Dmitry Alexandrov | 26 May 20:29 2016

Re: What is ThinkPenguin?

[ Posting via GMane seems to be broken; trying to mail directly, ]
[ pardon if this message turns out a duplicate.                  ]

On 26/05/16 13:41, Greg Wright wrote:
> Are "Penguin" branded products Free-Hardware, Free-Firmware, neither?

It’s not very easy to define ‘free harware’ (how *deep* it should be
free?), however with regard to any product that is sold at the answer should be strait — no, it is
not free hardware.  (Something could escape my sight, of course.)

As for free firmware — products that pass ‘Respect you freedom’
certification and thus listed at [0]: two wi-fi adapters and a router at
the moment; should work without any non-free firmware and drivers.  I’m
afraid I could not say anything else for sure, you’d better ask them
directly.  I might guess, however, that their desktop and laptop
computers runs non-free BIOS at least.


> If they are free how/where do I get the GPL'ed content?

As for USB wireless adapters — TPE-N150USB and TPE-N150USBL — they are
based on Atheros AR9271 chipset, so firmware and drivers are meant to be
included in your operating system distribution (GNU/Linux?) — for
example in Trisquel we have ‘open-ath9k-htc-firmware’ package [1].

The Wi-Fi Router (TPE-NWIFIROUTER) runs LibreCMC [2].

(Continue reading)

Erik Moeller | 26 May 19:58 2016

Building a free/libre platform for reviews

Hi folks,

Reviews are pretty ubiquitous on the web, whether through dedicated
platforms like Yelp or Goodreads, or as part of transactions like on
shopping sites or in apps. What they tend to have in common:

1) The platforms are proprietary.
2) Users give the platforms the right to use the reviews, but nobody else.

I think we can do better, and I don’t think I need to convince this
particular audience of the merits of free/libre code or culture.

As you may remember, I’m the maintainer of
which already lets you export reviews from a few popular platforms.
But it’s not itself a review platform, nor is it limited to reviews.
(I’m currently looking into exporting Quora answers, for example.)

While continuing to improve FYS, I’m going to start shifting some of
my time to building a free/libre (code & information) platform for
open reviews. I’d love to hear from folks:

- Are there existing efforts you’re aware of that I should seek out?
- Are there things you’d like to review/find reviews for that you’re
currently not able to? (For example, I haven’t seen a popular platform
for reviewing free/libre software, yet.)
- Would you like to be involved in some way (tester/reviewer,
developer, designer, documenter, what have you)? Shoot me a note

My current strategy is to build a minimal platform with the following
(Continue reading)

Ali Abdul Ghani | 26 May 13:10 2016

join to uruk

Uruk project is a free, collaborative and participatory project
contain free softwares and sub projects (as the definition of free
Our Project Goals is:

•  Make free Projects to support free softwares community.
•  Make free gnu/Linux distribution To meet users need.
•  Support the weak languages in free softwares community.
•  Spread the free software philosophy In places where the free
softwares Philosophy is weak.
web site:
have fun and be free
ali miracle


Emacs is the ground. We run around and act silly on top of it, and
when we die, may our remnants grace its ongoing incrementation.

Greg Wright | 26 May 12:41 2016

What is ThinkPenguin?

Are "Penguin" branded products Free-Hardware, Free-Firmware, neither?

If they are free how/where do I get the GPL'ed content?

Why do they need to keep requisitioning new tech from others. Couldn't they make the source more obtainable. Then we could have the "Free-Hardware Dream" (minus "in-home PCB printing"). But with a few concessions like: if you want to have your specially made custom whatever - foot the bill yourself, otherwise wait for the next hardware revision; as an example of course.

Jan Prunk | 23 May 10:29 2016

Re: Best e-reader for free software

Hello !

If anyone is looking to obtain a used Openinkpot device I am willing to sell mine.
It's a Hanvon N516 e-book reader with depleted battery with Openinkpot installed.
I have original package, and an almost-as-new leather case to fit it inside, and compatible earphones, plus USB charger. Openinkpot has audio support enabled, you can play music in various formats. I would ship from Slovenia and the cheap price can be arranged, just contact me for details if you're interested.

Kind regards,

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 4:16 PM, John Sullivan <> wrote:
On February 3, 2016 3:23:34 PM CET, Pen-Yuan Hsing <> wrote:
>Thanks for this, I'm interested in such a reader as well.
>However, when I go to what seems to be the Bebook's official website at
>, all I get is a blank page. Am I trying the wrong
>URL or is it something with my browser?
>On 03/02/16 21:19, John Sullivan wrote:
>> I use a Bebook running OpenInkpot. All free except the boot loader.
>No wireless, but SD slot and USB.

They aren't sold anymore -- you'll find them used.

But there are others of the same chip set under different names. HanlinV3 or Hanlinv3ext.

Fabio Pesari | 14 May 09:11 2016

Are proprietary software and science compatible?

Some scientists go to great lengths to make sure their experiments are
reproducible and can be peer reviewed, but then often use proprietary
programs to achieve their results.

It seems a bit contradictory to me. For starters, the proprietary
programs themselves aren't peer reviewable, so the researchers (and
other scientists and the general public) just have to blindly trust what
those programs say.

Then, assuming they manage to sign a NDA which gives them access to the
source code, that doesn't change anything about because other scientists
might not be willing (or able) to do the same, and the general public
will still be unaware of the programs' inner workings.

And of course, reproducibility means a different person can use a
different piece of software which serves the same purpose and obtain the
same result. This isn't possible when all research is based on specific
proprietary programs, especially those programs which dominate their
fields and don't have any free replacements yet (and there are plenty of

There is also the "common good" factor. That is, when the purpose of
research is the betterment of society, having tools which can be
improved collaboratively will surely yield better results.

