Given the latest news regarding "Flax Typhoon" and the botnet infecting houndredthousands of devices like routers, nas, webcams, etc. [1]: How about releasing a best practice guide or similar regarding on how to protect infrastructure from getting infected and abused? I would be very happy getting a statement from the fsfe experts on how to deal with such a threat from a home user level up to large scale infrastructure (e.g. governmental). What can I do to protect my single machine home lan? How do policymakers need to act in order to protect the national infrastructure and data?
I think this would also complement the campaign about router freedom very well: "durch fehlerhafte oder unsichere Geräte Botnetze aufgebaut werden" (fsfe, 2013) [2,3].
[1] https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/court-authorized-operation-disrupts-worldwid…
[2] https://www.golem.de/news/routerzwang-fsfe-warnt-vor-grossen-nachteilen-dur…
[3] https://fsfe.org/news/2013/files/Stellungnahme_Schnittstellen_398_-_FSFE.pdf
Thanks and all the best
Hi everyone,
electronic invoices are slowly becoming mandatory and I'm looking into
Free Software solutions.There's quite the number of formats: XRechnung
and Zugferd, the latter is a hybrid format and compatible with the
French Factura-X. But there's other European formats as well.
I couldn't find Free Software that can read all of the formats. If
it's a hybrid format with a PDF part, that's fine, but what about
purely structured formats such as XRechnung. For that format
specifically, I found Quba-Viewer, but what about other formats?.
Kivitendo can generate invoices in the Zugferd format, but a whole ERP
may be over the top just for reading and generating invoices. There's
an older LibreOffice extension
https://github.com/akretion/factur-x-libreoffice-extension that
generates Factur-X which is compatible with Zugferd. However, it
hasn't been touched in years, so while it may be ok, it doesn' sound
like a long term solution.
Does anyone else have any pointers about that?
Happy hacking!
Florian
--
Florian Snow - Free Software Foundation Europe e.V.
Schönhauser Allee 6/7, 10119 Berlin, Germany
Registered at Amtsgericht Hamburg, VR 17030
Your support enables our work (fsfe.org/join)
Hi Carsten
Seing the whole project in Github I think it's really licensed under the
GPLv2+
The Copyright notice and license header are coded to every file for
licensing every individual file in the project, and they are undoubtedly
under a GPLv2+ (or later) clause.
There are some drawbacks how it's licensed too, I think:
- It's not good practise: "This program is free software; you can
redistribute [...]" You shoud introduce the name of the program in the
license header. -> "Back in Time is free software; you can redistribute
[...]" Notice there are some places to change it in the license.
- Not every file in the source code repository is licensed, **every
source code file** should be licensed, configuration files, markdown
documentation, bash scripts... too! (No license header = closed source
software (if not a lax license file is present in source code, of course)).
I've seen programs worst licensed than this, reused :-D. (Simply a
license or copyright file in root source code tree, for example)
The best place to go is to GNU Savannah mailing lists for this, I share
their documentation about licensing too.
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-globalhttps://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/HowToGetYourProjectApprovedQuickly/
There is the licensing mail of the FSF, but perhaps, their are going to
give you a more legal than technical information... Perhaps is useful
too for you, I don't know
licensing(a)fsf.org
**Licensing correctly under the GPL can be tricky, avoiding Github and
uploading the project to GNU Savannah is a good examen for doing it right**
regards
Joa
El 22/7/24 a las 11:08, discussion-request(a)lists.fsfe.org escribió:
> Re: Retroactive determination of "GPLv2-only" or "GPLv2-or-later" in an adopted project
> (Carsten Agger)
--
Joaquín Cuéllar | Profesor Sustituto Interino, Área de Arquitectura y
Tecnología de Computadores
despacho: Leonardo Da Vinci LV9P120 - Al final del todo, parte antigua,
1ª planta -
web: https://gentooza.github.io
proyectos: https://github.com/gentooza
Brazilian hacker Felipe Fonseca writes about attending a meeting about
free software (as "open source") at the UN headquarters in New York and
writes, among other things:
"... almost nothing that I heard on those three days was new. And that's
not necessarily a bad thing. Some stories are worth being re-told, and
some questions are not supposed ever to be answered. Witnessing the same
types of discussions that we have had regularly twenty years ago in
Brazil now making it through to the United Nations is a reminder not to
give up. On the other side, though I see the fantastic potential of
having the UN pushing for open source practices amid its agencies,
member-states and other organisations, it is also a bit sad. I mean, if
that support was there twenty years ago, the movement wouldn't have lost
so much talent to corporations that are not at all aligned with openness
(or the SDGs, or even the concept of “good”). Many innovative and
committed people have dropped out because it became impossible to
counter proprietary for-profit corporations and still make a decent
living. Some of the best among us were recruited by the very
corporations we used to challenge and counter. And I believe that
process is irreversible."
and
"n my intervention, I wanted to draw attention to a particular sequence
of events that happened twenty years ago. I didn't get to mention all of
them, but list below:
1. Gilberto Gil is a Grammy-awarded musician with a lifelong interest
in technologies and their effects on humanity and the planet. In
2003, he became the Minister of Culture in Brazil. He practically
started his tenure participating on a panel during an international
festival about Tactical Media. On the occasion, he was surrounded by
two other panellists with very diverse views about the internet and
digital technologies. John Perry Barlow saw the internet as a place
outside the real world, which should not be bothered by governments
and regulations. Richard Barbrook had the view that the internet had
been created with public funding, and for that reason, there should
be considerations about equality and inclusion in its implementation
and governance. Gil answered to that tension, basically saying that
both were right, and that such difference should be resolved
dynamically. He used the image of capoeira movements - a mix of play
and fight, of dance and confrontation, of overcoming differences
with good spirits.
