Hello,
I produced a summary of a longer debate on the German discussion list which addressed a lot of aspects that may be relevant to other European countries. Please comment here on this list or per PM. The text below is also available as a blog post [0].
The [1] trigger was a letter that a school kid brought home, informing the parents that a Windows 10 device with MS Office 2013/2016 will be made mandatory to participate in class.
As outrageous this sounds for Free Software supporters, I fear that this is getting common practice throughout Europe and that most parents accept it with a shrug. I’ll be happy for any feedback dispelling or confirming this fear.
Is there a template letter to complain about it?
The original poster asked if there was template letter for such cases that he could use to inform the school that this practice is not what he expects from a public body.
Wouldn't it be nice to have such a template or maybe even a booklet of templates? As English is most commonly understood in Europe, it would be best to start with an English version and move on with [2]translations into other languages. In fact, [3]creating a section with sample letters has been on our wish list for years already! Feel free to plunge in!
There are currently two versions of the draft: [4]one and [5]two, both German. (By the way: the FSFE maintains a [6]public Etherpad you can use for such cases.)
As the last post in the discussion so far, Max shared some brief findings from the [7]European Free Software Policy Meeting in Brussels, that it is difficult to “convince” in a letter. It is important not to exaggerate and point out the benefits of the recipient.
Advocating Free Software or demand our rights?
It was discussed whether the focus of the letter should be to convince the school that Free Software is a great thing or rather that they are obliged to leave the minority the right to keep using the systems of their choice.
Some may argue that the majority is using Windows anyway and simply won’t care. Does that entitle a public school to force those who do care to give up their freedom and privacy?
Are we in such a weak position that we have to beg the institutions to let us use Free Software or is there any legal ground where we can claim the right to do so?
Use your right to participate!
Either way, we should make our voice heard more often. During the course of the discussion, Michael encouraged parents to use their right to participate in decision making processes in their kids’ schools. This process is highly regulated in Germany and what parents can actually do is limited but still, they do have a say on school matters. How is this done elsewhere in Europe?
Is this practice even legal?
Public schools force their students/pupils to use a certain operating system with [8]known back doors, with a certain office suite using a certain cloud software and various kinds of privacy issues, e.g.: storing personal data in a different jurisdiction.
Is this practice legal? The answer seems to vary depending on which federal state in Germany you look at. How is it in your area? Do you know any rules or laws that would prohibit this kind of practice?
A while back in Switzerland, an [9]expert group recommended to use Free Software after analysing Microsoft's offer called live@edu back then due to privacy and lock-in concerns. Data protection law would prohibit the data collection mentioned in the proposed contract.
Proposed analogies
To make the problem more transparent to the recipient of the letter, it was proposed to ask: “What would you say if a teacher forced the kids to come to the gym with a special model of sneakers?”
It was mentioned that a similar practice is accepted, and even the default, when it comes to school books. The schools decide what books will be used in class. Why should it be any different with Software?
“The Chains of Habit Are Too Light To Be Felt Until They Are Too Heavy To Be Broken.”
[10]Source unknown, sometimes used by Warren Buffet
I am grateful to Bernd who pointed out that these analogies are missing a crucial aspect. What shoes I wear will not change the way I run and I’ll be as fast with a similar pair of shoes as with the ones I was asked to buy for class. A certain schoolbook will not change the way I read nor change my ability to read or understand complex texts in other books.
Software is fundamentally different. Using a certain software program defines a certain work flow and way of thinking. Learning a certain work flow and get effective with it takes time and effort (with any software). Almost nobody has the motivation or resources to constantly change the way to get a routine task done, especially not if one is already comfortable with one. Just ask a vim user to use emacs!
The program I use to do my homework will probably be the same I write my first job applications with. And the file format will most likely be the same as well as the place where I save them “in the cloud”. Forcing pupils to use proprietary software, will push them into the lock-in trap.
Equality of opportunity
or the widening “Rich-Poor Achievement Gap” may be another argument against such practices. What burden may it be for a poor family to purchase a computer that meets the requirements of Windows 10? They have to buy that computer. There is no way around it. So, they will have to relinquish something else like healthy food or family time as they have to spend more time at work.
