Points of Paper review , no proprietary software, no patented software, no restrictions on papers
James Michael DuPont
 I would like to make one thing very clear, and of course this is my suggestion and and I welcome any feedback on it. I am very against people presenting proprietary software at the conference. Proprietary software is software that is available in binary form only and is not open to change by anyone else. That includes some proprietary software that is derived from open source software whose licenses allow for proprietary extensions. We should not allow for such presentations to be made, or people to use our conference for promoting their own proprietary version of some previously open source tool. That also include software that has proprietary translations of open source software. for this is just another proprietary product that cannot be changed or modified or improved on by anyone else. We would be sending the wrong message to the world, and to the people of Kosovo by supporting such things, because it already excludes them from contributing or improving the software or translation. Almost all of the commercial proprietary tools that exist contain BSD code , public domain code, apache code etc. that does not make them free libre open source software. Also any software that has patent restrictions on them, or are covered by patents which restrict their usage should not be covered. In addition we should consider papers where we are allowed to use their content under the GFDL or Creative commons. We should also request that we can record the speech and publish it after review and editing. Only if we maintain these strict guidelines will we have created a conference that is of great value, the content is about free software, the content is free and we have a digital recording of it. Please consider these ideas when reviewing. thanks, mike |
--
James Michael DuPont
Founding Board Member
Free/Libre Open Source Software Kosova
FLOSSK
Valon Hoti
no one will use free open source software if people may not make a money for living from that.(MAIN REASON)
A short story :
- In Kosova was always used Microsoft software since i was a little one "from my 12 year age" when i regularly use computer for work "now i am 36" i walk though a different OS "as individual" but in companies or in community was used always Microsoft in any place.
- School always learn Assembler ,C ,C++ ,C#,VB ,VB.NET, SQL, MySQL, Java "in most case except JAVA all software was Microsoft - now Microsoft for free provide Express Edition" so there's another reason why to change reality.
- For animation they are using Studio 3D MAX,Archicad,AutoCAD
- For lab and calculation they are using MatLab,MathCad,Electronic WorkBench"
- For internet programing ASP.NET "web" or PHP "portal with mysql" in case if they are allowed to use "reason SECURITY"
- Community "almost younger generation" which used for playing game "and doesn't want to learn anythin" they are using only Ms Windows OS and in community "in KOSOVA" people are going to tell each other how they are patching Windows to work in their machine "for example Vista or Win 7" and how work nice. @#!?
1. All company use ECDL certification "that mean put people to use in work Ms Windows,Ms Word,Ms Excel and Ms Access" - because people which ones work in administrate work need to be certified on ECDL.
2.) Nobody has a good will to help if they have no interest
"better using illegaly software and make money for living than using free software and have nothing to eat" - this one is MAIN REASON.
we are trying to explain to government since 1999 "now 10 year from then" why to use open source software ,but they have always one simple answer my workers now only Microsoft shits so there no reason to change si work always in the end was DONE.
so if you mean anything other first start to tell people
why open source is good
what benefits they have
how they may make a money with open source
how to migrate system from other one to another and system to work without changes
"only things until know was done with c# in MONO and Java by default, Kylix no more in use"
[Almost all of the commercial proprietary tools that exist contain BSD code , public domain code, apache code etc.
that does not make them free libre open source software]
but they allow to see code and learn from them if no using and create new ones for free.
Valon Hoti
http://www.it-department-ltd.net
c0d3.w@1k3r
jamesmi...@googlemail.com
thanks for your mail.
It is good that we are getting a discussion started here.
let me address your points, point by point.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 9:53 AM, Valon Hoti<valon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing to make clear in KOSOVA
>
> no one will use free open source software if people may not make a money for
> living from that.(MAIN REASON)
I agree that people want to make money and have to earn a living.
Most people who will benefit from FLOSS are the users and developers
of software. People need software for doing business to make money.
The biggest benefactors of free software are the users who can use a
customized version in their own language. Software developers who can
do this work also benefit.
In Kosovo, the the situation is, for most small businesses and private users:
1. None pays money for software. (more than 2 euros for the software)
That is the same for FLOSS software. But the difference is that FLOSS
is available in albanian (if not, you can translate it) and you are
legally allowed to use it.
2. All money is for services (Formatting/Installing computers) and
selling CDS and access.
This is the same for FLOSS, the money is in those services as well.
You need the same exact things as the current infrastructure : CD
Burners and Fast interenet to distribute FLOSS as to distribute
illegal copies of windows.
3. For the companies and institutions who have the money to buy the
licenses of Microsoft, Adobe, Oracle and co, they dont have to worry
about FLOSS. They can just continue with what they are doing.
>
> A short story :
>
> - In Kosova was always used Microsoft software since i was a little one
> "from my 12 year age" when i regularly use computer for work "now i am 36"
Yes, I also used MS for many years. I started with the very first
versions of dos and windows(2.0)
>i
> walk though a different OS "as individual" but
Me tool
> in companies or in community
> was used always Microsoft in any place.
Look. Lets break this down :
of course most big companies and communities will use windows. They
payed millions for licenses and wont throw that away.
The question will be not if they install linux, but if they will save
money on the upgrade to latest microsoft office version, or will they
learn to use office.
I dont want to say that it is windows versus linux kernel. I dont
really care about the kernel that much. It is the applications that
are important. You guys are so fixated on kernels.
>
> - School always learn Assembler ,C ,C++ ,C#,VB ,VB.NET, SQL, MySQL, Java "in
> most case except JAVA all software was Microsoft - now Microsoft for free
> provide Express Edition" so there's another reason why to change reality.
you can learn all that on with open source tools even on winodw or mac
or linux..
Another issue is: why should you waste your time using patented tools
from microsoft that will limit your freedom in the future. In any case
you should stick to standards and avoid lock ins.
Also, all that is very 90s.
Those were the technologies of 10 years ago.
What about creating webapps ? How many of those technologies will help
you run a web server?
What will the cost be when you install another server?
What if you host your server in Germany or USA that respects the laws?
Will you be able to use the 2 euro software on that? What about the
educational edition? Read the fine print. You are forbidden from using
that for anything useful.
>
> - For animation they are using Studio 3D MAX,Archicad,AutoCAD
Blenger, Gimp, Qcad.
> - For lab and calculation they are using MatLab,MathCad,Electronic
> WorkBench"
MatLab -> Scilab
Maxima
R
>
> - For internet programing ASP.NET "web" or PHP "portal with mysql" in case
> if they are allowed to use "reason SECURITY"
ASP.net, now what will that cost you?
>
> - Community "almost younger generation" which used for playing game "and
> doesn't want to learn anythin" they are using only Ms Windows OS and in
there are hundreds of games.
Open source games for windows and macos as well.
what about openarea and enemyterritory?
Most of your games are built with FLoSS.,
> community "in KOSOVA" people are going to tell each other how they are
> patching Windows to work in their machine "for example Vista or Win 7" and
> how work nice. @#!?
That is like germany in the past. Now germany is a huge open source world.
That also happend when they started to fight against illegal copying.
>
> 1. All company use ECDL certification "that mean put people to use in work
> Ms Windows,Ms Word,Ms Excel and Ms Access" - because people which ones work
> in administrate work need to be certified on ECDL.
of course. what will that cost them to use at home?
hundred of euros.
They can also use open office for all that.
>
> 2.) Nobody has a good will to help if they have no interest
> "better using illegaly software and make money for living than using free
> software and have nothing to eat" - this one is MAIN REASON.
Obviously. I agree.
That is why I am here in kosovo to help find good people to find them jobs.
There is no better way to find work then to be a contributor to an
open source project.
>
> we are trying to explain to government since 1999 "now 10 year from then"
> why to use open source software
>,but they have always one simple answer my
> workers now only Microsoft shits so there no reason to change si work always
> in the end was DONE.
I am not trying to influence the government.
I am just trying to help the people learn about good new things.
If you spend some time to learn about these things, it is a good
investment of your time.
> so if you mean anything other first start to tell people
>
> why open source is good
FLOSS is good because it works, you can change it, you have rights to
it for every. you dont lose your investment of time.
> what benefits they have
benefits are Freedom, freedom and freedom. Did I mention security.
> how they may make a money with open source
how they make money now.
Using software for making money.
selling legal Copies of cds.
Installing legal versions of software on pcs.
Running web servers.
designing graphics.
>
> how to migrate system from other one to another and system to work without
> changes
Well, I would suggest that you first learn how to use
firefox
open office
gimp
inkscape
eclipse/netbeans
then you can also learn about cygwin.com the gnu layer for windows.
then after 2 years, you can try installing linux.
