MJ Ray | 1 Feb 11:06 2005

Re: Fwd: Re: Free Software Magazine

Thanks to Tony for the reply. I'll cc him on this one.

Tom Chance forwarded:
> We basically assumed that on average a magazine will take 10 days to
> get to subscribers by snail mail. This means that online subscribers
> and paper subscribers will receive FSM more or less at the same time!

Wow, US post is slow. I think it's a bit backwards to slow
email down to match it. *shrug* Your choice, but it makes
the offer a little less attractive to me.

> FREE: verbatim only copying license [...]
> FREE: Creative commons [...]
> FREE: GNU Free Documentation license [...]
> There is ONE non-free article in the magazine, and 14 free ones.

Sorry, none of those are free software licences. They variously
limit the freedom to use, adapt, redistribute or distribute
improvements to them. For CC-by and CC-by-sa, this actually seems
to be a simple bug, but there hasn't been enough interest from
them to fix it yet.  CC-nd, CC-nc and combinations with them, and
"verbatim only" are fairly clear to see how they're not free.

The FDL is another can of worms. FSF may or may not intend to
make it a possibly-free licence (I no longer know), but it's not
yet. The full details can be found at
http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html in my
opinion. For magazine articles, there's also the simple practical
problem of having to include around 20k of licence text with each
copy I make. I don't think FDL was designed for short articles.
(Continue reading)

Alex Hudson | 1 Feb 12:44 2005

Re: AFFS conference, AGM, reform

On Mon, 2005-01-31 at 16:57 +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Alex believes clause 6b blocks any solution based on changing
> only 6d, so I suggest that we look for a minimal solution which
> changes only 6b. 

I think clause 6b does make things difficult, yes. 

> I think the obvious change is to add to the
> end of it, so it would read something like:
> 
> 6 (b) The members of the Committee shall be elected at the Annual
>    General Meeting of the Association in accordance with Clause
>    9 hereof. {+ If this is not possible for reasons of lack of
>    candidates, quorum or otherwise, an election process in
>    accordance with the Rules of the Association will be started
>    at the Annual General Meeting, disregarding part (d) below. +}

Well, I'm not sure why we should restrict ourselves to one election per
year post an AGM; I would still prefer a situation where we can call an
election whenever one is needed. This doesn't really make much practical
difference, but if we're going to change something I don't think we
should restrict ourselves like that without reason.

The above would probably work, though. But it does pose one problem:
honorary officers. We still cannot elect those without an AGM (5a), and
one of those is our Treasurer. Personally, I would be happy dropping
honoraries completely (or, at least, deciding at AGM not to elect any),
but it would perhaps be useful to prepend all titles with the word
"Honorary" so that we're clear that those roles are not filled. Does
that sound acceptable to you?
(Continue reading)

Jason Clifford | 1 Feb 22:55 2005

Re: Fwd: Re: Free Software Magazine

On Tue, 1 Feb 2005, MJ Ray wrote:

> > FREE: verbatim only copying license [...]
> > FREE: Creative commons [...]
> > FREE: GNU Free Documentation license [...]
> > There is ONE non-free article in the magazine, and 14 free ones.
> 
> Sorry, none of those are free software licences.

What makes you think a magazine should be published under a software 
license? It's not software so the licensing requirements are different.

Jason Clifford
--

-- 
UKFSN.ORG		Finance Free Software while you surf the 'net
http://www.ukfsn.org/	   ADSL Broadband from just £21.50 / month 
MJ Ray | 2 Feb 00:52 2005

Re: Fwd: Re: Free Software Magazine

Jason Clifford wrote:
> What makes you think a magazine should be published under a software
> license? It's not software so the licensing requirements are different.

Maybe or maybe not, but the desired freedoms are the same. Personally,
I think that if it is stored "in" a computer, it's probably software.
That's not really important to the freedom point, though.

Now, this Free Software Magazine is a lot better than its
competitors. It's been more liberal on copyright than any other
I've seen lately and should be applauded for it. Tom asked us to
promote it to others and I offered comments on what I think would
make it more "buyable": top is an online service with annual
archive volumes. The other things mostly discourage *me* from
subscribing, which makes me less likely to promote it to others.
I think I've been clear about that.

I dislike the FDL's compromise that allows anyone to forever
stain the written work with adverts yet still claim it is "free"
in some way. What makes it right for text authors to impose that
restriction on others when we think program authors shouldn't? If
someone does that to BSD'd software, then we don't call it free
software any more.

I reject the idea that political speech is more precious than
technical instruction.  Both of them have their place, their
uses and abuses. At the end of the day, this is about being
able to *use* stuff, even politics.

