Slashdot Mirror
FSF Opens Nominations For Free Software Awards 2012
jrepin writes "The Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the GNU Project today announced the opening of nominations for the 15th annual Free Software Awards. The Free Software Awards include the Award for the Advancement of Free Software and the Award for Projects of Social Benefit. The Award for the Advancement of Free Software is presented annually to an individual who has made a great contribution to the progress and development of free software, through activities that accord with the spirit of free software. The Award for Projects of Social Benefit is presented to the project or team responsible for applying free software, or the ideas of the free software movement, in a project that intentionally and significantly benefits society in other aspects of life."
I got a FREE copy from TPB. (And if that doesn't drive people to Linux, I don't know what will!)
Apparently, nobody gives a shit.
SPI (Software in the Pubic Interest) being the umbrella group that funds Debian development. His wiki page is admirable, and Debian is strongly dedicated to Free Software principals.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bdale_Garbee
The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
Somehow, I have trouble associating that with the betterment of mankind. Maybe LHC is using it but for the most part, it seems to be providing ways for Big Web to keep increasingly creepy tabs on their customers and visitors.
Well, I like graphics, so what about all the work that went into MESA3 OpenGL drivers? Most people I ask "So, what's keeping you from using Linux 100% full time?" Their answer is crappy graphics drivers and no games. In my spare time I'm working to help fix the latter part, so are many other game devs, and a working OpenGL stack is essential.... Think about it, everyone knows Linux is really strong in the server market, so it's these desktop (read: Graphics) users where there's room to grow in a "socially benefiting" way. Now, if only ATI & NV would catch up with Intel on the Linux support front...
As always, TOR would be up there for me, as would the Byzantium Mesh Network and Freedombox Projects.
People often talk about privacy technology, and fantasise about file sharing and mesh applications, Those few who
bite the bullet and actually develop and push these technologies into the hands of those who most need them are to
be commended.
Not sure if it's worth replying, because I doubt I'll convince you. But I shall try.
The GPL gives you Freedom 0, to run the software as you wish. In fact, the GPL states in section 9:
Freedom 1: freedom to read understand the source code. Again, there are no restrictions on this, AFAIK.
Freedom 2: freedom to modify the software. No restrictions on this, AFAIK (as long as you don't distribute).
Freedom 3: freedom to distribute and create derivative works. There are some restrictions on how you do this. For example, you must clearly state the license and derivative works must be licensed under the GPL.
If you like permissive licensing, I won't blame you. There are a lot of free software licenses that are free software licenses as well. But a lot of them have restrictions as well, e.g. acknowledgement in sources. Only software in the public domain has no restrictions, and provides "true" freedom according to your definition.
Going back to the subject, you might be interested to know that NetBSD cofounder and OpenBSD project leader Theo de Raadt was awarded the Advancement For Free Software in 2004. The advancement of free software has nothing to do with the GPL.
Rubén Rodríguez is the lead developer of the Trisquel distribution. One of the most popular free distributions out there. It is not just mostly free either or "free until there is an issue with some driver" free like most other distributions. There is no Adobe Reader or Flash nor binary blobs for firmware. Despite this it is actually one of the better distributions and best supported. It is based off Ubuntu minus the non-free bits. ThinkPenguin also has taken significant time to work with the developers and make sure there is good support for it from a hardware stand point. This despite being one of the smaller distributions. There is also support from the Free Software Foundation and a small although significant and growing user base.
Great it's Euro centric instead of anglo-centric.
Ridiculous rubbish........ 7,000m/380m = 5%, not 0.05%. Please try to be sensible with your numbers. That is one in twenty people is a native English speaker.
> However it seems to me that using the GPL for the freedom of the peoples are shortsighted at best.
Say what?
>rant on english only
>eupl
Is written with European Union Law in mind.
To turn your argument around and do some substitution, the Eurocentrism of the EUPL is a bad thing, especially since it doesn't apply to Brazil, Philippines or China. How come the EUPL isn't translated into Brazilian Portuguese, Tagalog, or Cantonese? The European Commission certainly has more resources than the FSF, so why don't they do it?
Your argument is specious and hypocritical.