>
> "only things until know was done with c# in MONO and Java by default, Kylix
> no more in use"
sure, mono. that is great for now. But what if microsoft decides to
break thier promise and enforce the patents. How much of your code is
patent endangered? What type of security do you have? Where is your
investment gone?
>
> [Almost all of the commercial proprietary tools that exist contain BSD code
> , public domain code, apache code etc.
> that does not make them free libre open source software]
>
> but they allow to see code and learn from them if no using and create new
> ones for free.
No, microsoft may use some open source in it like tcpip, but you
cannot see what they changed. You dont have access to it.
Ok.
I hope that I have answerd some of your questions and I look forward
to hearing more from you and meeting you and talking in person..
thanks
mike
Valon Hoti
- but real situation is this one
- if Microsoft Does Licensing for Corporate that mean the same licence with the software i can use it in Home for free
"corporate licence - VLK or Volume Key"
for Example Microsoft Pro Pack - Include one OS and Microsoft Office "that held corporate licence"
that mean this i may use the same pack in corporate and in home the same copy to finishing my work at office/home "or other reason in most of cases"
Another reason is
- CD cost 0.5 cent with illegally software - "0.25 cent blanko cd since people doesn't by more than 1 or 2 blanko CD"
- 1 DVD with the new Movie cost 1 Euro
- Most illegally software are patched in one or another way
and people deciding to trust or no trust to the software.
if Microsoft goes against people for illegality that mean Microsoft does spy control also people may goes again Microsoft for Intellectually Property Spy
Reason 1 - Why Intellectually Property doesn't work in Kosova
Reason 2 - If people start acquire money with Microsoft or Proprietary Software "after earning money they goes for license version"
So step by step from Illegally us of software "after earning" goes to legally licensed software.
So by my opinion is :
we need to break this
through bringing free training to the people for example
for faculty and university to find teacher for
using QCAD,
Blender,
Maxima,
Scilab
also to create ECDL training center for free with open source software .
and to find trainer for PHP - C++ - PostGreSQL and GUI for Application programing especially for Database Data Entry and Reporting system
or better to create "NEATBEANS" Development Center for JAVA which is the best solution for Graphical GUI and Database development for multiplaftorm programming.
training for mapping and mapping center using GIS
http://www.mapwindow.org/,
http://grass.itc.it/ etc
so no other way to change existing situation.
jamesmi...@googlemail.com
> Thanks a lot for you quick response point by point
> - but real situation is this one
>
> - if Microsoft Does Licensing for Corporate that mean the same licence with
> the software i can use it in Home for free
> "corporate licence - VLK or Volume Key"
>
> for Example Microsoft Pro Pack - Include one OS and Microsoft Office "that
> held corporate licence"
>
> that mean this i may use the same pack in corporate and in home the same
> copy to finishing my work at office/home "or other reason in most of cases"
>
What about the other apps that not licensed?
>
> Another reason is
> - CD cost 0.5 cent with illegally software - "0.25 cent blanko cd since
> people doesn't by more than 1 or 2 blanko CD
For linux the costs are the same, but you are legal.
>
> - 1 DVD with the new Movie cost 1 Euro
>
> - Most illegally software are patched in one or another way
> and people deciding to trust or no trust to the software.
Yes, that is a big problem of trust and security.
>
> if Microsoft goes against people for illegality that mean Microsoft does spy
> control also people may goes again Microsoft for Intellectually Property Spy
>
> Reason 1 - Why Intellectually Property doesn't work in Kosova
Intellectually Property
you mean patents, trademarks and copyright?
Well kosovo will be part of the EU and it will start working.
>
> Reason 2 - If people start acquire money with Microsoft or Proprietary
> Software "after earning money they goes for license version"
Of course, and then after they do this, they will switch to linux like
in Germany and USA.
Because once they pay for the software, and pay again and again and again,
they will look for a way to reduce these costs.
>
> So step by step from Illegally us of software "after earning" goes to
> legally licensed software.
That is not a problem. If people want to buy software they should. I
would buy software if I needed to.
>
> So by my opinion is :
> we need to break this
> through bringing free training to the people for example
> for faculty and university to find teacher for
>
> using QCAD,
> Blender,
>
> Maxima,
> Scilab
>
yes that is what we are doing.
First is to show people that they can use the software.
With ubunut they can say apt-get install qcad
if you have problems you can get free support on ubuntu forums
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=172060
if you want to pay money, you can buy support or a professional version
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QCad
the company is here.
http://www.qcad.org
Many companies make community editions and professional editions.
Many companies make money with support and training.
Kosovars can make money here with support and training and creating
local albanian versions.
> also to create ECDL training center for free with open source software .
yes, that is very important. I have been working on training some people.
The most important thing to learn is how to connect with the open
source community on forums, irc and in conferences. Then you can learn
online.
>
> and to find trainer for PHP - C++ - PostGreSQL and GUI for Application
> programing especially for Database Data Entry and Reporting system
Yes, if you come to the conference you will get a good starting point
for this training.
You can create your own flossk group to organise interest.
you can also create your own course and find teachers
there are many trainers who are willing to come here if you pay them
You can also watch videos on youtube.
you can also read wikibooks.
you can also find people who will skype with you.
>
> or better to create "NEATBEANS" Development Center for JAVA which is the
> best solution for Graphical GUI and Database development for multiplaftorm
> programming.
>
> training for mapping and mapping center using GIS
>
> http://www.mapwindow.org/,
> http://grass.itc.it/ etc
We are working on openstreetmap.org
>
> so no other way to change existing situation.
i think that people will find very good solutions and in the end you will see
that there will be a mix of FLOSS and proprietary software.
The problem is that there has been only a one sided view of software
and no real discussion of FLOSS here in the region.
This is what are are starting. There has been enough talk about why
other software is great, now we are going to have a chance to present
to you something good.
You are going to have visitors from around the world. from around the region.
They will show you the good things that they have learned
I was once a windows only user, lived in the windows only world.
I know about these problems very well.
I have consulted for very many large companies, also who use windows,
and have showed them how to save money, increase flexibility using
FLOSS.
The question that you have to ask is: Do I want to have freedom?
do you want to have your own country listed in your software? If you
have the source, you can add it.
do you want to have your own language in the newest version of your
software? If you have the source, you can add it.
do you want to have your own style in to your software? If you have
the source, you can add it.
So, you need to think about what you can do if you own the software
that you use, and what
the value of freedom is.
mike
Valon Hoti
for example Kosova is state recognized from 62 other states "and in this case from most influenced states" but there
no way to have its domain name because is not part of UN.
no way to have its telecommunication prefix because is not part of UN.
no way to have its ISO standard because is not part of UN.
there's a lot of questions when ,what ,where ?
jamesmi...@googlemail.com
> But no at all
>
> for example Kosova is state recognized from 62 other states "and in this
> case from most influenced states" but there
>
> no way to have its domain name because is not part of UN.
> no way to have its telecommunication prefix because is not part of UN.
> no way to have its ISO standard because is not part of UN.
>
> there's a lot of questions when ,what ,where ?
We have started on the iso naming changes.
you can at least have kosovo on all your program and all the apps you use.
why do you continue to use software that lists you as serbia?
why do you use english versions with viruses?
why dont you do something for yourselves?
join our project to create a kosovo version of linux :
https://launchpad.net/rksubuntu
take control of your lives,
when the iso code come,you can be ready to go.
have people use only software that recognises kosovo.
Spend your money on hardward and not licenses.
mike
Tim Post
of course this is my suggestion and and I welcome any feedback on it.
I am very against people presenting proprietary software at the conference.
Proprietary software is software that is available in binary form only and is not open to change by anyone else.
Proprietary software is anything that takes away the user's freedom to run, share, change and distribute modified versions of any program.
Yet, those who wish to present via teleconference will likely need to use Skype.
This is a dangerous double standard. In the real world, proprietary software is used until a viable free alternative emerges, or and until computer users are informed of how proprietary software inhibits their freedom.
While I agree that proprietary software should not be presented, I am also questioning the pretense of the conference. It is a conference to educate people on the virtues of using, marketing and authoring free software, is it not? If this conference is at all useful, its because people are currently using, teaching, learning and writing proprietary software.
I can only humbly suggest that we tone down the idealistic rhetoric, no matter how potentially viral and convenient it may seem and focus on the day to day issues actually _facing_ the people who will be attending the conference.
