Re: two questions for candidates
There is no schedule for the next FDL. Since Wikipedia has made up its mind, I want to (and owe it to them to) work on this soon. However, there is time to listen to suggestions, if they come soon. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: two questions for candidates
On Dec 3, 2007 1:11 AM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If people are going to be looking at licenses, I would very > much like to discuss the FDL v2, and our usage of the FDL in > general. There are some troublesome parts whose implications > for GNOME aren't clear to me. > > Would you like to pick someone to discuss this with the FSF? > > Also, I'm not certain how the copyleft nature of the FDL will > impact the dynamic-collection-of-pages nature of Mallard. > > That someone could discuss this too. It is not too late for us > to change the text of the next FDL version, so please don't wait. Presumably I (or James Vasile on our behalf) can do this, though I'd really rather not do it in the middle of my exams :) Is there a public schedule for the next FDL, Richard? I tried to find one on the gplv3 website the other day and failed. Luis ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: two questions for candidates
If people are going to be looking at licenses, I would very much like to discuss the FDL v2, and our usage of the FDL in general. There are some troublesome parts whose implications for GNOME aren't clear to me. Would you like to pick someone to discuss this with the FSF? Also, I'm not certain how the copyleft nature of the FDL will impact the dynamic-collection-of-pages nature of Mallard. That someone could discuss this too. It is not too late for us to change the text of the next FDL version, so please don't wait. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: two questions for candidates
On Nov 30, 2007 3:56 PM, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > If people are going to be looking at licenses, I would very > > much like to discuss the FDL v2, and our usage of the FDL in > > general. There are some troublesome parts whose implications > > for GNOME aren't clear to me. > > My immediate gut instinct on this one is 'we're stuck with it whether > we like it or not', but you know more about the copyright ownership of > the docs than I do. Something else to look at, BTW, would be that FDL 2 will apparently be CC-SA compatible (not clear if that is 'FSF one way compatible' or 'actual two-way compatible', but wikipedia seems to think two-way compatible), and that may be something we want to look at, since that appears to be the fastest growing license commons on the non-code side of the world. Luis ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: two questions for candidates
On Nov 30, 2007 3:51 PM, Shaun McCance <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 14:54 -0500, Luis Villa wrote: > > On Nov 26, 2007 10:28 AM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 2. How do you think the GNOME Foundation should support the Free > > > Software Movement in general? > > > > I think the most pressing thing is that the Foundation and our > > partners need to investigate (with SFLC's help) the GPL v3, and decide > > whether or not to move forward on that. I've been involved with v3 for > > a long time now, and hopefully can help coordinate that effort. > > If people are going to be looking at licenses, I would very > much like to discuss the FDL v2, and our usage of the FDL in > general. There are some troublesome parts whose implications > for GNOME aren't clear to me. My immediate gut instinct on this one is 'we're stuck with it whether we like it or not', but you know more about the copyright ownership of the docs than I do. > Also, I'm not certain how the copyleft nature of the FDL will > impact the dynamic-collection-of-pages nature of Mallard. I'd love to look into that if I'm elected; please remind me about the question if/when that happens. (I'm not really taking down todos quite yet.) Luis ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: two questions for candidates
On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 14:54 -0500, Luis Villa wrote: > On Nov 26, 2007 10:28 AM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 2. How do you think the GNOME Foundation should support the Free > > Software Movement in general? > > I think the most pressing thing is that the Foundation and our > partners need to investigate (with SFLC's help) the GPL v3, and decide > whether or not to move forward on that. I've been involved with v3 for > a long time now, and hopefully can help coordinate that effort. If people are going to be looking at licenses, I would very much like to discuss the FDL v2, and our usage of the FDL in general. There are some troublesome parts whose implications for GNOME aren't clear to me. Also, I'm not certain how the copyleft nature of the FDL will impact the dynamic-collection-of-pages nature of Mallard. -- Shaun ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: two questions for candidates
On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 10:28 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 1. Would you change anything in the GNOME Foundation statement about
> OOXML?
No. ("send it out sooner" is not a valid answer.)
> 2. How do you think the GNOME Foundation should support the Free
> Software Movement in general?
By providing what it's good at and aiming for: providing excellent, easy
to use, i18nized, accessible, stable desktop software.
