On 15/06/18 09:11, Reinhard Müller wrote:
Hi, Carsten!
Am 2018-06-14 um 12:06 schrieb Carsten Agger:
I'd limit the scope as such:
- We're talking of the software used by *the association* as part of its
*operations*, i.e. not about the personal choices of employees or volunteers in their spare time.
- We're talking about software used by the organization in its *own*
operations - not that of vendors and other third parties (e.g., designers and accountants - if the designer prefers to use Gimp for images that's fine, but they *are* a third party)
- We're talking about *tools*, i.e. mostly userspace software. We should
include proprietary JavaScript - so using Twitter or Google is not "using proprietary software" because the service is proprietary, but because they use non-free JavaScript (I mention this to align with the FSF's position). Anything proprietary installed on staff computers for work purposes would be listed, e.g. Skype, if someone were using that (which I have reasons to believe is not the case)
- We're not talking about firmware.
That sounds like a reasonable scope to me, except for JavaScript, which I would regard debatable. And if I am not mistaken, apart from JavaScript, FSFE does not use any proprietary software within this scope. Actually I'm not even sure about JavaScript, since the services you mention might also run with JavaScript turned off.
No proprietary software runs on any of FSFE's servers in userspace, and of course all software developed by FSFE staff or by contractors paid by FSFE is free software.
So what is Jonas referring to in his blog[1]?
Anything further doesn't seem very reasonable to me: I would, for example, not want our volunteers to spend their time with documenting which web pages they visited where JavaScript was required.
If it is part of any significant FSFE-related process it should be documented in the process and then it should be obvious to any volunteer who reviews the documentation.
If volunteers have non-free stuff that they use for unrelated purposes then I don't expect that to fall under the scope of a motion passed in FSFE's General Assembly.
On the other hand, I would contend that people who want to be in leadership positions in the FSF / FSFE family would have a burning desire to make such a list and work constructively to shorten it and they wouldn't be able to sleep at night without doing this exercise.
Regards,
Daniel
1. https://web.archive.org/web/20170620233433/http://blog.jonasoberg.net/using-...