Antagonizing anything is almost always a bad idea. We're opening minds, not directing them, yes?
That said, proprietary presenters have little place at a free software conference, but keep in mind that we're using proprietary software, kernel drivers with blobs and other things to actually facilitate this conference.
Mike, I do not mean to be antagonistic. Lets present the ideal world at the conference and not make a production of shunning others. Every argument is one more closed mind waiting to happen.
That includes some proprietary software that is derived from open source software whose licenses allow for proprietary extensions.
You can not forsake possible economic gain at a free software conference. Any BSD licensed code (without the advertising clause) is free software and fully compatible with the GPL. On the one hand you have ideals, on the other hand you have license wars. On the foot, that has to land firmly on the ground, you have the need to eat and desire to do what you love for a living, while helping your neighbor.
So we should say GPL the world .. don't ever let your code become proprietary? Either license is a free software license. Is this a GNU conference or a free software conference?
We should not allow for such presentations to be made, or people to use our conference for promoting their own proprietary version of some previously open source tool.
No, but presenters who pulled from repos under more permissive licenses who ended up hiring the author do have a place here. For god sakes, its _computer_software_ and your looking at one of the highest unemployment rates globally.
At a buffet, people eat what they like. If they don't like the buffet, they eat somewhere else.
That also include software that has proprietary translations of open source software. for this is just another proprietary product that cannot be changed or modified or improved on by anyone else.
Agreed.
Almost all of the commercial proprietary tools that exist contain BSD code , public domain code, apache code etc.
that does not make them free libre open source software.
So this is a GPL conference? The FSF classifies the BSD, MIT and other licenses as free software licenses. I think we'll argue over this for a few days, my apologies in advance.
Also any software that has patent restrictions on them, or are covered by patents which restrict their usage should not be covered.
Agreed.
In addition we should consider papers where we are allowed to use their content under the GFDL or Creative commons.
Not the GFDL for me. My paper is my work.
"Verbatim copies of this document are permitted, in any medium provided this copyright notice is preserved"
That's the best I can do. If you copy it, its verbatim. No modifications allowed. You can't modify my literary work if I am the author , unless you claim yourself as the author, which is not the case.
Hack , improve, modify and distribute my code to your heart's content. My writing is my own, unless its software documentation.
We should also request that we can record the speech and publish it after review and editing.
Agreed.
Only if we maintain these strict guidelines will we have created a conference that is of great value,
the content is about free software, the content is free and we have a digital recording of it.
I disagree with many points, respectfully.
Cheers,
--Tim
jamesmi...@googlemail.com
Hash: SHA1
Tim
Thank you for taking your time to write.
This is the type of dialog that we need, In my opinon, and I want to
make clear here that I just presenting my suggestions and views in all
my mails, not dictating policy. Yes it is just my opinion, and I am
willing to change and learn. I am willing to risk making mistakes and
looking stupid if that is the price of learning.
I am not against proprietary software, and have working on many
projects creating some program for some company to do some task.
What I would like to achieve is a very difficult thing here : I am
trying to start a conversation and get a discussion started. I would
like to promote an open debate and get people to think about these
issues.
My problem has been to get any type of open discussion started and
sustained. It is not easy at all.
I have posted many of my ideas and positions to the this group, and I
hope that you find tem interesting and informative.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 7:57 PM, Tim Post<tink...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 3:06 PM, James Michael DuPont
> <james.mich...@flossk.org> wrote:
>>
>> I would like to make one thing very clear, and
>> of course this is my suggestion and and I welcome any feedback on it.
>>
>> I am very against people presenting proprietary software at the
>> conference.
>>
>>
>> Proprietary software is software that is available in binary form only and
>>is not open to change by anyone else.
>
> Proprietary software is anything that takes away the user's freedom to run,
> share, change and distribute modified versions of any program.
>
> Yet, those who wish to present via teleconference will likely need to use
> Skype.
Yes. Skype is a great tool and provides a great service. I use it and
recommend it to anyone who would like to save money on phone bills.
Obviously it is not the topic of the conference, to talk about skype.
We may use a mobile phone, or a hardware or software that is not open,
but those are not topics of the conference as I see them.
It might be interesting what type of open source tools that we can use
with skype, a pidgen plugin would be a possible topic. But presenting
a paper of cost savings using skype would not really be a greate topic
for an open source conference.
>
> This is a dangerous double standard.
Lets be careful about this. My goal was to create an open source
conference like FOSDEM or YAPC . Some place where people can go an
learn where people help each other and you can also use those things
when you go home or back to work without worrying about license
restrictions.
> In the real world, proprietary software
> is used until a viable free alternative emerges, or and until computer users
> are informed of how proprietary software inhibits their freedom.
We are all using proprietary software and things somewhere. In the
beginning all things are proprietary. The freedom to share our
creative works and the great effect that FLOSS has should be what we
create here.
There are enough fairs and events that promote proprietary software,
there are many companies and people who can talk about them. There are
IT fairs and vendor specific events. But we have a mandate to promote
FLOSS and that is what we are trying to do.
>
> While I agree that proprietary software should not be presented, I am also
> questioning the pretense of the conference.
Now we are entering a very difficult topic here. I am speaking as
myself and not for everyone else here.
> It is a conference to educate
> people on the virtues of using, marketing and authoring free software, is it
> not?
In my opinion, It is to present and promote FLOSS. How people use,
benefit from and extend it.
> If this conference is at all useful, its because people are currently
> using, teaching, learning and writing proprietary software.
Yes it it. The conference is bringing together a large number of
people who all can support a common goal, and with a clear set of
rules. That is what FLOSS is about, a clear set of rules wheere people
who would normally not be able to work together can contribute to a
common good.
there are a great number of open source conferences and they provide a
very useful purpose.
We are presenting alternatives , showing people what it possible.
The fact that I use FLOSS to produce proprietary software is how I pay
the bills.
If I worked serving pizza or cleaning offices, that is not the subject
of the conference.
It is aboue how the people who clean offices can go home and sit on
thier computer and learn how some program is made, or edit the
openstreetmap or the wikipedia. How they can help translate software.
How normal people can help FLOSS and each other.
>
> I can only humbly suggest that we tone down the idealistic rhetoric, no
Yes, If I sound idealistic, please slap me. I am very conservative and
realistic here.
> matter how potentially viral and convenient it may seem and focus on the day
> to day issues actually _facing_ the people who will be attending the
> conference.
Yes, I have spent a the last months facing these people and trying to
understand and help them. I understand the problems that they have
here and I still believe that they will benefit from learning about
and using FLOSS.
>
> Antagonizing anything is almost always a bad idea.
Yes. I dont want to attack people.
I must find a way to protect the conference from all types of
problems, we are getting all types of people submitted things that
should not be presented.
How do you suggest that I deal with that?
I feel that someone must, and this sense of responsibility is what
made me even start this conference against enormous opposition.
> We're opening minds, not
> directing them, yes?
People need the information to make the intelligent decisions on their own.
I am trying to show them the benefits, but also warn of the dangers in
the world of open source.
I think that people should be very wary of these patents that are
joined with FLOSS .
it really is something that has potential to ruin the peaceful
community and common understanding that people have on FLOSS projects.
I am giving some form of direction, or indication of direction, and I
think we need to do that.
I dont want to force anyone to do anything, so we have to be careful
with the word "direct them".
>
> That said, proprietary presenters have little place at a free software
> conference, but keep in mind that we're using proprietary software, kernel
> drivers with blobs and other things to actually facilitate this conference.
Facilitate yes,
Present no.
Support no.
Promote no.
>
> Mike, I do not mean to be antagonistic. Lets present the ideal world at the
> conference and not make a production of shunning others. Every argument is
> one more closed mind waiting to happen.
yes, I don't want shun people.
But, there have been mistakes made in the past that prevented the
building of a community here in kosovo. We have to be careful that we
do not get FLOSS confused with other things.
If people think that FLOSS is making
I have invested a year of my life and made many sacrifices to be able
to start this conference. I could have just taken a cozy job and said,
forget kosovo.
But in my opinion, the people here need help and we have a
responsibility to show them the right way forward. That means giving
direction.
>
>>
>> That includes some proprietary software that is derived from open source
>> software whose licenses allow for proprietary extensions.
Now, here is the point.
We should not be presenting proprietary software. It does not matter
what the sources are and if it is open.
We are working for help and all working on promoting FLOSS, and don't
want that work being
misused.
Labeling proprietary software as FLOSS is a big problem. It send the
wrong message, it is the wrong way. There are other venues for
proprietary software.
