I've already thought of this idea before so I'm interested in helping it
become a reallity.
David, if you want to envolve more people you should publish your idea to a
wider audience (FSDaily, digg, slashdot, barrapunto, meneame, microsiervos,
hispalinux, etc...). It would be nice to propose a plan (next steps) and ask
for specific profiles to work on specific tasks.
By the way, I preffer to have a partial solution than no solution at all, so
I also offer my help to http://flouzo.net/
---------- 8< ----------
From: David Picón Álvarez eleuteri(a)myrealbox.com
So, for the time being I am waiting to see if
there are people who are interested in making the proposal reality, or not.
> > I'd like to call to your attention an article I've just posted on
> > the FSFE's website.
> >
> > https://www.fsfe.org/en/fellows/modulus/user_driven_software_development
>
> That's an interesting approach. RMS mentions the possibility of
> founding an organisation for a certain feature or project in a few
> speeches. What you are suggesting is rather like a marketplace for
> such "organisations" which makes a lot of sense to me.
Btw, we are working on something very similar for a few months now:
Flouzo (http://flouzo.net/). It's not exactly the same, as the scope is
broader than Free Software, but it certainly is within our goals, and
it came from the Free Software world, in a large part *for* the Free
Software world, with a reasoning very similar to what David described in
his article.
For example, our first campaign is currently financing a
GPL violation lawsuit in France (see http://freebox.flouzo.net/), and
one of the campaigns currently being prepared will attempt to finance
the development of a FS alternative to Google Reader. We also made the
Ryzom.org campaign back in last December. Be nice while reviewing
Flouzo though - we are still in early development / alpha stage, most
of the features aren't here yet or are still clumsy. But it works! ;p
So, if you decide to push the FUDS project further, we'd definitely
be interested in helping/participating/financing/whatever. :-)
--
Xavier.
Dear All,
I develop a desktop program for simulation of effects of government policies
over agricultural systems (http://www.regmas.org).
I am concerned with the fact that the GPLv3 do not protect RegMAS from abuses
of usage, modification, production of new models/results without
corresponding release of source code that lead to such results.
My main concern is that academic experiments should be transparent and
repetable, something that currently do not happen in my field of studyies.
So I developed RegMAS. Conceptually I am very close to the "Software as a
service" where the software is used to produce services or products rather
than to be sold/distribuited. Hovewer I am in the filed of desktop usage
and "traditional" way of deliver the product/service, rather than in
the "network" domain.
May I still use the Affero licence? Is out there a licence (compatible with
the GPLv2, as I am using Qt and glpk) that is similar to the Affero one but
without the "network" limitation ??
The alternative is the Creative Common Attribution-Share Alike 3.0, even if I
would not require attribution. The important for me is that Free software
remain Free.
Would the CC licence be compatible with the GPL v 2 ???
Kind regards,
Antonello Lobianco
I really hate mailing lists that redirect contributions off the list ...
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
Date: 2 Dec 2007 16:13
Subject: Re: GNU FDL changes
To: Florian Weimer <fw(a)deneb.enyo.de>
On 02/12/2007, Florian Weimer <fw(a)deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> Oh well. Here's a transcript of the Youtube video that is floating
> around.
This is also under heavy discussion on Wikimedia's foundation-l:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/foundation-l/2007-December/thread.html
The noisiest contributors appear not to have realised the meaning of
the words "or later" each and every time they clicked "submit."
- d.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Sam Liddicott wrote:
> Sorry for top quoting (darn pocket outlook, roll-on neo 1973)
>
> Your scenario is nearly right.
>
> What if the same person adds features to gcc as well.
>
> Are those features AGPL or GPL as gcc is gpl.
> I want then to be gpl, I think they would be AGPl.
Well, since the features added would be part of the work for which the
GPLv3 "will continue to apply", they will be GPLv3.
Any changes which can be isolated to a part covered by the GPLv3 will be
GPLv3. Only such changes as apply to the parts covered by the AGPL or
the work as a whole (i.e., glue connecting the two parts) will be AGPL.
