Suggestion: FOSS or non-FOSS
Raj Mathur (राज माथुर)
non-FOSS software within the event as early as possible.
If the decision is for FOSS, then any promotion of any sort of non-FOSS
software within the event should be taboo. This is going to ruffle a
few feathers once you realise that stuff like Flash Player and nVidia
drivers are not FOSS and have no place in a FOSS event.
Promotion includes:
- Usage of proprietary software during the course of any presentation.
- Installation and usage of proprietary software on any systems used in
the exhibition areas, workshops or gaming zones.
- Direct promotion of proprietary software in presentations.
Whether the event allows proprietary software or not is a decision I
leave to the organisers (and the community). However, if the decisions
is to not allow it, please do not allow it in any form -- just because
it runs on Linux or is bundled with a popular distribution doesn't
automatically make it FOSS.
Regards,
-- Raj
--
Raj Mathur ra...@kandalaya.org http://kandalaya.org/
GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F
PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves
shreekant bohra
The organisers need to make and communicate a decision about allowing
non-FOSS software within the event as early as possible.
Ritesh Raj Sarraf
2010/11/7 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) <ra...@linux-delhi.org>
The organisers need to make and communicate a decision about allowing
non-FOSS software within the event as early as possible.I don't think that is even a matter of discussion. A FOSS conference should be about FOSS only, isn't it?
-- Ritesh Raj Sarraf RESEARCHUT - http://www.researchut.com "Necessity is the mother of invention."
Manish Sinha
There's no need to have a hardline. If a non-FOSS, non-free or Commercial application can help and is relevant to the topic, there's no harm in talking about it.
--
Manish
Kenneth Gonsalves
> 2010/11/7 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) <ra...@linux-delhi.org>
>
> > The organisers need to make and communicate a decision about
> allowing
> > non-FOSS software within the event as early as possible.
> >
>
> I don't think that is even a matter of discussion. A FOSS conference
> should
> be about FOSS only, isn't it?
>
>
and what happens if a whole lot of people turn up with ipads? or macs?
--
regards
KG
http://lawgon.livejournal.com
Pratul Kalia
> The organisers need to make and communicate a decision about allowing
> non-FOSS software within the event as early as possible.
>
As such this isn't just my or anyone else's call. It is our call, and
this is my opinion:
- If someone wants to use a non-FOSS tool to present something on a
FOSS topic, they should be allowed. We're not fanatics, we're
practical people. Open source is about choice, the choice that I will
use the best tool for my need. If that tool is not FOSS, hey, that's
an idea for someone to start working on one. Like, using Windows/OS X
on stage or talking on a Blackberry should again, be none of our
concerns. Same reason again, I don't care about what my favorite
software's community uses. I care about the software!
- Presenting on a non-FOSS topic (say, a new Photoshop plugin I made?)
should not be allowed. noname.conf is and should be a conference
dealing with free/open source software.
- However, I have a different thought about building closed tools
using FOSS. Assume I am building the next shiny new web 3.5
application, which will be closed and I'll charge you 999 INR a month
for it. But I'll build and run it using Django, MongoDB, memcached,
nginx and FreeBSD. For these kind of situations, I propose we have a
"commercial" track. Commercial success is also a win for FOSS after
all. Maybe in such a track, I can give a talk on what all I used, show
parts of the architecture, maybe even contribute back to the projects.
Thoughts?
--
dum vivimus, vivamus
pratul == lut4rp
http://pratul.in
Raj Mathur (राज माथुर)
> As such this isn't just my or anyone else's call. It is our call, and
> this is my opinion:
>
> - If someone wants to use a non-FOSS tool to present something on a
> FOSS topic, they should be allowed. We're not fanatics, we're
> practical people. Open source is about choice, the choice that I will
> use the best tool for my need. If that tool is not FOSS, hey, that's
> an idea for someone to start working on one. Like, using Windows/OS X
> on stage or talking on a Blackberry should again, be none of our
> concerns. Same reason again, I don't care about what my favorite
> software's community uses. I care about the software!
>
> - Presenting on a non-FOSS topic (say, a new Photoshop plugin I
> made?) should not be allowed. noname.conf is and should be a
> conference dealing with free/open source software.
>
> - However, I have a different thought about building closed tools
> using FOSS. Assume I am building the next shiny new web 3.5
> application, which will be closed and I'll charge you 999 INR a month
> for it. But I'll build and run it using Django, MongoDB, memcached,
> nginx and FreeBSD. For these kind of situations, I propose we have a
> "commercial" track. Commercial success is also a win for FOSS after
> all. Maybe in such a track, I can give a talk on what all I used,
> show parts of the architecture, maybe even contribute back to the
> projects.
Please do distinguish between commercial and proprietary. The issue
isn't about commercial vs non-commercial, it's about proprietary vs
open. Renaming the "commercial" track to a "proprietary" track would be
more appropriate, since all FOSS is, by definition (OSI or DFSG)
commercial.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your opinion. Mine is quite wildly
different, but then I'm what I guess you'd call a fanatic. On the other
hand, I'm not going to try to force that opinion down anyone's throat,
so I'll stay shut on this topic: the intent was to get an idea of what
the thinking about proprietary software was.