If people want to present the FLOSS program that they used and tell
how great it is, how you can create proprietary versions of it, that
is fine.
But if they want to present their proprietary software and say how
great it is, I am against it.
The fact is that with that model, we could present all the software in
the world that used on snippet of public domain code . What type of
gain would a use have from that?
Where would be the Software Freedom Conference?
>
> You can not forsake possible economic gain at a free software conference.
agree.
> Any BSD licensed code (without the advertising clause) is free software and
> fully compatible with the GPL.
Agree. I dont even have a problem with the advertising clause.
> On the one hand you have ideals, on the other
> hand you have license wars.
You can read our statues here where we accept all open source licenses.
I put great thought into it and I hope it answers some of your questions.
> On the foot, that has to land firmly on the
> ground, you have the need to eat and desire to do what you love for a
> living, while helping your neighbor.
of course. I need to eat as well.
>
> So we should say GPL the world .. don't ever let your code become
> proprietary? Either license is a free software license. Is this a GNU
> conference or a free software conference?
When you create anything it is your creative work, your property.
If you choose to share that with others, you have the GPL and other
licenses available to protect that property.
I am just stating that we all approved the statutes and we said that
GPL software is more preferred over others. This is what we had many
meetings and discussions about.
>
>>
>> We should not allow for such presentations to be made, or people to use
>> our conference for promoting their own proprietary version of some
>> previously open source tool.
>
> No, but presenters who pulled from repos under more permissive licenses who
> ended up hiring the author do have a place here.
I don't understand exactly : The author of some FLOSS software gets a
job to work on that for some company? That is very good.
If he wants to talk about that software great. If they want to talk
about the proprietary version i would be against it. They can mention
that, but it is off topic.
>For god sakes, its
> _computer_software_ and your looking at one of the highest unemployment
> rates globally.
Yes, and you will see that the use of FLOSS is increasing.
>
> At a buffet, people eat what they like. If they don't like the buffet, they
> eat somewhere else.
Yes. That is why we need to make sure that the food is clearly labeled.
You dont want to eat a candy bar if you have a nut allergy , if it
contains traces of nuts.
>
>>
>> That also include software that has proprietary translations of open
>> source software. for this is just another proprietary product that cannot be
>> changed or modified or improved on by anyone else.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>
>> Almost all of the commercial proprietary tools that exist contain BSD code
>> , public domain code, apache code etc.
>> that does not make them free libre open source software.
>
> So this is a GPL conference? The FSF classifies the BSD, MIT and other
> licenses as free software licenses. I think we'll argue over this for a few
> days, my apologies in advance.
No, not a GPL conference. I see it as being a conference to support
the goals of FLOSSK,
as stated in the statutes that we voted on..
>
>>
>>
>> Also any software that has patent restrictions on them, or are covered by
>> patents which restrict their usage should not be covered.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>
>>
>> In addition we should consider papers where we are allowed to use their
>> content under the GFDL or Creative commons.
>
> Not the GFDL for me. My paper is my work.
>
> "Verbatim copies of this document are permitted, in any medium provided this
> copyright notice is preserved"
>
> That's the best I can do. If you copy it, its verbatim. No modifications
> allowed. You can't modify my literary work if I am the author , unless you
> claim yourself as the author, which is not the case.
Sounds perfect. That is creative commons attribution.
>
> Hack , improve, modify and distribute my code to your heart's content. My
> writing is my own, unless its software documentation.
I support you on that.
>
>>
>>
>> We should also request that we can record the speech and publish it after
>> review and editing.
>
> Agreed.
>
>>
>>
>> Only if we maintain these strict guidelines will we have created a
>> conference that is of great value,
>> the content is about free software, the content is free and we have a
>> digital recording of it.
>
> I disagree with many points, respectfully.
Thank you very much for your time.
I was hoping that we could have this conversation, it looks like we
are finally getting to the meat of the problem.
Will all respect,
James Michael DuPont
Private person, not speaking for FLOSSK, or anyone else.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFKYBzxx5lWXnepGsYRAt9mAKCgFZl3oKz7RlVUVPqO+0681g6dgACbBlN1
qghlz1j+7nQk74vW9FQIe+c=
=mP/c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Milot Shala
I've seen the discussion went pretty well :)
We had a debate earlier about some GPL and LGPL license software which you can freely hack, modify, redistribute, but some of them unfortunately disagreed presenting such software even if it is released under GPL/LGPL licenses. I still don't understand why against a software which is under the FSF umbrella?
Regards,
Milot Shala
Tel: +386 (0) 49 156 919
Email: milot...@gmail.com
Website: http://www.codespartan.org/
Tim Post
Hi there,
I've seen the discussion went pretty well :)
We had a debate earlier about some GPL and LGPL license software which you can freely hack, modify, redistribute, but some of them unfortunately disagreed presenting such software even if it is released under GPL/LGPL licenses. I still don't understand why against a software which is under the FSF umbrella?
That school of thinking centers around the FSF being the stewards of the *GPL. Its actually a silly argument, "What if RMS completely lost his mind and published a new version that goes against everything I like in the GPL??"
Linus made that case with the GPL3, quite openly. However, Linus needs to realize that he's one of many using the license. Ironically, Linus is fond of saying "You are just one of millions using Linux".
What remains is, every draft of the *GPL is open to peer review and comment, months (if not longer) before it is published. RMS answers his e-mail rather faithfully and is most decidedly planted in reason (however idealistic).
At some point, the argument trickled over with some vehemence discussing technical merits of the *GPL and its alternatives. However, said vehemence is often masked, it boils down to people not liking RMS, for whatever reason.
To you, the developer, looking to pick a license .. its worth your while to investigate the vehemence behind the arguments. Don't look for a paper on this, any published would be at (best) subjective. Get the facts you can, and make an informed decision that agrees with your ideals and goals. There are many people, including me who are happy to discuss the pros and cons of any OSI approved license with you privately .. or on a list.
I rather like RMS, he is a very smart person with a good nature. However, sometimes I don't like the GPL, especially GPL3. RMS is in a place where monetary gain has little significance, advocates not having children and has devoted his life to advocacy. That may or may not be your case, which obviously effects your fondness of any given software license.
Intel hackers make a lot of money, for instance.
Cheers,
--Tim
Milot Shala
As far as I can see that here isn't any proprietary patent wars, but FSF hackers raised a war between them internally. I have read the Linus argument against GPLv3 and I've read other fights from Linus, for example against GNOME team.
I am a developer mainly using open source tools and libraries which the tools are licensed under GPL license and runtime libraries are licensed under LGPL license, I keep using LGPL license also for my commercial/proprietary products.
I keep in mind to split my proprietary code and the LGPL licensed code of a library and I give it to a customer if the customer wants it, but I protect my own code, otherwise if I would mix my own code with the library code or link the libraries statically not dynamically my software would be in GPL umbrella and it cannot be proprietary.
I think all that matters is the license right now, as far as a software is under the terms of open source software license it should be presented also in the conference and FLOSSK should support it, even if it is BSD, Apache or other license (which is under the Free Libre Open Source Software umbrella). But also to mention that this is FREE _AND_ OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE CONFERENCE and by specifying free AND open source, free software which is not open source can be presented, for example Google apps, they are not open source, but they are free.
Thanks :)
Tim Post
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Tim
Thank you for taking your time to write.
Mike, when someone becomes involved its because the topic is interesting, hence pleasurable to participate. I realize your role and its implied formalities, kindly forget them when I am concerned.
Yes. Skype is a great tool and provides a great service. I use it and
> Yet, those who wish to present via teleconference will likely need to use
> Skype.
recommend it to anyone who would like to save money on phone bills.
Obviously it is not the topic of the conference, to talk about skype.
We may use a mobile phone, or a hardware or software that is not open,
but those are not topics of the conference as I see them.
It might be interesting what type of open source tools that we can use
with skype, a pidgen plugin would be a possible topic. But presenting
a paper of cost savings using skype would not really be a greate topic
for an open source conference.
If the topic of the conference is free and open source software, it should be noted that a free replacement for Skype is needed. Such a replacement is currently on the GNU high priority list.
On the other hand, if the conference is facilitated by Skype, you are in no position to suggest that proprietary software be cut out of the loop entirely. I hate to say that, really, I do. Its the pot calling the kettle black.
I suggest that you continue with Skype (on such short time, what could replace it?) while stressing strongly, on all appropriate domains that we use Skype because no suitable free alternate exists. Perhaps this will draw attention to the GNU high priority list.