> In fact, the FSF treat non-english speaker as second-class human,
> Anglocentrism link
The reasons given in the FSF link you gave do not match up with the definition of Anglocentrism. Indeed, the first sentence in the FSF link you gave indicates that in a perfect world translations would be desirable, but due to the properties of legal language being much like a programming language and laws in different countries being, you know, different, it is not always feasible or reasonable to do so. Indeed, to make another real-world comparison, the Treaty of Tripoli is written in Arabic. An English translation presented to the US Congress was not the official one - it was there for explanation. The official ratified treaty is the Arabic version and the US is bound to it. There are other translations, like the Italian version, but that's not binding either.
But not only that, to get back to the original article and to get really on topic, the requirements for winning are not that you must be a GPL supporter. Indeed, Theo de Raadt is the most angry and vociferous troll against the GPL, yet he's won. Other winners don't necessarily have English as a first or third language. Miguel's native language is Spanish. So there goes your other claim of Anglocentrism.
You are just a troll here to bash the GPL and push Eurocentrism. Not only Eurocentrism, but European Union Centrism.
--
BMO
My arguments still stand. You only proved your are better at math than me. Bravo!
The Pirate Bay, they gotts all kindz of free softwarez that you can hazz
Not large amounts, mind you, just $5 or $10 to some small projects and $20 each to a few large projects. I'm not a very generous person and this is something I should have been doing years ago, but I would like to get in the habit of routinely kicking back a few bucks each month to the various projects and organizations that enrich my life.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
>It still is better than the GPL
Circular argument is circular. I think we're done here. I think you should re-read your message and smell the reeking hypocrisy.
>my inflammatory language
Like you didn't say that non-english speakers are treated like second class humans. That's not only inflammatory, it's a lie.
This makes you an asshole of the first order.
Meet your new status.
--
BMO
Circular argument is circular.
You definition of a circular argument is strange and different.
This makes you an asshole of the first order.
Using insults as an argument is very mature indeed.
You made this thread useless and boring. Thanks.
to nominate Microsoft Windows for this award?
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
.. for Gnome3
Sigh. I'm not sure whether you're misguided or a troll. Let's assume you're sincere. Who wrote the EUPL and with what motives? It's a rhetorical question, don't answer. Just understand that the biggest long term threat to any free software community is regulatory capture. Now compare the EU against the FSF and ask, which is more resistant to capture over the next decades? That by itself should be a clear reason to not use the EUPL or any other license produced by bodies that aren't extraordinarily independent and proven to be so.
Second, you're probably going to explain how Europe is the center of the world, etc. It's not. It's not even a continent.
Third, the GPL is a standard. That means lawyers around the world know it, and it interoperates. It's not about a better or worse license but about standards. All the EUPL can do is fragment the community (which starts to answer my first question, who wrote it and why. You are really too trusting.)
Forth, translations? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/translations.html lists Armenian, Chinese, Czech, Dutch, French, Galician, German, Italian, Serbian, Slovak. I'm sure it will grow to much much more than 22. And note "Chinese". This actually covers 20% of the world's population, if that is the criteria you want to argue with.
Lastly, and really, do I have to say this, your "anglocentrism" criticism is terrible, trollish, pointless. Are you just looking to annoy people? Or are you just entirely ignorant? I was president of the FFII at the time we contributed parts of the GPLv3 patent policy, and I can tell you formally, the GPLv3 was a global project, with input from hundreds of people around the world.
Whether you "approve" or not is irrelevant. But please, get your facts right before you act offended when people insult you.
My blog
Wow... Look at what I started...
"Second, you're probably going to explain how Europe is the center of the world, etc. It's not. It's not even a continent."
I'm not interrested in dick-measuring contest anymore than you.
"All the EUPL can do is fragment the community"
As the EUPL allows one to re-license existing software under the GPL, this point is probably moot.
"Forth, translations? http://www.gnu.org/licenses/translations.html [gnu.org] lists Armenian, Chinese, Czech, Dutch, French, Galician, German, Italian, Serbian, Slovak. I'm sure it will grow to much much more than 22. And note "Chinese". This actually covers 20% of the world's population, if that is the criteria you want to argue with."
My point was that none of these translations are official and thus can be misleading to a potential reader. The FAQ on gnu.org itself point to that fact and urge to refer to the english version for business use, hence my accusation of it being anglocentrist. I agree the EUPL care only about european languages and I agree too that's not an ideal situation. However, the merit of the EUPL is to put many languages on a equality basis. If someone's only care is free software, then there is nothing wrong with the GPL but if you take a broader look at the situation, you'll see that freedom is more than being able to hack software. It's also having access to localized software, something that many FOSS already get mostly right and also being able to use one's native language for legal matters and that's definitively something the GPL needs addressing in the future.
