tag:old.nabble.com,2006:forum-1302Nabble - Gnome - Foundation2009-12-21T08:49:05ZDiscuss matters related to Gnome Foundation.tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26876697Stormy's Update: Week of December 14th2009-12-21T08:49:05Z2009-12-21T08:49:05ZStormy Peters-2<a href="http://blogs.gnome.org/foundation/2009/12/21/stormys-update-week-of-december-14th/" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.gnome.org/foundation/2009/12/21/stormys-update-week-of-december-14th/</a><br><p>Pinged some people to help with GUADEC by mentoring or creating timelines.</p>
<p>Had a great conversation with Sara Crouse from Wikimedia about how they find, apply and manage grants, like ones from the <a class="" title="" target="" href="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Hewlwett_Fdn_grant_August_2009" rel="nofollow">Hewlett Foundation</a> and the <a class="" title="" target="" href="http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Press_releases/Wikimedia_Ford_Foundation_Grant_July_2009" rel="nofollow">Ford Foundation</a>. Looking forward to implementing some of that at the GNOME Foundation. <br>
</p>
<p>Spent an inordinate amount of time and energy on the threads that
started on the Foundation list and the side conversations that came out
of it. Assuming that even a fraction of the people involved spent that
much time and energy, we need to figure out a more effective way to
have those conversations. Obviously we could use some more self
moderating earlier in the thread. Perhaps other forums, like the all
hands IRC meeting we discussed in the past could also help.</p>
<p>Took some time off to deal with a personal crisis. (And no, it wasn't Christmas shopping - I haven't done that yet!)</p>
<p>Provided a quote for OpenDesktop.org and OpenSuSE build <a class="" title="" target="" href="http://www.linuxpr.com/releases/11810.html" rel="nofollow">press release</a>.</p>
<p>Pushed a number of things and projects along from missing payments
to projects with no activity to potential partnerships. Hopefully
they'll all be moving forward soon and I'll be able to report on their
success.</p>
<p>Posted a couple of blog posts. I really hope GNOME is able to set an example for how <a class="" title="" target="" href="http://www.stormyscorner.com/2009/12/how-can-open-source-software-transition-to-the-web-services-world.html" rel="nofollow">free software projects can transition to the web services world</a>. And I think we all need to keep <a class="" title="" target="" href="http://www.stormyscorner.com/2009/12/who-owns-an-email-message.html" rel="nofollow">not copyright law</a> in mind, but the fact that we are representing GNOME in public in mind as we post to public forums.
Quite a few press folks and journalists picked up on the Foundation
list threads and we certainly didn't look like we were following our
own <a class="" title="" target="" href="http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct" rel="nofollow">Code of Conduct</a>.<br>
</p>
<p>Had a really good weekend with the family.</p><br>
<br />_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26876697&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26863047Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-20T04:39:22Z2009-12-20T04:39:22ZAnne ØstergaardOn Fri, 2009-12-18 at 21:27 +0100, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
<div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> On 12/15/2009 10:58 AM, Vincent Untz wrote:
<br>> > Le mardi 15 décembre 2009, à 11:57 +0330, Behnam Esfahbod ZWNJ a écrit :
<br>> >> Also, is a referendum really necessary to create a new members-only
<br>> >> mailing list? Noting that becoming membership and participation is
<br>> >> always optional.
<br>> >
<br>> > It's not necessary to hold a vote to create a list, but I think Behdad's
<br>> > point by doing this is to see if there's real interest from the
<br>> > membership.
<br>> >
<br>> > Behdad, are you fine if we put a time limit for your proposal (2 weeks,
<br>> > 1 month, whatever)? Just to make sure we know when to close the topic in
<br>> > case there are not enough members signing the petition -- I'd hate to
<br>> > have someone come again in 2 years and say "hey, we now have 50
<br>> > signatures for this", while we will have all moved on ;-)
<br>>
<br>> Ok, lets wait till Monday. That would be one week.
</div><br><br>I think that this is too short a notice considering that it is Christmas
<br>time.
<br><br>I have just signed the list.
<br><br><a href="http://live.gnome.org/PrivateFoundationListPetition" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://live.gnome.org/PrivateFoundationListPetition</a><br><br>We would need 35 to 40 signatures to put this to vote, as Behdad said.
<br><br><br>My reason for signing up is mainly that critic in order to make
<br>improvements within the GNOME project itself are best done in private
<br>before the result is made public on the public list.
<br><br>A list for members only would also make it more attractive for new
<br>contributors to decide to become Foundation Members.
<br><br>Remember only GNOME Foundation Members should be able to be part of a
<br>consensus decision, and only Foundation Members can vote in elections
<br>and referendums.
<br><br>Thanks,
<br><br>Anne
<br><br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26863047&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26849247Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-18T12:27:01Z2009-12-18T12:27:01ZBehdad Esfahbod-3On 12/15/2009 10:58 AM, Vincent Untz wrote:
<div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> Le mardi 15 décembre 2009, à 11:57 +0330, Behnam Esfahbod ZWNJ a écrit :
<br>>> Also, is a referendum really necessary to create a new members-only
<br>>> mailing list? Noting that becoming membership and participation is
<br>>> always optional.
<br>>
<br>> It's not necessary to hold a vote to create a list, but I think Behdad's
<br>> point by doing this is to see if there's real interest from the
<br>> membership.
<br>>
<br>> Behdad, are you fine if we put a time limit for your proposal (2 weeks,
<br>> 1 month, whatever)? Just to make sure we know when to close the topic in
<br>> case there are not enough members signing the petition -- I'd hate to
<br>> have someone come again in 2 years and say "hey, we now have 50
<br>> signatures for this", while we will have all moved on ;-)
</div><br>Ok, lets wait till Monday. That would be one week.