At least that's how I read it.
- --
http://www.modspil.dk/itpolitik
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHR03zletyW1YzdSERAoZWAJ9zGlrrDlGpZ53RdR73mLst/ZjFtQCeOOBO
bd47NZ9CQbMgOD97S5FxVco=
=AGjE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran(a)fsfe.org> writes:
> IPRED2 is scheduled to be discussed in the Council of Ministers on
> December 6th: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/file.jsp?id=5263692
The Dutch and Swedish governments say that it is not on the Dec 6th agenda,
but the EC website still says it is on the agenda.
I don't know who's right, but if it's not on the Dec 6th agenda, it will
probably be on the agenda for the next meeting.
--
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \ Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \ http://www.fsfe.org
Tonnerre has blogged that the GNOME project has decided to rely on Mono:
http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/tonnerre/stdout/gnome_goes_mono_and_jumps_into_t…
RMS has previously pointed out that this is a bad idea:
http://fsfeurope.org/documents/rms-fs-2006-03-09.en.html#q1
Miguel De Icaza now says there's nothing to worry about because Mono is to
be split in two. The part that MS got standardised by ECMA will be
separated out and GNOME will only rely on that part. He says that MS's
patent promise is good for that part because in addition to the normal
promise that ECMA requires (which talks about "RAND"), those who contributed
to the ECMA standard have agreed to define RAND as zero price.
Miguel's statement is here:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=5746&offset=75&rows=90#190589
(skip down to the "legalese" section)
And his comment about zero price is here:
http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=5746&limit=no#190596
When the only person telling us to not worry about Microsoft's patents is a
Novell employee, I worry. Does anyone know if the danger has really been
avoided or if there is some published explanation/criticism of this?
That would be great, thanks.
This lead me to read the Mono FAQ where I found some strange statements.
One was that they used a permissive (MIT/X11) licence for the classes
because they didn't like the term "derivative work" in the LGPL. If that's
the case, they should consider LGPLv3 now that that term has been replaced
by international wording.
A more interesting part is about Novell selling non-free licences for the
Mono code so that people can make proprietary versions:
"if you manufacture a device where the end user is not able to do an
upgrade of the Mono virtual machine or the Moonlight runtime from the
source code, you will need a commercial license of Mono and Moonlight."
This seems untrue. Have I missed something?
(The FAQ says that the software is all under either the GPL, the LGPL, or
the MIT/X11 licence.)
--
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \ Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \ http://www.fsfe.org
Someone has pointed out that my use of "civil offence" and "criminal
offence" makes sense in Ireland but not in Belgium.
The distinction I was making is between breaches of the law that are
investigated by the police/government regardless of whether someone's filed
a complaint or not, and breaches of the law that the police will only
investigate if there is a complaint.
Murder is an obvious example of the former, and slander is an obvious
example of the latter.
In Ireland, the former is called a "criminal offence" and the latter is a
"civil offence". In Belgium, they're both called a "crime", but one is an
"automatically enforced crime" and the other is "a crime that is only
enforced when there is a complaint".
--
Ciarán O'Riordan __________________ \ Support Free Software and GNU/Linux
http://ciaran.compsoc.com/ _________ \ Join FSFE's Fellowship:
http://fsfe.org/fellows/ciaran/weblog \ http://www.fsfe.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
MJ Ray wrote:
> simo <simo.sorce(a)xsec.it> wrote:
>> I think a very important consideration is how much probable it is for an
>> AGPL project to be successful. So far I know (I am ignorant tho) of no
>> really successful AGPL based projects. [...]
>
> How about http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/ ?
> Over 3.9 million users seems pretty successful to me.
I am probably blind, but I can't readily find it - where on that page do
I find the information that it's built with a system under the AGPL?
Thanks in advance,
Carsten
- --
http/::www.modspil.dk/itpolitik
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHRyYSletyW1YzdSERAraMAJ4vP8Fta/FyAVBMAZ78tjL9LAuLUgCeKbMI
vTSHSCPtrCmFCVPZ4iFClo8=
=im+q
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----