing would mean more work but ultimately lower fees, then perhaps GNOME could also take an administrative cut off the top for managing the donations on behalf of the relevant project developers? It might also be worthwhile for us to set up a dedicated wiki page guide explaining what alternative fundraising platforms GNOME want projects to use and compile a list of links on there and have some recommendations for standard practices. It might also be handy for those wishing to fund their projects if we compiled and outline the logical steps a project manager and/or project developer might take to get set up and seek permission and support with launch etc. If crowdfunding was a service that the GNOME foundation offered it's members, I would be in favor of that. However, as it stands today, I believe this would cause undue burden on the board. Additionally, I'm against a policy on external links based on their JavaScript, full stop. (However, I'm willing to entertain a policy based on other guidelines). Speaking for myself, I use Blogger and link to non-free websites on wiki pages (e.g. in the prior art section on the gnome-sound-recorder wiki page). I think people should make their own decisions about ethics as long as they are not causing other people harm, and I also don't think establishing policies regulating things like this is a good use of resources. imo. Meg -- Christian ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
If crowdfunding was a service that the GNOME foundation offered it's members, I would be in favor of that. However, as it stands today, I believe this would cause undue burden on the board. It's hard to say without thrashing it out but I definitely think it's worth thrashing it out, otherwise it definitely wouldn't be possible. :D With that said, I would have thought the treasurer and webmaster or two would be better placed to handle the administration of something like this rather than the board of directors themselves. There is no reason I can think of why managing something like that could not be delegated appropriately as lots of other initiatives seem to get done at GNOME. With that said, I don't personally know the details of the method GNOME used for groupon to comment on how that sort of thing might work as a repeated effort for more modest wee module fundraisers. But, let's say the repeated the code from that fundraiser to allow them accept donations for a hypothetical new project then all it really comes down to is the extra workload on the treasurer and figuring out what the law says about raising money to pay volunteers, which I am guessing has been done with once or twice already, since GNOME is a fairly large charity and although GNOME is a charity, I do not see a compelling reason why they could not reasonably take an appropriate $ dollar percentage % off the total raised. Like a sort of admin fee that could be set aside to cover the reasonable cost for the time of those members involved who did the work to do stuff like set up a fundraising page and the treasurer having to take on some additional work in managing GNOME's annual accounts. Many of GNOME's contributors members are already volunteers, perhaps they would welcome some extra cash, for the effort. In the longer run it could be one way to get around the evil javascript issue but also the community would probably benefit from personally engaging with fundraising as a consistent thing. I imagine something like this would yield infrastructure and help GNOME develop it's fundraising strategies and generate income from a more diverse range of sources, in the long run. Additionally, I'm against a policy on external links based on their JavaScript, full stop. (However, I'm willing to entertain a policy based on other guidelines). Why are you against the notion of a javascript policy? What kind of other guidelines would you entertain? Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
Hi Magdalen, On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Magdalen Berns m.be...@thismagpie.com wrote: I think you have agreed with me on the wiki and the blog but seem to not realise that, for some strange reason. To clarify, I agreed that individuals should be able to make their own choices for how they blog and pointed out that the wiki and would be too difficult to regulate than is practical. Really, the point here is that the core policy chat is referring to what GNOME, the organisation should endorse. The reason I would have to disagree with you that a policy on something like that is not a waste of time and resources is because some of the community feel like that GNOME as a brand represents a certain set of principles and that it may send out the wrong message to the general public for GNOME to be seen to be advocating or endorsing the use of non-free software by casually treating non-free links like they're the same as free ones. I understood you to be talking about labeling links as non-free even on wiki pages and Planet GNOME. Were you only talking about links to fundraising pages? Meg ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
I told myself I would not get involved in this subject, but I have to say a couple of things. First, there's a lot of talk (here and the earlier thread) that loosely equivocates fundraising with crowdfunding. They're not the same. To tell a project that it should simply accept donations rather than use a crowdfunding platform is a false equivocation. Crowdfunding's mixture of elements -- the presentation, the pitch of the vision, the element of a deadline, staggered donation levels and gifts -- is not replicated by publishing a Donate! banner. Second, linking to a web site is not an automatic endorsement of its script licensing or the practices of its operator. Lacking semantic operators for hyperlinks, context is everything. Personally, I trust my readers to understand this. -- Jim On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 6:50 PM, meg ford meg...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Magdalen, On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 8:40 PM, Magdalen Berns m.be...@thismagpie.com wrote: I think you have agreed with me on the wiki and the blog but seem to not realise that, for some strange reason. To clarify, I agreed that individuals should be able to make their own choices for how they blog and pointed out that the wiki and would be too difficult to regulate than is practical. Really, the point here is that the core policy chat is referring to what GNOME, the organisation should endorse. The reason I would have to disagree with you that a policy on something like that is not a waste of time and resources is because some of the community feel like that GNOME as a brand represents a certain set of principles and that it may send out the wrong message to the general public for GNOME to be seen to be advocating or endorsing the use of non-free software by casually treating non-free links like they're the same as free ones. I understood you to be talking about labeling links as non-free even on wiki pages and Planet GNOME. Were you only talking about links to fundraising pages? Meg ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
