Dear all,
In the spirit of full disclosure, let me start by pointing out that I am CEO
and - along with other employees, some of whom you will also know -
shareholder of Kolab Systems AG (https://kolabsystems.com) and that Kolab
Systems has been the driving force behind Roundcube for the past years.
Kolab Systems has also agreed to help the Roundcube Next team in its aim to
refactor and build the next technology generation.
So I am not neutral.
That said, I genuinely believe it is extremely important for the Free Software
community to get behind Roundcube Next and help us push it forward, as
well as bring others on board with it.
The longer story is here: http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=676
TL;DR, Part I: As a community we *require* technologies that compete with
Google Apps, Office 365 and the likes in features, convenience, UI/UX, yet
provide full control and freedom to users.
TL;DR, Part II: Application Service Providers should get on board with that
push *right now* because otherwise they will find themselves forced into
becoming re-sellers for Office 365 and Google Apps -- and increasingly
unable to compete with their features & networking effects.
Some already understood this, and have joined the Roundcube Next community,
such as cPanel (http://blog.cpanel.com/on-to-the-next/), Tucows, and now also
Fastmail (http://blog.fastmail.com/2015/06/05/fastmail-supports-roundcube-next-develo…).
But there are many more providers using Roundcube today who have not joined,
nor have they contributed in the past. For them it should be obvious to join.
And then there are those that have their own home-brew interfaces (such as
Fastmail) who get the unique opportunity to become part of a new, growing
community that will create a technology that will make them fully competitive
against the "big clouds" in 18 months from now.
Unfortunately, most of them have not realized this yet.
So unless your provider is cPanel, Tucows, Fastmail or Kolab Now, all of who
are part of this already, please encourage them to step up and join the
community to push for Roundcube Next.
Direct link for your convenience:
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/roundcube-next--2/x/4658765#/story
Best regards,
Georg
--
Georg C. F. Greve <greve(a)fsfeurope.org>
Member of the General Assembly
http://fsfe.org/about/greve/http://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/http://identi.ca/greve
Here an interesting news:
https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/node/157872
Let's see if there will be real action connected with it...
Regards,
Matthias
--
Matthias Kirschner - President - Free Software Foundation Europe
Schönhauser Allee 6/7, 10119 Berlin, Germany | t +49-30-27595290
Registered at Amtsgericht Hamburg, VR 17030 | (fsfe.org/join)
Contact (fsfe.org/about/kirschner) - Weblog (k7r.eu/blog.html)
Earlier this month, there was some talk of the "free software company"
and what that might mean.
I work in an interesting variant of this concept, namely in a company
(the Danish company Magenta, see magenta.dk) which, according to its
mission statement, may only deliver software under an OSI-approved
license, practically speaking either GPL or LGPL version 3 or Mozilla
Public License version 2.
It's not a "free software company" in the sense that we only *use* free
software - new employees are free to choose their operating system and
favorite programs, and while most developers use GNU/Linux, some prefer
OSX or Windows, and that's completely OK. What matters is that none of
the software that we deliver to customers is under a non-free license.
I wrote a blog post about that, and I hope to be able to elaborate on
our practical work with free software in future posts:
http://blogs.fsfe.org/agger/2017/01/24/working-with-free-software/
Hello everybody,
I recently had a discussion which made me wonder: does anyone of you
know someone who was directly threatened with software patents; either
someone in the function as a volunteer contributor to Free Software, or
self-employed? To clarify: it is not about companies being threatened
with patents, but about threats to individual contributors.
If so, would you be able to ask them to get in contact with me? I will
of course handle all of that confidential. Currently I am mainly
interested how often that happens and in which areas.
Thank you,
Matthias
--
Matthias Kirschner - President - Free Software Foundation Europe
Schönhauser Allee 6/7, 10119 Berlin, Germany | t +49-30-27595290
Registered at Amtsgericht Hamburg, VR 17030 | (fsfe.org/join)
Contact (fsfe.org/about/kirschner) - Weblog (k7r.eu/blog.html)
I just published a blog post about a topic we discussed at the FSFE's
last general assembly. Please let me know what you think about it.
Looking forward to your feedback.
(The text is also online available under
<http://k7r.eu/there-is-no-free-software-company-but/>. Feel free to
share it so we get a wide range of feedback.)