<br><br>behdad
<br><br>> Vincent
<br>>
<br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26849247&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26837711Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership2009-12-17T16:45:17Z2009-12-17T16:45:17ZguiodicHi to all. <br><br>I'm not a GNOME Foundation member, then I apologize for this e-mail. But as enthusiastic GNOME user, I would like to send you my opinion.<br><br>First at all: thank you Richard Stallman and Miguel De Icaza for GNOME idea. Thank you Miguel for GNOME hacking and for Mono too. Thank you RMS for GCC, Emacs and other packages of GNU system. Especially thanks to all GNOME hackers to improve GNOME every day.<br>
If some of you use/develop/love some proprietary software, this not matter. Thank you for your free code in GNOME. <br><br>As user, my vision is that free software is a competitor of non-free software. It is simple for me: free software was born to replace proprietary software.<br>
<br>Not only GNU/Linux is a competitor of Mac OS X and Windows, but all FLOSS are a competitor of its proprietary counterparts. I.e.: Firefox is a competitor of IE and Safari (and Chrome, that is partially non-free).<br>
GCC is a competitor of proprietary compilers (and GCC won :-) ). <br>
GNOME was born as a competitor of KDE because it was based on a proprietary framework. Today GNOME and KDE are friends and both free/open source.<br><br>So the Free/Open Source Software is - taking it as a whole - a competitor of proprietary software.<br>
<br>You may be not in agree with me, but many users see the issue in these terms. They would like to have free/open tools to replace proprietary tools. They "feel" free/open source software as a proprietary software alternative/competitor/replacement.<br>
<br>I often read msdn blogs, google blogs, and other corporate and community blogs and planets. I never read on msdn something to "legitimate" Mac. Oh yes, you can read about MS Office for Mac, but it is different. You can read on GNU website about GNU software for Windows or Mac too. For GNU Project it is better to use Octave on Windows instead Matlab on Windows.<br>
<br>If floss is a non-floss competitor then it is logic do not advertise or speaking favorably about non-free software in the GNOME Planet.<br><br>Obviously, it is good to analyze proprietary software and learn from it. IMHO GNOME brings the better ideas from Windows an Mac, and it is better than Mac and Windows.<br>
<br>But GNOME, on top of a free/open OS, is a replacement of Windows and Mac. And I think that GNOME should "advertise" its "brothers" in virtualization software, like QEMU and Virtualbox[1], not vmWare. <br>
<br>Then I think RMS suggestion is essentially logic and coherent with GNOME mission and <span id="result_box" class="short_text"><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" title="e con ciò che gli utenti si aspettano da essa">with what users expect from it</span></span>.<br>
<br>Thank you and best regards.<br><br>Guido<br><br><a href="http://guiodic.wordpress.com" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://guiodic.wordpress.com</a><br><br><br>[1] it is distributed as free software too.<br><br><br><br><br>
<br />_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26837711&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26826487Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-17T03:12:02Z2009-12-17T03:12:02ZRichard Stallman To deny a group or a person the legitimacy to keep intellectual property
<br> proprietary goes against criteria five of the Open Source Definition:
<br><br>A statement that uses the term "intellectual property" is tremendously
<br>vague, since that refers to many laws at once, and treats them as one
<br>single issue. See <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html</a> for more
<br>explanation of this.
<br><br>Thus, when you say "intellectual property" here, I need to ask what
<br>you are concretelt talking about. Program source code? Mailing list
<br>messages? Something else?
<br><br> I conclude that would the Free Software Foundation's (= your) ethics
<br> have been written down in the form of a license, that it wouldn't be
<br> compatible with the Open Source Definition at all.
<br><br>You're talking about the OSI's criteria for software licenses,
<br><br>The FSF does not agree with open source, so we don't try to follow any
<br>of the criteria of open source. We judge software licenses by the
<br>Free Software Definition.
<br><br>But it makes no sense to apply a license criterion to ethical views.
<br><br>The Free Software Definition criteria for licenses reflect our ethical
<br>views. We use them to judge software licenses, but judging other
<br>ethical questions is a different matter.
<br><br> You, however, as as head of the FSF, claim that proprietary software is
<br> illegitimate. Meaning that you say that it's 'unlawful' under FSF's
<br> ethical code.
<br><br>An ethical principle is not a license. A license is a legal
<br>requirement, and ethics are ideas of right and wrong. They are
<br>different; if you identify them the result is confusion.
<br><br>For instance, the ACLU calls Nazism unethical, and opposes censorship
<br>of Nazism. If you try to "write down ethics as a license", you would
<br>transcribe the ACLU's ethical view "Nazism is wrong" into a
<br>nonexistent "license requirement" forbidding Nazism, and that would
<br>disagree squarely with the ACLU's real position.
<br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26826487&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26826483Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-17T03:11:53Z2009-12-17T03:11:53ZRichard Stallman 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
<br><br> I am being discriminated against because I can not make improvements
<br> or discuss where the project is headed.
<br><br>The definition of open source is a criterion for software licenses;
<br>I don't think it applies to mailing list usage at all.
<br>But I cannot speak for the Open Source Initiative.
<br><br>In the case of the Free Software Definition, I wrote it,
<br>so I can say this is a misinderstanding of it.
<br><br> The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and
<br> modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole
<br> community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a
<br> precondition for this.
<br><br>This freedom applies to any particular user. You have a freedom
<br>to make modified versions.
<br><br> This means that any discussions should be made public.
<br><br>I don't think that follows.
<br><br>The four freedoms state what a free software license must permit to
<br>any single user. It says nothing about how users that choose to work
<br>together ought to communicate or make their decisions. If project A
<br>has a public discussion list, and project B has a private one, they
<br>can both qualify as free software.
<br><br> How can I improve a program if I don't
<br> know where the project is headed and reasons why the project is headed
<br> in that direction (what are the goals of the project)?
<br><br>You can improve a program by making a copy and changing it.
<br>The point is that you are free to do this. You are not obliged
<br>to discuss it with anyone, get approval, etc.
<br><br>I think that you are talking about how to go about cooperating with
<br>others on a joint project. That's a different issue. A free software
<br>license gives people the freedom to organize a project to maintain
<br>their version of the program. A free software license does not say
<br>how they can or can't organize this project, so they can do it however
<br>they wish.
<br><br>If you want them to put your changes in their version, you need to
<br>work with their arrangements. But a free software license gives you
<br>the freedomt make and distribute your own modified version on your own.