Bad publicity or positive campaigning
One thesis in the discussion was that only bad publicity will make the school at hand reconsider their practice. FSFE usually tries to follow a different approach. That doesn't mean we'd ignore bad news and don't deal with them. The question is: [11]What will make people change their view? I think it is much more sustainable if the people grasp the idea and benefits of Free Software instead of just “being forced to allow it”.
Point out the learning aspect of using Free Software
Geza suggested to mention the pedagogical angle as well. Free Software offers diversity, allows to experiment and try out various alternatives (different editors, programming languages, desktop environments) and thus leads to a competent self determined and responsible handling of the opportunities available.
Part of the problem is that teachers usually don't know anything else than MS products themselves as they've been in the same creature-of-habit cycle as they are about to push their students.
Sample lesson with OneNote
Bernd pointed us to a tutorial [12]video how OneNote can be used in class and had to admit that it looks pretty impressive and that there is probably no Free Software alternative which would allow a similar work flow.
Bernd is missing an easy to use alternative. Without these alternatives, it is difficult to object (object in the sense of “successfully convince others”).
To create a [13]video that starts a thinking process has been on our ToDo list for a while.
Wanted: Show case of Free Software solutions that are actually being used
It was mentioned that with a list of programs, the same thing could be achieved, but it is highly questionable if this zoo of different applications will ever be used in class.
It is clear that a lot of good stuff can be done with Free Software, but we need to show to the interested audience that it is practical as well. We need you! Do you know somebody using Free Software in class that is willing to create a presentation? Do you know presentations that have been given before and were recorded (preferably under a free licence)?
Are you aware of any educational institution that teaches on/about Free Software?
Going-to-be teachers need to see what is possible with Free Software. It needs to be proven that Free Software can deliver exactly what they need.
Not necessarily what they think they need. It's not my goal to mimic OneNote or other proprietary products. At the end, the work flow in the tutorial wasn't that smooth either. DG said: “Pupils may not be nerds but shouldn't be the school the place to learn how to use digital tools creatively without having a company make a product out of one particular use case? Until this isn't done in school – teaching how to use digital tools meaningfully and creatively – the perception that Free Software is only for nerds will stick.”
Looking forward to your contributions!
Guido
Visible links 0. http://blogs.fsfe.org/guido/2016/04/public-schools-making-ms-office-mandator... 1. http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-de/2015-December/007492.html 2. https://fsfe.org/contribute/translators/translators 3. https://action.fsfe.org/ticket/16 4. https://piratenpad.de/p/IGS-Sassenbug_-_Mobiles_lernen 5. https://piratenpad.de/p/IGS-Sassenbug_-_Mobiles_lernen_2 6. https://public.pad.fsfe.org/ 7. https://fsfe.org/news/2016/news-20160205-01.en.html 8. http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/insider/forum/insider_wintp-insider_secur... 9. https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/news/ch-school-it-agency-recommends-switching-op... 10. http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/07/13/chains-of-habit/ 11. https://blogs.fsfe.org/jelle/2010/10/31/advocacy-doesnt-work-if-you-tell-som... 12. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECBOAOa7dxI 13. https://action.fsfe.org/ticket/19
On Thursday 7. April 2016 13.14.14 Guido Arnold wrote:
I produced a summary of a longer debate on the German discussion list which addressed a lot of aspects that may be relevant to other European countries. Please comment here on this list or per PM. The text below is also available as a blog post [0].
Thanks for bringing this to our attention! There's a lot of material here, which is much appreciated in illuminating the matter, but I only want to make a few remarks.
The [1] trigger was a letter that a school kid brought home, informing the parents that a Windows 10 device with MS Office 2013/2016 will be made mandatory to participate in class.
As outrageous this sounds for Free Software supporters, I fear that this is getting common practice throughout Europe and that most parents accept it with a shrug. I’ll be happy for any feedback dispelling or confirming this fear.
Ignoring the general acceptance in wider society of needing to have certain products or to be using certain services, I have observed that public institutions tend to promote products rather than standards (and to lie about doing so, too). People are more inclined to go along with this if they don't have to buy the products themselves, so if an organisation obtains some kind of site licence (or whatever the preferred term is these days), they may even perceive such policies as perks.
Naturally, the actual costs involved in acquiring a product and "giving" it to everyone are obscured, with decision-makers insisting that costs in licensing agreements are "confidential" or "commercially sensitive". I have documents obtained in a transparency request where the figures are redacted with exactly that justification. (I don't see how a company should be able to tell a public organisation to conceal how much it spent on a particular product, but then again, I don't have a generous legal fund to pursue the answer to this, either.)
