NIIBE Yutaka | 1 Oct 03:39 2015

Education, Reproducibility and Computer Users' Freedom


Celebrating FSF30, I consider this.  It would be good if I could
listen your opinions.


Last month, we had a monthly meeting at FSIJ (Free Software Initiative
of Japan) for RTOS named Chopstx.  The topic was its support of
Raspberry Pi 2, which was proposed by Kaz Kojima.  Listening his
presentation, I realized that the board should be considered a
proprietary platform from the view point of lower-level software; It
seems that the hardware information is difficult to access (if any),
and the idea is like: kernel and/or drivers should be written and
distributed under control of hardware vendor.  We concluded that: if
it is user-space programming hands-on, it would be OK to use the board
in some specific situation, but we should inform this situation to
participants.  Now, I'm seeking another board of multi-core Cortex-A7
to merge Kaz's work to my repository.


Guideline for technology hands-on and something like free software
directory for educational materials, which care Reproducibility and
Computer Users' Freedom


My concern is that access to technology is getting easier, but I think
that there is a practice in the industry to put a trap towards
(Continue reading)

Alex Jordan | 29 Sep 20:41 2015

Branding for a new chapter logo


I'm in the process of designing a logo for LibrePlanet WA, with the
intention that it will be printed on stickers, the maroon FSF cloth that
gets brought out for conferences, etc. Is there somewhere where we have
any LibrePlanet assets that I should think about working in? E.g. the
grey-and-red planet on the wiki?

Also, if anyone is an actual artist and would like to donate some time,
I'd be eternally grateful, as I am not a particularly talented graphic
designer. I can send you my work thus far, if anyone's interested.


Alex Jordan

David Hedlund | 25 Sep 12:23 2015

uBlock "dropped" unlike uBlock Origin

"There is an idea floating around that uBlock Origin is a lesser branch relative to uBlock.

The current reality is that there are two branches, not an official one and a lesser one. I keep developing my branch the same way and in the same spirit I have since the beginning of uBlock in June 23, 2014, so in substance uBlock Origin is the original uBlock." - Raymond Hill

As of May 2015, "uBlock Origin" continues to be actively developed and maintained by founder and lead developer Raymond Hill, but he has withdrawn his support for "uBlock", citing "serious incompatibilities in the spirit of the project". The "uBlock" version of the software has seen little development since.

Andrés Muñiz Piniella | 24 Sep 09:49 2015

Screening unchain My heart (free software in medical devices)


In case one of you is around South West London next week and want to pop by for a good discussion.

Many thanks to Karen Sandler and fsf for making the videos available to share!


Ham United Group

Julien Kyou | 23 Sep 20:51 2015

I'm new I have a few questions

First if this mail chain is encrypted why can see it in plain text without decryption.

Second I am new to the FSF. I fully support it, but I am having trouble leaving non-free/proprietary software . Examples Teamspeak, Steam.

Third I was thinking of buying as an anonymous mail server. I see more than a few people here still use gmail, which I think we all know is bad. Anyway let me kno if your interested.

Fourth is there a language learning service supported/endorsed by /available to/ Free-Software users.