<br><br><br><br><br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26826483&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26827187Re: Stormy's Update: Week of December 7th2009-12-17T02:39:15Z2009-12-17T02:39:15Zmichael meeksHi Murray,
<br><br>On Thu, 2009-12-17 at 10:54 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
<br>> My concern is that code without a copyright holder cannot really be
<br>> under any license.
<br><br> This is a very frequently made point; of course - IANAL. But if you
<br>follow this argument to it's logical conclusion this makes all of Xorg,
<br>gtk+, GNOME, Linux, Mozilla, Busybox, indefensible. If this were true:
<br>any form of license would be pretty pointless without aggregate
<br>ownership - right ?
<br><br>> For instance, nobody could go to court to defend
<br>> abuse of LGPL code in Clutter:
<br>> <a href="http://git.clutter-project.org/cgit.cgi?url=clutter/tree/COPYING" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://git.clutter-project.org/cgit.cgi?url=clutter/tree/COPYING</a><br>> if nobody owns the copyright in that code.
<br><br> Sure, but of course - someone wrote the code once, and thus owns the
<br>copyright on at least some piece of it.
<br>
<br> Busybox's lack of assignment (it appears) hasn't appeared to stop the
<br>SFLC chasing GPL violators, sometimes a dozen at a time ;-)
<br><br><a href="http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2009/dec/14/busybox-gpl-lawsuit/</a><br><br> HTH,
<br><br> Michael.
<br><br>--
<br> <a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26827187&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">michael.meeks@...</a> <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
<br><br><br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26827187&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26825779Re: Stormy's Update: Week of December 7th2009-12-17T02:07:49Z2009-12-17T02:07:49ZEmmanuele Bassi<p>(Sent via my phone; apologies for the formatting)</p>
<p>To clarify: Clutter (currently) comes with a copyright assignment. The copyright waiver has been introduced for small patches attached to Bugzilla to avoid going through the copyright assignment process.</p>
<p>The waiver and the assignment are two orthogonal approaches, and they should not be confused. I explained this in various venues - including at GCDS.</p>
<p>We, in Intel, are currently working towards a solution but it will take some time (as usual, when lawyers are involved).</p>
<p>Ciao,<br>
Emmanuele.</p>
<p><blockquote type="cite">On 17 Dec 2009 09:54, "Murray Cumming" <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26825779&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">murrayc@...</a>> wrote:<br><br><p><font color="#500050">On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 16:08 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
> That said, the discussion started because ...</font></p>I'm not a lawyer, so I'm very ready for someone to just tell me that I'm<br>
wrong, but:<br>
<br>
Clutter's isn't a copyright assignment. It's a copyright waiver, placing<br>
the code in the public domain:<br>
<a href="http://bugzilla.openedhand.com/waiver.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://bugzilla.openedhand.com/waiver.html</a><br>
<br>
My concern is that code without a copyright holder cannot really be<br>
under any license. For instance, nobody could go to court to defend<br>
abuse of LGPL code in Clutter:<br>
<a href="http://git.clutter-project.org/cgit.cgi?url=clutter/tree/COPYING" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://git.clutter-project.org/cgit.cgi?url=clutter/tree/COPYING</a><br>
if nobody owns the copyright in that code.<br>
<br>
I hope that issue can be addressed. Whether I want to assign copyright<br>
is a different matter for me.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26825779&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">murrayc@...</a><br>
<a href="http://www.murrayc.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">www.murrayc.com</a><br>
<a href="http://www.openismus.com" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">www.openismus.com</a><br>
</font><p><font color="#500050">
_______________________________________________
foundation-list mailing list
foundation-list@gnome....</font></p></blockquote></p>
<br />_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26825779&i=2" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26825625Re: Stormy's Update: Week of December 7th2009-12-17T01:54:14Z2009-12-17T01:54:14ZMurray CummingOn Wed, 2009-12-16 at 16:08 -0700, Stormy Peters wrote:
<br>> That said, the discussion started because of Clutter and its copyright
<br>> assignment and the fact that that is blocking it's inclusion in GNOME
<br>> 2.28.
<br><br>I'm not a lawyer, so I'm very ready for someone to just tell me that I'm
<br>wrong, but:
<br><br>Clutter's isn't a copyright assignment. It's a copyright waiver, placing
<br>the code in the public domain:
<br><a href="http://bugzilla.openedhand.com/waiver.html" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://bugzilla.openedhand.com/waiver.html</a><br><br>My concern is that code without a copyright holder cannot really be
<br>under any license. For instance, nobody could go to court to defend
<br>abuse of LGPL code in Clutter:
<br><a href="http://git.clutter-project.org/cgit.cgi?url=clutter/tree/COPYING" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://git.clutter-project.org/cgit.cgi?url=clutter/tree/COPYING</a><br>if nobody owns the copyright in that code.
<br><br>I hope that issue can be addressed. Whether I want to assign copyright
<br>is a different matter for me.
