the list has been pretty quiet, so here's a summary of stuff that hasn't been well publicised in the last week or so.
* The EUCD has been adopted. (ages ago) I decided to work on this only to find it was mostly too late. All that's left is for the Irish govt to decide which of the 15 optional clauses to adopt.
* The "IPR Enforcement Directive" is on it's way. I don't have much info on this.
* November 10th we'll have the EU Council vote on the software patents. I'll be putting together a letter for list-review this week.
* A logo for IFSO? I was thinking of a cow, since it's the Irish equivelant to a gnu, but it might be hard to be taken seriously? then maybe a celtic warrior kinda thing? face + sword etc? ah, not important really.
* On tuesday 28th, Netsoc will be hosting a talk by journalist Karen Lillington. The talk is about "Data Retention in Ireland". It's being held at 1900h in Theatre N, Arts. (<- arts building I pressume). Ms. Lillington is a freelance journalist, regularly writing for the Irish Times and Wired, occasionally writing about [GNU/]Linux, and recipient of this mail: http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie/2003-July/000047.html
* I stumbled on an west-ireland company call "Free Software Solutions". Not sure if it's still active, I sent them a mail but got no response yet, I'll try again some time but it's possible the owner has packed up and moved to Canada. http://www.freesoftwaresolutions.com/
* I discovered that Ireland is _the_only_ EU state that doesn't have either a Free Software org or a digital rights movement.
* The list is up to 39 members.
* anyone got other stuff news?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ciaran O'Riordan writes:
- The EUCD has been adopted. (ages ago)
I decided to work on this only to find it was mostly too late. All that's left is for the Irish govt to decide which of the 15 optional clauses to adopt.
Damn. But IMO the patents issue was more important priority-wise.
- The "IPR Enforcement Directive" is on it's way. I don't
have much info on this.
Is that what the NY Times article was referring to? (reminder: 'The proposal would go far beyond existing laws in Europe and the United States by classifying copyright violations and patent infringements, even some unwitting ones, as crimes punishable by prison terms. Lawyers who have studied a draft of the proposed law say that not only could a teenager who downloaded a music file be sent to jail under it; so too could managers of the Internet service provider that the teenager happened to use, whether they knew what the teenager was doing or not.')
If that's the one, it sounds very worrying.
- --j.
Hi Ciaran,
- I discovered that Ireland is _the_only_ EU state that doesn't have either a Free Software org or a digital rights movement.
Two things on this:
- If an association were to be set up, would it include OSS or be FS-specific? (Personally, I'm a bit wary of an FS-specific association, it comes across as a little exclusionary and elitist to me, plus I think Ireland's size would better suit a catch-all association.)
- There was an (half-hearted) attempt to set up an EFF-like organisation a while back, specifically around the time of Karlin's revelations on data retention. It didn't go very far because we tackled it in a rather disorganised fashion, but I was approached about it again recently and I think it's worth another try. I have to go to Dublin for various reasons next month, so I'll probably call another meeting then to see if we can get things kicked off.
adam
On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 12:39:39AM +0100, adam beecher wrote:
- If an association were to be set up, would it include OSS or be
FS-specific? (Personally, I'm a bit wary of an FS-specific association, it comes across as a little exclusionary and elitist to me, plus I think Ireland's size would better suit a catch-all association.)
This needs to be stated explicitly: My intention is to help found an FS org.
I've been researching this for about 18 months, and I'm gonna be putting a lot of work into it when it happens, so I want to form the best org, or use my time for something more directly productive.
The worst thing I've seen happen to other orgs is work grinding to a halt because of committees or members disagreeing over implementation details. "OSS vs. FS vs. both", is one time consuming debate. "both" leads to many time consuming debates down the line.
Getting work done in a catch-all org is like trying to herd cats.
So, why FS instead of OSS?
OSI approve dodgy licenses like the APSL-1.2 and the RPSL. I can't defend these and I'd ask people not to use them. The man at the helm of OSI endorses non-OSS projects, defends companies that turn proprietary, and doesn't release all of his own work under OSS licenses. I'm not going to put my spare time into promoting OSS when it's leader isn't strongly committed to doing the same. There is no longer a One True Meaning of OSS. (we'd be herding cats again.)
I know a lot of staff from FSF, FSFe, and various national european FS orgs. Their policies are clearly stated and always adhered to. I have confidence in these people. There are rare occasions when I disagree with FSF. The only one I can remember is the GNU Free Documentation License. But by default, I can trust FSF. With OSI, I have to read licenses and research companies to see if claims are genuine. This sort of work is a waste of my time.