Terry | 22 Sep 23:53 2015

Re: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 67, Issue 19

>> The FSF has incredible geniuses who understand code, technologies,
>> future directions and social implications. Their philosophies are
>> incredible, however some lack of people skills contributes to remaining
>> exclusionary through alienating many by not understanding and embracing
>> people, varying intellects, marketing and rates of comprehensive shifts
>> to new philosophical adoptions.
> I'm not clear on precisely what you're referring to and I don't see
> examples of your point. If you don't like what the FSF says, it would be
> fine to say that you don't agree with it. But you should point to what
> specifically you disagree with and explain why. I don't know how many
> people you are speaking for when you say "many" and I don't see any
> examples of what your criticizing. What did the FSF say when you tried
> telling them specifically what messages you didn't like and how you thought
> they should pose those issues instead? They're hiring a Deputy Director,
> and I think that job would include plenty of chances to explain software
> freedom better.
> I've found the FSF to be forthright and to not suffer fools gladly (which
> requires a clarity I appreciate). They rightly speak up about their cause,
> write very clearly, and when people use language that frames an issue in a
> way they don't agree with their representatives point it out. Richard
> Stallman's recent Slashdot interview
> has an example of this in the first Q&A -- a response from Stallman where
> he pointed out what was wrong with framing an issue in terms of
> "monetization". Stallman's response struck me as a well-stated and entirely
> fair rebuttal to an attempt to justify bad behavior because it might make
> more money than earning money ethically. Eben Moglen's talks are
> consistently excellent. They're packed with detail and they really earn a
> re-read/re-listen, but they're eminently understandable even for
> non-technical people I've played them for over the air on community radio
> (or so the listeners who call me tell me). I went to an FSF gathering some
> years ago and Moglen's talk alone made the trip worthwhile for my travel
> companion.
> I think most people haven't begun to contemplate software freedom not
> because the message of software freedom was put to them somehow
> indelicately, but because the message of software freedom hasn't been put
> to them at all. It's hard to repeat a message as frequently as the
> billionaire proprietors repeat their ads, or even as frequently as open
> source supporters say some proprietary software is okay.
> We're constantly told that our proper role in society is to buy something.
> This immediately circumscribes us as consumers rather than citizens. This
> means reducing people to accepting choices set out for them (if they can
> afford it) and never discussing doing what's just, ethical, and beneficial
> for society such as pointing out systemic corruption (what if all the
> choices are bad?), inequity (what if some people are too poor to
> participate even as consumers?). Consumerism is designed to exclude ethical
> discussion. When I try to behave ethically by purchasing the most ethical
> option available, I usually face greenwashing or I find I'm outspent by the
> wealthy who want unethical results. The narrow terms of debate are set up
> this way on purpose, not by accident, and this makes for a very one-sided
> way to live.
> For example, in popular computing my choices come down to two nonfree
> software distributors and a "choice" of which proprietor's interest to
> cater to. When viewed from a perspective of software freedom, that's no
> choice at all. Any differences between the proprietors are overwhelmed by
> the similarities that one is basically picking who gets to keep me from
> having software freedom. All of the important questions about software
> freedom are immediately outside the allowable range of debate when the ends
> are staked out by proprietors. There's simply no room left for a serious
> discussion of ethics; other related issues (such as computer security) are
> off-limits too as one can't have computer security without software freedom.
> But I know better things are possible because I can look at history.
> Apparently through hard work and political insistence free software hackers
> built a better system: there was a time when GNU was not a complete
> operating system and I had to run GNU programs on a nonfree OS. Now
> GNU/Linux is a complete self-hosting OS, thanks in part to Linus Torvalds
> distributing the Linux kernel under a free software license, and the
> Linux-libre team for distributing a free version of the Linux kernel. I
> didn't have hardware on which I could run a completely free OS. Now I can
> buy hardware which runs a free BIOS thanks to all the reverse engineering
> and work I'm probably not fully aware of. Sure, I have to accept that
> things take time to develop and I can't use the latest hardware in freedom,
> but things are demonstrably better now than they were just 20 years ago. I
> don't want those gains to be lost for me or anyone else who uses a computer.
> There are, quite literally, life and death issues one can resolve with
> software freedom (the recent VW emissions fraud discovery, and keeping
> people safe from spying while they're telling us important details about
> what's really happening like Snowden did, to name a couple recent
> examples). Saving lives, preserving privacy & civil liberties, and
> introducing ethics into people's use of computers strikes me as far too
> important to grant anyone social permission to dismiss a message because
> they don't like how it was delivered instead of objecting to what the
> message said. If the discussion raises questions, by all means, ask! And
> feel free to state your mind, but expect to justify your statements too.