<br><br>--
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26825625&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">murrayc@...</a>
<br>www.murrayc.com
<br>www.openismus.com
<br><br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26825625&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26820167Re: Stormy's Update: Week of December 7th2009-12-16T15:08:19Z2009-12-16T15:08:19ZStormy Peters-2<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Luis Villa <span dir="ltr"><<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26820167&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">luis@...</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
2009/12/14 Stormy Peters <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26820167&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">stormy@...</a>>:<br>
<div class="im">> Had a great GNOME Advisory Board meeting about events and copyright<br>
> assignments. The copyright assignment discussion in particular was very<br>
> dynamic.<br>
<br>
</div>Care to expand on that one? :)<br></blockquote><div><br>The result of the discussion should show up from the board soon.<br><br>That said, the discussion started because of Clutter and its copyright assignment and the fact that that is blocking it's inclusion in GNOME 2.28. However, since nobody from Intel was on the call, we tried to keep the discussion to copyright assignments in general. <br>
<br>We wanted the Board of Advisors input on whether we should have a policy about copyright assignments and what it should be. (As our downstream partners, it's important to have their input.)<br><br>There were a lot of good points made by both "sides". Interestingly enough the sides were not divided by company employees vs community. There were pro and anti copyright assignment folks in both the board of directors and the board of advisors. It was also a very good debate with everyone bringing passion but not anger. (Which I really appreciate right now. :)<br>
<br>Some points that came up:<br>* Copyright assignments done by companies are different than those done by a nonprofit. <br>* You can assign copyrights back to the contributor too.<br>* Bradley Kuhn made some of the points he made in his blog post: <a href="http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/10/16/open-core-shareware.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2009/10/16/open-core-shareware.html</a>.<br>
* Copyright assignments are a barrier to entry. <br>* Copyright assignments can create paperwork.<br>* Some good projects (that we might want to include in GNOME) have copyright assignments.<br>* Copyright assignments help companies invest more in open source software projects.<br>
* There's a need for an industry standard copyright assignment. (Strange and different clauses just increase the problems.)<br>* You can get some of the benefits of copyright assignments (and other benefits) by instead allowing multiple entities to hold copyright like GNOME does.<br>
* Copyright assignment policies may cause forking.<br>* Copyright assignments enable easier relicensing. (Which can be both good and bad.)<br><br>These are not all my points but points that came up during the meeting.<br>
<br>Stormy<br><br>
<br></div></div>
<br />_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26820167&i=2" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26816558Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-16T11:00:46Z2009-12-16T11:00:46ZSriram Ramkrishna-4I bet I could find such training. I'd like to do some of the media work. I'm a natural talker, but I need some rules to make sure that I say the right things as I can spew garbage from time to time.<br><br>sri<br>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 6:13 AM, Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier <span dir="ltr"><<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26816558&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">jzb@...</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Dave Neary <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26816558&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">dneary@...</a>> wrote:<br>
</div><div class="im">> How do you get media training, by the way? :)<br>
<br>
</div>It's usually a pre-requisite for companies (like Novell) before<br>
they'll turn someone loose with the press. They usually have a<br>
consultant or in-house PR folks go through some guidelines, mock<br>
interviews, etc. What you should expect from an interview, the do's<br>
and don'ts and things you can/can't comment on. (For instance, I have<br>
a pretty free hand when talking about things with Novell, but you<br>
won't ever see me giving any answers/opinions on our financials. Which<br>
is A-OK with me...)<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Zonker<br>
<font color="#888888">--<br>
</font><div class="im">Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26816558&i=2" target="_top" rel="nofollow">jzb@...</a>><br>
</div><div class="im">openSUSE Community Manager<br>
Get openSUSE 11.2! <a href="http://bit.ly/EOV8a" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/EOV8a</a><br>
Twitter: jzb | Identica: jzb<br>
About: <a href="http://www.dissociatedpress.net/about/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://www.dissociatedpress.net/about/</a><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">foundation-list mailing list<br>
<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26816558&i=3" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a><br>
<a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
<br />_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26816558&i=4" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26815102Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-16T09:29:19Z2009-12-16T09:29:19ZJason D. Clinton<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 9:17 AM, Tobias Mueller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26815102&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">muelli@...</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA1On 15.12.2009 15:50, Jason D. Clinton wrote:<br><div class="im">
> No, do not detract it. There's a reason there's a debian-devel-private<br>
> and a kde-private.<br>
</div>According to Jeff in <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26815102&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">20091215033304.GE4571@...</a>> there is<br>
gnome-private as well: <a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-private" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-private</a><br>
<br>
Problem solved.<br></blockquote><div><br>This referendum would probably rename that list to foundation-private and establish with clarity what the list is to be used for.<br><br></div></div>
<br />_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26815102&i=2" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26818612Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-16T07:17:40Z2009-12-16T07:17:40ZTobias Mueller-6-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
<br>Hash: SHA1
<br><br>Heya,
<br><br>On 15.12.2009 15:50, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
<br>> No, do not detract it. There's a reason there's a debian-devel-private
<br>> and a kde-private.
<br>According to Jeff in <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26818612&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">20091215033304.GE4571@...</a>> there is
<br>gnome-private as well: <a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-private" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-private</a><br><br>Problem solved.
<br><br>Cheers,
<br> Tobi
<br>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
<br>Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
<br>Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - <a href="http://enigmail.mozdev.org" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://enigmail.mozdev.org</a><br><br>iEYEARECAAYFAkso+gwACgkQPuBX/6ogjZ5m0ACfSKghqro25d4BA86IFQIUGD3v
<br>kK4AoIdbkLnNghHgQMGtU6dVbGRvn3xw
<br>=SQJM
<br>-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
<br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26818612&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26811677Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-16T06:13:39Z2009-12-16T06:13:39ZJoe 'Zonker' Brockmeier-2On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:05 AM, Dave Neary <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26811677&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">dneary@...</a>> wrote:
<br>> How do you get media training, by the way? :)
<br><br>It's usually a pre-requisite for companies (like Novell) before
<br>they'll turn someone loose with the press. They usually have a
<br>consultant or in-house PR folks go through some guidelines, mock
<br>interviews, etc. What you should expect from an interview, the do's
<br>and don'ts and things you can/can't comment on. (For instance, I have
<br>a pretty free hand when talking about things with Novell, but you
<br>won't ever see me giving any answers/opinions on our financials. Which
<br>is A-OK with me...)
<br><br>Best,
<br><br>Zonker
<br>--
<br>Joe 'Zonker' Brockmeier <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26811677&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">jzb@...</a>>
<br>openSUSE Community Manager
<br>Get openSUSE 11.2! <a href="http://bit.ly/EOV8a" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/EOV8a</a><br>Twitter: jzb | Identica: jzb
<br>About: <a href="http://www.dissociatedpress.net/about/" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.dissociatedpress.net/about/</a><br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26811677&i=2" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26811513Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-16T06:02:06Z2009-12-16T06:02:06ZStormy Peters<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 5:05 AM, Dave Neary <span dir="ltr"><<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26811513&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">dneary@...</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi,<br>
<div class="im"><br>
Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:<br>
> On 12/15/09 1:25 PM, "Miguel de Icaza" <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26811513&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">miguel@...</a>> wrote:<br>
>> Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger<br>
>> connection to mass media and be ready to articulate public responses<br>
>> properly framing discussions and correcting any incorrect reporting.<br>
><br>
> Actually, this is something I'd suggested in the Marketing BoF at the last<br>
> GUADEC: GNOME needs people who (ideally) have been media trained, have<br>
> appropriate contacts, and are willing and able to talk to press<br>
> representatives when needed. I volunteered to be one, I don't know whether<br>
> that are others, but we haven't followed up on it so far...<br>
<br>
</div>I've done this in the past, and would be happy to again. Can't speak for<br>
anyone else.<br>
<br>
How do you get media training, by the way? :)<br><br></blockquote><div>I got media training at HP. It was a half day or a day class where you learned how to answer questions in a way that allowed you to state the points you wanted to make and not be misquoted. (Or to misquoted as little as possible. :) They even did mock phone interviews and videotaped us. <br>
<br>Sally Khudairi from the Apache Foundation holds regular media training at ApacheCon (she brings in other experts, does mock interviews, etc) and has said she'd be willing to work with us.<br><br>Stormy<br><br> </div>
</div>
<br />_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26811513&i=2" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26810316Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-16T04:24:18Z2009-12-16T04:24:18ZClaudio Saavedra-5El mié, 16-12-2009 a las 01:01 -0500, Richard Stallman escribió:
<br>> Doesn't this undermines the values of the open source community?