"We can't depend for the long run on distinguishing one bitstream
(Continue reading)

Robin Green | 2 Feb 03:31 2005

Re: Fwd: Re: Free Software Magazine

On Tue, Feb 01, 2005 at 11:52:16PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Jason Clifford wrote:
> > What makes you think a magazine should be published under a software
> > license? It's not software so the licensing requirements are different.
> 
> Maybe or maybe not, but the desired freedoms are the same. Personally,
> I think that if it is stored "in" a computer, it's probably software.
> That's not really important to the freedom point, though.
> 
> Now, this Free Software Magazine is a lot better than its
> competitors. It's been more liberal on copyright than any other
> I've seen lately and should be applauded for it.

Agreed.

> Tom asked us to
> promote it to others and I offered comments on what I think would
> make it more "buyable": top is an online service with annual
> archive volumes. The other things mostly discourage *me* from
> subscribing, which makes me less likely to promote it to others.
> I think I've been clear about that.
> 
> I dislike the FDL's compromise that allows anyone to forever
> stain the written work with adverts yet still claim it is "free"
> in some way. 

That's a very good point.

> What makes it right for text authors to impose that
> restriction on others when we think program authors shouldn't? If
(Continue reading)

Picon

JURI is No Longer Out: EU Software Patents Dead

Hi! I'm breaking my rule of lurking on this list (and spending my time
trying to be active against swpats as opposed to talking about it) to tell
you that the JURI (EP committee on legal affairs who have tended to be
more pro-EPO) have voted to invoke Rule 55 of the Rules of Parliament for
a total restart of the software patents directive process (going back
through the parliament with a new directive).  

Articles:
http://kwiki.ffii.org/Restart050202En
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050202162302114
http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/02/02/HNeurestart_1.html

Transcript (in progress--help out) of the JURI meeting:
http://mm.ffii.org/Juri20050202Transcript

More details of recent JURI happenings:
http://kwiki.ffii.org/EuroparlSwpat04En

Happy hacking/campaigning,
Joe Ll. G. Blakesley

--
This mail sent through http://webmail.bangor.ac.uk
Kevin Donnelly | 3 Feb 11:27 2005

Re: JURI is No Longer Out: EU Software Patents Dead

On Wednesday 02 Feb 2005 22:58, Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley wrote:
> Hi! I'm breaking my rule of lurking on this list (and spending my time
> trying to be active against swpats as opposed to talking about it) to tell
> you that the JURI (EP committee on legal affairs who have tended to be
> more pro-EPO) have voted to invoke Rule 55 of the Rules of Parliament for
> a total restart of the software patents directive process (going back
> through the parliament with a new directive).

That's very good news - well done to all who worked for this result.  I 
suppose now Round 2 has to start ...

--

-- 

Pob hwyl / Best wishes

Kevin Donnelly

www.kyfieithu.co.uk - Meddalwedd Rhydd yn Gymraeg
www.cymrux.org.uk - Linux Cymraeg ar un CD!
MJ Ray | 4 Feb 18:23 2005

Re: FLOSS is more democratic for schools!

sb wrote:
> I myself don't have time to create voting scripts to handle the multiple
> STV vote, as I don't think I know of any free software ones.

There's a wxPython one at http://stv.sourceforge.net/ and a
PHP one at http://www.demochoice.org/ - I'm surprised there's
not more. For some reason, Condorcet seems the voting method
of choice online.

--

-- 
Hope that helps,

MJR/slef
http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Philip Hands | 4 Feb 18:56 2005

Re: FLOSS is more democratic for schools!

MJ Ray wrote:
> sb wrote:
> 
>>I myself don't have time to create voting scripts to handle the multiple
>>STV vote, as I don't think I know of any free software ones.
> 
> 
> There's a wxPython one at http://stv.sourceforge.net/ and a
> PHP one at http://www.demochoice.org/ - I'm surprised there's
> not more. For some reason, Condorcet seems the voting method
> of choice online.
> 

There are a few implementations of the Debian voting systems around too 
(again a modified Condorcet):

   http://seehuhn.de/comp/vote.html

Cheers, Phil.
_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
Fsfe-uk <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
MJ Ray | 5 Feb 00:44 2005

Re: AFFS conference, AGM, reform

Alex wrote:
> Well, I'm not sure why we should restrict ourselves to one election per
> year post an AGM; I would still prefer a situation where we can call an
> election whenever one is needed. [...]

Couldn't the committee already choose to use election rules
to select who is co-opted or who fills casual vacancies?

> The above would probably work, though. But it does pose one problem:
> honorary officers. We still cannot elect those without an AGM (5a), and
> one of those is our Treasurer. [...]

5a says "may elect" rather than must or will or anything. It's
only Secretary that has any constitutional role, so I'd only
prefix or dishonour(?) that one. Is it worth doing more?

> I would still like to remove "PROVIDED THAT ..." from 6d. too. Do you
> see any reason to keep it?

Is it necessary and if 6d is being edited, is it better to lose
everything following the "OR"?

--

-- 
MJR

Gmane