We are all using proprietary software and things somewhere. In the
beginning all things are proprietary. The freedom to share our
creative works and the great effect that FLOSS has should be what we
create here.
Actually, in the beginning, hackers were free to share their code. The free software movement started with the advent of proprietary LISP machines.
Today, we see the effects of this. No, Windows is not LISP. Its the Microsoft mentality that I'm citing.
Now we are entering a very difficult topic here. I am speaking as
myself and not for everyone else here.
Perhaps you might consider two accounts for posting .. one official .. one for Mike's thoughts.
In my opinion, It is to present and promote FLOSS. How people use,
benefit from and extend it.
I completely agree.
Yes it it. The conference is bringing together a large number of
people who all can support a common goal, and with a clear set of
rules. That is what FLOSS is about, a clear set of rules wheere people
who would normally not be able to work together can contribute to a
common good.
You lost me at ``rules''. Perhaps you meant method, community, ideals and goals? That's what we're looking at, especially goals when discussing a place on Earth with one of the highest unemployment rates ever recorded.
I would be inclined to say "All things are temporary, this will help you as the world coagulates .. " while discussing free software. Perhaps I'm missing something?
The fact that I use FLOSS to produce proprietary software is how I pay
the bills.
I modify free software for many companies, most of those modifications will never see the light of day. However, on the other hand, I doubt the projects involved would even _want_ those modifications, since they are serving such a corner case.
FFS, its software. RMS takes an ethical approach .. which is noble. I see things in social terms, preventing people from improving science is a very stupid idea. Occasionally, you must visit the land of stupidity to pay your bills.
Life delights in happening as you make other plans.
Yes, If I sound idealistic, please slap me. I am very conservative and
realistic here.
<slap> Snap out of it, Man! (In the voice of Deforest Kelly) </slap>
Go ahead .. say it .. "you green blooded inhuman ... " :) I'm just a realist.
Yes, I have spent a the last months facing these people and trying to
understand and help them. I understand the problems that they have
here and I still believe that they will benefit from learning about
and using FLOSS.
Of course FLOSS is beneficial here. You have answered my questions which basically asked "Are we helping or programming people?" , agreed, its help.
>> Antagonizing anything is almost always a bad idea.Yes. I dont want to attack people.
I must find a way to protect the conference from all types of
problems, we are getting all types of people submitted things that
should not be presented.
How do you suggest that I deal with that?
By simply not replying. Otherwise, you drag the poop where you sleep. How tolerant can you be? Its obvious that such gnats are impervious to your objections in the first place, why even bother getting upset?
This is why I said "idealistic" which often leads to hostility toward some opposition. Hostility is an EULA .. not someone who was told by their boss to e-mail you under threat of losing their job for insubordination.
Its like walking on the street, someone will likely bump into you when they should have known to look in the direction that they were walking. Why get upset? It shows that the conference is gaining merit and commands attention. Basically, it shows your efforts paying off :)
I feel that someone must, and this sense of responsibility is what
made me even start this conference against enormous opposition.
I'm not questioning that at all.
Cheers,
--Tim
jamesmi...@googlemail.com
> On the other hand, if the conference is facilitated by Skype, you are in no
> position to suggest that proprietary software be cut out of the loop
> entirely.
I dont agree. Why not use what works. I use a phone if i need to make a call.
I use a bus when I go somewhere. If I have a choice, I use FLOSS.
mike
Tim Post
On the one hand you say "Lets cut proprietary presentations, even those presenting who make proprietary products based on FLOSS"
On the other hand you say "Lets use what works"
Do you want to have your cake or eat it?
Respectfully,
--Tim
Valon Hoti
"also phone is proprietary" no all have money to by phone too!
Common !
Really we want to share opionon !
Tim Post
Hi,
As far as I can see that here isn't any proprietary patent wars, but FSF hackers raised a war between them internally. I have read the Linus argument against GPLv3 and I've read other fights from Linus, for example against GNOME team.
Patents are strange. Here is a hypothetical:
My Name is Joe Crap.
I have been awarded the patent of "Method of removing crap from asses"
You own a company named "FooHat Linux", you package software that powers a robotic arm to remove said crap, you make money with it through support services .. and you are a target because you have money to give in a lawsuit.
I sue you, leverage my patent on the cleaning of crap from asses and make you pay royalties to me, or you are forced to stop distributing software that infringes my patent.
I will not go after amateur hackers doing the same, they have nothing to lose .. and I'd be a bad guy in the media, which causes my share holders to grumble.
Software patents are most decidedly a clear threat to free software, ask Novell :) Its not so much as who writes it, its who _packages_ it and _distributes_ it.
Cheers,
--Tim
jamesmi...@googlemail.com
I am saying, we are going to do what we have to do.
If we have to make a phone call, we make a phone call.
If we can use a voip server, fedora provides free sip accounts to
developers, we can do that as well.
I don't want to present proprietary software as FLOSS. And the topics
should be about FLOSS not other things. We are not talking about buses
and phones here.
I would like to avoid presenting things that we cannot change or have
no rights to.
what would the point be?
Oh that is a nice program, can i change it? No.
can i get the source? No
will you answer my mails? no.
so why should we support that?
mike
Heroid Shehu
Hi,
As far as I can see that here isn't any proprietary patent wars,
but FSF hackers raised a war between them internally. I have read the
Linus argument against GPLv3 and I've read other fights from Linus,
for example against GNOME team.
he uses GNOME Himself.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Tim Post
We have a very good debate going, I hope that it continues. Its FLOSS, not personal, so please resist the idea of getting a voodoo doll :)
Cheers,
--Tim
jamesmi...@googlemail.com
> Mike, I'll reply to this later. Its 3:15 AM here, I need sleep. I strongly
> support what you are doing and will continue to support your efforts. After
> all, its not like the world is rushing in to make this conference happen.
>
> We have a very good debate going, I hope that it continues. Its FLOSS, not
> personal, so please resist the idea of getting a voodoo doll :)
hahah.
good night.
I am not getting upset about this. Really, I am glad to get a
discussion going and to see that people are expressing themselves and
showing what is in their minds.
I am really a tolerant person, and would like to promote all types of
licensesing models,
but I want to make sure that I have the source code and the freedom to
change it when I pay for a software, or a speaker, or an entry to a
conference.
It is the basic thing, that really is frustrating when you spend days
to find out that you don't have any source code and you wont get any.
That type of thing really pisses people off, and I am sure that many
people will react that way.
thanks,
mike
Valon Hoti
http://www.fsckin.com/2008/04/01/what-happens-when-you-call-microsoft-support-to-remove-linux/
I check this two links
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314458 and http://support.microsoft.com/kb/247804
which make me laught tonight from Microsoft - they really don't want to stop again Linux ;)
Milot Shala
As in the beginning (to not repeat history here) that was Caldera Open Linux once and then provided patented software inside their distribution and of course it was a direct threat to the open source world.
My point was to accept everything that is under the FLOSS umbrella as long as they are under the terms of free and open source software licenses.
Heroid Shehu
the free software world, I was talking about wars inside free and open
software people as the history of Linus and GPLv3.
this "war" that you say, and when does it end tell us more about this
war and tell us who got hurt?
Thanks.
Milot Shala
You are right, but for me it was too much, because people in GNOME team are writing code for free and he writes against it.
Read this sentences from Linus towards on GNOME:
I personally just encourage people to switch to KDE. This 'users are idiots, and are confused by functionality' mentality of Gnome is a disease. If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will use it. I don't use Gnome, because in striving to be simple, it has long since reached the point where it simply doesn't do what I need it to do. Please, just tell people to use KDE." Also, "Gnome seems to be developed by interface nazis, where consistently the excuse for not doing something is not 'it's too complicated to do', but 'it would confuse users'."
Milot Shala
Heroid Shehu
You are right, but for me it was too much, because people in GNOME
team are writing code for free and he writes against it.
Read this sentences from Linus towards on GNOME:
I personally just encourage people to switch to KDE. This 'users are
idiots, and are confused by functionality' mentality of Gnome is a
disease. If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will use it.
I don't use Gnome, because in striving to be simple, it has long since
reached the point where it simply doesn't do what I need it to do.
Please, just tell people to use KDE." Also, "Gnome seems to be
developed by interface nazis, where consistently the excuse for not
doing something is not 'it's too complicated to do', but 'it would
confuse users'."
I know about this but now he uses GNOME that's what he used to say so
now it's peace.
>
> You are right, but for me it was too much, because people in GNOME team are
> writing code for free and he writes against it.