I actually thought my post was clear that I absolutely do like what the 
FSF says. I also think they (as well as myself and others) sometimes 
have trouble clearly getting the messages across to the average person. 
Also I can be a giant idiot and write "FSF" when I really meant to type 
Free Software advocates which is not exclusive to the Free Software 
Foundation. You say they don't suffer fools lightly and I admit I am a 
fool, but I am a fool who understands there is power in numbers and a 
battle for computing freedom going on. I wish to grow our membership 
large enough that there is a viable market for inexpensive Gnu/Linux 
laptops and Free (as in freedom) phones and tablets. To do that we need 
to be able to engage not lose the average person. While it is true the 
billionaires have massive marketing machines we need to present our 
message in a marketable way if it is to be heard and rebroadcast by 
those trained throughout their lifetimes to hear and respond to 
marketing propaganda.

Example One:
The choice of the term "Free Software", every newbie seems to interpret 
it as no charge. And it's no wonder, if I go to the grocery store the 
word free will be visible at least a dozen times in a context related to 
price. The cost association to that word has happened my whole life with 
hundreds of visits to stores. The same is true for most people living in 
the developed English speaking world. The chosen term could instead be 
something unique and memorable like "4Freedoms Software", that more 
accurately describe the subject. Open source could also be called 
"1Freedom Software" because thats all you get, likewise proprietary 
software could be accurately called "0Freedom Software" (Zero Freedom 

Example Two:
Gnu/Linux System, I know several Free Software users and advocates who 
will never use the terminology because of the awkwardness of it. We need 
something simpler, more marketable if we actually want widespread use 
adoption of the terminology. A quick off the cuff suggestion GLOS (Gnu 
Linux Operating System).

Example Three:
I tried to play one of the videos of Richard Stallman for someone, he 
started by explaining the four software freedoms. When the list started 
with zero, The whole focus and message was lost on a mundane unnecessary 
detail. As a computer guy I think it's cool that the list starts with 
zero especially since it reflects the latter addition of the rule. The 
reality though is trying to introduce someone to important concepts, the 
divide by zero error in the brain when the list begins can (and did) 
abruptly exit and end everything.

Example Four:
Once before I gave feedback in this list related to one of the four 
freedoms, specifically open source. that post received negative feedback 
because open source alone isn't Free Software. The comment I provided 
was never meant as an all encompassing answer. I omitted the other 
freedoms not because they are unimportant, I just couldn't articulate 
the specific relevance well enough so I gave the best feedback I could, 
relying on others to make the other relevant points. My point here is 
someone who doesn't understand us might have taken personal offense.

Example Zero:  ;)
My previous message was a reply regarding effective pedagogical 
techniques vs counterproductive ones, specifically related to handling 
students who aren't immediately all in on our ideals. Which will be a 
significant number. Forcing them to choose a side will usually end with 
a choice based on rebelliousness. It is human nature and more so for youth.

My suggested new terms above are only suggestions to get the discussion 
rolling about effective terminology that is more prone to public 
embracement and adoption, almost certainly someone else out there has 
ideas that are much better. Finally maybe this isn't the appropriate forum.


Terry | 21 Sep 22:15 2015

Re: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 67, Issue 16

>> It is not prescriptive, so there is no way on earth we would criticize any
>> kid for their choices.
> Then you'll make a poor teacher. It's prescriptive in a direction you don't
> like and can't articulate other than to claim it would be inconvenient to
> you. Proper teaching comes with a point of view and honest education
> acknowledges and justifies that point of view. Accepting whatever a student
> comes in with, whether their views on the subject matter, or the devices
> they use, is bad teaching. Correction, critique, and advice are all proper
> corrective measures any good teacher employs.
> No matter what one specifies one teaches values. So as always it remains a
> question of what values should be taught. You've made it quite clear that
> you defer to proprietors and convenience. I hope the questioner's students
> find teachers who have the necessary backbone to stand up for what's
> humane, ethical, and a practical means of addressing real-world problems
> that have been headline news for the past few years (thanks to Edward
> Snowden's brave choices!).

