-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi guys
I wanted to update you with regards the FAQ for giving talks about Free
Software.
There is a new section on the fellowship site for advocacy. At the
moment you'll find the English version of the FAQ there. We also have
the FAQ in the following languages:
- - German
- - French
- - Spanish
- - Italian
- - Bulgarian
Someone offered to do a Turkish translation and I'm waiting on that.
I've also been cheeky and asked a Japanese friend to do a Japanese
translation. Ditto Chinese Mandarin and Chinese Cantonese.
The translations of the FAQ are waiting on an update to the followship
CMS board system to allow all the characters to display properly.
Now, regarding the advocacy section of the site: I want to add a lot
more material there to help people spread the word about Free Software.
Suggestions and material welcome!
Regards
Shane
- --
Shane Martin Coughlan
e: shane(a)opendawn.com
m: +447773180107 (UK) +353862262570 (Ire)
w: www.opendawn.com
- ---
OpenPGP: http://www.opendawn.com/shane/publickey.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iQCVAwUBRNHjLtwG3M95JPpzAQio9wP+PcDlPsZcnc/U2nGXB0VHHdX7Pf8rGmdy
jiWTPXFiOTjMMZ/G3HeHlkX1d3G6ojuNAFD6+RVtkp3CWtOLVCDXm4IPrhjEc1Nk
4hWosjy4xTJYNkx7cDc5eFNTCKW9CJPAanLwQpGrHQYY1r27BXyxsWkF1GNMCb5x
kSGpJoL+8Wo=
=WijR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
I've discussed the Nokia 770 with a few high profile members of the
FSFE community. The reaction was generally positive. Sure, it may
have Flash and Opera, but it's essentially a free platform, was the
common feeling. I call this assertion into question: Maemo relies
heavily on non-free components and Nokia has constructed technical and
psychological barriers which prevent a free platform from emerging. I
contend that Nokia, despite their contributions to the FLOSS
communities, represents a greater threat to freedom than many
proprietary hardware vendors. Read the note here:
http://walfield.org/blog/2007/01/29/maemo.html
Neal
from http://www.fsf.org/news/open-access-petition
<quote>
In the wake of the publication of the report from the "EU Study on the
Economic and
Technical Evolution of the Scientific Publication Markets of Europe" a
consortium of
organizations working in the scholarly communication arena is
sponsoring a petition
to the European Commission to demonstrate support for Open Access and for the
recommendations in the report. Signatures may be added on behalf of
individuals or
institutions.
</quote>
To sign the petition please go to http://www.ec-petition.eu/
---
Stefano Spinucci
FSFE Fellow
[ http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/call_for_letters_to_iso_re_o… ]
Call for letters to ISO re: OpenXML
Thursday 25 January 2007
Following up on the articles "[24]Novells 'Danaergeschenk'",
"[25]Is OpenXML now a standard?", "[26]OpenXML wrap-up after D12K"
and "[27]Why criticise OpenXML now?" I would like to make sure that
everyone has had a look at the Groklaw article "[28]Deadline Looms
to Express Concerns about ECMA 376 Office Open XML."
Microsoft is currently trying to push its Ecma 367 OpenXML format
through the "fast track" procedure in the [29]International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) to give it false credibility
as a standard. The Groklaw article explains many of the problems,
why the OpenXML format should never be accepted by ISO and also
highlights the urgency of the issue as the fast track procedure
allows only for a 30 day evaluation period, so time is of the
essence.
If you want an overview and reference of the many problems with the
OpenXML format, here is an [30]overview on Grokdok. But since that
list is very long, I think it might be more useful for most people
to have some examples of formal objections to the ISO. Here is an
excellent one that has been [31]posted to the discussion mailing
list of [32]IFSO, [33]FSFE's Irish associate organisation:
Re: Objections to JTC-1 Fast-Track Processing of the ECMA-376
Specification
To whom it may concern,
I, Gareth Eason, write on behalf of the committee and members of
the Irish Linux User Group to voice our collective concern
regarding the Fast-Track Processing of the ECMA 376 Specification
by the ISO JTC-1 committee.
As more and more of our critical paperwork gets stored in
electronic form, the ISO body recognise the requirement for an open
standard for storing this data -- one with which multiple software
vendors may comply. This avoids a monopoly situation emerging
whereby a single supplier may control access to information simply
because only they can understand the format it is stored in. This
is particularly true for legacy documents -- old documents produced
and 'saved' by an older version of software.