--
behdad
http://behdad.org/
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little
Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1759
___
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: two questions for candidates
> 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 becoming an ISO standard, which would enable Microsoft to present it as an "open standard" and help it win a major battle against our community. No one has suggested that we should do this in a dishonest way. However, honesty does not require pretending that Microsoft is honest. It also does not judging OOXML in a half-blind way based solely on the technical aspects of the spec. The many flaws (technical and legal) in OOXML are real problems because they make it hard, or dangerous, to support OOXML in free software. By contrast, if ODF has a few technical flaws, they don't matter much, because its principal implementation is already free software. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: two questions for candidates
Hi, Le lundi 26 novembre 2007, à 10:28 -0500, Richard Stallman a écrit : > 1. Would you change anything in the GNOME Foundation statement about > OOXML? I might have changed a word or two, and I would have liked to see this statement out sooner, as others said... But no big change. > 2. How do you think the GNOME Foundation should support the Free > Software Movement in general? My first reaction to this question is that it's quite vague to me. I mean, I can reply "the GNOME Foundation is already supporting Free Software because it supports GNOME and wants to see GNOME more widely in use, and because it's advocating Free Software, and...". But this is no news to anybody here, is it? The goal of the Foundation is to support GNOME, and one of the core values of GNOME is freedom. Now, sometimes, it makes sense to support the movement by participating in some campaigns with other organizations. We've done this with the "Go for OFL!" campaign: http://www.unifont.org/go_for_ofl/ This is just an example, of course, but this gives you an idea of what we can do. 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: two questions for candidates
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:04:14PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > > > Microsoft isn't defending OOXML under the terms defined by ISO. > > So we should be as grubby and corrupt as them? No, we simply shouldn't be lax or complacent with a convicted entity who has not changed its methods, as if it was a normal human being. > What I am saying here is not > that we should put up a weak fight. I am saying we should *defeat* OOXML > under the terms defined by ISO. As far as ISO is concerned, GNOME Foundation participated in the Disposition of Comments. We know that isn't true, but ECMA's PR is clearly written in a way to suggest all those entities did it without saying it outright. BTW, Jeff, Jody: did the GNOME Foundation ever receive a notice from ECMA to participate in the Disposition of Comments? I'd really like to know that in order to call ECMA out in the open... > I'm helping to do that in Australia. It is > in the local standards bodies that the fight exists now. Not on the GNOME > Foundation mailing list. Yes, but the matter is of... > > 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. ... profiling candidates :) Rui -- Today is Boomtime, the 40th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: two questions for candidates
> Microsoft isn't defending OOXML under the terms defined by ISO. So we should be as grubby and corrupt as them? What I am saying here is not that we should put up a weak fight. I am saying we should *defeat* OOXML under the terms defined by ISO. I'm helping to do that in Australia. It is in the local standards bodies that the fight exists now. Not on the GNOME Foundation mailing list. > > Software Freedom is not just for geeks! > > 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. - Jeff -- GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 It's not just a song! It's a document of my life! ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: two questions for candidates
On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 02:49:34AM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: > > > > 1. Would you change anything in the GNOME Foundation statement about > > OOXML? > > I'd probably include a message about not fighting OOXML on political grounds > because they have no impact on the ISO standardisation process. To succeed, > we need to fight OOXML under the terms defined by ISO, which means nuking it > as hard was we possibly can on technical grounds. Microsoft isn't defending OOXML under the terms defined by ISO. They have successfully raised Somebody Else's Problem fields around all issues through means of the Technical Commission Control Force Field. It's impervious to how many megatons you can place on technical grounds if they bought more votes (either through reward or threat of punishment -- and on Portuguese TC-173 I *strongly* suspect one company was subject to threat of punishment: death like Netscape died). > Software Freedom is not just for geeks! 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. Best, Rui -- Umlaut Zebra �ber alles! Today is Boomtime, the 40th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: two questions for candidates