What might change things for people is when they themselves have to bear the costs of such decisions, which historically has resulted in people making illicit copies of the proprietary software concerned. I would guess that decision-makers usually end up with those site licence agreements just to avoid protests, absorbing those costs in other areas somehow. (How they are absorbed is another area of concern given that educational institutions are usually chronically underfunded. This also impacts individuals, as you note elsewhere, because schools might start asking for larger contributions for extra-curricular activities, for example.)
[...]
Advocating Free Software or demand our rights?
It was discussed whether the focus of the letter should be to convince the school that Free Software is a great thing or rather that they are obliged to leave the minority the right to keep using the systems of their choice.
Some may argue that the majority is using Windows anyway and simply won’t care. Does that entitle a public school to force those who do care to give up their freedom and privacy?
Are we in such a weak position that we have to beg the institutions to let us use Free Software or is there any legal ground where we can claim the right to do so?
In various places, regulations were passed to mandate open standards. Unfortunately, Microsoft has undermined standards processes and got its flawed office document formats onto the approved list in many places. Still, even institutions publishing in Microsoft's XML formats do continue to publish PDF files in order to prevent information leaks and to produce a definitive "read- only" version of a document.
One should still point out the benefits of Free Software that can do the same job. Maybe we're talking about a situation not dissimilar to that addressed by the PDF Readers campaign.
[...]
Is this practice even legal?
Public schools force their students/pupils to use a certain operating system with [8]known back doors, with a certain office suite using a certain cloud software and various kinds of privacy issues, e.g.: storing personal data in a different jurisdiction.
Is this practice legal? The answer seems to vary depending on which federal state in Germany you look at. How is it in your area? Do you know any rules or laws that would prohibit this kind of practice?
A while back in Switzerland, an [9]expert group recommended to use Free Software after analysing Microsoft's offer called live@edu back then due to privacy and lock-in concerns. Data protection law would prohibit the data collection mentioned in the proposed contract.
There is, and will be, a "head in the sand" approach to all this. When my former employer introduced Microsoft Exchange, the suggestion that the use of cloud services (in other words, Office 365 or Live@Edu) would be next was regarded as absurd given the legal constraints (that data protection rules prohibited data going off into some random cloud location), but fast-forward to today and the decision-makers are introducing Office 365 anyway and are making employees consent to the usage agreements (while telling them not to use the cloud for "sensitive information").
Add in the "safe harbour" decision, and one might think that institutions would be backtracking, but in fact they'll probably point to what each other are doing, with everybody following the most reckless of them all. Nobody wants to have to properly finance computing infrastructure (despite it being historically inexpensive) when nobody else seems to be doing so. (Think of this as being like companies not wanting to pay reasonable levels of tax because it would disadvantage them in competition with their tax-evading competitors.)
Proposed analogies
[...]
I am grateful to Bernd who pointed out that these analogies are missing a crucial aspect. What shoes I wear will not change the way I run and I’ll be as fast with a similar pair of shoes as with the ones I was asked to buy for class. A certain schoolbook will not change the way I read nor change my ability to read or understand complex texts in other books.
I think that the argument here is that the analogies are not extensive enough, but I personally feel that analogies need only be accurate or potent enough to illustrate the absurdity of the situation. Actually, schoolbooks as an analogy might not be so bad given that some treatments of a topic in a book might vary such that one publisher's books might not be as comprehensive or even as adequate as another's (or might even be misleading or plain incorrect if you consider certain topics and the political meddling that goes on in certain US states).
I lazily fell back on that old staple - the car analogy - when responding to demands for proprietary software at my former employer [*]. Given that a person had claimed that they had to have Exchange because they like Outlook (and thus demonstrating the way in which curated technological dependencies cause lock-in), I suggested that it would be like demanding that the city choose Ford to run all the public transport because someone likes their Ford Mondeo. Obviously, the two situations are not exactly the same - if they were, it wouldn't be an analogy any more - but the idea was to show that demanding extensive, arbitrary and costly change on the basis of personal preference or bias is absurd, attempting to do so with a scenario where "common sense" would help to confirm this in the reader's mind.
[*] http://blogs.fsfe.org/pboddie/?p=549 (in Norwegian)
[...]