# There is no Free Software company - But!
Since the start of the FSFE 15 years ago, the people involved were certain that
companies are a crucial part to reach our goal of software freedom. For many
years we have explained to companies – IT as well as non-IT – what benefits
they have from Free Software. We encourage individuals and companies to pay for
Free Software, as much as we encourage companies to use Free Software in their
offers.
While more people demanded Free Software, we also saw more companies claiming
something is Free Software or Open Source Software although it is not. This
behaviour – also called *"openwashing"* is nothing special for Free Software,
some companies also claim something is "organic" or "fair-trade" although it is
not. As the attempts to get a trademark for "Open Source" failed, it is
difficult to legally prevent companies from calling something "Free Software"
or "Open Source Software" although it does neither comply with the Free
Software definition by the Free Software Foundation nor with the Open Source
definition by the Open Source Initiative.
When the FSFE was founded in 2001 there was already the idea to encourage and
support companies making money with Free Software by starting a "GNU business
network". One of the stumbling blocks for that was always the definition of a
Free Software company. It cannot just be the usage of Free Software or the
contribution to Free Software, but also needs to include what rights they are
offering their customers. Another factor was whether the revenue stream is tied
to proprietary licensing conditions. Would we also allow a small revenue from
proprietary software, and how high is that that you can still consider it a
Free Software company?
It turned out to be a very complicated issue, and although we were regularly
discussing it we did not have an idea how to approach the problems in defining
a Free Software company.
During our last meeting of the FSFE's General Assembly we came to the
conclusion that there was a flaw in our thinking and that it does not make
sense to think about "Free Software companies". In hindsight it might look
obvious, but for me the discussion was an eye opener, and I have the feeling
that was a huge step for software freedom.
As a side note: When we have the official general assembly of the FSFE we
always use this opportunity to have more discussions during the days before or
after. Sometimes they focus on internal topics, organisational changes, but
often there is brainstorming abut the "hot topics of software freedom" and
where the FSFE has to engage in the long run. At this year's meeting, from 7 to
9 October, inspired by Georg Greve's and Nicola Diedrich's input, we spent the
whole Saturday thinking about the long term challenges for software freedom
with the focus on the private sector.
We talked about the challenges of software freedom presented by economies of
scale, networking effects, investment preference, and users making convenience
and price based decisions over values – even when they declare themselves
value conscious.
One problem preventing a wider spread of software freedom identified there was
that Free Software is being undermined by companies that abuse the positive
brand recognition of Free Software / Open Source by "openwashing" themselves.
Sometimes they offer products that do not even have a Free Software version.
This penalises companies and groups that aim to work within the principles of
Free Software and damages the recognition of Free Software / Open Source in the
market. The consequence is reduced confidence in Free Software, fewer
developers working on it, fewer companies providing it, and less Free Software
being written in favour of proprietary models.
In the discussion, one question kept arising. Is an activity that is good for
Free Software which is done by one small company as their sole activity more
valuable than if the same thing were done as part of a larger enterprise? We
all agree that a small company which is using and distributing exclusively Free
Software, and has done so for many years, and no part of the software they
wrote or included was ever non-free software is good. But what happens if said
small, focused company got purchased by a larger entity? Does that invalidate
the benefit of what is being done?
We concluded that good action remains good action, and that the FSFE should
encourage good actions. *So instead of focusing on the company as such we
should focus on the activity itself*; we should think about ***"Free Software
business activities", "Free Software business offers"***, and such. My feeling
was that this was the moment the penny had dropped, while others and me
realised the flaw in our previous thinking. We need action oriented approaches
and we need to look at activities individually.
There was still the question where to draw the line between acceptable or
useful activities and harmful ones. This is not a black and white issue, and
when assessing the impact for software freedom there are different levels. For
example if you evaluate a sharing platform, you might find out that the core is
Free Software, but the sharing module itself is proprietary. This is a bad
offer if you want to run a competing sharing platform using Free Software.
The counter example of an acceptable offer was a collaboration software that
was useful and complete, but where connecting a proprietary client would itself
require a proprietary connector. It was also discussed that sometimes you need
to interface with proprietary systems through proprietary libraries that do not
allow connecting with Free Software unless one were to first replace the entire
API/library itself.
Ultimately a consensus emerged around a focus on the four freedoms of Free
Software in relation to the question of whether the software is sufficiently
complete and useful to run a competing business.