<br>>
<br>> To cite the "values of open source" as an ethical standard is ironic,
<br>> because the motive for open source was to avoid presenting an ethical
<br>> standard.
<br><br>You are (once again) deviating the discussion out of its main topic.
<br>Since I've noticed that you have a tendency to do this frequently, as a
<br>fellow GNOME Foundation member, I'd like to respectfully ask you to
<br>please avoid this and allow GNOME Foundation discussions to remain
<br>on-topic.
<br><br>Kind regards,
<br><br>Claudio
<br><br>--
<br>Claudio Saavedra <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26810316&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">csaavedra@...</a>>
<br><br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26810316&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26810197Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-16T04:12:22Z2009-12-16T04:12:22ZLefty (石鏡 )Typically, you work with a public relations firm. Media training is mostly a
<br>bunch of pointers ("Never say, 'No comment'"; "Never cite specific numbers,
<br>unless you are confident you can back them up") and a bunch of structured
<br>practice in question-and-answer situations, confrontational and non-.
<br><br>We should probably collect a list of those who are willing (and able).
<br><br><br>On 12/16/09 3:51 AM, "Dave Neary" <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26810197&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">dneary@...</a>> wrote:
<br><div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> Hi,
<br>>
<br>> Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
<br>>> On 12/15/09 1:25 PM, "Miguel de Icaza" <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26810197&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">miguel@...</a>> wrote:
<br>>>> Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger
<br>>>> connection to mass media and be ready to articulate public responses
<br>>>> properly framing discussions and correcting any incorrect reporting.
<br>>>
<br>>> Actually, this is something I'd suggested in the Marketing BoF at the last
<br>>> GUADEC: GNOME needs people who (ideally) have been media trained, have
<br>>> appropriate contacts, and are willing and able to talk to press
<br>>> representatives when needed. I volunteered to be one, I don't know whether
<br>>> that are others, but we haven't followed up on it so far...
<br>>
<br>> I've done this in the past, and would be happy to again. Can't speak for
<br>> anyone else.
<br>>
<br>> How do you get media training, by the way? :)
<br>>
<br>> Cheers,
<br>> Dave.
</div><br><br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26810197&i=2" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26810640Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-16T04:05:26Z2009-12-16T04:05:26ZDave Neary-6Hi,
<br><br>Lefty (石鏡 ) wrote:
<div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> On 12/15/09 1:25 PM, "Miguel de Icaza" <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26810640&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">miguel@...</a>> wrote:
<br>>> Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger
<br>>> connection to mass media and be ready to articulate public responses
<br>>> properly framing discussions and correcting any incorrect reporting.
<br>>
<br>> Actually, this is something I'd suggested in the Marketing BoF at the last
<br>> GUADEC: GNOME needs people who (ideally) have been media trained, have
<br>> appropriate contacts, and are willing and able to talk to press
<br>> representatives when needed. I volunteered to be one, I don't know whether
<br>> that are others, but we haven't followed up on it so far...
</div><br>I've done this in the past, and would be happy to again. Can't speak for
<br>anyone else.
<br><br>How do you get media training, by the way? :)
<br><br>Cheers,
<br>Dave.
<br><br>--
<br>Dave Neary
<br>GNOME Foundation member
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26810640&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">dneary@...</a>
<br><br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26810640&i=2" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26809653Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-16T03:19:52Z2009-12-16T03:19:52ZLefty (石鏡 )On 12/15/09 1:25 PM, "Miguel de Icaza" <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26809653&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">miguel@...</a>> wrote:
<br>>
<br>> Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger
<br>> connection to mass media and be ready to articulate public responses
<br>> properly framing discussions and correcting any incorrect reporting.
<br><br>Actually, this is something I'd suggested in the Marketing BoF at the last
<br>GUADEC: GNOME needs people who (ideally) have been media trained, have
<br>appropriate contacts, and are willing and able to talk to press
<br>representatives when needed. I volunteered to be one, I don't know whether
<br>that are others, but we haven't followed up on it so far...
<br><br><br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26809653&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26809565Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-16T03:13:17Z2009-12-16T03:13:17ZZeeshan Ali (Khattak)-2Hi,
<br><br>On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:59 AM, Philip Van Hoof <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26809565&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">pvanhoof@...</a>> wrote:
<br>> ps. The rest is off topic. It's a bit silly that yet another off topic
<br>> thread is starting. Richard, the topic is Behdad's call for a vote. Not
<br>> your ethical believe system. No matter how important you think that is.
<br>>
<br>> People who want to reply to this part: consider taking it private.
<br><br> I agree but I think you can set a better example by not yourself
<br>getting into the debate and explaining in great details (mostly
<br>irrelevant) about the open-source and it is all about ethics and
<br>morality. Are you in some way special?
<br><br>--
<br>Regards,
<br><br>Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
<br>FSF member#5124
<br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26809565&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26808816Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-16T01:59:26Z2009-12-16T01:59:26ZPhilip Van Hoof-2<br>Hi there,
<br><br>Right now I think we should do the vote Behdad is calling for. I'm
<br>waiting until the discussion about it goes to sleep to make up my mind
<br>about it (and then either add or don't add my name to the wiki page).
