Discussion December 2000

discussion@lists.fsfe.org

56 participants
49 discussions

Hello from france
by Ashimaru 04 Dec '00

04 Dec '00

Hello, just to say I am happy to see such a structure appearing in Europe. We're in a big fight against software patents so welcome in the arena :) !! I am working on perverting an closed platform (PalmOS) by proposing free software solutions for it. ashimaru

1 0

AW: Information about the Free Software Foundation Europe
by Michael.Kallas＠kaufhof.de 04 Dec '00

04 Dec '00

Hi to all, I want to correct something Armin Herbert wrote: <---snip---> > Hm, I don't agree with this. Nowadays lawyers jugde about even more > complicated things like webbrowsers that are built into an OS. Not to say > that they do it well, but I think it shouldn't be too complicated to > explain the facts to a lawyer. > > Software = A program that can be run by a computer Oh, no! Actually the meaning of "software" is _much_ greater. Definitions of software (there are many...) include any steps to solve problems which are "non-permanent" (so, not HARDware). That's why patenting software is such a bad thing: You could "invent" any kind of doing things and put a patent on it. * shiver * And that's just what big concerns will be trying to do! > Source Code = The text a programmer has written that can be translated by > a > compiler so that computers can run it. > Free Software = Software that is delivered along with its Source Code and > the guarantee that anyone is allowed to run, reproduce, modify, translate > etc the Code as long as he keeps the copyright. As seen above, we must take care also here of the broader meaning... > Better definitions can be taken from the GPL. > Greetings, Michael Kallas michael.kallas(a)web.de +++ michael.kallas(a)kaufhof.de

1 0

Re: an IRC channel
by Alessandro Rubini 01 Dec '00

01 Dec '00

(I'm reposting from the address I used in subscribing, mr. moderator, please reject my previous message waiting for approval) > What about an IRC channel where we could discuss in real-time? No, thanks. This requires people being online and leaves no written record. IRC is not for serious discussion or serious people, in my opinion. I have my (free software) work to accomplish and can't be diverted by an IRC line. I suspect there's a lot of people in my situation, and a lot with no fixed connection to the net nor acceptable phone rates. /alessandro

6 7

[Fwd: Fw: SLD Policy Feedback]
by Lord [INSERT NAME HERE] 01 Dec '00

01 Dec '00

I recieved the following reply from the Scottish Liberal Democrat party after I made some comments on Free software via their website's policy suggestions box. My original comment is quoted near the bottom (I should point out that the Free software bit was only one of a number of issues I was commenting on, or I would have written in more detail). I made the comments a little while ago, before the FSFE was formed. And yes, I know that Free Software and Open Source are different, and I consider the difference important- I made the decision that explaining the difference would just get me bogged down in side issues. I think the reply is interesting, as it is probably a good indicator of the response we'll get from other political parties. I thought it might be a good idea to consult with you guys before I respond. Oh, and for those who don't know, the Liberal Democrats are currently the junior partner in the ruling coalitions int the devolved Scots and Welsh parliaments, as well as being the UK's 3rd party. Martin Tod wrote: > > Hi Alistair, > > I've just received this via the Scottish webteam. > > I don't think the party has a policy on open standards, but as Chair of Liberal Democrats Online, I do encourage people (and the > party) to have and use open standards for the public face of everything they do, i.e. the Government (or LibDem run councils or > libraries or schools) shouldn't be using closed standards publicly that force the public into adopting closed standards themselves. > That's a position I intend to push towards being party policy. > > As an attempt to live up to this, the Liberal Democrats Online website is fully consistent with HTML 4 Transitional, CSS 2.0, WAI > etc. I even received compliments on its use of stylesheets from the Mozilla team! > > Unfortunately, the national party site is not yet as standards compliant although progress is being made - the next generation > should be. > > As to whether the Government should used closed standards internally - I'm less concerned to take a tough line on this since there > aren't open systems that do everything that a government needs to do - and frankly I don't fully know the cost implications of > putting this kind of changeover into place. > > I hope this helps, > > Martin Tod > Chair, Liberal Democrats Online > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Anne Horner" <annehorner(a)cix.compulink.co.uk> > To: <mtod(a)cix.compulink.co.uk> > Cc: <annehorner(a)cix.compulink.co.uk> > Sent: November 6, 2000 09:07 > Subject: Fw: SLD Policy Feedback > > > Martin - I received some policy feedback from the SLD site. Could you > > deal with this bit for me, please? I've told him I'm forwarding it to > > "Liberal Democrats Online because there is a lot of tech-savvy in that > > organisation". > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > The second is one that you probably haven't really considered- open source > > software and open standards. Now, I could waffle on for hours about the > > superiority of open-source/free software (free as in "freedom", not > > "gratis"). I advise you to do your own research on why this should be > > supported and used by government ( http://www.gnu.org , the home of the > > free software movement, is a good place to start). The issue of open > > standards is easier to explain concisely. I don't know how tech-savvy the > > person reading this is, so please excuse me if I seem to be talking down > > to you or being patronising at any point in this. In computing, standard > > is a set of rules that allows computers or programs to communicate. For > > example, all emails obey a particular standard, and this means that any > > email reader can view them. There are two types of standards: open, and > > proprietary. The email standard is a very good example of an open > > standard: no-one owns it, and there are many technical docume! > > nts online that describe how it works. As a result, anyone with a > > reasonable amount of programming ability can make an email program. This > > means that email programs are very cheap (often gratis) and widely > > available. An example of a proprietary, or closed, standard, is the ".doc" > > file standard used by Microsoft Word. As this is closed, only Microsoft > > knows the standard. Now, I don't like Word all that much, but I have no > > choice but to use it if I want to be able to share my documents withh > > other people. Microsoft have me "locked in" by their proprietary standard, > > and I have to keep buying the latest version of their software so that I > > can still exchange documents with people. It is my firm opinion that > > govenrment should promote open standards to avoid monopolies, and should > > use open-source or free-as-in-freedom software wherever possible. -- Lord [INSERT NAME HERE] "Unlike Bill Clinton, I did inhale and from time to time still do."- David McReynolds, Socialist Party USA presidential candidate This has been an emergent property of the System. Goodnight.