One thought was to run "test cases" to evaluate how good an offer is on the
Free Software scale. Something like a regular bulletin about best and worst
practice. We could look at a business activities and study it according to the
criteria below, evaluate it, making that evaluation and its conclusions public.
That way we can help to build customer awareness about software freedom. Here
is a first idea for a scale:
* EXCELLENT: Free Software only and on all levels, no exceptions.
* GOOD: Free Software as a complete, useful, and fully supportable product.
Support available for Free Software version.
* ACCEPTABLE: Proprietary interfaces to proprietary systems and applications,
especially complex systems that require complex APIs/libraries/SDKs, as long
as the above is still met.
* BAD: Essential / important functionality only available proprietary, critical
functionality missing from Free Software (one example for an essential
functionality was LDAP connector).
* EVIL: Fully proprietary, but claiming to be Free Software / Open Source
Software.
**Now I would like to know from you:** what is your first reaction on this?
Would you like to add something? Do you have ideas what should be included in a
checklist for such a test? Would you be interested to help us to evaluate how
good some offers are on such a scale?
To summarise, I believe it was a mistake to think about businesses as a whole
before and that if we want to take the next big steps we should think about
Free Software business offers / activities – at least until we have a better
name for what I described above. We should help companies that they are not
deluded by people just claiming something is Free Software, but give them the
tools to check themselves.
--
Matthias Kirschner - President - Free Software Foundation Europe
Schönhauser Allee 6/7, 10119 Berlin, Germany | t +49-30-27595290
Registered at Amtsgericht Hamburg, VR 17030 | (fsfe.org/donate)
Contact (fsfe.org/about/kirschner) - Weblog (k7r.eu/blog.html)
I accidentally did not "reply all" this morning when sending this ...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Charles Cossé <ccosse(a)gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 6:17 AM
Subject: Re: Project to stimulate Edu-FLOSS development
To: Bastien Guerry <bzg(a)gnu.org>
Hi Bastien & All,
On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 1:26 AM, Bastien Guerry <bzg(a)gnu.org> wrote:
> I am not sure I completely grasp the relations between users and
> developers in your idea.
Here is an ASCII diagram which needs to be viewed in fixed-width font:
+-----------------------------+
| |
| EDU-FLS DEVELOPER COMMUNITY |
| |
| Dual-Purposed Javascript |
| FLS Activities |
| |
| 1. As Activity Plugin: |
| |
| Busking For Percentages |
| Of Subscription Fees |
| Creates Incentive |
| |
| 2.Indep of Online Website |
| Listed in FSD |
| |
+-----------------------------+
+-----------------------------+
| |
| ONLINE WEBSITE |
| |
| *Subscription Service* |
| |
| Whitelisted by DEVICE@HOME |
| Credit-Transfer API |
|-----------------------------|
| |
| +---------------------+ |
| | DEVELOPER ACCOUNT | |
| |---------------------| |
| | Maintain Activities | |
| | | |
| | Interact w/Users | |
| | | |
| | Get Compensated | |
| | | |
| |---------------------| |
| |
| +---------------------+ |
| | PARENT ACCOUNT | |
| |---------------------| |
| | Login from Anywhere | |
| | | |
| | Configure & Queue | |
| | Activities | |
| |NoSQL w/Credits,Queue| |
| | | |
| |Subscription Distri- | |
| | -bution Interface | |
| +---------------------+ |
| |
| +---------------------+ |
| | KID ACCOUNT | |
| |---------------------| |
| | Login from Home | |
| | | |
| | Complete Activities | |
| | In Queue | |
| |NoSQL w/Credits,Queue| |
| +---------------------+ |
| |
+-----------------------------+
+-----------------------------+
| |
| DEVICE @ HOME |
| |
| WiFi Access Point |
| Firewall w/Whitelist |
| Credit-Transfer API |
| |
| Local Web Server |
|-----------------------------|
| |
| |
| +---------------------+ |
| | KID ACCOUNT | |
| |---------------------| |
| | Credit-Meter UI | |
| | | |
| | NoSQL w/Credits,List| |
| | of Devices: XBox etc| |
| +---------------------+ |
| |
+-----------------------------+
The device at home is a tool for parents. A parent could award
credits for doing dishes, for example. The kid needs to access
the internet via the device. But the device runs a firewall which
only lets them access whitelisted sites unless they use credits.