<br><br>I think the implementation should be broader than only foundation
<br>members. I think foundation members should always be allowed to join,
<br>and then other people can ask the foundation members to be voted in.
<br><br>I think the vote should present us with a few such implementation ideas.
<br><br><br>Cheers,
<br><br>Philip
<br><br><br>ps. The rest is off topic. It's a bit silly that yet another off topic
<br>thread is starting. Richard, the topic is Behdad's call for a vote. Not
<br>your ethical believe system. No matter how important you think that is.
<br><br>Brendan also wasn't talking about your movement, but about open source.
<br><br>People who want to reply to this part: consider taking it private.
<br><br>On Wed, 2009-12-16 at 01:01 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote:
<br>> Doesn't this undermines the values of the open source community?
<br>>
<br>> To cite the "values of open source" as an ethical standard is ironic,
<br>> because the motive for open source was to avoid presenting an ethical
<br>> standard.
<br><br>To deny a group or a person the legitimacy to keep intellectual property
<br>proprietary goes against criteria five of the Open Source Definition:
<br><br><a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://opensource.org/docs/osd</a><br><br>5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
<br> The license must not discriminate against any person or group of
<br> persons.
<br><br>And against criteria number six:
<br><br>6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
<br> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the
<br> program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not
<br> restrict the program from being used in a business, or from
<br> being used for genetic research.
<br>
<br>And "very much" against criteria number nine:
<br><br>9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
<br> The license must not place restrictions on other software that
<br> is distributed along with the licensed software. For example,
<br> the license must not insist that all other programs distributed
<br> on the same medium must be open-source software.
<br><br>And when broadly interpreted against criteria number ten:
<br><br>10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
<br> No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual
<br> technology or style of interface.
<br><br>I conclude that would the Free Software Foundation's (= your) ethics
<br>have been written down in the form of a license, that it wouldn't be
<br>compatible with the Open Source Definition at all.
<br><br>In fact, would the minimal support for GNU be that the FSF's ethics
<br>would have to be compatible with the soul of the GPL (which you
<br>summarized in "The Foundations of the GPL"), then neither would FSF's
<br>ethics be compatible:
<br><br>o. The freedom to use the software for any purpose.
<br><br>You, however, as as head of the FSF, claim that proprietary software is
<br>illegitimate. Meaning that you say that it's 'unlawful' under FSF's
<br>ethical code.
<br><br>This suggests (strongly) that the FSF's ethics denies a person the right
<br>to choose a proprietary license for his own work (you called it
<br>illegitimate. In multiple posts and under that context).
<br><br><div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> The founders of open source split off from the free software movement
<br>> in 1998 with the aim of rejecting our ethical principles and values --
<br>> for instance, the idea that we must respect the freedom of the users
<br>> when we develop software. They decided to present the matter as
<br>> purely a practical recommendation, and not as principle at all.
<br>> (See <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html</a><br>> for more explanation of how open source differs from free software.)
<br>> So it is ironic that some see it as a principle in itself.
<br>>
<br>> Openness as a principle is no substitute for freedom, which is why
<br>> GNOME needs to remember the free software ideals and not identify
<br>> primarily with "open source". But openness does have value, so I'd
<br>> prefer not to limit access to this list.
<br>> _______________________________________________
<br>> foundation-list mailing list
<br>> <a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26808816&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br>> <a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br>>
</div><br>--
<br>Philip Van Hoof, freelance software developer
<br>home: me at pvanhoof dot be
<br>gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org
<br><a href="http://pvanhoof.be/blog" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://pvanhoof.be/blog</a><br><a href="http://codeminded.be" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://codeminded.be</a><br><br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26808816&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26807154Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-15T23:15:25Z2009-12-15T23:15:25ZMurray CummingOn Tue, 2009-12-15 at 13:16 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
<br>> In short: it changes the tone for the better.
<br><br>I have the opposite experience of private mailing lists.
<br><br>--
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26807154&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">murrayc@...</a>
<br>www.murrayc.com
<br>www.openismus.com
<br><br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26807154&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26807185Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-15T23:14:41Z2009-12-15T23:14:41ZOlav VittersOn Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 05:02:15PM +1000, brendan edmonds wrote:
<br>> I used the term 'open source' to refer to the following criteria of
<br>> the definition for a project to be open source
<br>> (<a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://opensource.org/docs/osd</a>).
<br><br>I approved this non-member email.
<br><br>However, from <a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><br>"This is a forum for discussion relating to the GNOME Foundation"
<br><br>This discussion is getting way offtopic, there is no reason why these
<br>posts should be approved when they hit the moderator queue. Suggest to
<br>move it where it is ontopic.
<br><br>--
<br>Regards,
<br>Olav
<br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26807185&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26807117Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-15T23:02:15Z2009-12-15T23:02:15ZBrendan EdmondsRichard,
<br><br>I used the term 'open source' to refer to the following criteria of
<br>the definition for a project to be open source
<br>(<a href="http://opensource.org/docs/osd" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://opensource.org/docs/osd</a>).
<br><br>5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
<br><br>I am being discriminated against because I can not make improvements
<br>or discuss where the project is headed.
<br><br>From a free software point of view:
<br><br>The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and
<br>modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole
<br>community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a
<br>precondition for this.
<br><br>This means that any discussions should be made public. If not I feel I
<br>like I'm loosing this freedom. How can I improve a program if I don't
<br>know where the project is headed and reasons why the project is headed
<br>in that direction (what are the goals of the project)?
<br><br>Thanks
<br><br>Brendan
<br><br><br>On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 4:01 PM, Richard Stallman <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26807117&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">rms@...</a>> wrote:
<div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>>
<br>> Doesn't this undermines the values of the open source community?
<br>>
<br>> To cite the "values of open source" as an ethical standard is ironic,
<br>> because the motive for open source was to avoid presenting an ethical
<br>> standard.
<br>>
<br>> The founders of open source split off from the free software movement
<br>> in 1998 with the aim of rejecting our ethical principles and values --
<br>> for instance, the idea that we must respect the freedom of the users
<br>> when we develop software. They decided to present the matter as
<br>> purely a practical recommendation, and not as principle at all.