Sample lesson with OneNote
Bernd pointed us to a tutorial [12]video how OneNote can be used in class and had to admit that it looks pretty impressive and that there is probably no Free Software alternative which would allow a similar work flow.
Bernd is missing an easy to use alternative. Without these alternatives, it is difficult to object (object in the sense of “successfully convince others”).
Any strategy would not be complete without Free Software being able to offer competitive alternatives. This requires investment by forward-thinking organisations because the work required is often too extensive or too laborious for volunteers to be expected to do it all, especially within a reasonable period of time.
Unfortunately, many organisations do not see such work as a priority - even those already making good money from Free Software - leaving people to erroneously conclude that Free Software (or open source, as they usually put it) has to be developed in a perpetually under-resourced environment as if that were a badge of pride. As long as this continues to be so, it will remain difficult to make progress with mere advocacy and demands for adherence to applicable laws and regulations.
Paul
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 07, 2016 at 04:53:39PM +0200, Paul Boddie wrote:
One should still point out the benefits of Free Software that can do the same job. Maybe we're talking about a situation not dissimilar to that addressed by the PDF Readers campaign.
Thanks, that's a nice idea. Although "fixing" the issue is slightly more complex than replacing a link on a website. ;)
Thanks for all the input so far!
Greetings,
Guido
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 04/07/2016 06:14 AM, Guido Arnold wrote:
Hello,
I produced a summary of a longer debate on the German discussion list which addressed a lot of aspects that may be relevant to other European countries. Please comment here on this list or per PM. The text below is also available as a blog post [0].
As distasteful as I find this I think I can see why it is being done. No government wants people coming out of its educational system that are unfamiliar with the "basic" technology in use around the world.
How I would approach this is similar to how religion, et al. are treated in the same schools. Require students on technical tracks to learn how to use (or at least become aware of) another office suite (and maybe operating system as well), and put those touted "standardised files" to the test switching between the two. This could be as simple as introducing SBCs such as the Raspberry Pi or Beaglebone Black to those students.
In theory this should produced well rounded students who are at home in both environments, and if piracy is properly prosecuted the student will see the advantages of the libre environment firsthand...
- -- Timothy Pearson Raptor Engineering +1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line) +1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard) http://www.raptorengineeringinc.com
On Thursday 7. April 2016 18.29.49 Timothy Pearson wrote:
On 04/07/2016 06:14 AM, Guido Arnold wrote:
Hello,
I produced a summary of a longer debate on the German discussion list which addressed a lot of aspects that may be relevant to other European countries. Please comment here on this list or per PM. The text below is also available as a blog post [0].
As distasteful as I find this I think I can see why it is being done. No government wants people coming out of its educational system that are unfamiliar with the "basic" technology in use around the world.
This argument about what was called "industry standard" software has been around since the 1980s. In the UK, with a battle between proprietary platforms - the one dominant in education and the one becoming dominant in workplaces - the argument went that children should learn the thing being used in workplaces in order to train them for work.
(One can argue whether schools are supposed to be training rather than educating, but that's another debate. Given that computing was also meant to be applied to most subjects and be used as an educational tool, it was also questionable that one particular application - office technology - should have been prioritised, but that's also another debate.)
The flaw in this familiarity argument was that anyone learning the currently- popular workplace software was always going to be behind the curve: by the time they had left school, even if they went straight into work and not entered further/higher education first, the chances were that they would be using different products. In fact, the flaw was compounded by the fact that the "education" platform in question had superior products in certain respects that more closely resembled the "industry" platform's products of a few years later than the "industry" platform's own products did when the children were being made to use them.
(I saw this for myself since I used the "education" platform at home, whereas the school's computers were mostly running stuff using DOS, and even the few Windows computers were running primitive versions of the products people take for granted today. Indeed, some aspects of Office are probably still deficient in comparison to the software I was using at the end of the 1980s and the start of the 1990s.)
And to keep up with "industry standards", sustained expenditure is needed: rather than there being a change in favoured products, it is now more likely that everyone is on the version upgrade treadmill. Whether schools should have the same budgetary priorities as businesses is another discussion to be had.
Personally, I welcome the single-board computer trend because it disrupts that upgrade treadmill, usually introduces Free Software, shows people that you can do the same with much less (and at much less cost), and allows for a broader range of experiences that would probably serve everybody better than a rigid training programme for software the children may never use again (especially in light of changes in the way computing is done, thanks to a wider range of devices being used than was traditionally the case).