>
> Read this sentences from Linus towards on GNOME:
>
> If you think your users are idiots, only idiots will use it. I don't use
> Gnome, because in striving to be simple, it has long since reached the point
> where it simply doesn't do what I need it to do. Please, just tell people to
Thanks.
jamesmi...@googlemail.com
> My point was to accept everything that is under the FLOSS umbrella as long
> as they are under the terms of free and open source software licenses.
that is very dangerous. You need to look at all aspects.
we need to show people the right way forward, and that is with an open
mind, but to see things critically.
mike
![Arianit Dobroshi [FLOSSK]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjUQeOWb6H1sbAxcwLrgPus6SHJcJ3v6UMmfFFhA7ydhtuS0PzrK=s40-c)
Arianit Dobroshi [FLOSSK]
MONO, although itself under GNU/GPL, is a reverse-engineered
implementation of .net. Majority of the people agree here that if
Microsoft wanted to go after MONO, it can, and with painful
consequences. So building on this framework is quite dangerous.
However, with the recent Community Promise re-licensing from
Microsoft, this might have changed. Basically you are accepting
Microsoft as the originator, but are able to emulate their code under
GPL. In case this is halal with the GPL gods, then sure talk about
Mono.
Now, on the virtues of GPL vs. BSD licensing. BSD-styled licenses are
mostly ultimate-developer-friendly and restrictive on the user or
developers that want to build on your work; and GNU-styled licenses
are both user and developer friendly, because you build on the work of
others provided you share yours as well. The Linux crowds are both
users and contributors, hence the preference for the second one.
BSD basically takes work from Public Domain or whatever other similar
license, adds to it and then appropriates, stoping the stream of built-
on innovation but allowing for the parallel one. GPL emulates
innovation and knowledge in the scientic/academic world whereas BSD
and Copyright are based on the more recent commerical world.
Some argue that the model of having the last itiration of innovation
under the auspices of a hefty profit (Copyright) is more benefical to
humanity because it spurs more of it, although at some cost to the end-
user. However it's likely the case that one model might work for one
situation and another for another situation. In Kosovo I believe there
is a very strong case for GPL due to our need to catch up.
P.s. Tell Linus to keep his hands off from GNOME.
On Jul 19, 11:23 pm, "jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com"
<jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote:
jamesmi...@googlemail.com
[FLOSSK]<ari...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Let me jump into the fray briefly and clear up some assumptions.
>
> MONO, although itself under GNU/GPL, is a reverse-engineered
> implementation of .net. Majority of the people agree here that if
> Microsoft wanted to go after MONO, it can, and with painful
> consequences. So building on this framework is quite dangerous.
Guys
I dont have a problem with the ECMA 344 C# implementations that are FLOSS.
http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-334.htm
As long as the standard is valid, there should not be any problems.
This covers only standard C# work, nothing outside it.
The problems are these patents and any code that implement them.
On winforms you will find 40+ patents.
http://www.patentstorm.us/search.html?q=winform&s.x=0&s.y=0&s=s
I think we should require from all speakers a statement that the code
they are presenting is usable under a FLOSS license and has no patent
restrictions on it.
thanks,
mike
Valon Hoti
if you are again C# i will understand (if you don't know how to program with this language) but as described belove there's are some answer.
1.) Mono is not reverse-engineering is builded from scratch ..
2. Licensing
Can I write commercial or proprietary applications that run with Mono?
Yes. The licensing scheme is planned to allow proprietary developers to write applications with Mono.
What license or licenses are you using for the Mono Project?
We use four open source licenses:
- The C# compiler is dual-licensed under the MIT/X11 license and the GNU General Public License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.html) (GPL).
- The tools are released under the terms of the GNU General Public License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.html) (GPL).
- The runtime libraries are under the GNU Library GPL 2.0 (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/library.html#TOC1) (LGPL 2.0).
- The class libraries are released under the terms of the MIT X11 (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html) license.
- ASP.NET MVC and ASP.NET AJAX client software are released by Microsoft under the open source Microsoft Permissive License (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html).
3.) for ECMA
ECMA 334 specifies the form and establishes the interpretation of programs written in the C# programming language, while the ECMA 335 standard defines the Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) in which applications written in multiple high-level languages can be executed in different system environments without the need to rewrite those applications to take into consideration the unique characteristics of those environments.
"The Community Promise is an excellent vehicle and, in this situation, ensures the best balance of interoperability and flexibility for developers," Scott Guthrie, the Corporate Vice President for the .Net Developer Platform, told me July 6.
It is important to note that, under the Community Promise, anyone can freely implement these specifications with their technology, code, and solutions.
You do not need to sign a license agreement, or otherwise communicate to Microsoft how you will implement the specifications.
The Promise applies to developers, distributors, and users of Covered Implementations without regard to the development model that created the implementations, the type of copyright licenses under which it is distributed, or the associated business model.
Under the Community Promise, Microsoft provides assurance that it will not assert its Necessary Claims against anyone who makes, uses, sells, offers for sale, imports, or distributes any Covered Implementation under any type of development or distribution model, including open-source licensing models such as the LGPL or GPL.
You can find the terms of the Microsoft Community Promise here.
jamesmi...@googlemail.com
wikipedia says something different.
I think we need to make sure our speakers sign a form in blood that
there are no patents covering thier work and I will be happy.
thanks,
mike
jamesmi...@googlemail.com
Also, I will be against anything with asp.net or winforms, I can tell
you right now. C# is ok from my view.
thanks,
mike
Valon Hoti
- open source (don't mix with licence)
- what GPL (meaning of this licence)
- what LGPL (meaning of this licence)
- what MIT (meaning of this licence)
- what BSD (meaning of this licence)
- what Apache (meaing of this licence)
so please if anyone say - Open Source - Mean
and what Open Source Licence Mean
so how i show there's a different "or trouble of thinking"
so MONO create their own library "called system.windows.form"
which one release under GPL2,this library is open source and different than Microsoft ones
also open source exist also WINE "Windows Emulator",to be able to port EXE application "Prioritaries ONES"
so one question for all is :
if anyone say only GPL no other licence that will make clear
"that mean nobody will attend in conference"
so if you say Open Source
"don't throat away other type of licences"
so question is did we are going to held GPL Conference
or Open Source Conference
"since this question is different is not same"
regards,Valoni
jamesmi...@googlemail.com
If implement or use code that is patented, like winforms, then you are
in danger that you will not be able to use that in the future.
I just want to make sure that we dont have people pushing patented
code at the conference.
As long as it is not patented, and there is source available under
some OSI approved license, I am fine with it.
If there is no source, then I will be against it.
If you need to pay money to use the code, I will be against it.
If you need to ask permission to use the code, I will be against it.
This is basically the preconditions for inclusion in the debian system.
Is that clear?
remember, I am talking about my personal opnion here and this does not
mean I am talking for everyone.
thanks,
mike
Valon Hoti
with conditions:
If there is no source, then I will be against it.
If you need to pay money to use the code, I will be against it.
If you need to ask permission to use the code, I will be against it.
so i only may say leave people to show us in the conference their idea with no matter what ,where and when they done things with condition that will be only how you said{marked above in bold}
jamesmi...@googlemail.com
If they have used patented ideas from other people then :
1. You have the source, but you cannot use it.
2. you have to get a license to use that patent from the patent holder.
3. You might be able to change the source code to remove the patented code.
So it introduces a very nasty complexity into the situation.
I think that we should just avoid all patented code and apis, even if
they are nice and all that.
This conference should be non profit, but the only people who benefit
from patents are the patent holders, anyone who is convinced or
tricked into using them will lose ion the end.
The winforms and asp.net net stuff is very nice as a commercial
product, but I really don't think it has a place in our FLOSS
conference.
thanks,
mike
Valon Hoti
Microsoft Public License (Ms-PL)
![[OSI Approved License]](https://ci5.googleusercontent.com/proxy/wPcMfbYFZ4-1y32aqUhrHgzXr4ZuwhXvwKbjxekdKqeAErGNgJfmanGDNlujDhkkccmtkQNRg9IrvBRHwP6BU9evWpEAdACpoHrWREuMMwjqtC6x44udsRhuibSmAh67WGZx=s0-d-e1-ft#http://www.opensource.org/trademarks/opensource/OSI-Approved-License-100x137.png)
This license governs use of the accompanying software. If you use the software, you
accept this license. If you do not accept the license, do not use the software.
1. Definitions
The terms "reproduce," "reproduction," "derivative works," and "distribution" have the
same meaning here as under U.S. copyright law.