I'd like to get this all out in public, so please keep this thread going if you have issues I haven't covered.
- There was an (half-hearted) attempt to set up an EFF-like
organisation a while back, specifically around the time of Karlin's revelations on data retention. It didn't go very far because we tackled it in a rather disorganised fashion, but I was approached about it again recently and I think it's worth another try. I have to go to Dublin for various reasons next month, so I'll probably call another meeting then to see if we can get things kicked off.
An Irish EFF would be great, there is definitely a need for both organisations. I read about that EFF attempt in the freedom@lists.beecher.net list archives but got no response when I mailed the guy who seemed to be leading it.
If such a group is being set up, please mention it on this list, and if you're in Dublin on Nov 13th, it would be great if you could drop into the fsfe-ie meeting. Or if Nov 13th is no good, we could hold an extra meeting if you're interested.
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
OSI approve dodgy licenses like the APSL-1.2 and the RPSL. I can't defend these and I'd ask people not to use them. The man at the helm of OSI endorses non-OSS projects, defends companies that turn proprietary, and doesn't release all of his own work under OSS licenses. I'm not going to put my spare time into promoting OSS when it's leader isn't strongly committed to doing the same. There is no longer a One True Meaning of OSS. (we'd be herding cats again.)
And the FSF approve dodgy licenses like the APSL-2 and the Affero GPL, and release manuals with unremovable, invariant political essays and expect that people still consider the manual as a whole to be free. There is no longer One True Meaning of Free either.
On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 10:52:30PM +0000, Jimmy O'Regan wrote:
And the FSF approve dodgy licenses like the APSL-2 and the Affero GPL, and release manuals with unremovable, invariant political essays and expect that people still consider the manual as a whole to be free. There is no longer One True Meaning of Free either.
As I mentioned in a part of my mail that you snipped, the GNU FDL is one issue where I disagree with FSF. I have discussed it with them, and there is disagreement over this within FSF, change is coming. I hope we can put more pressure on them to fix this if we speak with a unified voice (assuming there is consensus that this is a problem).
The Affero GPL is a test-solution to the "webservices loophole" in the GNU GPL. This covers a valid part of copyright known as "public performance of a work". GPLv3 may contain a different solution.
The APSL-2 is indeed Free Software, but there are better FS licenses, so FSF say: "We recommend that you not use this license for new software that you write, but it is ok to use and improve the software released under this license." (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html)
If you have specific concerns with either license, I'd be happy to discuss them and possibly raise them with FSF if there is consensus that they are valid issues.
You can't please all the people all the time, etc.
We can get nothing done and sling mud about implementation details, or we can work to get Free Software into schools, non-profits, governments, and businesses and be ready to counter problematic EU legislation. I'll opt for the latter.
A good related story to read is: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/misc.html#BIKESHED-PAIN...
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 10:52:30PM +0000, Jimmy O'Regan wrote:
And the FSF approve dodgy licenses like the APSL-2 and the Affero GPL, and release manuals with unremovable, invariant political essays and expect that people still consider the manual as a whole to be free. There is no longer One True Meaning of Free either.
As I mentioned in a part of my mail that you snipped, the GNU FDL is one issue where I disagree with FSF. I have discussed it with them, and there is disagreement over this within FSF, change is coming. I hope we can put more pressure on them to fix this if we speak with a unified voice (assuming there is consensus that this is a problem).
rms took part in a quite lengthy debate on debian-legal on this very issue; in short the invariant sections are here to stay, where they have been used.
The Affero GPL is a test-solution to the "webservices loophole" in the GNU GPL. This covers a valid part of copyright known as "public performance of a work". GPLv3 may contain a different solution.
Yeah, but in practise it boils down to being a restriction on the use of software.
The APSL-2 is indeed Free Software, but there are better FS licenses, so FSF say: "We recommend that you not use this license for new software that you write, but it is ok to use and improve the software released under this license." (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html)
If you have specific concerns with either license, I'd be happy to discuss them and possibly raise them with FSF if there is consensus that they are valid issues.
You can't please all the people all the time, etc.
We can get nothing done and sling mud about implementation details, or we can work to get Free Software into schools, non-profits, governments, and businesses and be ready to counter problematic EU legislation. I'll opt for the latter.