Paul
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 04/07/2016 12:11 PM, Paul Boddie wrote:
On Thursday 7. April 2016 18.29.49 Timothy Pearson wrote:
On 04/07/2016 06:14 AM, Guido Arnold wrote:
Hello,
I produced a summary of a longer debate on the German discussion list which addressed a lot of aspects that may be relevant to other European countries. Please comment here on this list or per PM. The text below is also available as a blog post [0].
As distasteful as I find this I think I can see why it is being done. No government wants people coming out of its educational system that are unfamiliar with the "basic" technology in use around the world.
This argument about what was called "industry standard" software has been around since the 1980s. In the UK, with a battle between proprietary platforms
- the one dominant in education and the one becoming dominant in workplaces -
the argument went that children should learn the thing being used in workplaces in order to train them for work.
(One can argue whether schools are supposed to be training rather than educating, but that's another debate. Given that computing was also meant to be applied to most subjects and be used as an educational tool, it was also questionable that one particular application - office technology - should have been prioritised, but that's also another debate.)
The flaw in this familiarity argument was that anyone learning the currently- popular workplace software was always going to be behind the curve: by the time they had left school, even if they went straight into work and not entered further/higher education first, the chances were that they would be using different products. In fact, the flaw was compounded by the fact that the "education" platform in question had superior products in certain respects that more closely resembled the "industry" platform's products of a few years later than the "industry" platform's own products did when the children were being made to use them.
(I saw this for myself since I used the "education" platform at home, whereas the school's computers were mostly running stuff using DOS, and even the few Windows computers were running primitive versions of the products people take for granted today. Indeed, some aspects of Office are probably still deficient in comparison to the software I was using at the end of the 1980s and the start of the 1990s.)
And to keep up with "industry standards", sustained expenditure is needed: rather than there being a change in favoured products, it is now more likely that everyone is on the version upgrade treadmill. Whether schools should have the same budgetary priorities as businesses is another discussion to be had.
Yeah, I'm aware of this and largely agree. However, governments generally turn a blind eye to their own slow pace, leading to laughable situations such as the DOS one you mentioned. It's a lot easier for schools to say "well, we tried" than to say "no, we're not going to teach that at all".
Also, one aspect I did not bring up is that by standardizing the platform you can to a large extent standardize the curriculum built on that platform. This is very attractive at the scale of most educational institutions; by forcing the exact same tools for all students, it eliminates another potential cause for one student to be performing better or worse than another.
Never mind that a mandatory upgrade from Microsoft would flush all that down the drain...
Personally, I welcome the single-board computer trend because it disrupts that upgrade treadmill, usually introduces Free Software, shows people that you can do the same with much less (and at much less cost), and allows for a broader range of experiences that would probably serve everybody better than a rigid training programme for software the children may never use again (especially in light of changes in the way computing is done, thanks to a wider range of devices being used than was traditionally the case).
100% agreed. This is partially why I suggested making exposure to and work with SBCs mandatory for students on technical tracks -- they gain exposure to the type of technology they will be working with in the IoT, and at the same time they realise only a small portion of the computers in existence run Microsoft products.
- -- Timothy Pearson Raptor Engineering +1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line) +1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard) http://www.raptorengineeringinc.com
On Thursday 7. April 2016 19.25.28 Timothy Pearson wrote:
Also, one aspect I did not bring up is that by standardizing the platform you can to a large extent standardize the curriculum built on that platform. This is very attractive at the scale of most educational institutions; by forcing the exact same tools for all students, it eliminates another potential cause for one student to be performing better or worse than another.
This kind of thing is what effectively happened in the 1980s, at least in the UK, where the chosen platform provided the anointed version of BASIC as well as various other languages and tools as options, thus getting around the chaos that existed at the start of that decade with regard to what could be taught. Here's a nice reminder of what people were dealing with at the time (see the "Usborne 1980s computer books" section):
http://www.usborne.com/catalogue/feature-page/computer-and-coding-books.aspx
Even then, providing enough computers for an entire class - if that was how they were going to be used - was an expensive endeavour, and I guess that many schools were not (at least initially) able to benefit from this kind of product-specific standardisation because they were dealing with different models of different vintages (which would also cause squabbling about who got to use the latest machines in the class - who wants to use a monochrome-only computer when there's a multi-colour one? - and so on).
