and citizens to
switch to Free Software, and the way to go about that is very different,
it requires a practical STRATEGY AS WELL AS principled rhetoric.
Mat Witts
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
There will be pros and cons. because the legislative, historical and
cultural context of the institutions and the FS movement in Europe is
not the same as the US making joint policy agreements perhaps marginally
sub-optimal for FSF and FSFE.
>From the perspective of members of both organizations t
Hi Bastien.
Great logic... but I qualified this tactic by restricting it to the aim
of converting people to FS, nothing else where it could (and probably
is) contradictory to the FSFE aims of course.
My writing is semantically loose in that polemic... but by 'Free
Software' I meant only in terms
Is the FSFE planning anything on the GDPR?
European data protection law and cybersecurity strategy/policy talks a
lot of talk about safeguarding 'individual freedom' in relation to
Madrid protocol and so forth but no mention of Free Software.
Here's one example...
The General Data Protection Reg
Hi Bastien,
> I believe even political points deserve to be based on logic
> In fact, I’m *really* _really_ surprised so many people agree with
using Facebook for spreading FLOSS values... guys???!
>That’s my gut reaction.
You have clearly abandoned your preference for a politics of logic h
> Hi Mat,
>
>> Given each org already has a charitable approach to subs leaving the
>> choice to the individual may be the best strategy.
> For the FSFE and FSF, this is clearly what we do. Which organisation you
> support financially or with your volunteer time should depend on which
> organisatio
be something to work on, but that seems separate from the GDPR specifically.
>
--
Mat Witts
Head of a Few Things
YUJ IT (Informatics)
https://docs.yuj.it/mat-witts
YUJ IT (Informatics) is a trading name of YUJ CIC. A Community Interest Company
registered in England and Wales No. 04859621. R
Greetings,
I take your point Jonas about disapora possibly matching facebook on the
default privacy settings. I'll take your word on that for this
discussion because it may be more significant to consider which of the
two (diaspora/facebook) could be predicted to change the quickest to
respond to
> I completely disagree.
Okay. That sounds emphatic. I don't want to cut in on how you feel Bastien but
simply to point out the confusing motivations at play here.
> Knowing that FSFE is using Facebook provokes two reactions in me: one is my
> "gut feeling" ("guys??"), another one is the one I’
> Here is my position, stated as "logically" as possible.
Okay, although I'm not sure this is the best way to approach things
because I suspect we may be arguing about tactics, not ethics.
Discouraging people from using FB for example can be restated as
'encouraging people to use FS'.
I prefer t
I think that's an understandable reaction in the circumstances.
best wishes.
___
Discussion mailing list
Discussion@lists.fsfe.org
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Paul/
> Discouraging people from using FB for example can be restated as
> 'encouraging people to use FS'.
>> Not necessarily.
The (logical:-/) *necessity* of leaving FB to use FS wasn't a point I
was making as far as I can see, and I wouldn't be keen to pursue it
because with more and more softw
On 21/08/17 12:51, Adonay Felipe Nogueira wrote:
> I think you mean "private software" which is only used by yorself, and
> not shared to anyone, not even co-workers. Once you share it at least
> with someone, it ought to be free/libre because it's no longer
> "private".
My understanding of 'priva
> Well, I wasn't arguing that persuading people to leave Facebook would
be a gain for Free Software. This was something you stated, perhaps
speculating on how some people might think: that in this zero-sum game,
people leaving Facebook will have to choose something else to fill the
void, and if you
On 21/08/17 14:28, Paul Boddie wrote:
> However, if Mat should fail to do so here, it would be a private
> matter between him and his daughter.
You would think so wouldn't you?
I can't help but see a horrible future for humanity under any alternate
conditions.
Adonay, I would welcome some justifi
I agree with Carmen that extended conversations on such complex topics
as discrimination is rarely constructive.
However, I would like to point out a few gaps in the thread that may be
of interest.
Firstly, it is I think important to maintain a distinction between the
broad, cognitive aspect of d
I presume they have to be 'supportive' in some way - which could mean a
donation or something else - like a commitment to promoting FS I would
assume - but I don't know
DOTEVERYONE is a trading name of GO ON UK LTD.
The newly incorporated DOTEVERYONE is now a dissolved company.
The older company
Hi,
A good reason to stay out of discussions would be if we were to consider
that we have nothing to add that could improve them. A bad reason would
be because the subject matter strains the limits of subjective human
incredulity.
I don't think that J.B. Nicholson's argument rests on whether RMS
hi,
An opinion that appeals to center/moderate politics by combining two distinct
yet related concepts is not the moderate or reasonable position it is sometimes
mistaken for.
This is a journey into mysterious niches of political activism where FS
involvement is implicated in a global, market
Hi,
> whether someone talks about Free Software or Open Source is not a good
indicator of where on this political spectrum they fall.
Well, a person can 'talk about' socialism and about 'the right'from any
perspective, for sure.