As I said, there's no One True Meaning of Free (the examples were meant merely as illustrations of this) - there are going to be squabbles no matter what. An organisation that sets out to promote only free software is going to face more difficulty than an organisation promoting open source, or an organisation promoting both; open source has mind share, and a larger amount of people willing to promote it.
If a set of common goals can be found, which people agree are important enough, then most people will be willing to toe a party line to achive them; and split hairs kept to a minimum. Aside from FS vs OSS, there's Linux vs GNU/Linux; [GNU/]Linux vs BSD etc. (If you can split atoms, it gives more ways to split hairs :) The goals you mentioned are important, and it should be easy enough to rally together several disparate groups around them.
A good related story to read is: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/misc.html#BIKESHED-PAIN...
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:02:37AM +0000, Jimmy O'Regan wrote:
On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 10:52:30PM +0000, Jimmy O'Regan wrote:
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
and there is disagreement over [the GFDL] within FSF, change is coming.
rms took part in a quite lengthy debate on debian-legal on this very issue; in short the invariant sections are here to stay, where they have been used.
RMS's debian-legal posts were indeed dissapointing. Still, there are others in FSF that are pushing to have Invariant Sections removable, and Bruce Perens is arranging discussions between FSF and Debian folk to try to find something to agree on. We'll just have to wait and see.
An organisation that sets out to promote only free software is going to face more difficulty than an organisation promoting open source, or an organisation promoting both; open source has mind share, and a larger amount of people willing to promote it.
We dissagree and don't seem capable of convincing eachother to switch positions. (end or sub-thread?)
Your last sentence is one that I could spend hours argueing against. I've seen lesser debates grind an org to a halt. I've done the FS/OSS/both debate a hundred times. I'm bored of it and I know it's a time killer. I just want to get good work done.
FS is my thing, and I'm gonna work damn hard at it. If others also want to work on FS issues, then I'd like to form an FS org to coordinate our work and facilitate others who'd like to get started.
From the list, and even moreso from the meetings, I know there are
others that have the same goal. So it will happen, and when we are fighting common enemys such as software patents, I hope OSS people will assist us. Or if an OSS org forms, I hope we can work together on common fights.
A good related story to read is: http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/faq/misc.html#BIKESHED-PAIN...
Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 01:02:37AM +0000, Jimmy O'Regan wrote:
An organisation that sets out to promote only free software is going to face more difficulty than an organisation promoting open source, or an organisation promoting both; open source has mind share, and a larger amount of people willing to promote it.
We dissagree and don't seem capable of convincing eachother to switch positions. (end or sub-thread?)
Your last sentence is one that I could spend hours argueing against. I've seen lesser debates grind an org to a halt. I've done the FS/OSS/both debate a hundred times. I'm bored of it and I know it's a time killer. I just want to get good work done.
I'm all for that. (As a side effect, it'd make your point by demonstration :)
FS is my thing, and I'm gonna work damn hard at it. If others also want to work on FS issues, then I'd like to form an FS org to coordinate our work and facilitate others who'd like to get started.
From the list, and even moreso from the meetings, I know there are
others that have the same goal. So it will happen, and when we are fighting common enemys such as software patents, I hope OSS people will assist us. Or if an OSS org forms, I hope we can work together on common fights.
That's basically what I was looking for. Clear goals and a will to achieve them are two of the most important thing needed to begin a quest; I commend you on having both and would be happy to help in any way I can.
Hi Jimmy, Hi List,
On 27-October-03 Jimmy O'Regan wrote:
If a set of common goals can be found, which people agree are important enough, then most people will be willing to toe a party line to achive them; and split hairs kept to a minimum. Aside from FS vs OSS, there's Linux vs GNU/Linux; [GNU/]Linux vs BSD etc. (If you can split atoms, it gives more ways to split hairs :) The goals you mentioned are important, and it should be easy enough to rally together several disparate groups around them.
There has been some good work done on this issue recently on the [ox-en] list. (Archive: http://www.oekonux.org/list-en/archive/index.html). I have attached the relevant email.
This needs to be stated explicitly: My intention is to help found an FS org.