"GPLv3 was a global project, with input from hundreds of people around the world."
I fear it's becoming increasingly harder to resist to the globish sirens. Can you honestly tell me that nobody raised the same questionning I have right now?
Finally, thank you for bringing a bit of sanity in this discussion.
Nominate iTunes. Hey, it's free!
Not sure if it's worth replying, because I doubt I'll convince you. But I shall try.
The GPL gives you Freedom 0, to run the software as you wish. In fact, the GPL states in section 9:
Freedom 1: freedom to read understand the source code. Again, there are no restrictions on this, AFAIK.
Freedom 2: freedom to modify the software. No restrictions on this, AFAIK (as long as you don't distribute).
Freedom 3: freedom to distribute and create derivative works. There are some restrictions on how you do this. For example, you must clearly state the license and derivative works must be licensed under the GPL.
If you like permissive licensing, I won't blame you. There are a lot of free software licenses that are free software licenses as well. But a lot of them have restrictions as well, e.g. acknowledgement in sources. Only software in the public domain has no restrictions, and provides "true" freedom according to your definition.
Wrong. This is what the 4 freedoms are - starting w/ '0' - available right on the home page of gnu.org:
It's not about permissive licensing. Freedom 2 is the biggest roadblock to making a living selling software. The above manifesto would have been fine had it simply required that whenever software changes hands, the source code accompanies it. That's at least reasonable in helping w/ a part of Freedom 3. But forcibly preventing people from restricting re-distribution only ensures that customers will become competitors, and as a result, those who use GPL either have to have regular jobs from elsewhere, or they have to do all sorts of legal acrobatics to get around it.
Freedom 2 (and a part of freedom 3) is what gives the FSF/GNU movements the perceptions of being Communist.
There are a lot of free software licenses that are free software licenses as well.
Some would say all of them.
Most people I ask say "What is Linux?"
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Excellent library, used everywhere.
The EUPL license (or licence in UK-English) has indeed a working value in 22 EU languages (and not in Brasilian) because it is mainly written for encouraging public sector in all EU Member States to distribute their own software. For example, an adminstration located in Spain has normally a preference (sometimes it is an obligation) to use a license with a working value in Spanish. The above distribution process is just starting, you know (very long way to go...)
IMO, the many FSF followers should stop considering the EUPL as a sacrilege against their own "sacred cows" (the GPLs) and to consider all others as oponents or trolls. The EUPL is compatible with the GPLs (V2 explicitely and - as soon a new version will be published, V3 and AGPLv3)
The EUPL is not "Better" but is simply much shorter (objective fact) and easier to understand (subjective opinion).
Finally, it may be that the EUPL could provide some good ideas for a simpler and less controversial GPLv4...
My issue with him was not the EUPL in itself. My issue was his trolling and misstating facts about the FSF and GPL.
The FSF states that they do not have the ability to translate to other languages because they do not have the resources. You need lawyers fluent in translation *and* the laws of the target nation in order to make a faithful translation of the GPL.
He construes this as Anglocentrism, which is a word defined as "believing in english as superior" - a kind of bigotry- which the FSF's position clearly is not. It's a lie on his part.
The EUPL is also not a pan-european license. It is an EU license, taking into account *only* EU laws. Thus it is not translated into Norwegian, for example. Norwegian is not a valid language for the EUPL not because the people who wrote the EUPL are bigots, but Norwegian law is slightly different than EU law.
QED. He is trolling.
Language is irrelevant in determining if a license is valid or not.
The only reason these licenses are valid outside of their host regions is because of the Berne Convention. The Berne Convention was not done to make all copyright laws the same, but to get all signatories to recognize the rights of each other. A license written in Australian English is just as valid as a license written in Danish, because both countries are signatories. This removes the need to publish a license in every language on the planet.
Finally:
>IMO, the many FSF followers should stop considering the EUPL as a sacrilege
Really? The only place I've heard this is here, in your message. I have not heard it anywhere else.
--
BMO
Which as I understand it was the purpose of GPL3... If everyone had switched then we may at least have access to the creepy algorithms, Giving us the opportunity to at least understand/reverse the system.
Can a person program a new solution to a problem? Why should anyone be able to stop such a thing? -Richard Stallman