But what a person chooses for themselves I think does tend to regul
Hi,
>> an Open Source advocate is likely to be either 1) Confused [...]
Sorry I don't see how describing someone as confused about a subject
implies a moral judgment about the individual.
Perhaps it would be clearer if I qualified this as 'confused about what Free
Software stands for"
>> I wo
> People that promote Free Software know about what that means, people
> that promote Open Source may or may not, so whereas a Free Software
> advocate is obviously committed to (at the very least) ideas of
> communitarian living, an Open Source advocate is likely to be either 1)
> Confused; 2) Pro
Hello.
> I reject your hypothesis that a persons political beliefs can be
broadly predicted using some basic knowledge of Open Source and Free
Software principles and established social and political theory.
Okay, but it's not my hypothesis. I have simply combined ideas readily
available in any s
Hello Bruno :-)
> you must acknowledge that the 98% does not really know what this is
about, dont' you think?
Well, I am not sure if I mean to ignore it Bruno. It's just that there
has been some push back in other areas too which I believe are also
important issues to discuss openly. I think what
Hi,
> I just discovered this study from "Freedom to tinker" [1] that clearly
shows clinic evidence of psychotic disorders by few web market operators
[...]
I think the article referenced may be this:
https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2017/11/15/no-boundaries-exfiltration-of-personal-data-by-session-
> [...]
> help people avoid visiting or linking to things like Facebook, Meetup,
> Twitter and Doodle?
> [...]
> As well as blocking, does it give the user any encouragement to use
alternatives?
> is there a way a plugin could reward people for doing the right thing?
> Rewards are more effecti
> I don't find this argument very strong at all.
I agree that is is not axiomatic under all conditions, and is only salient in
restricted circumstances - for example when FS adviocates attempt to manipulate
computer users towards software they believe is better (ie/ free software) or
prevent pe
On 18/01/18 13:06, Stephane Ascoet wrote:
> These are two of the main differences between libre software
> advocacies(Linus Torvalds and Eric Raymond for the first, RMS for the
> second) and I think it would be hardly solved now and here..
I think the Torvalds / RMS split is an example of this inte
It doesn't seem to me to be a great strategy to single out gmail when
Microsoft's hotmail/live/outlook mailservers regularly fail to notify
recipients that they have not delivered mail under the rule that
'Deliverability to Outlook.com is based on your reputation'. Mailserver
admins are then encour
> I also cannot comprehend it
It' easy - one example is some groups object to liberal notions of
education on the pretext of religious belief. The broader paradox this
example articulates is freedom is contingent on each individual human
person having the right to refuse the terms on which freedom
Hi Florian,
> [...] people have the right to give up their freedoms, but I don't
know why they would from a theoretical perspective.
Well, with the obvious possibility of again sounding a bit like a
lecturer with a hangover who has stumbled into the wrong theatre - I
have to say there are many th
> Today we had a poster near our FOSDEM booth saying "Join us at the Funky
> Monkey", and indeed a nice bunch of people met in that pub. I didn't have the
> impression that any of them felt having become a formal member of the legal
> association by following the invitation to join.
Small sample
Hi Florian,
>> I have left the FSFE because (among other things) there appears to be
>> multiple levels of practical engagement with policy (which is fine) but it
>> is based on a rather obscure set of policies concerning what membership
>> means (which is not fine).
> I am trying to understan
> I am sorry. This is one sentence?
Yes. Well observed. If you also notice it was a response to Florian's
invitation to 'elaborat[e] a little bit about your experience?'.
The request was a bit vague but
I wrote in good faith about my experience as requested. This included
some irritation which I
The FSFE / FB thing is a classic case of personal choice elevated to
moral imperative. Use FB/Don't use FB it's not relevant. If folk sense
moral hazard from advocating Free Software on a non-free platform then
that's their choice. The reverse is true, if an individual doesn't sense
any moral hazar
> Daniel's article about the use of proprietary software and services
by the FSFE:
> https://danielpocock.com/pmpc-for-fsfe-itself
> ...a long discussion last year, starting here...
> https://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/2017-June/011591.html
> ...and ending here:
> https://lists.fsfe.org
For me, I think until the FSFE abandons what seems to me to resemble a
kind of 'watered-down' market-led ideology at the highest level and
fully adopts a more appropriate political philosophy and (as
importantly), culture - I predict many years of in-fighting, confusion,
missed opportunities and p
In the context of this thread I personally cannot see anything that
Daniel has said that may be considered as personally insulting.
What I see is people choosing to take offence because particular ideas
and expressions have lead to increased ambivalence among participants,
but that is different.
> http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/16/33
The article only deals with Open Source market dominance not 'Free'. All
references to 'free' in that article are about royalty-free software not the
'four freedoms'.
Open Source I believe is vulnerable to this kind of threat because the idea
39 matches
Mail list logo