To use credits they browse to the website broadcast by the device
and run the "credit-meter" web application. It's just a Javascript
application which controls the firewall and manages their credit
balance.
The online website lets them earn credits by completing activities.
The parent can configure and assign them from work, and the kids
can get there from home because the device's firewall allows access
to that site, i.e. the site is whitelisted.
It turns out that kids will do anything for those credits, and thus there
is this huge potential to supplement their education through these
activities. It's different that Kahn academy, for example, because
this compels them to make an effort. Their motivation is to earn
credits for internet access, but the end result is still that they focus
and make a real effort.
If there were a bunch of good activities then this would be a service
worth paying for. How to attract contributors? What's in it for them?
Require the parents to pay a subscription for unlimited access, but
allow them to distribute their subscription to the developers of their
choice. It creates a new market for education software, bringing
the parent and developer communities together and keeping the
interaction between them alive due to healthy competition for some
percentage of those subscription fees.
The ultimate goal is to create a whole bunch of new Edu-FLS. Thus
it seems reasonable that FSF would be interested to run a campaign
advocating the whole thing. The rest is details that have solutions.
Would you like me to set up a call with Lionel Laské about Sugarizer
> and your ideas?
>
Yes, that would be great! I will send a separate email ...
> I'm skeptical on whether it's worth looking for endorsement, would it
> be from FSF, FSFE or any other organization.
>
My thinking is that if RMS agrees that it's a good thing, and authorizes
an FSF campaign, then the important message is sent and FSF/* can
consider participation.
Let me understand more about the "equation" in a call some day!
>
I would definitely like to talk by phone. I will send that separate email.
Thanks,
-Charles
--
Linkedin <https://www.linkedin.com/in/charles-cosse> | E-Learning
<http://www.asymptopia.org>
Dear all,
I wish you a happy new year!
Yesterday, we published and submitted to the European Commission a
Position Paper for the endorsement of Free Software and Open Standards
in Horizon 2020 (and all publicly-funded research), as part of the
ongoing public consultation on the midterm evaluation of Horizon 2020,
the biggest research funding program in Europe ** open till 15.01.2017
**.[1]
The results of the consultation will define the 2018-2020 Horizon 2020
strategic goals as well as the post-Horizon 2020 framework funding
programs.
You can read the relevant news item here:
https://fsfe.org/news/2017/news-20170105-01.en.html and take a look at
the position paper itself here:
https://fsfe.org/activities/policy/eu/Horizon2020-Position-Paper.en.html
If you wish to contribute to the consultation, as an individual or as an
organisation, or share the position paper, there is a dedicated wiki
page with tips:
* Wiki page:
https://wiki.fsfe.org/Activities/OpenScience_InterimEvaluation_Horizon2020
We strongly encourage everyone to participate to the consultation! Every
single submitted questionnaire matters! Feedback is highly appreciated,
as always. Feel free to share!
Kind regards,
Olga
[^1]:
https://ec.europa.eu/research/consultations/interim_h2020_2016/consultation…
--
Olga Gkotsopoulou - Free Software Foundation Europe
Schönhauser Allee 6/7, 10119 Berlin, t +49-30-27595290
Become a volunteer translator: fsfe.org/contribute/translators
Spread the word: fsfe.org/contribute/spreadtheword
I'd like to get some feedback about some ideas floating around my head
at the moment, and thought that some of you might be able to help here.
I was talking with some people who would like to fund some concrete Free
Software activities, focusing on research and education.
One idea which came up is to support pupils to learn more about how
computer work, and promote hacking by providing "science packs" with
small hackable computers, and some modules, sensors etc.
What do you think about making it easier for pupils to get access to
such tools. E.g. by having some packs in the libraries or for school
projects?
I would be interested what you think about that, as I am not yet sure
about it.
If you like it, do you have an idea how you could make sure that
children who are interested in that are connected around Europe? (E.g.
in Germany there is something called "Jugend hackt" -- youth is hacking
-- Is there something similar on a EU level? Or are there other ideas?)
Thanks for your feedback,
Matthias
--
Matthias Kirschner - President - Free Software Foundation Europe
Schönhauser Allee 6/7, 10119 Berlin, Germany | t +49-30-27595290
Registered at Amtsgericht Hamburg, VR 17030 | (fsfe.org/join)
Contact (fsfe.org/about/kirschner) - Weblog (k7r.eu/blog.html)