Discussion April 2008

discussion@lists.fsfe.org

30 participants
20 discussions

La Quadrature du Net
by Michel Roche 28 Apr '08

28 Apr '08

Hello, I bring to your attention a french initiative against a french law project which would cause many harm at digital freedom in France and maybe in Europe as French president's intention is to use it's European presidence to bring it to Europe. The site : http://www.laquadrature.net/en/ As they have receive support from many existing organisations abroad, I'w wondering if FSFE would join the movement. To join them by email : support AT laquadrature.net And appear at this page : http://www.laquadrature.net/en/they-support-squaring-net-la-quadrature-du-n… What do you think about it ? Michel (France...)

1 0

Re: Licence compliance with GFDL audio recordings?
by Carsten Agger 23 Apr '08

23 Apr '08

> "Alfred M. Szmidt" <ams(a)gnu.org> wrote: [...] >> The GPL was designed for software, audio isn't software, a suitable >> license free audio license would be be a verbatim only, or a all >> permissive one. > > Audio recordings can be software, and definitely Programs in the sense > of the GPL, but I'd suggest an all-permissive licence is simpler too. > Creative Commons licenses (of several descriptions) are also widely used for audio recordings, of course. If in doubt, it should be easy to propagate the license terms as part of the recording (by referring, that is, not by including everything).

1 0

Licence compliance with GFDL audio recordings?
by David Gerard 23 Apr '08

23 Apr '08

I have a question about the GFDL and audio recordings of GFDL text (for accessibility, podcasts, etc): how does one comply with the GFDL in an audio version of a text? Does it really require the entire license also read out? Are GFDL texts therefore not legally available to the blind, etc? (We've also asked licensing(a)fsf.org, but I was wondering if anyone has dealt with this before. Also, a response in less than three months would be useful. Also, if they answer "you should read the licence text and consult your lawyer", I swear I'm going to nuke Boston - our lawyer is Mike Godwin and he says it makes his head hurt.) - d.

4 5

Re: Bill Gates ridicules the GPL, equals software to medicines, insists on sw. patents
by José Pedro Ferreira 23 Apr '08

23 Apr '08

> "I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them," he said, adding with a shrug: "That may seem radical." I wouldn't expect otherwise... his whole life has been about exploiting the basic needs of the computer users, why would he take a different approach regarding health issues? I think his charity will never compensate for the attack on the fundamental rights that he's been sponsoring. Cheers, Pedro On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:11 PM, José Pedro Ferreira <pedro.ferreira(a)fe.up.pt> wrote: > > "I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them," he said, adding with a shrug: "That may seem radical." > > I wouldn't expect otherwise... his whole life has been about > exploiting the basic needs of the computer users, why would he take a > different approach regarding health issues? > > I think his charity will never compensate for the attack on the > fundamental rights that he's been sponsoring. > > Cheers, > > Pedro > > > > On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:32 AM, David B <davidb_info(a)yahoo.es> wrote: > > So much for the allegued "openness" and "open source > > friendliness" of Microsoft: There is no such thing: > > They want to open the breach inside the FOSS community > > separating tame just-business-friendly patent-friendly > > open-source from free(dom) software and marginalise > > (and eventually kill) the GPL and the FSF. > > He goes as far as downplaying the benefits of open > > source software in medical science projects (better > > leave it to Gates' charity) > > Notice they keep insisting on software patentability > > and that no matter if it is open source they want to > > make you pay for software (and Novell is helping them > > in pursuing this strategy). > > > > Source: > > http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/bill-gates-what.html > > > > Best regards. > > David B.(Spain) > > > > One thing Gates won't be leaving behind in > > retirement is his distaste for open source software. > > After one scientist asked if Gates would consider open > > source uses in health research, the man who built his > > $280 billion company on the power of intellectual > > property bristled. > > > > "There's free software and then there's open > > source," he suggested, noting that Microsoft gives > > away its software in developing countries. With open > > source software, on the other hand, "there is this > > thing called the GPL, which we disagree with." > > > > Open source, he said, creates a license "so that > > nobody can ever improve the software," he claimed, > > bemoaning the squandered opportunity for jobs and > > business. (Yes, Linux fans, we're aware of how > > distorted this definition is.) He went back to the > > analogy of pharmaceuticals: "I think if you invent > > drugs, you should be able to charge for them," he > > said, adding with a shrug: "That may seem radical." > > > > it's very revealing that Microsoft tries to separate > > Free software (it tries to characterise it as gratis, > > i.e. zero cost, cheap, shoddy) from open source. Open > > source is, to Microsoft, mainly about visibility, but > > it wants it to be subjected to the same rules, > > including software patents. Where are those geniuses > > who defended Microsoft's seemingly-friendly approach > > towards the OSI? > > > > http://www.endsoftwarepatents.org > > ------ > > ¿Eres un usuario cautivo ó libre? > > ¿controlas tu ordenador o tu ordenador te controla a tí? > > > > Libérate: Usa Gnu/Linux y OpenOffice.org: > > > > http://www.obtengalinux.org/windows/ > > > > Are you a free user or a captive one? > > Do you control your computer or does your computer control you? > > > > Set yourself free: Use Gnu/Linux and OpenOffice.org: > > > > http://www.getgnulinux.org/windows/ > > > > > > > > ______________________________________________ > > Yahoo! Solidario. Intercambia los objetos que ya no necesitas y ayuda a mantener un entorno más ecológico. > > _______________________________________________ > > Discussion mailing list > > Discussion(a)fsfeurope.org > > https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion > > >

