Re: Public Money - Public Code: Helping with the campaign

[hellekin]

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 21:28:20 +0200
Jonas Oberg  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> > I would look at reformulating "commercial utilization" as what it is:
> > vendor-locking and anti-competitive behavior.
> 
> That sounds like taking it too far. Do you mean that commercial utilization
> of free software, and of GPL licensed software in particular, also leads
> to vendor-lockin and anti-competitive behavior, or was that in reference
> only to proprietary software?
> 

I'm referring to 'commercial utilization' as used in the context of
what Moritz quoted.

==
hk

-- 
hellekin 
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Public Money - Public Code: Helping with the campaign

[willi uebelherr]

Dear Hellekin,

i support your proposal to Open Sorce Technology, the condition for a 
real technical development. And your strong answer to Moritz.


Moritz is a german boy. And in Germany all governments groups on any 
level look for money flow. This is the base for the big corruption in 
Germany in the political spheres. And this is the base for his thinking.


The Free Software results are used for private interests. They are not 
interested to extend the space for activity over the software space. And 
they are not interested to analyse, what is the most powerfull way for 
technical development.


We know it from the beginning. Software in general was an open space. 
And in this time in the USA, all developed software with support from 
public fonds have to be Open Source software.


Therefore, like Matthias wrote, it is very easy to understand. We see in 
Muenchen how the moneyflow from Microsoft change the situation and start 
a big campaign of lies. This to place the responsibility for public 
space under private interests.


We have to extend this discussion to the FSFla in spanish.

many greetings, willi
Asuncion, Paraguay


Am 26/8/2017 um 13:00 schrieb hellekin:

On Sat, 26 Aug 2017 06:30:12 +0200
Moritz Bartl  wrote:


choices. For instance, a small country might want to take advantage of
further improvements by others to its software and would be more
inclined to fund open source projects with licenses that limit
commercial utilization, such as the General Public License.



This argument needs to be killed once and for all. As long as it is
used by the enemies of freedom, it will be believed and taken into
account as a problem by institutions.

I don't know of a really good answer already formulated to dispel this
fallacy though, do you?

I would look at reformulating "commercial utilization" as what it is:
vendor-locking and anti-competitive behavior. The GPL limits
vendor-locking, and favors competition by providing an even playground
for all industrial actors regardless of their size and capacity to
produce code; considering public code as infrastructure, like language.
Nobody would argue that limiting access to language is a genuine
business practice (although promoters of 'intellectual property' would
certainly disagree.)

==
hk





 Weitergeleitete Nachricht 
Betreff: Re: Public Money - Public Code: Helping with the campaign
Datum: Fri, 25 Aug 2017 19:59:02 +0200
Von: hellekin 
An: discussion@lists.fsfe.org

> * Erik Albers [2017-08-01 14:09 +0200]:
>
> [...]

Hi Erik, Mathias, all,

I've been working on a philosophical argument that distinguishes free
technologies from proprietary technologies on a technical basis.  This
offers a foundation to argue, along with the PMPC campaign, that
European institutions, and more generally public institutions, should
prefer open technical systems to closed technical systems
(respectively: free software to privative software) not for ideological
reasons, but on technical grounds. Petites Singularités already
successfully used that argument to expel a proprietary software company
from an European consortium to the benefit of a free software project
(ongoing MURIQUI project, see [0]).

A first approach of this argument can be found in "Good bye
'open-source'; hello 'free software'" from January 2013, and was
discussed abundantly during the last Libre Software Meeting in
Saint-Etienne, France, the first week of July (RMLL 2017).  I'm
preparing a report on this covering interventions of Coline Ferrarato,
Stéphane Couture, Thiago Novaes, Natacha Roussel, and Yann
Moulier-Boutang. The conversation will continue in the form of articles
and hopefully a review on free technologies.

I would like to propose that this effort is linked to the PMPC campaign
so that when the EU software project coverage is complete, the campaign
can evolve and push the technical argument. In a nutshell, French
philosopher Gilbert Simondon distinguished open and closed
technical systems that promote different ethics and aesthetics: the
former embrace diversity, evolution, perennity, and cooperation, while
the latter push univocity, control (vendor-lock), specialization. The
key argument is that the path taken to produce a technology conditions
the resulting technique.

This conversation will happen on the Petites Singularités discourse
platform [2], and I would like to invite people interested in the PMPC
to experiment with this platform as a campaign tool. I wish the FSFE
would provide support towards this endeavor: I can provide the platform
and sysadmin effort to sustain it (i.e. no FSFE sysadmin will be
required), but I can't otherwise spend more time organizing the
campaigning effort.