2. Some months later, Gil played his guitar at the UN General Assembly,
making tens of delegates dance along. On the occasion, even the then
Secretary-General played percussion with him. I’m aware that this
may not seem that relevant regarding open source technologies. The
important point here is that he was inspiring people to address
contemporary challenges with good mood, and a profound understanding
of the role of culture. ..."
It's a good and thought-provoking read:
https://is.efeefe.me/stuff/open-for-all
--
Carsten Agger -agger(a)fsfe.org
https://fsfe.org ---https://blogs.fsfe.org/agger/
FSFE Denmark Coordinator, General Assembly & European Team Member
Free Software, Free Society!
Hello,
I am a member of an upstream maintainer team that took over a project
about 2 years ago, which is approximately 15 years old. We are the
third generation of maintainers and lack contact with the previous
developers.
The project is under GPLv2. This is stated on Microsoft GitHub, in the
license file, and the header of each code file. However, only the known
standard text of the GPLv2 has been copied without any modifications.
Further information on the licensing is unknown to me.
If I understand this standard text correctly, it does not explicitly
state whether a project is "GPLv2-only" or "GPLv2-or-later". This
distinction should be made elsewhere. But where exactly?
How should I proceed if I cannot determine this with certainty,
especially since I cannot get in touch with the previous authors
anymore? Are there any precedents for this?
Can I freely interpret the license and simply declare it as "-or-later"?
Thanks for the information.
Christian Buhtz
<https://github.com/bit-team/backintime>
On September 18, the FSFE Local Group in Denmark is organizing a talk
about "Life without the tech giants":
https://freely.modspil.dk/agger/et-liv-uden-tech-giganterne-mode-hos-prosa-…
(in Danish)
We'll discuss how to build our daily software infrastructure on Free
Software only, using decentralized and self-hosted or comunally-hosted
alternatives - i.e., things like NextCloud, Mastodon (and Pixelfed etc.
- Fediverse in general), Matrix, free Android distributions, etc.
Everyone is welccome :-) It will likely be in Danish unless some
non-Danish speakers turn up, in that case we'll switch to English.
Best,
Carsten
Hi Ursin,
thanks for the https://auterion.com/
"We’ve been leaders in an open source movement for more than a decade."
example.
Am Samstag 01 Juni 2024 09:06:28 schrieb Dr. Trigon:
> >* What would you suggest to face openwashing?
>
> Make it public.
A first would be to document the false claims or the bad behaviour.
> May be consitute an nonprofit organization containing lawers and try to
> enforce the open-source licences/"contracts".
You may already know it:
Enforcing licenses (or copyright/European replication rights) legally
usually can only be done by someone who holds rights on a significant
part of the software.
Most of the time it makes sense to bring organisations into compliance
as intermediate step.
The FSFE (and also our independent sister FSF based in the USA) have enforced
licenses in the past or helped to do this. (This is one of the reasons the FSF
has demanded copyright assignments for contributions to some GNU software.)
Other Free Software organisations have done so as well.
Best,
Bernhard
--
FSFE -- Founding Member Support our work for Free Software:
blogs.fsfe.org/bernhardhttps://fsfe.org/donate | contribute
Hi all,
During the last years, openwashing has become a growing issue in the Free
Software community, as many companies try to associate themselves with the terms
"Open Source" and "Free Software" while distributing proprietary software products.
We at the Free Software Foundation Europe want to learn more about current
market practices, and we need your help!
We'd like to ask for your input on the topic of openwashing. You can share your
views and experiences by answering one or several of these questions:
* How would you define "openwashing"?
* What examples of openwashing come to your mind (e.g. from your country,
professional network)?
* Have you experienced openwashing in your project, organisation, or
environment? How does it affect you and how do you deal with it?
* Are you aware of cases where companies have won public tenders by openwashing?
What did they do and what happened?
* Do you see openwashing as a major problem for Free Software and the Free
Software community? If so, why?
* Do you know of any resources on openwashing (news articles and analyses,
scientific papers, studies, statistics...)?
* What would you suggest to face openwashing?
* Do you have anything else you would like to share on the topic of openwashing?
You can contribute by simply replying to this message on the mailing list or
directly to me. If you want encrypted communication, find my GPG key here [1].
If you want to share your experience without using your name or email, you can
also leave a message using the following form:
https://share.fsfe.org/apps/forms/s/Z6xHfa8EiXk77FFreg2R6A6T
Feel free to share this message, any input is welcome!
Best,
Johannes
[1] https://keys.fsfe.org/jn@fsfe.org.asc
--
Johannes Näder
Policy Project Manager | Coordinator Germany
Free Software Foundation Europe e.V.
Schönhauser Allee 6/7, 10119 Berlin, Germany
Matrix: @jn:fsfe.org | Email: jn(a)fsfe.org
The GPL's major problem is that the right of communication to the public
is not provided explicitly amongst the granted rights, and that a clause
limits furthermore the granted rights to what is explicitly provided by
the license. Moreover, the GPL is known for being the most viral license
ever, whereas massive spreading through dynamic linkage is not the aim of
the European Commission.
--=20
Ciar=E1n O'Riordan, | Support FSFE's work ag=
ainst
http://www.compsoc.com/~coriordan/ | software patents by becom=
ing
| a Fellow: http://fsfe.=
org