> > > > 1. Would you change anything in the GNOME Foundation statement about > > OOXML? > > I'd probably include a message about not fighting OOXML on political > grounds because they have no impact on the ISO standardisation process. To > succeed, we need to fight OOXML under the terms defined by ISO, which > means nuking it as hard was we possibly can on technical grounds. Actually, a very important point, which I'm not just saying because this is a reply to a question from Richard... :-) What I *wouldn't* change in our statement is that the number 1 point in our position statement was Software Freedom, and that our final comment was to encourage people to contribute to Software Freedom. That's important because ultimately, whatever goes on with standards and their impact on our industry, *our* number 1 priority is Software Freedom, and making sure our users can access it, use it and enjoy it. - Jeff -- GNOME.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australia http://live.gnome.org/Melbourne2008 "Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light." - Spike Milligan ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: two questions for candidates
On Nov 27, 2007 7:20 AM, Gregory Leblanc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 26, 2007 2:54 PM, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Nov 26, 2007 10:28 AM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [snip] > > > 2. How do you think the GNOME Foundation should support the Free > > > Software Movement in general? > > > [snip] > > > > More long-term, working with the online desktop folks, and hopefully > > with many other interested parties, we need to reframe what software > > freedom means in a network-centric world. It is now abundantly clear > > to most everyone that source code access is frequently insufficient to > > guarantee user autonomy; the question, then, is what additional (or > > perhaps different) requirements will help our users maintain their > > autonomy in the future. This is much bigger than GNOME, of course, but > > it seems likely that we will be at the cutting edge of it, and so > > we're going to have to deal with it whether we're the best forum for > > it or not :) > > I'm not quite clear on what you mean here, Luis. Can you suggest some > links that I might peruse that would describe what you mean by 'user > autonomy' and why source code access is insufficient to guarantee it? Keep an eye on my blog; essay on it going up in the next 24-48 hours. But you can get some flavor of it from previous posts: http://tieguy.org/blog/category/openservice/ and from http://live.gnome.org/FreeOpenServicesDefinition Nutshell: if a web service gives you source, but keeps your data and identity locked up, you have very little choice- very little autonomy- unlike the choice/autonomy you'd have if you were running locally-managed software and had the source. Luis ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: two questions for candidates
On Nov 26, 2007 2:54 PM, Luis Villa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Nov 26, 2007 10:28 AM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [snip] > > 2. How do you think the GNOME Foundation should support the Free > > Software Movement in general? > [snip] > > More long-term, working with the online desktop folks, and hopefully > with many other interested parties, we need to reframe what software > freedom means in a network-centric world. It is now abundantly clear > to most everyone that source code access is frequently insufficient to > guarantee user autonomy; the question, then, is what additional (or > perhaps different) requirements will help our users maintain their > autonomy in the future. This is much bigger than GNOME, of course, but > it seems likely that we will be at the cutting edge of it, and so > we're going to have to deal with it whether we're the best forum for > it or not :) I'm not quite clear on what you mean here, Luis. Can you suggest some links that I might peruse that would describe what you mean by 'user autonomy' and why source code access is insufficient to guarantee it? Thanks, Greg ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: two questions for candidates
Hi, 2007/11/26, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > 1. Would you change anything in the GNOME Foundation statement about > OOXML? I would change the date it was released. :-) I think the most serious problem about GNOME Foundation participation on ECMA TC45-M was that it wasn't properly explained and clarified to the community at the time it started. The statement came after a lot of noise. About the content, no, I wouldn't change the core message. Anyway, I've already given my opinion about OOXML on the previous set of questions. > 2. How do you think the GNOME Foundation should support the Free > Software Movement in general? - By supporting the GNOME community on bringing outstanding user experience 100% based on Free Software - By promoting the GNOME Project around the world so that universities, NGO's, governments, social movements, private companies, and other organizations know that they can perform their daily tasks with Free Software - By promoting the GNOME Project around the world so that we can bring more contributors to our (and other) communities --lucasr ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: two questions for candidates
> Finally, I'd have liked it to have been more timely. I think Jeff is right > that it would not have changed the impact much (we'd still have been > flamed) but we'd have looked like we were doing it above board, instead of > trying to sneak behind anyone's back. Agree. :-\ - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ Is Murphy's Law constitutional? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: two questions for candidates