Manish Malik
- However, I have a different thought about building closed tools
using FOSS. Assume I am building the next shiny new web 3.5
application, which will be closed and I'll charge you 999 INR a month
for it. But I'll build and run it using Django, MongoDB, memcached,
nginx and FreeBSD. For these kind of situations, I propose we have a
"commercial" track. Commercial success is also a win for FOSS after
all.
This is masquerading closed-source philosophy as 'developed out of FOSS'.
Not appropriate from my point of view, as far as nonameconf is concerned.
Best,
Manish
(War2/WarDragon @ freenode)
Pratul Kalia
> In effect, using FOSS tools, you created a closed-source web 3.5 app that
> now competes (and hence attempts to win share from) other FOSS web 3.5 apps
> in the market.
>
Correct. Almost exactly what facebook does :-) Your 2nd line interests
me, what is a "FOSS web app"? Something like laconi.ca?
Also, OldMonk is correct. Proprietary is the correct word, not
commercial. Sorry for that mixup.
Raj Mathur (राज माथुर)
> This is masquerading closed-source philosophy as 'developed out of
> FOSS'.
>
> Not appropriate from my point of view, as far as nonameconf is
> concerned.
Hmm, looks like the sleeping dog has been woken, which wasn't my intent
(really! it wasn't!)
Since this is one debate that will never end, may I suggest the
organising committee (or head honchos or grand pooh-bahs or benevolent
dictators or Hitler's offspring or whatever you call yourselves) give a
reasonable amount of time to people to express their opinions on the
topic and then take a decision and announce it? Delhi is turning
cooler, so I'm going to get me some popcorn, warm myself by the fire and
occasionally contribute a drop or two of kerosene to the flames when
they look like dying down :)
Seriously, though, I'm more concerned about lack of policy vis-a-vis
proprietary software than the contents of the policy. Once the policy
has been stated, individuals can make up their minds whether to support,
participate in and promote the event or not. And sure, there will be
those who vehemently disagree with the policy, whatever it turns out to
be. Tough sh*t, you can't please everyone.
Sandip Bhattacharya
> In effect, using FOSS tools, you created a closed-source web 3.5 app that
> now competes (and hence attempts to win share from) other FOSS web 3.5 apps
> in the market.
>
> This is masquerading closed-source philosophy as 'developed out of FOSS'.
>
But Pratul said that the talk wasn't about the web app itself, but
rather the architecture and components behind it, which would definitely
be useful to others trying to solve similar problems - whether it is for
creating open or closed web apps.
Shouldn't be a problem actually, but talks might get hijacked if the
discussion focuses to much towards the end product, and ends up
promoting it.
That said, who are the target audience exactly? Are they only people who are
unlikely to develop closed source apps from the knowledge gained from
the talks?
- Sandip
Kenneth Gonsalves
> 2010/11/7 Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) <ra...@linux-delhi.org>:
> > The organisers need to make and communicate a decision about
> allowing
> > non-FOSS software within the event as early as possible.
> >
>
> As such this isn't just my or anyone else's call. It is our call, and
> this is my opinion:
>
> - If someone wants to use a non-FOSS tool to present something on a
> FOSS topic, they should be allowed. We're not fanatics, we're
> practical people. Open source is about choice, the choice that I will
> use the best tool for my need. If that tool is not FOSS, hey, that's
> an idea for someone to start working on one. Like, using Windows/OS X
> on stage or talking on a Blackberry should again, be none of our
> concerns. Same reason again, I don't care about what my favorite
> software's community uses. I care about the software!
+1
>
> - Presenting on a non-FOSS topic (say, a new Photoshop plugin I made?)
> should not be allowed. noname.conf is and should be a conference
> dealing with free/open source software.
>
+1
> - However, I have a different thought about building closed tools
> using FOSS. Assume I am building the next shiny new web 3.5
> application, which will be closed and I'll charge you 999 INR a month
> for it. But I'll build and run it using Django, MongoDB, memcached,
> nginx and FreeBSD. For these kind of situations, I propose we have a
> "commercial" track. Commercial success is also a win for FOSS after
> all. Maybe in such a track, I can give a talk on what all I used, show
> parts of the architecture, maybe even contribute back to the projects.
+1
>
>
> Thoughts?
a very sensible modern approach to the problem - one followed by most
successful conferences going
Kinshuk Sunil
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Nonameconf Community Mailing List" group.
To post to this group, send email to nonameconf...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to nonameconf-commu...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/nonameconf-community?hl=en.
Kenneth Gonsalves
> Call it commercial or proprietary or anything else that is logically
> relevant. Please to ensure that it is the technology and the tools
> that get
> promoted, shared and discussed. Not people. Not companies. No
> marketing
> pitches.
on this note, I think this discussion should be closed - I feel the team
has enough sense to decide what talks are acceptable or not. Better not
to have a policy - else there will be endless discussion on whether the
policy is acceptable - or whether it has been followed. And anyway it is
up to the guys who are organising the conference to specify all this (if
they are otherwise jobless). And in true foss style, those who object
can always fork.