1 0

an IRC channel
by Jose Eugenio Marchesi 01 Dec '00

01 Dec '00

What about an IRC channel where we could discuss in real-time? I propose the #fsfeurope in the irc.openprojects.net jemarch. ------------------------------- Usas programas sin licencia? <_> Quiza sea porque las licencias oo 7 Free que conoces no son libres. (..) Software Utiliza software GPL y veras la diferencia. """ Foundation http://fsf.eui.upm.es ---------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Information about the Free Software Foundation Europe
by Jonas Oberg 01 Dec '00

01 Dec '00

"Lord [INSERT NAME HERE]" <lordylordy(a)mad.scientist.com> writes: I think we need to come up with a simple, concise (one or two sentence) explanation of Free Software that a layperson can understand. I'm not convinced that you can actually do this. If you're talking about the actual software and what constitutes free software, that's a simple thing to answer, but the concept of free software is usually much harder. I usually like to compare free software with the free sharing of food recipies between people, and the closed source model to having the car of your hood welded shut to prevent you from fixing it.

2 1

Hi everybody
by Frederic 01 Dec '00

01 Dec '00

I join you discussion list for many reasons: - First , i think is a good idea. - We would offert money, time and ressources... I beleive it will more easier for a french organisation to help and communicate with an official organisation in Europe. bst regards. Frederic

1 0

Re: Informing politicians...
by Michael.Kallas＠kaufhof.de 01 Dec '00

01 Dec '00

Sorry, but I think it gets too specifical here. I don't understand ONE of these abbreviations below, so I think it's just known by UK citizens. Maybe it's interesting for everyone, then please explain it. Maybe it's not interesting for everyone, then forget about it ;) Cheers, Michael (°> (°- _o) -°) email: michael.kallas(a)kaufhof.de //\ //\ /\\ /\\ or: michael.kallas(a)web.de V_/_ V_/_ _\_V _\_V registered user #189995 > >It's www.stand.org.uk, and we lost against the RIP bill in spite of > >it. > > I think we lost against RIP more because of lined whips - most people were > agreed that RIP should have been case law, rather than parliamentary act. > I'd still rather have STAND than not have it. > > Cheers, > > Alex. > > _______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list > Discussion(a)fsfeurope.org > http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussion

3 2

AW: Informing politicians...
by Michael.Kallas＠kaufhof.de 01 Dec '00

01 Dec '00

> Apologies, Michael!! RIP - Regulation of Investigatory Powers. Basically, > allowing the UK government to spy on it's citizens. The "whips" are Party > officers in parliament, and basically, whenever the government needs to > get > something passed it runs a lined whip - meaning, each MP has to cast their > vote according to the wishes of the Party, rather than their own wishes, > on > pain of having the whip withdrawn (i.e., being kicked out of the Party). Ok, there's something similar in Germany here (and maybe almost every country...) The names change, but the meaning is the important thing :) > The point is, (in the UK at least), it can be the case that Government > uses > it's majority to force legislation through, rather than convincing MPs and > winning the argument. In this case, there's very little lobbying can do. > Well, I see... Cheers, Michael > Cheers, > > Alex. > > > > >It's www.stand.org.uk, and we lost against the RIP bill in spite of > > > >it. > > > > > > I think we lost against RIP more because of lined whips - most people > were > > > agreed that RIP should have been case law, rather than parliamentary > act. > > > I'd still rather have STAND than not have it. > > > _______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list > Discussion(a)fsfeurope.org > http://mailman.fsfeurope.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discussion

1 0

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

Discussion December 2000