This is fine, and since I release some of my code under the GPL, if there was anything I could do to help I would. However I'm far from a free software purist, I respect the decision of some software developers to monetise their skills without having to balance their future on something as unreliable as "support" (or worse, options). If the source code of their applications is available /to me/, I consider it free and open to an appreciable degree. Ireland's size is another factor, but I have to defer to Jimmy O'Regan for putting it much better than I could:
---
As I said, there's no One True Meaning of Free (the examples were meant merely as illustrations of this) - there are going to be squabbles no matter what. An organisation that sets out to promote only free software is going to face more difficulty than an organisation promoting open source, or an organisation promoting both; open source has mind share, and a larger amount of people willing to promote it.
If a set of common goals can be found, which people agree are important enough, then most people will be willing to toe a party line to achive them; and split hairs kept to a minimum. Aside from FS vs OSS, there's Linux vs GNU/Linux; [GNU/]Linux vs BSD etc. (If you can split atoms, it gives more ways to split hairs :) The goals you mentioned are important, and it should be easy enough to rally together several disparate groups around them.
---
You sound like you've decided the route you're going to take however, and that's fine. I don't have time to dedicate to a developer collective and you do, so more power to you for going ahead with it. Each to his or her own.
An Irish EFF would be great, there is definitely a need for both organisations. I read about that EFF attempt in the freedom@lists.beecher.net list archives but got no response when I mailed the guy who seemed to be leading it.
I guess that would have been me. I don't remember getting an email from you at the time, but that doesn't say a whole lot. All we had done at that stage was meet up and have a(n interesting) chat in the lobby of some hotel, and it sort of fizzled out after that. I tried to kick things up a little a couple of times, but there was a mailing list and a forum, and things were fragmented. Par for the course.
If such a group is being set up, please mention it on this list, and if you're in Dublin on Nov 13th, it would be great if you could drop into the fsfe-ie meeting. Or if Nov 13th is no good, we could hold an extra meeting if you're interested.
It's unlikely I'll get to Dublin before the weekend of the 28th, but if I do I'll let the list know.
adam
adam beecher wrote:
This needs to be stated explicitly: My intention is to help found an FS org.
This is fine, and since I release some of my code under the GPL, if there was anything I could do to help I would. However I'm far from a free software purist, I respect the decision of some software developers to monetise their skills without having to balance their future on something as unreliable as "support" (or worse, options). If the source code of their applications is available /to me/, I consider it free and open to an appreciable degree. Ireland's size is another factor, but I have to defer to Jimmy O'Regan for putting it much better than I could:
I'd just like to say at this point that I veer more towards the Free Software position than the Open Source position; the point I intended to make (I tend to ramble, so I probably didn't make it :) was that there are a lot of people (such as you) who can help promote the goals Ciaran mentioned who might be put off by the Free Software philosophy (or some subset).
I'd just like to say at this point that I veer more towards the Free Software position than the Open Source position; the point I intended to make (I tend to ramble, so I probably didn't make it :) was that there are a lot of people (such as you) who can help promote the goals Ciaran mentioned who might be put off by the Free Software philosophy (or some subset).
This is precisely the point I was trying to put across. I don't write much software, but when I do I release it under free software licences. That being said, I have to say that I think the entire free software philosophy is a contradiction in terms -- it's restrictive by definition. This is why I favour the term "open", and why I would prefer to join a catch-all organisation. However, since there isn't one, I rather think I'd like to stop going around now...
adam
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 04:13:45PM -0000, adam beecher wrote:
This needs to be stated explicitly: My intention is to help found an FS org.
This is fine, and since I release some of my code under the GPL, if there was anything I could do to help I would.
Great.
However I'm far from a free software purist
Help is help. I don't mind what a persons beliefs are, the mission doesn't change, we've a lot of work to do, and all help is appreciated.
An Irish EFF would be great, there is definitely a need for both organisations. I read about that EFF attempt in the freedom@lists.beecher.net list archives but got no response when I mailed the guy who seemed to be leading it.
I guess that would have been me. I don't remember getting an email from you at the time,
I must have missread the situation. I mailed a diego [at] dynamicobjects.com.
if you're in Dublin on Nov 13th, it would be great if you could drop into the fsfe-ie meeting. Or if Nov 13th is no good, we could hold an extra meeting if you're interested.
It's unlikely I'll get to Dublin before the weekend of the 28th, but if I do I'll let the list know.
okay. The following meeting should be Dec 11th. Dublin is the only county where it's practical to hold meetings at the moment, so if folk from outside are visiting, I think it's a good idea to hold mini meetings to make sure everyone gets to take part as much as possible.
This goes for all that can't attend the regular meetings: if a certain date is possible, let the list know.