<br>> (See <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html</a><br>> for more explanation of how open source differs from free software.)
<br>> So it is ironic that some see it as a principle in itself.
<br>>
<br>> Openness as a principle is no substitute for freedom, which is why
<br>> GNOME needs to remember the free software ideals and not identify
<br>> primarily with "open source". But openness does have value, so I'd
<br>> prefer not to limit access to this list.
</div>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26807117&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26806651Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-15T22:01:46Z2009-12-15T22:01:46ZRichard Stallman Doesn't this undermines the values of the open source community?
<br><br>To cite the "values of open source" as an ethical standard is ironic,
<br>because the motive for open source was to avoid presenting an ethical
<br>standard.
<br><br>The founders of open source split off from the free software movement
<br>in 1998 with the aim of rejecting our ethical principles and values --
<br>for instance, the idea that we must respect the freedom of the users
<br>when we develop software. They decided to present the matter as
<br>purely a practical recommendation, and not as principle at all.
<br>(See <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html</a><br>for more explanation of how open source differs from free software.)
<br>So it is ironic that some see it as a principle in itself.
<br><br>Openness as a principle is no substitute for freedom, which is why
<br>GNOME needs to remember the free software ideals and not identify
<br>primarily with "open source". But openness does have value, so I'd
<br>prefer not to limit access to this list.
<br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26806651&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26804192Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership2009-12-15T16:09:40Z2009-12-15T16:09:40ZZeeshan Ali (Khattak)-2Hi,
<br><br>On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 11:49 PM, Dave Neary <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26804192&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">dneary@...</a>> wrote:
<div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> Hi,
<br>>
<br>> Lefty wrote:
<br>>> Given the proposition that proprietary software is "illegitimate", and
<br>>> the statement above, do you believe that the GNOME Foundation and
<br>>> community should distance itself from companies which produce proprietary
<br>>> software?
<br>>>
<br>>> Specifically, should the Advisory Board be dissolved, and should the
<br>>> Foundation refuse further financial support from the companies that
<br>>> are currently on the Ad Board?
<br>>
<br>> I for one am interested in Richard's position on this. Mine is clear: I have no problem at all working with companies who want to improve GNOME or the GNOME platform, even if they develop proprietary software. And the money they give to GNOME gets used to improve GNOME, so as long as there are no strings attached, I don't care particularly why they give it.
<br>>
<br>> On the other hand, I feel under no obligation to promote their non-free software offerings, or guilt in encouraging free equivalents of their proprietary components & products.
</div><br> I fee like you took thoughts out of my mind but unlike me were able
<br>to express them very nicely. :)
<br><br>--
<br>Regards,
<br><br>Zeeshan Ali (Khattak)
<br>FSF member#5124
<br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26804192&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26803086Spreading the word about GNOME2009-12-15T14:37:35Z2009-12-15T14:37:35ZStormy Peters-2GNOME Foundation members and supporters,<br><br>In order to fulfill our mission of a free and open source desktop accessible to everyone, we need to spread the word about GNOME and its benefits. We need to be present at technical events where people are making choices about which technologies to use as well as at events that might not typically be associated with free software like conferences focused on accessibility, education or governments.<br>
<br>With that in mind, I'd like to encourage all of you to watch for opportunities to speak about GNOME, let others know about them and sign up for them yourselves!<br><br>If you are interested in speaking or setting up a GNOME table or booth at a conference, there are many in the community that can help with advice and resources. Also, if you need help with logistics, it's always possible to ask the travel committee to consider sponsoring your travel. <br>
<br>You can add events that needs speakers, check out the list of speaking opportunities or add yourself as a potential speaker on the wiki, <a href="http://live.gnome.org/GnomeEvents/Speakers" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://live.gnome.org/GnomeEvents/Speakers</a>.<br>
<br>Best,<br><br>Stormy<br>
<br />_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26803086&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26802424Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership2009-12-15T13:49:47Z2009-12-15T13:49:47ZDave Neary-6Hi,
<br><br>Lefty wrote:
<br>> Given the proposition that proprietary software is "illegitimate", and
<br>> the statement above, do you believe that the GNOME Foundation and
<br>> community should distance itself from companies which produce proprietary
<br>> software?
<br>>
<br>> Specifically, should the Advisory Board be dissolved, and should the
<br>> Foundation refuse further financial support from the companies that
<br>> are currently on the Ad Board?
<br><br>I for one am interested in Richard's position on this. Mine is clear: I have no problem at all working with companies who want to improve GNOME or the GNOME platform, even if they develop proprietary software. And the money they give to GNOME gets used to improve GNOME, so as long as there are no strings attached, I don't care particularly why they give it.
<br><br>On the other hand, I feel under no obligation to promote their non-free software offerings, or guilt in encouraging free equivalents of their proprietary components & products.
<br><br>Cheers,
<br>Dave.
<br><br>--
<br>Dave Neary
<br>Lyon, France
<br>Email: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26802424&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">dneary@...</a>
<br>Jabber: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26802424&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">dneary@...</a>
<br><br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26802424&i=2" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26804344Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-15T13:25:58Z2009-12-15T13:25:58ZMiguel de Icaza-2Hello,
<br><br> I believe that we should keep the foundation-list open for anyone to
<br>read.
<br><br> As Jeff said, trollumnists do not need to play by the same rules
<br>that we do, they do not need to stick to the facts when they do not
<br>serve their purpose. When facts get in the way, they will just invent
<br>their own or lie by omission [1].
<br><br> Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger
<br>connection to mass media and be ready to articulate public responses
<br>properly framing discussions and correcting any incorrect reporting.
<br><br> Raw community discussion is like a kitchen, it might not be pretty,
<br>but what counts is the result. We should be proud of the software that
<br>we create, how we got there, and the fact that we have nothing to hide.
<br>If we close down the list because of a trollumnist, then fear, hate and
<br>trollumnism win.
<br><br> We can improve our Code of Conduct to help us harmonize our
<br>discussions and harmonize the public outcome. As I have mentioned in
<br>the past on my blog, I very much like "The Art of Possibility" and
<br>perhaps we could grab some of those concepts for the code of conduct.
<br><br>Miguel.