A "contribution" is the original software, or any additions or changes to the software.
A "contributor" is any person that distributes its contribution under this license.
"Licensed patents" are a contributor's patent claims that read directly on its contribution.
2. Grant of Rights
(A) Copyright Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including
the license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor
grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free copyright license
to reproduce its contribution, prepare derivative works of its
contribution, and distribute its contribution or any derivative works
that you create.
(B) Patent Grant- Subject to the terms of this license, including the
license conditions and limitations in section 3, each contributor
grants you a non-exclusive, worldwide, royalty-free license under its
licensed patents to make, have made, use, sell, offer for sale, import,
and/or otherwise dispose of its contribution in the software or
derivative works of the contribution in the software.
3. Conditions and Limitations
(A) No Trademark License- This license does not grant you rights to use any contributors' name, logo, or trademarks.
(B) If you bring a patent claim against any contributor over patents
that you claim are infringed by the software, your patent license from
such contributor to the software ends automatically.
(C) If you distribute any portion of the software, you must retain all
copyright, patent, trademark, and attribution notices that are present
in the software.
(D) If you distribute any portion of the software in source code form,
you may do so only under this license by including a complete copy of
this license with your distribution. If you distribute any portion of
the software in compiled or object code form, you may only do so under
a license that complies with this license.
(E) The software is licensed "as-is." You bear the risk of using it.
The contributors give no express warranties, guarantees or conditions.
You may have additional consumer rights under your local laws which
this license cannot change. To the extent permitted under your local
laws, the contributors exclude the implied warranties of
merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement.
Valon Hoti
ASP.NET MVC 1.0
![mvcsource[1]](http://weblogs.asp.net/blogs/scottgu/mvcsource1_7F7BFE6E.png "mvcsource[1]")
Two weeks ago at MIX
we released ASP.NET MVC 1.0. ASP.NET MVC is a free, fully supported,
Microsoft product that enables developers to easily build web
applications using a model-view-controller pattern. ASP.NET MVC
provides a “closer to the metal” web programming option for ASP.NET.
It enables full control over HTML markup and URL structure, and
facilitates unit testing and a test driven development workflow.
Releasing the ASP.NET MVC source code under MS-PL
I’m excited today to announce that we are also releasing the ASP.NET MVC source code under the Microsoft Public License (MS-PL). MS-PL is an OSI-approved open source license. The MS-PL contains no platform restrictions and provides broad rights to modify and redistribute the source code. You can read the text of the MS-PL at: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ms-pl.html
Learning more about ASP.NET MVC
To learn more about ASP.NET MVC, you can read my free ASP.NET MVC PDF tutorial that covers building an end-to-end application (starting literally with File->New Project).
There were a number of great ASP.NET MVC talks at MIX this year. Below are links to several of them:
- File|New –> Company: Creating NerdDinner.com with ASP.NET MVC
- ASP.NET MVC: Overview
- ASP.NET MVC: Ninja Black Belt Tips
- Mobile Web Sites with ASP.NET MVC
There are also several great ASP.NET MVC tutorials at http://www.asp.net/mvc. You can also read the ASP.NET MVC MSDN Documentation.
Download ASP.NET MVC
Click here to download and install ASP.NET MVC 1.0. You can also install it using the new Microsoft Web Platform Installer V2 – which provides an integrated setup experience for the entire Microsoft web stack.
The ASP.NET MVC 1.0 source code is now available.
Scroll down to the bottom of the ASP.NET MVC download page
and you’ll find links to both the ASP.NET MVC 1.0 integrated MSI setup,
as well as a .zip file that contains the ASP.NET MVC source code.
The ASP.NET MVC source code includes a VS 2008 project file that enables you to build it.
jamesmi...@googlemail.com
please dont just post entire documents here.
you can post links,
you can also just update the wikipedia if you want there is a big
discussion on this topic.
thanks,
mike
Dan Brickley
I have been reading the recent threads on this list. I'm an outsider and
can't travel to the conference this year, but I hope it is OK to share
my perspective here.
A lot of the focus in the messages I read, is about "who gets to be on
the stage". But also I read an analogy with the FOSDEM conference
series. In http://www.fosdem.org/2010/ I read "Its goal is to provide
Free and Open Source developers a place to meet.". This seems a good
model to follow...
When I read
http://www.kosovasoftwarefreedom.org/index.php/sfk09/call-for-papers.html the
ambition seems more around promotion and evangelism, ie. as a solution
looking to be matched to problems.
Could the "place for developers to meet" role of a conference be met by
including some agenda time for "spontaneous" agendas?
I mean, to have some part of the event run on "un-conference" or BarCamp
model, eg. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BarCamp and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unconference ).
From what I read of the Kosovan situation, Free/Libre/Open software is
not yet very well established. So ... when I see big mail threads whose
theme is essentially "who do we exclude from the event", I am a
concerned that the event will keep out everyone except existing "true
believers".
However I do understand that you want to keep a strong focus.
Is it better to have a big meeting of people who share few
assumptions/beliefs, or a smaller meeting of people who share more
assumptions/beliefs? I can't answer that...
The best suggestion I can think of is to also allow some "barcamp-style"
open agenda time as suggested above, and also to encourage discussions
that go beyond the old "free vs opensource, GPL vs BSD" debates by
talking also about the user of open *standards* (data formats, APIs,
protocols) to bridge proprietary and non-proprietary systems.
Excuse the intrusion,
cheers,
Dan
jamesmi...@googlemail.com
It is an honor to have you posting here.
I remember learning alot about the semantic web from talking to you in
the past, and your work on the FOAF has been a real inspiration.
Personally, I started on this project because I perceived a lack of
interest and support in FLOSS and openness here in kosovo.
I don't want to scare people away, and it would be great to get people
who are normally not interested in these topics to come.
There are very many trade fairs and events to promote all types of
products for sale.
We have been putting alot of work to make this happen, and I just want
to avoid this work and the funding we have been promised being used to
go against the goal of the conference.
Most people here do not know they can edit the wikipedia, they dont
know that the software they are using is illegal and they think linux
is a virus. I would like to help inform them.
Really, I wish to include everyone and make this a nice relaxed event.
A symposium or free form talk, a panel would be nice, lightning talks
have also been suggested.
I am sorry if I come off sounding like to strict, but I have seen some
bad things happening, and let me tell you what they are :
1. There has been various programs being marketed as open source , but
with no source to be found. This is really bad for the people who have
never heard about open source before to have that presented to them as
such.
2. There are programs that contain patents that could be endangered at
any time in the future. Again another threat.
If we can at least explain to the people why these are an issue, I
would be happy. But for people to be sold patents and closed source
open source as FLOSS, I don't not want support that.
I think it is fair to bring these things up.
Yes, the call for papers was written long ago at least some of the
sentences. Maybe they could be be rewritten.
I dont want to come across as being radical, and I am not.
I never went to an unconference or barcamp meeting, surely it would be
interesting.
thank you for your message,
I hope to hear more from you.
mike
Dan Brickley
> Thanks for your message Dan,
> It is an honor to have you posting here.
> I remember learning alot about the semantic web from talking to you in
> the past, and your work on the FOAF has been a real inspiration.
Thanks, I'm touched!
> Personally, I started on this project because I perceived a lack of
> interest and support in FLOSS and openness here in kosovo.
> I don't want to scare people away, and it would be great to get people
> who are normally not interested in these topics to come.
Sounds very worthwhile!
> There are very many trade fairs and events to promote all types of
> products for sale.
>
> We have been putting alot of work to make this happen, and I just want
> to avoid this work and the funding we have been promised being used to
> go against the goal of the conference.
>
> Most people here do not know they can edit the wikipedia, they dont
> know that the software they are using is illegal and they think linux
> is a virus. I would like to help inform them.
All worthy goals too...
> Really, I wish to include everyone and make this a nice relaxed event.
> A symposium or free form talk, a panel would be nice, lightning talks
> have also been suggested.
Lightning talks can be great. Even a bad one is over very quickly! And
they can help provide topics and collaborations for later group
discussion. They also help participants get to know each other, and can
be easier on the presenter than making a long talk (especially where
language is an issue, or if they are not confident of presentation skills).
> I am sorry if I come off sounding like to strict, but I have seen some
> bad things happening, and let me tell you what they are :
>
> 1. There has been various programs being marketed as open source , but
> with no source to be found. This is really bad for the people who have
> never heard about open source before to have that presented to them as
> such.
Ouch :(
> 2. There are programs that contain patents that could be endangered at
> any time in the future. Again another threat.