I believe you should explain your views on Free Software then lead by 
example. Explain that propriety solutions are about creating a one-sided 
power dynamic. I think it would be great to follow that with having them 
read The Halloween Document II Key Quotes  and ask them to guess who 
wrote that. They probably won't guess Vinod Valloppillil Program Manager 
at Microsoft. I think the last thing you should do would be any 
corrections that would push them to dig-in in opposition or discourage 
them, that abandon interest or enthusiasm. Plant the seeds and let them 
grow. Mental shifts take time.

The FSF has incredible geniuses who understand code, technologies, 
future directions and social implications. Their philosophies are 
incredible, however some lack of people skills contributes to remaining 
exclusionary through alienating many by not understanding and embracing 
people, varying intellects, marketing and rates of comprehensive shifts 
to new philosophical adoptions.

By using criticism rather than following my own advice above I have 
probably already put some on the offensive. Now I'm sure they are 
already taking an adversarial position and preparing an oppositional 
rebuttal instead of self examination to check if there is any merit to 
my remarks.


Pen-Yuan Hsing | 17 Sep 17:10 2015

Suggestions for a coding club that is just starting?


First of all, thanks everyone for your help several weeks ago on the 
Freeing of a scientific software I mentioned here. I have a couple 
follow up questions which I plan to post in another message, but for now 
there is another issue.

I learned that a teacher in a secondary school in my town is starting a 
coding club for their students (probably teenagers), and they're looking 
for information or other direct support regarding how to start it. Since 
this coding club is just starting, I think this is a great opportunity 
to include in their agenda the concept of Free Software.

I am not an active coder myself, but care a lot about Free Software, and 
I want to do what I can to make sure this club goes in the "right 
direction". However, I have zero experience doing this. Do folks here 
have ideas, or better yet links to existing 
websites/information/teaching plans that are appropriate for this? I 
plan to email the lead teacher soon about the important of Free Software 
in their club, and would appreciate anything you can provide!! I think 
the more we can give the teacher the better. Thanks!!

David Hedlund | 15 Sep 02:37 2015

Free HTML5 templates

100% free "HTML5" video templates compatible with IceCat should be 
distributed and recommended. I don't know where to find anything like 
this, should we make and distribute them here on

Aaron Wolf | 12 Sep 18:38 2015

RollApp: proof that we need to deprecate GPL for AGPL for everything — complete SaaSS to the extreme (see ).

They aren't illegal, and they do mention "Open Source" at least (which
isn't absolutely legally required), but they avoid even linking to the
websites of the software they host.

We need better ways for people to run their own servers to get
functionality across devices this way.

And even though AGPL wouldn't stop this SaaSS, it would require that
people who see it be made aware that they can actually run the software

The only legitimate reason for GPL (without the A) today is to preserve
compatibility with existing GPL projects. All new projects, and all
projects that can feasibly switch without forking problems need to move
to AGPL. It has *nothing* to do with whether or not the software is
*designed* to be run on a server, *all* software should be AGPL.

All the best,
Aaron Wolf
Task Coach (a GPLv3+ program I am involved with but not main dev of
where a user just requested be added to RollApp, which is how I heard of
this) (an AGPL3+ effort to make a better economy to support the
real freedom we need)

Zak Rogoff | 9 Sep 20:04 2015

Re: libreplanet-discuss Digest, Vol 67, Issue 3

> Absolutely. MediaWiki is Free Software, through and through (The WikiMedia foundation is a child of the
Free Software Movement). The Javascript shouldn't be an exception. How about we submit a bug about this?
In the interim, you can edit your local files with the appropriate web labels.

There's actually a bug that's been open with MediaWiki for years!

Zak Rogoff
Campaigns Manager
Free Software Foundation
GnuPG key fingerprint: 6EB2 B137 347E 6F7C DEDC AFF6 82DE 8D64 B509 0AC8