<br><br>[1] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness</a><br><br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26804344&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26801570Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-15T12:51:26Z2009-12-15T12:51:26ZJason D. Clinton<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Gregory Leblanc <span dir="ltr"><<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26801570&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">headmaster.albus.dumbledore@...</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
not that closing foundation list<br>
would make it into a small conversation.<br></blockquote><div><br>The proposal is now to create a -private list; please do not add further confusion. <br><br></div></div>
<br />_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26801570&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26801153Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership2009-12-15T12:21:31Z2009-12-15T12:21:31ZRichard Stallman Non-free software can't even be "favorably mentioned"?
<br><br>My second suggestion was to post an official GNOME response when it is
<br>favorably mentioned. My previous suggestion was for a rule
<br>about a much narrower case.
<br><br>It seems you've grafted part of one onto part of the other, and now
<br>you're criticizing a combination which nobody proposed.
<br><br> Wow. You and I have extremely different ideas about "freedom", Mr. Stallman.
<br><br>When it comes to freedom of expression, I am in favor of the freedom
<br>to advocate any views whatsoever, including favoring proprietary
<br>software. This is why I am an ACLU member.
<br><br>I don't know how different your ideas are, but I defend your right to
<br>state them anyway.
<br><br>However, the issue here is not about what people should be free to
<br>say, it is about what position GNOME should take and how to express
<br>it. People have a right to publish what they wish, but GNOME also has
<br>a right to take a stand and express that stand in its platforms.
<br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26801153&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26801150Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership2009-12-15T12:21:27Z2009-12-15T12:21:27ZRichard Stallman As it says in the footer of Planet GNOME:
<br> ...
<br><br> *Planet GNOME automatically reposts blog entries from the GNOME community.
<br> Entries on this page are owned by their authors. We do not edit, endorse or
<br> vouch for the contents of individual posts."
<br><br>This might be adequate for legal purposes, but even when readers
<br>remember seeing it, it won't have much effect on the message they
<br>get from reading the site.
<br><br>Most people take for granted that proprietary software is normal and
<br>legitimate; they have never seriously considered that it might be
<br>unjust. When they see, on a GNOME-sponsored site, a blog by one of
<br>the developers of Screw-U-sers discussing progress on the new
<br>version, they think that GNOME has the same view.
<br><br>The existing GNOME Planet disclaimer won't tell them otherwise, But
<br>maybe a different disclaimer would help, one that specifically
<br>addresses this issue.
<br><br>Here's one idea for a disclaimer that might do the job:
<br><br> Some of the postings here way discuss proprietary software in a way
<br> that says, or takes for granted, that it is legitimate.
<br> The GNOME Project regrets these postings and invites everyone
<br> to use only freedom-respecting software.
<br><br>So this is my third suggestion. First I proposed a narrow rule,
<br>then a broader polict of posting official responses, and third
<br>a more articulate and clearer disclaimer.
<br><br>Other methods my work, too.
<br><br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26801150&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26801144Re: Vote to fork Gnome.2009-12-15T12:21:10Z2009-12-15T12:21:10ZRichard Stallman Richard, as a GNOME member, suggested that we forbid any mention of
<br> proprietary software on planet GNOME.
<br><br>Nobody suggested that as far as I know. I certainly did not.
<br><br><br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26801144&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26801019Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-15T12:13:38Z2009-12-15T12:13:38ZGregory Leblanc-2On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:16 PM, Jason D. Clinton <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26801019&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">me@...</a>> wrote:
<div class='shrinkable-quote'><br>> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Murray Cumming <<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26801019&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">murrayc@...</a>>
<br>> wrote:
<br>>>
<br>>> On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:50 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:
<br>>> > This is about signal-to-noise ratio, not
<br>>> > about keeping secrets.
<br>>>
<br>>> So why not just moderate the list?
<br>>
<br>> Because part of increasing signal-to-noise is giving those in a discussion a
<br>> reasonable expectation that they do not have to advocate their position in
<br>> public. When one is in a quiet, side-conversation amongst a few people,
</div><br>There is no way that a discussion among the foundation member could be
<br>classified as a "side conversation amongst a few people". It will
<br>always be a discussion among a few hundred people, even if only a few
<br>are participating.
<br><br>> there's a lower probability that people will reply just so that they have
<br>> the last word in a conversation. And there's a lower probability that people
<br>> will feel that their good name is being drug through the mud because someone
<br>> doesn't agree with their ideas.
<br>>
<br>> In short: it changes the tone for the better.
<br><br>I agree with what you're saying about a small conversation group
<br>changing the tone for the better, but not that closing foundation list
<br>would make it into a small conversation.
<br> Greg
<br>_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26801019&i=2" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>tag:old.nabble.com,2006:post-26800144Re: "Private Foundation-List" Petition for referendum2009-12-15T11:16:10Z2009-12-15T11:16:10ZJason D. Clinton<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 12:08 PM, Murray Cumming <span dir="ltr"><<a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26800144&i=0" target="_top" rel="nofollow">murrayc@...</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Tue, 2009-12-15 at 09:50 -0600, Jason D. Clinton wrote:<br>
</div><div class="im">> This is about signal-to-noise ratio, not<br>
> about keeping secrets.<br>
<br>
</div>So why not just moderate the list?<br></blockquote><div><br>Because part of increasing signal-to-noise is giving those in a discussion a reasonable expectation that they do not have to advocate their position in public. When one is in a quiet, side-conversation amongst a few people, there's a lower probability that people will reply just so that they have the last word in a conversation. And there's a lower probability that people will feel that their good name is being drug through the mud because someone doesn't agree with their ideas.<br>
<br>In short: it changes the tone for the better.<br><br></div></div>
<br />_______________________________________________
<br>foundation-list mailing list
<br><a href="http://old.nabble.com/user/SendEmail.jtp?type=post&post=26800144&i=1" target="_top" rel="nofollow">foundation-list@...</a>
<br><a href="http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list" target="_top" rel="nofollow">http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list</a><br><p>From forum: <a href="http://old.nabble.com/Gnome---Foundation---General-f1306.html" embed="fixTarget[1306]" target="_top" >Gnome - Foundation - General</a></p>