A note on basic skills, though: a few years ago, I had to help my boss teach non-computing scientific people various tools, and part of that involved introducing the notion of the plain text file. The "industry standard" advocates would, of course, override any teaching of such concepts and direct everyone to the applications, which would be the Office suite, of course. We spent quite some time showing people that a program called Notepad existed and that Word was not going to allow them to edit a configuration file or look at their data, or whatever task it was that they needed to accomplish. (The GNU/Linux and Mac crowd didn't need the same hand-holding, probably because those people had already exercised informed choice and were interested in the workings of computers somewhat already.)
As soon as you have to make time for such unexpected extra tuition, that two- day course starts to feel really short. Indeed, I started to understand why universities sometimes complain about the skills of new students, although in this case it was a university dealing with its own students.
Paul
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 04/07/2016 03:37 PM, Paul Boddie wrote: <snip>
As soon as you have to make time for such unexpected extra tuition, that two- day course starts to feel really short. Indeed, I started to understand why universities sometimes complain about the skills of new students, although in this case it was a university dealing with its own students.
Yeah, this is where the one-size-fits-all education model really breaks down. Students on a more technical track are going to require exposure to devices and software beyond the "industry standard" for users, and any attempt to enforce the user-only model through primary education only shifts the burden to the secondary educational institutions.
The real issue becomes getting the educational authorities to understand that additional technical education of a minority of the student population is required. This is further hindered by the fact that governmental bodies are generally comprised of non-technical people who are primarily catering to non-technical constituents -- it is often easier to ignore the shift of burden for such a small minority than to actually address the issue at hand.
Just my $0.02. :-)
- -- Timothy Pearson Raptor Engineering +1 (415) 727-8645 (direct line) +1 (512) 690-0200 (switchboard) http://www.raptorengineeringinc.com
Hi,
There is an ongoing debate in France about the official partnership between the Ministry of Education and Microsoft (French only sorry) : http://www.numerama.com/politique/141873-recours-et-menace-de-plainte-apres-...
Btw, if schools & universities programs were to be driven by "industry standards" only, we could also replace useless History or Literature courses by an Offshore Finance class ("everybody's doing it, so let's teach the kids what will be useful to succeed in business") ;) #panamapapers
Have a nice day,
Lancelot
Le 07/04/2016 23:48, Timothy Pearson a écrit :
On 04/07/2016 03:37 PM, Paul Boddie wrote:
<snip>
As soon as you have to make time for such unexpected extra tuition,
that two-
day course starts to feel really short. Indeed, I started to
understand why
universities sometimes complain about the skills of new students,
although in
this case it was a university dealing with its own students.
Yeah, this is where the one-size-fits-all education model really breaks down. Students on a more technical track are going to require exposure to devices and software beyond the "industry standard" for users, and any attempt to enforce the user-only model through primary education only shifts the burden to the secondary educational institutions.
The real issue becomes getting the educational authorities to understand that additional technical education of a minority of the student population is required. This is further hindered by the fact that governmental bodies are generally comprised of non-technical people who are primarily catering to non-technical constituents -- it is often easier to ignore the shift of burden for such a small minority than to actually address the issue at hand.
Just my $0.02. :-)
_______________________________________________ > Discussion mailing list > Discussion@fsfeurope.org >
https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion >
Hello Lancelot,
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:23:54AM +0200, Lancelot PECQUET wrote:
There is an ongoing debate in France about the official partnership between the Ministry of Education and Microsoft (French only sorry) : [1]http://www.numerama.com/politique/141873-recours-et-menace-de-plainte-apres-...
That's the same issue where FSFE co-signed the letter with April, right? https://fsfe.org/news/2015/news-20151203-01.de.html
Greetings,
Guido
Hello Guido,
Hello Lancelot,
On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 09:23:54AM +0200, Lancelot PECQUET wrote:
There is an ongoing debate in France about the official partnership between the Ministry of Education and Microsoft (French only sorry) : [1]http://www.numerama.com/politique/141873-recours-et-menace-de-plainte-apres-...
That's the same issue where FSFE co-signed the letter with April, right? https://fsfe.org/news/2015/news-20151203-01.de.html
Yes, same issue, the article is about later developments.
Best, L