It's definitely worth mentioning the risks. But there are also benefits
to opensource ("sticks vs carrots"), eg. customisability of things like
Firefox and OpenOffice, for markets that a pure-commercial venture
wouldn't necessarily try to help. And also building (in a collaborative
rather than exploitative way) on opensource libraries can lower some
other risks, like the software developer leaving, retiring etc.
> If we can at least explain to the people why these are an issue, I
> would be happy. But for people to be sold patents and closed source
> open source as FLOSS, I don't not want support that.
No argument there.
Yes - people should know what they're getting, even if it isn't always
FLOSS they've a right to clarity.
> I think it is fair to bring these things up.
> Yes, the call for papers was written long ago at least some of the
> sentences. Maybe they could be be rewritten.
>
> I dont want to come across as being radical, and I am not.
>
> I never went to an unconference or barcamp meeting, surely it would be
> interesting.
I do recommend it! What's interesting to me is there are some parallel
communities, in addition to the free/open software core, who are growing
closer together:
- open data formats (XML, RDF, JSON etc)
- browser / Web people (W3C, WHATWG, Opera, ...)
- "free culture" folk, Creative Commons, Wikimedia, OpenStreetMaps,
MusicBrainz, ...
Much of this is conducted around opensource software, but sometimes
non-free software is still associated with other aspects of "free" /
"open". Eg. if I used the Opera browser, I know I don't get the source,
I know it's closed, commercial etc. But I also know many of the team at
Opera, and I know they're passionate about an open-standards Web in
which there is genuine freedom of choice between software and services,
thanks to open source. In many cases this is really Internet "culture"
applied to either software or content, and then depending on people's
skills and interests, the passion is expressed in terms of open/free
software, content, data, standards etc. Since I'm better at standards
than software, my focus is always on standards/data/protocols, but I
feel a strong sense of shared values with opensource/free software
people. And looking at the technology scene, I'm not alone in this...
Opera Software btw have been supporting barcamps that bring together Web
standards enthusiasts.
See for example this writeup of a recent event in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan:
http://eng.gazeta.kz/art.asp?aid=115594
...where it's clear the focus was broader than perhaps planned here, ie.
blogger, commercial software etc as well. I really don't know enough
about your event to say much more re scope, except I can't get away from
thinking that the 3 technology themes I care most about - "open source,
open standards, open content" - are all stronger when working together
than when taken separately: open standards are what allow open/free
software packages to evolve independently of each other. By using
standards, we can scale up to a distributed developer community of 10s
of 1000s of people because of standards, as well as letting free
software work also with legacy or commercially-managed content. So I
guess i tend to be more enthusiastic about non-free software when it is
doing good things for the use of open standards...
cheers,
Dan
Dan Brickley
> Much of this is conducted around opensource software, but sometimes
> non-free software is still associated with other aspects of "free" /
> "open". Eg. if I used the Opera browser, I know I don't get the source,
> I know it's closed, commercial etc. But I also know many of the team at
> Opera, and I know they're passionate about an open-standards Web in
> which there is genuine freedom of choice between software and services,
> thanks to open source.
Oops, typo. I meant "thanks to open standards" (HTML etc) here...
jamesmi...@googlemail.com
I just wanted to say,
the purpose of flossk.org as you can read from our statues is to
promote all these good things, and I have added some along the way.
Again, this is my personal opinion and I am not speaking officially
for anyone else.
1. GNU projects and software freedom when it is appropriate.
2. Opens Source software like in the OSI as well when it is appropriate.
3. Free knowledge like the wikipedia.
4. Free Culture via creative commons licenses
5. open streetmaps Openstreetmap.org
6. The w3c.org as well.
7. Eifl.net : a not for profit organisation that supports and
advocates for the wide availability of electronic resources by library
users in transitional and developing countries.
8. Creating translations of Projects like open office, ubunutu and
other good FLOSS software.
9. The freedom to communicate via voip using open standards and FLOSS
implementations.
The idea was to create a group that would help organize and work with
international groups and to promote the legal ownership and creation
of electronic data.
Because Kosovo is so small (200k)/200km^2 there is little room for all
these organizations here, not very many people.
Thanks for your interest,
mike
Dan Brickley
And thanks for that nice summary, makes everything much clearer to me.
And great work too :)
Good luck with the event...!
cheers,
Dan
Milot Shala
Strange huh?
Heroid Shehu
Unfair monopoly.
Thanks.
Valon Hoti
check this PDF file step by step how to install Mono 2.4 on CENTOS 5.3
http://www.nabble.com/file/p24075257/IT-21135487-20090617-16_11_56.pdf
Heroid Shehu
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/23/microsoft_hyperv_gpl_violation/
Thanks.
Valon Hoti
Microsoft GPLv2'd this, this means they can't turn around and assert any of their patents against this particular code (or derivatives).
Unfortunately all that patch and the Linux kernel itself is GPLv2 in
fact, not GPLv3.
So it is because it is not protected against patent attacks.
-----------------
so it not saying LGPL "that commercially you develop things" but saying GPL v2-----------------
so there's no breach of licence "since Microsoft provide sample with Microsoft things"
so if there's anyone that can provide sample of hypo-v drivers with no Microsoft stuff let do?
----------------
and really new you may read there
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/features/2009/Jul09/07-20LinuxQA.mspx
----------------
Lowell
things James has probably already mentioned.. In response to
> One thing to make clear in KOSOVA
>
> no one will use free open source software if people may not make a money for
> living from that.(MAIN REASON)
1) There is VERY little money in actual software sales. The margin
for the VAR (Value Added Reseller) is typically less than 10 points.
The money is in Services. ie Installation and support services.
2) most people try to counter point 1 (above) with "if I buy <insert
company name here> commercial software, I get free installation and
support." BZZZT, Wrong! I dare anyone to call a M$ support number and
tell me they didn't have to provide a credit card number for support.
Even the person that sold it to you is going to want a huge sum to
install and support it. Typically when a product is sold (such as
exchange server) it is sold with a very pricey (usually 10 times the
cost of the software) service contract.
I have spent over 15 years working in the US and Global IT markets. At
one time I had an office on the M$ campus. (I don't admit that much.)
No, I didn't work for them... we were a "partner" company. I have
spent over half of my career marketing the value of software whether
it be commercial or open source. If you ignore M$ sponsored "research
papers" and look at objective research, you will see TCO is clearly on
the side of open source. The arguments you used as "in Kosova" would
apply in almost every other country. I have heard them many times
before. People can and HAVE made a ton of money with open source
software... Just remember... s-e-r-v-i-c-e-s.
As far as conversion to open source... you have to educate and win the
hearts and minds.. mostly of the young. That's why I am such a huge
proponent of the K12 Linux Terminal Server Project (http://k12ltsp.org/
contents.html). That's why M$ made Visual Studio completely free to
students a few years back... to win hearts and minds. Once you learn
something, you are not likely to change your preferences. It's the
same argument as to preference of political parties.. has very little
to do with the technology or stances themselves... it's all about what
you were socialized into believing what was right/best. If your
parents were conservative, you are likely to be conservative. If your
computer teacher preferred a mac, you are likely to prefer a mac.
Money has very little to do with it. (except in marketing dollars
spent.)
I could go on and on but I am already boring myself. Have a good
afternoon!
Ciao!
jamesmi...@googlemail.com
>>students a few years back... to win hearts and minds.
students here need money they are not allowed.
In the Microsoft Software License Terms, the "non-commercial use"
text identifies the use of the product. You may install one licensed
copy of the software on three devices in your household. The software
is not licensed for any commercial business activities, nonprofit
business activities, or revenue-generating business activities.
You are not even allowed to help people with it, or use it for working
on flossk (non profit business activities)
The schools are required to spy on them and report to microsoft.
this is the problem with those "free" microsoft licenses. you have to read them.
http://www.drake.edu/it/hardware/studentowned.php
# Students, and anyone in possession of a student software
installer CD, are expressly forbidden from copying software on the CDs
or giving the CDs to others. Students are also forbidden from sharing
the product keys that accompany the CD.
# If a student suspects that the software license or campus
agreement is not being followed, they are obligated to report the
situation to OIT.
The only thing that people learn from microsoft is to click on agree
when they never agree. Also they learn to sign contracts that they
will never fulfill.
The GNU license is pretty simple and you can learn it by heart, and
you can be sure it will not change when you turn your back on it. That
is why I like open source licenses, because you can understand them,
and they are standardized. The licenses of MS and co are so long and
it is hopeless to understand them.
mike