Lastly, costs are also an issue. Some scientific software has
prohibitive licensing costs, and as we know funding in research is often

There are also other issues, such as many of those programs being
Windows-only, DRM and confidentiality concerns (how to be sure
patient/subject privacy is kept if a program connects to its remote

So, in the end, I don't think science and proprietary software are
compatible at all, and research conducted through proprietary software
should be considered unreliable.

For this reason, I think proprietary software's unscientific nature
should be stressed more when promoting free/libre software to scientists.

Vincent Canfield | 13 May 15:31 2016

are traps gay?

asking for a friend.

    Vincent Canfield
C074 FD71 AD27 71A5 CC1B

al3xu5 / dotcommon | 11 May 22:17 2016

Re: Update on (content/user liberation)

Il giorno martedì 10/05/2016 14:01:42 CEST
Erik Moeller <eloquence@...> ha scritto:

> 2016-05-10 11:08 GMT-07:00 al3xu5 / dotcommon <dotcommon@...>:
> > Please note that (if I have well understood) in some countries (i.e. Italy)
> > copyright laws do not admit releasing a work as public domain unless after
> > many years since their creation: so CC0 might produce the same effect that
> > "all rights reserved"...
> Hi al3xu5,
> CC-0 exists precisely because saying "this is public domain" may not
> be enough in some legal systems. It has, for this purpose, a "public
> license fallback"; see section 3 of

Hi Erik

Thanks for your clarification. Nevertheless I already knew this matter, but I
am not sure the fallback mechanism could work in every circumstance.

For example, as far as I know, the Italian copyright laws states that the
moral rights are eternal and not transferable, and that necessarily there must
be someone who holds the "economic" rights up to the expiration of the
"protection". So the final effect using CC0 might be legally uncleared and
uncertainly for an Italian author...

Besides also the CC0 FAQs at
seem to confirm my interpretation:

"CC0 doesn’t affect two very important categories of copyright and related
rights. First, just like our licenses, CC0 does not affect other persons’
rights in the work or in how it is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.
Second, the laws of some jurisdictions don’t allow authors and copyright owners
to waive all of their own rights, such as moral rights. When the waiver doesn’t
work for any reason CC0 acts as a free public license replicating much of
intended effect of the waiver, although sometimes even licensing those rights
isn’t effective. It varies jurisdiction by jurisdiction.

While we can't be certain that all copyright and related rights will indeed be
surrendered everywhere, we are confident that CC0 lets you sever the legal ties
between you and your work to the greatest extent legally permissible."

> > In my opinion, it would be better allowing the very full list of CC
> > licenses, including the NC clause: subtracting user's stuff posted to any
> > supposedly "social" service from their commercial exploitation determines
> > more freedom than assuring compatibility with copyleft licenses...
> I'd like to keep (the website) to be exclusively CC-0
> for now to keep licensing-related friction for re-users to a minimum.
> [...]

Thanks again for your clarification. 


al3xu5 / dotcommon
Say NO to copyright, patents, trademarks and any industrial design restrictions.

Pen-Yuan Hsing | 10 May 23:09 2016

European Interoperability Framework consultation

Here is an article about the current European Interoperability Framework consultation period:

While the article encourages everyone to submit a comment for the consultation to push for more "open
source", the author's example comment is not fully in line with the principles of free (as in freedom) software.

I think this consultation is worth being on the FSF and FSFE's radars, and that proponents of free software
should submit comments during the consultation period (which ends on 29 June 2016).

Sorry if this issue has already been discussed, but what do you think would be a good comment to submit?

Alex Jordan | 10 May 19:39 2016

Re: What do you think about calling free systems as "GNU" systems (even if there is no GNU or Linux-libre)?

On Fri, May 06, 2016 at 06:15:03PM -0500, J.B. Nicholson wrote:

> Alex Jordan wrote:
> > You're completely missing the above point. What Julien is saying
> > (correct me if I'm wrong) is that using "GNU" as a brand for
> > freedom-respecting operating systems is valuable even if technically
> > inaccurate.
> I can't correct your understanding of what Julien said because I don't speak
> for Julien and I don't see that you sent a copy of your email to Julien so
> Julien can provide the correction you seek.

Crap! I meant to CC the list and completely forgot. Apologies. (That's
also why I said "correct me if I'm wrong" - I was assuming Julien
would see it!) CC'ing now.

> > In other words, you think that this wouldn't work because the steps
> > would be "put the 'GNU' moniker in the name of everything with the
> > actual GNU code, then identify things with the 'GNU' moniker in the
> > name as free." You're totally right, that wouldn't work, but that's
> > not what's being suggested.
> That does not describe my views.
> > What's being suggested is that we ignore where the different components
> > of the OS come from, and evaluate *only* if it's a free OS. Then if it
> > is, we put the 'GNU' moniker into the name, even if the OS doesn't
> > actually use GNU code.
> There are free software OSes without GNU I would not want to call GNU
> because calling them GNU would not only be misleading but disrespectful of
> OS developers who are doing what free software activists want done. Using
> the word GNU as you describe is not only incorrect usage but could become
> deceptive. We're better off identifying what things really are and teaching
> people to value software freedom and ethical treatment for its own sake.
> This work cannot be reduced to a branding exercise nor should branding be
> given primacy.

Generally speaking I agree with you. I was just trying to explain the
idea, since there seems to have been some misunderstanding.
Greg Wright | 10 May 10:39 2016


I paid a translator to do the site, now I have an English version in an ODT. Is there somebody here from April I can give it to (before or after converting it back to html).