1 0

Bill Gates ridicules the GPL, equals software to medicines, insists on sw. patents
by David B 23 Apr '08

23 Apr '08

So much for the allegued "openness" and "open source friendliness" of Microsoft: There is no such thing: They want to open the breach inside the FOSS community separating tame just-business-friendly patent-friendly open-source from free(dom) software and marginalise (and eventually kill) the GPL and the FSF. He goes as far as downplaying the benefits of open source software in medical science projects (better leave it to Gates' charity) Notice they keep insisting on software patentability and that no matter if it is open source they want to make you pay for software (and Novell is helping them in pursuing this strategy). Source: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/bill-gates-what.html Best regards. David B.(Spain) One thing Gates wont be leaving behind in retirement is his distaste for open source software. After one scientist asked if Gates would consider open source uses in health research, the man who built his $280 billion company on the power of intellectual property bristled. Theres free software and then theres open source, he suggested, noting that Microsoft gives away its software in developing countries. With open source software, on the other hand, there is this thing called the GPL, which we disagree with. Open source, he said, creates a license so that nobody can ever improve the software, he claimed, bemoaning the squandered opportunity for jobs and business. (Yes, Linux fans, were aware of how distorted this definition is.) He went back to the analogy of pharmaceuticals: I think if you invent drugs, you should be able to charge for them, he said, adding with a shrug: That may seem radical. its very revealing that Microsoft tries to separate Free software (it tries to characterise it as gratis, i.e. zero cost, cheap, shoddy) from open source. Open source is, to Microsoft, mainly about visibility, but it wants it to be subjected to the same rules, including software patents. Where are those geniuses who defended Microsofts seemingly-friendly approach towards the OSI? http://www.endsoftwarepatents.org ------ ¿Eres un usuario cautivo ó libre? ¿controlas tu ordenador o tu ordenador te controla a tí? Libérate: Usa Gnu/Linux y OpenOffice.org: http://www.obtengalinux.org/windows/ Are you a free user or a captive one? Do you control your computer or does your computer control you? Set yourself free: Use Gnu/Linux and OpenOffice.org: http://www.getgnulinux.org/windows/ ______________________________________________ Yahoo! Solidario. Intercambia los objetos que ya no necesitas y ayuda a mantener un entorno más ecológico.

1 0

Fwd: Licence compliance with GFDL audio recordings?
by David Gerard 22 Apr '08

22 Apr '08

to list as well ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> Date: 22 Apr 2008 09:56 Subject: Re: Licence compliance with GFDL audio recordings? To: MJ Ray <mjr(a)phonecoop.coop> On 22/04/2008, MJ Ray <mjr(a)phonecoop.coop> wrote: > "David Gerard" <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > We already have spoken versions of Wikipedia articles on Wikipedia. > > These would presumably be a copyright violation if not right there on > > Wikipedia [...] > Not in England if done to allow access by visually impaired people in > certain circumstances (Copyright ... Act 1988 sections 31A-31F). > There's probably other special cases too. Ooh, yes. That is in fact very useful. Thank you! Hopefully there are similar provisions in other legal systems, particularly the US. - d.

1 0

Writing a secure client/server with open source
by edA-qa mort-ora-y 20 Apr '08

20 Apr '08

I am writing a score server for client/server games such that various games can talk to one server. Each game would thus register for a name/password and use that in their code to send data to the server. Now, putting aside all the problems with cheat detection found in closed source software, it seems my problem is exacerbated by the need to distribute full code to make the client (this will be the AGPL so server code is also included). Does anybody have some good references, or good ideas, on how this can be accomplished, such that each game client can uniquely identify itself with the server? That is, how can I adequately protect some "keys" in a completely AGPL project? NOTE: I already understand the problem with detecting cheaters, and I realize this is a part of the same problem. I'm just hoping that somebody has an idea that the most basic identity of a game client can be protected. -- edA-qa mort-ora-y http://disemia.com/ -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- The dis-Emi-A haXe Library -- all you'd ever need to make Flash games http://wiki.disemia.com/The_dis-Emi-A_haXe_Library -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Sign: Please digitally sign your emails. Encrypt: I'm also happy to receive encrypted mail.