As a predominantly technical body of people within Ireland, we feel
it important to highlight our concerns to the fast-track processing
of this proposed standard for the following reasons:
* The ECMA specification runs to some 6,000 pages, impossible to
review in any meaningful fashion within the 30 days permitted.
* The concept of the standard potentially conflicts with the ISO
body's own stated goal of "one standard, one test, and one
conformity assessment procedure accepted everywhere." ECMA has
been publicly slated as an alternative to an already existing and
ratified open document standard, ISO/IEC 26300:2006.
* There appears to be internal inconsistencies within the proposed
standard and significant conflicts with existing ratified ISO
standards, including ISO8601 (Representation of Dates and Times),
ISO639 (Codes for the representation of Names and Languages),
ISO/IEC 8632 (Computer Graphics Metafiles) and more.
* There are numerous references to proprietary applications and
behaviours which may be impossible to reproduce without
potentially infringing patents granted to, in particular,
Microsoft. No documentation as to proprietary behaviours is
offered in many cases and no legal indemnification appears to be
granted for either reverse engineering or re-implementation of
these behaviours. This renders it legally and technically
impossible for any organisation other that Microsoft to implement
this standard, essentially prohibiting competition -- the
antithesis of ISO standards.
We would suggest that it is inappropriate to fast-track the
processing of this proposed ECMA 376 standard and that it should be
diverted from its present fast-track processing and should be
remanded to Ecma International for: (i) harmonization with ISO/IEC
26300:2006, the OpenDocument standard; and numerous other standards
that it contradicts; (ii) development of more suitable intellectual
property documents that actually grant rights to implement the
specification.
More information on this proposal, and an analysis to date of the
document can be found at
http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections
Yours faithfully,
Gareth Eason B.Eng, MIET, (Chairperson) , for an on behalf of the
Irish Linux User Group.
There are probably other good letters out there and [34]FSFE is also
working on a letter of its own right now, but this example is very
good for various reasons, including the right tone, the right style
and some of the strongest arguments. Please consider writing a letter
yourself, with your company or organisation. If you do, I recommend
including the following arguments:
* OpenXML violates various ISO standards
A list of the standards violated can be found at
[35]http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Ecma_376_co
ntradicts_numerous_international_standards
* There is already an ISO standard for office documents
The usefulness of ISO is largely based on its [36]stated principle
of "one standard, one test and one conformity assessment procedure
accepted everywhere." By accepting the OpenXML format, ISO would
violate its own principles and undermine itself.
* OpenXML depends on undocumented, proprietary information
As [37]documented here, Ecma 376 OpenXML depends on undisclosed,
proprietary information of Microsoft.
* 6000 pages in 30 days
It is absolutely impossible to parse 200 pages of technical
documentation per day with the diligence necessary for an
organisation such as ISO.
The first three are very strong to explain why ISO should never
approve OpenXML and instead give the format back to Ecma to be
harmonised with the real and approved standard ISO/IEC 26300:2006,
also known as Open Document Format (ODF). The last point shows that
even if ISO is not willing to make this decision immediately, it
should at least not be fast-tracked.
Microsoft is currently working very hard on many groups and
organisations to bring just that about and make ISO accept OpenXML as
an ISO standard through the fast-track. It is up to all groups and
companies that value Open Standards to object to this now.
So please [38]check this page for more information, advice on how to
get in touch, and contact details of the various parties that need to
be informed about the objections.
Spread the word!
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.
24. https://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/novells_danaergeschenk
25. https://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/is_openxml_now_a_standard
26. https://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/openxml_wrap_up_after_d12k
27. https://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/why_criticise_openxml_now
28. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070123071154671
29. http://www.iso.org/
30. http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections
31. http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie/2007-January/002655.html
32. http://www.ifso.ie/
33. http://fsfeurope.org/
34. http://fsfeurope.org/
35. http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Ecma_376_contradicts_num…
36. http://www.iso.org/iso/en/commcentre/pressreleases/archives/2001/Ref805.html
37. http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Ecma_376_relies_on_undis…
38. http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_Contacts
--
Georg C. F. Greve <greve(a)fsfeurope.org>
Free Software Foundation Europe (http://fsfeurope.org)
Join the Fellowship and protect your freedom! (http://www.fsfe.org)
What everyone should know about DRM (http://DRM.info)
What about classifying businesses according to the
Debian
guidelines (main, contrib and non-free)?
Businesses that deal with 100% free software (from
development to production) will fit in the main
section, the others in either contrib or non free.
By the way, I remember somebody here telling me some
time ago that the GBN was thrown a spanner from the
outside. I can only see spanners from inside.
Ottavio Caruso
--
No individual replies, please!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com