On Mon, Jan 5, 2015 at 12:35 PM, Christian Hergert christ...@hergert.me wrote: The problem is that it takes *months* to prepare a proper crowdfunding campaign. So if you didn't suggest crowdsupply to me back at the hackfest, it was simply *too late* to be reasonably actionable (despite that I might agree it would be a good idea). Does crowdsupply accept software projects at all? Without reading all the terms and conditions, it looks to me like they just do hardware and manufactured goods. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
On 01/03/2015 07:48 AM, Richard Stallman wrote: That's because the several crowdfunding sites I had investigated all had the same unethical practice of requiring donors to run nonfree software. There was not one that we could use without contradicting the principles of the free software movement. This is a serious problem and I've been looking for a solution for more than a year. Didn't I tell you this at the time? Since then, I have come across one site, crowdsupply.com, which offers a way to send money bypassing the nonfree JS code. That makes it better than the others. I urge people to choose crowdsupply.com for future campaigns. The problem is that it takes *months* to prepare a proper crowdfunding campaign. So if you didn't suggest crowdsupply to me back at the hackfest, it was simply *too late* to be reasonably actionable (despite that I might agree it would be a good idea). I hadn't realized others had used indiegogo to crowdfund for your travel though. Were there lessons learned from that we should know about? https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/richard-stallman-s-air-ticket-to-speak-in-south-africa/x/8947753 -- Christian ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
[[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider]]] [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] I raised this issue as soon as I became aware of the campaign, which was when I saw it mentioned here. I would have raised the issue earlier if I had known earlier. This is simply untrue. I asked you in person during your lecture with about 20 witnesses at the GNOME hackfest in Boston what I should do. Perhaps we are miscommunicating. By this campaign I mean the campaign on Indiegogo -- which didn't exist at that time. I told you I was going to be raising money to work on a new development environment for GNOME and that I was concerned about our options for crowd funding. You were unable to provide me any actionable suggestions for how to go forward. That's because the several crowdfunding sites I had investigated all had the same unethical practice of requiring donors to run nonfree software. There was not one that we could use without contradicting the principles of the free software movement. This is a serious problem and I've been looking for a solution for more than a year. Didn't I tell you this at the time? Since then, I have come across one site, crowdsupply.com, which offers a way to send money bypassing the nonfree JS code. That makes it better than the others. I urge people to choose crowdsupply.com for future campaigns. Since it is too late to do the campaign differently, I think we should suggest to people that they bypass the campaign and send money directly to a person or organization associated with Builder. Richard, I'd be thrilled to receive money from you. The issue at hand is what to say to the public. We should not suggest that people run nonfree software. Some who see the banner might run nonfree software. Worse, _everyone_ who sees it would get the message that running nonfree software is ok as long as it's for a good reason. See http://gnu.org/philosophy/is-ever-good-use-nonfree-program.html for why that idea is perilous. Most people think that whatever they are doing is a good reason for whatever means. A good solution has already been proposed. You can state a way people can send you money, without running nonfree software, and the banner can point to that. It's not a lot of work, and it enables us to promote funding for Builder coherently with our principles. -- Dr Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation 51 Franklin St Boston MA 02110 USA www.fsf.org www.gnu.org Skype: No way! That's nonfree (freedom-denying) software. Use Ekiga or an ordinary phone call. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Linking to non-free websites from gnome.org
The issue at hand is what to say to the public. Which is a policy issue... GNOME are responsible for establishing its policies and GNOME has not seen fit to establish any concrete policy on this (for whatever reason). Not establishing concrete policy and guidance to cover these sorts of relevant themes creates avoidable conflicts like this one, it only ever seems to serve to waste time and resources by forcing people to reinvent the wheel and it also provides a breeding ground for discriminatory practices and unethical conduct (I could go on...) But anyway moving swiftly on, let's break the problems down since we all seem to be talking at cross purposes: *Problem 1.* Not promoting the indiGoGo at this stage will essentially make it more likely that Christian may not be able to meet his target and would have to forfeit 9% of the funding he raises instead of 4% in 24 days time. https://go.indiegogo.com/pricing-fees *Problem 2.* There is no clear agreed policy or guidance on promoting and fundraising GNOME project work and concerns have been raised about whether or not to be seen to be endorsing sites which use dodgy javascript as a general rule (like indiGoGo) from GNOME's servers. It is clear you (Richard) are really passionate about solving problem 2 and to be fair, you do absolutely raise some very important points, but here's the thing: a lot of people here seem to be more concerned about problem 1 at this immediate moment in time and that's not necessarily because they would disagree with the principle of what you are saying but just that under these circumstances whatever way we look at it, this wasn't flagged early on enough and the damage of this cannot be undone (for at least 24 days, it can't anyway), we would not want to harm the builder indigogo campaign at this stage over something that essentially, we are collectively responsible for. With all things considered, an ideal situation is one were where we [the community] are all willing and able to solve problems 1 and 2 respectively on a policy level not only to ensure our actions to date are not detrimental to builder but also to allow objective discussion to flourish regarding the concerns you have raised. Ultimately, it serves everyone if we can figure out how to ensure that this sort of conflict does not have to go on to become a recurring one for the future and so that the agreed principles can easily be applied in a consistent way in all potential use cases so that things are fair. Magdalen ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