4 5

Fwd: Writing a secure client/server with open source
by David Gerard 20 Apr '08

20 Apr '08

to list as well. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> Date: 20 Apr 2008 12:25 Subject: Re: Writing a secure client/server with open source To: edA-qa mort-ora-y <eda-qa(a)disemia.com> On 20/04/2008, edA-qa mort-ora-y <eda-qa(a)disemia.com> wrote: > Andy wrote: > > The general consensus is "The attacker already knows the algorithm" thus > > revealing the source should not be a problem. Compilation is NOT a > > secure way of hiding something anyway. > I agree, but at least it prevents casual abuse of the server. That is, > a bit of obfuscation is likely enough to rid the game of the majority > of cheaters or abusers. I agree it does nothing to deter the hardcore > attacker. It does nothing to stop them either, because their code can be copied and used by others. "Secure client" is fundamentally an oxymoron. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_client (which I rewrote a while ago to try to explain this simple point which nevertheless consistently evades people). You can't give people the secret and also keep it from them - it's *impossible*. If you want this to work, you have to make the *protocols* proof against cheats, e.g. only allowing a certain number of actions per time or whatever. Come up with a protocol that would still work if every single player had a copy of the protocol and could implement an optimal bot client for it ... because that's what they can do anyway. - d.

1 0

Re: Open Parliament petition
by Carsten Agger 19 Apr '08

19 Apr '08

David Picón Álvarez wrote: >> On the other hand, I've never much liked the EU as a project, and I >> always opposed my own country's membership. A recent trip to visit the >> Parliament in Brussels did little to convince me of its fundamental >> democratic credentials (although I recognize some people there are doing >> good work, like apparently the Spanish parlamentarian David Hammerstein). > > The fact is the European Union isn't waiting for you to support it in order > to exist. The EU is a reality on the ground, and we have to live with it. We > can take political action to try to get rid of it, or change it into > something we prefer, from the understanding that, if we ignore it, it > doesn't go away. > That is of course true; a third alternative would be to agitate for our own country to leave the EU, which is common in some country, which would make EU legislation irrelevant in that country - still, I think the petiition has merit: if the EU Parliament was to shift to free software and open standards and do it for political reasons, this would be a significant victory. > > Without wanting to go into OT, if someone is sufficiently childish to think > that their "recognition" of an actually existing institution such as > Europarl matters, or that by withdrawing it they can somehow better take > charge of their future, they deserve as much political influence and power > as they get, zero. Without going too far into OT, this misses the mark of how modern institutions work and uphold their power. Institutions in countries like the European ones thrive on recognition - if they didn't have it, they would lose their power and become irrelevant. If (to take a contemporary example) the Basque parliament were to declare independence tomorrow, this would mainly be an assertion of not recognizing the Spanish government's sovereignty over the area. The American declaration of independence, likewise: An assertion of lack of recognition followed by a struggle which ended with British loss of control over the area. And, in practically all revolutions and similar upheavals, things have started with people not "recognizing" the authorities' right to control them in certain ways. Power *begins* with recognition: If nobody recognized the government, it would be unable to govern; it can only uphold its power by force as long as the vast majority *does* recognize it as the reality on the ground - if a vast majority didn't and consequenctly didn't obey the laws, no police force in the world could save it. So recognition *is* a very important political currency (thus also the hairsplitting on both sides over "recognition" in the Israel/Palestine conflict). br (and I better get back on topic), Carsten -- http://www.modspil.dk

2 1

Re: Open Parliament petition
by Carsten Agger 18 Apr '08

18 Apr '08

Ciaran O'Riordan wrote: > Free Software Foundation Europe <press(a)fsfeurope.org> writes: >> 5. FSFE co-launches Open Parliament initiative > > I've put more information in a blog entry: > http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/ciaran/ciaran_s_free_software_notes/the_open_par… > > I'm not entirely sure what to think of this petition, like in whether to sign or distribute it: On one hand, I'm in favor of free software and think its distribution and adoption in Europe would be a good thing. On the other hand, I've never much liked the EU as a project, and I always opposed my own country's membership. A recent trip to visit the Parliament in Brussels did little to convince me of its fundamental democratic credentials (although I recognize some people there are doing good work, like apparently the Spanish parlamentarian David Hammerstein). So, how can I sign or recommend the petition without fundamentally recognizing the Parliament, when actually I don't? This might actually limit the petition's potential appeal in many countries, at least in "Euro-sceptical" quarters (which in Denmark tend to be the left, and some nationalists - the pattern might be different in other countries). br Carsten -- http://www.modspil.dk

3 2

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 April 2008