On Nov 26, 2007 10:28 AM, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1. Would you change anything in the GNOME Foundation statement about > OOXML? I wish it were more explicit about how the Foundation feels that the ODF folks have been undermining the standards process. It isn't obvious to everyone that ODF shares much of the blame for the politicization of the process, so the statements about that in the statement are a little vague. I suppose it could have been more aggressive about describing Microsoft as a multiply-convicted monopolist, but everyone already knows that; being more explicit about it would mostly have been redundant. Finally, I'd have liked it to have been more timely. I think Jeff is right that it would not have changed the impact much (we'd still have been flamed) but we'd have looked like we were doing it above board, instead of trying to sneak behind anyone's back. > 2. How do you think the GNOME Foundation should support the Free > Software Movement in general? I think the most pressing thing is that the Foundation and our partners need to investigate (with SFLC's help) the GPL v3, and decide whether or not to move forward on that. I've been involved with v3 for a long time now, and hopefully can help coordinate that effort. More long-term, working with the online desktop folks, and hopefully with many other interested parties, we need to reframe what software freedom means in a network-centric world. It is now abundantly clear to most everyone that source code access is frequently insufficient to guarantee user autonomy; the question, then, is what additional (or perhaps different) requirements will help our users maintain their autonomy in the future. This is much bigger than GNOME, of course, but it seems likely that we will be at the cutting edge of it, and so we're going to have to deal with it whether we're the best forum for it or not :) Luis ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: two questions for candidates
Hey, On 11/26/07, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 1. Would you change anything in the GNOME Foundation statement about > OOXML? > Mmmm, I would have included a line in all-caps saying "GNOME Foundation doesn't like OOXML, we have someone in the committee because standard or not Ms is gonna push it everywhere, so we are taking the chance to ask questions and raise concern on all the problems we can find." :). I think the statement was fine, a bit longer than what the regular netizen would read however, so my new line would only be to avoid lazy netizens spreading FUD. As Jeff says on another thread, statement or not, the people "hating" us for being there is not going to ever be happy. So I'd print that line only to make it clearer for the ocassional bystander. > 2. How do you think the GNOME Foundation should support the Free > Software Movement in general? By keeping the high quality of GNOME and supporting the grow of our great community (note that it's on hackers hands to do it, but on Foundation's to encourage it). I always like to talk about GNOME when people asks or wonders about free software being "too hippie" or "non serious". My personal view is that GNOME is a great argument for confirming that free software can be more serious and efficient than any other privative alternative (think about our release cycle). I think the Foundation is already helping free software by supporting GNOME and promoting it, it also does a great job being a proxy to all the companies interested in the project. Nuking the brick walls for GNOME also nuke them for other projects. see ya! ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: two questions for candidates
On Mon, 2007-11-26 at 10:28 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: > 1. Would you change anything in the GNOME Foundation statement about > OOXML? I think the statement was fine ... if you like reading press releases. It was detailed and stepped through the process of making the decision. Analysts would love it and our stock would go up if we had any. Unfortunately your average community member won't read it or if they do won't fully digest it. Most wait for a Slashdot article to distill the contents and as history has shown the Slashdot crowd is none too kind to even the hint of controversy. The fault lies with the Foundation for not communicating it decisions when they happened in a format that is easily digested. We should have anticipated the controversy and eased peoples mind. We are not going to win everyone in that respect but we do come out on top instead of being defensive after the fact. > 2. How do you think the GNOME Foundation should support the Free > Software Movement in general? The foundation should support the Free Software Movement in general by supporting people creating Free Software. By creating an excellent base to develop on GNOME has fostered a growing community of Free Software developers. We have shown it to be profitable for companies and while some just take the bits and don't contribute back we have seen more and more contributions coming from places that would traditionally be closed in their software approach. It is up to the developers to really create that great platform of Free Software. The foundation's role is getting roadblocks out of the way and facilitating communication between developers, companies and end users. -- John (J5) Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: two questions for candidates
> 1. Would you change anything in the GNOME Foundation statement about > OOXML? I'd probably include a message about not fighting OOXML on political grounds because they have no impact on the ISO standardisation process. To succeed, we need to fight OOXML under the terms defined by ISO, which means nuking it as hard was we possibly can on technical grounds. > 2. How do you think the GNOME Foundation should support the Free > Software Movement in general? By creating rocking Free Software that is easy to use, accessible and usable for users around the world, whether they're ubergeeks or neophytes. :-) The phrase I use that I think best illustrates GNOME's values in this regard is: Software Freedom is not just for geeks! :-) - Jeff -- linux.conf.au 2008: Melbourne, Australiahttp://lca2008.linux.org.au/ "I still fervently believe that the only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features." - Andy Tanenbaum ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
two questions for candidates
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/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