What do you think?  How can these two approaches (philosophical /
technical argument and EU assets identification with FOIA requests) can
create synergies to amplify the PMPC campaign?  Who would be interested
in supporting such an endeavor, and with which means?

Thank you f

Re: Public Money - Public Code: Helping with the campaign

[hellekin]

On Sun, 27 Aug 2017 14:52:03 -0400
willi uebelherr  wrote:

> 
> Dear Hellekin,
> 
> i support your proposal to Open Sorce Technology, the condition for a 
> real technical development. And your strong answer to Moritz.
> 

I'm sure Moritz chose the quote I replied to on purpose, and I have
no doubt we all share the same view. But note, I didn't mention 'open
source tech' but 'open technical systems', of which free software is an
exemplary application.

> 
> We have to extend this discussion to the FSFla in spanish.
>

Feel free to translate it and forward. I can't ride both horses at
this time.

==
hk

-- 
hellekin 
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Public Money - Public Code: Helping with the campaign

[Adonay Felipe Nogueira]

I'm not from Europe, and I'm not living there, but I would like to
mention the "misuse" of public money in Brazil.

In the country's governance level. The application used to fill and send
personal income taxes is non-free. The IRPF-Livre project from FSFLA's
Software Imposto campaign/group once managed to force the public
organization responisble for making such software to free/liberate *one*
version of it, from around 2008--2009. Nowadays, IRPF-Livre
(), Declara
(), and Rnetclient
() --- all of which in some
way or another emerged from that single release --- are community
attempt to provide almost the same set of features as the ongoing
non-free software. For more information on this issue, you can contact
Alexandre "lxo"/"lxoliva" Oliva and Thadeu Cascardo.

In the country's judiciary level, we recently found out, during a
free/libre software event, that this part of the state's power is
depending on non-free software for signing (and verifying signatures of)
documents through the CAdES, XAdES and PAdES "standards". I put
"standards" under quotes because, at least the Brazilian activists are
unaware of free/libre software able to completely handle these
(generally, there might be one that reads and signs, but there might be
free/libre firmware missing, or even free/libre driver/module
missing). See what was the result of the free/libre software event in
question at:
.
Cleber Leao (contact information available in that same page) has more
information on this matter.

The latest WannaCry non-free software scandal affected various computers
which were running non-free system distributions in the administrative,
legislative, and judiciary organizations. The English Wikipedia page for
WannaCry has references citing Brazil and the public organizations
affected (not cited in the Wikipedia article itself, but in the
referenced articles).

Last but not least, while the software in the administrative,
legislative, and judiciary organizations' side is free/libre, most
public-facing software distributed through JavaScript is still non-free
or not clearly marked as such for the general public. As an example,
enable GNU LibreJS and visit web sites such as:

- .

- .

- .

- .

I hope this helps. :)


-- 
- https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno
- Palestrante e consultor sobre /software/ livre (não confundir com
  gratis).
- "WhatsApp"? Ele não é livre. Por favor, use o GNU Ring ou o Tox.
- Contato: https://libreplanet.org/wiki/User:Adfeno#vCard
- Arquivos comuns aceitos (apenas sem DRM): Corel Draw, Microsoft
  Office, MP3, MP4, WMA, WMV.
- Arquivos comuns aceitos e enviados: CSV, GNU Dia, GNU Emacs Org, GNU
  GIMP, Inkscape SVG, JPG, LibreOffice (padrão ODF), OGG, OPUS, PDF
  (apenas sem DRM), PNG, TXT, WEBM.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Public Money - Public Code: Helping with the campaign

[Jonas Oberg]

Hi Hellekin,

> I'm referring to 'commercial utilization' as used in the context of
> what Moritz quoted.

Thank you. I think the context is a bit muddled as it somehow seems to
suggest the GPL is unsuitable for commercial utilization. There are
certainly differences in what stance countries take on the issue, but
we should make clear all countries, big and small, benefit from copyleft
licenses.


Sincerely,

-- 
Jonas Öberg, Executive Director
Free Software Foundation Europe | jo...@fsfe.org
Your support enables our work (fsfe.org/join)
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

Re: Public Money - Public Code: Helping with the campaign

[Jonas Oberg]

Hi!

> I'm not from Europe, and I'm not living there, but I would like to
> mention the "misuse" of public money in Brazil.

Thank you very much, this is very helpful and useful! And I should take
the opportunity to say we're happy to see the contribution from other
countries well outside of Europe on this list and in our work too. This
isn't a problem exlusive to any one region or country; the challenges
facing us are the same world wide.

-- 
Jonas Öberg, Executive Director
FSFE - Keeping the power of technology in your hands | jo...@fsfe.org
Your support enables our work (fsfe.org/join)

___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion