Dear sirs,
we have a new charter for our new Free Software, Open source and Wikimedia organization,
The idea is to create a local organization that promotes and supports * free/libre software * open source * wikimedia * creative commons * open standards such as from the w3c
in kosovo, which is so small that it does not make sense to have 10 different organizations.
We are working on recruiting and training the young people of Kosovo to learn to use and help improve the great technologies that you people have produced.
All people and all nations are invited and there will be no discrimination of any sort.
We will invite the other organizations to appoint members to collaborate in our working groups to implement and promote our common goals in newborn Europe.
We are working on creating the a large yearly conference in Pristina, Kosovo starting on August 28 this year, but with three dates :
Prishtina August 28-30 2009 Developers Day(s) Ferizja Sept 4-6 2009 Education Day(s) Prishtina Trade Fair Sept 23-28 2009 Business Days(s)
http://groups.google.com/group/free-software-conference/
please review and comment the charter, feel free to join are project and edit the wiki directly, or send your comments back to me so that I can incorporate them.
http://code.google.com/p/sfck/wiki/CHARTER CHARTER Charter of Asociacioni per Softver te Lire dhe të Hapur (ASLH)
* Articles of Association * §0 – Preamble * §1 – Name, Office, Nature * §2 – Definition of Terminology * §3 – Purpose of the Association * §4 – Activities of the Association * §5 – Membership * §6 – Assembly of Members * §7 – Meetings of the Assembly of Members * §8 – Board of Directors * §9 – Officers and Employees * §10 - Financing of the Association * §11 - Liquidation * §12 – Amendments to the Statutes * §13 – Reporting Periods and Accounting Years * §14 - Inception of the Articles of Association
Articles of Association §0 – Preamble
Upon entering the digital age, in which real and virtual space will equally determine the social, cultural and scientific development of mankind, Asociacioni për Softuer të Lirë dhe të Hapur (ASLH; The Association for Free and Open Software) has the long-term goal to raise and work on the questions this will necessarily raise.
The direct function of ASLH is the unselfish promotion of Free and Open Source Software and Knowledge as well as creating and propagating the awareness of the related philosophical and social questions.
The further mission of the ASLH is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content under a free license or in the public domain, and to disseminate it effectively and globally.
The ASLH will provides the essential infrastructure and an organizational framework for the support and development of open knowledge and software projects and other endeavors which serve this mission. The ASLH will make and keep useful information from its projects available on the Internet free of charge, in perpetuity.
To create the best benefit for the people of Kosovo the ASLH will join forces with other supporters of the same causes. Instead of creating multiple organizations in Kosovo we ask the other international organizations to join forces with us an form working groups under the ASLH to implement our common goals in the small republic.
The term Free and Open Source Software and Knowledge in the sense of the ASLH does not refer to the price, but rather to the following four freedoms:
* the freedom to use a program and knowledge for any purpose * the freedom to study the program and knowledge and adapt it to your own needs. * the freedom to make copies for others. * the freedom to improve a program and knowledge and make these improvements available to others, so that the whole community benefits.
This definition of Free Software goes back to the idea of freely exchanging knowledge and ideas that can traditionally be found in scientific fields. Like thoughts, software is non-tangible and duplicable without loss. Passing feeds an evolutionary process, advancing thoughts and software.
Only Free Software preserves the possibility to comprehend and build upon scientific results. For scientists, it is the only kind of software which corresponds to the ideals of a free science. Accordingly, the promotion of free software is also a promotion of science.
The distribution of information and the forming of an opinion are done increasingly by digital media, and the trend is to foster the use of those means for a direct citizen participation to democracy. Therefore, a central task of the ASLH is to train proficient citizens in these media, thereby promoting democracy.
Digital space ("Cyberspace"), with software as its medium and its language has an enormous potential for the promotion of all mental and cultural aspects of mankind. By making it commonly available and opening up the medium, Free Free and Open Source Software and Knowledge grants equal chances and protection of privacy.
Coining the awareness for the problems related to the digital age in all parts of society is long-term goal and a core aspect of the work of the ASLH.
Therefore the ASLH will seek to increase the use of Free and Open Source Software and Knowledge in schools and universities in order to parallelize the education in real space matters with the creation of understanding and awareness of problems in virtual space.
Free and Open Source Software and Knowledge guarantees traceable results and decision-making processes in science and public life as well as the individual rights to free development of personality and liberty of opinion. It is the job of the Free and Open Source Software and Knowledge into all areas that touch public life or "informational human rights" of citizens. §1 – Name, Office, Nature
1.1 The association will be known as Asociacioni për Softuer të Lirë dhe të Hapur, abbreviated as ASLH.
1.2 The association's registered offices are located in Prishtina.
1.3 Should no fixed registered office be established, it will be managed from the residence of the general manager at any given time.
1.4 The Association shall be a non-profit organization as defined by the laws in force in the Republic of Kosovo. §2 – Definition of Terminology
2.1 Free (as in Free and Open Source Software and Knowledge): the originator puts the intellectual work into the public domain free of charge and in an irretrievable manner. In doing so, the originator allows others the freedom to use the work for any purpose, to study how it functions, to adapt it to his/her own needs, to copy it for others and to improve it and make changes available for the common good.
We talk of Free and Open Source Software and Knowledge in include not only software, but also the knowledge stored in the form of Wikis and Documents.
In order to protect these freedoms, we understand the that Free and Open Source Software and Knowledge is to be software, documentation, instructions, Wikipages, videos or other media that is licensed under the latest version of one of the following licenses:
* GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html ) * GNU Free Documentation License Version (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) * Creative Commons CC-BY-SA license Attribution-Share Alike Unported (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa)
2.2 Open (as in Open Software): since not all intellectual work can be or is protected with the same strength as the above mentioned licenses, we therefore recognize this secondary source of free software:
* http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd
* http://www.opensource.org/licenses
2.3 Free and Open Source Software and Knowledge: Any computer algorithm or other form of intellectual material. We include wikipages, videos, documentation and software in this definition. §3 – Purpose of the Association
3.1 The purpose of the Association is to promote, develop, distribute and support:
* Free/Libre software as defined by the GNU.org project. * Open Source software as defined by the www.opensource.org. * open and participatory knowledge as defined by Wikimedia foundation. * information technology education such as Open Courseware from MIT. * open society using open and free communcation standards such as those from the W3C.org.
in Kosovo. §4 – Activities of the Association
4.1 Activities of the Association are:
* Run a yearly conference made available to the general public for the lowest possible charge that will further the aims set out on §3.1 * Enable access to free and open source software and knowledge by facilitating distribution and localization into the national languages of Kosovo
* Coordinate with national and international partners and sponsors in the industry, academia and government to further the goals set out on §3.1
§5 – Membership
5.1 The membership of the Association is open to any person regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, ethnicity, religious belief, age or physical capacity.
5.2 The Assembly of Members shall determine whether a membership fee shall be required from members. Failure to pay the membership fee, after written or email notice of not doing so, shall be a ground for the exclusion of the member from the Association. §6 – Assembly of Members
6.1 The Assembly of Members is the highest governing body of the Association. It shall consist of all members of the Association.
6.2 The Assembly of Members shall have ultimate responsibility for the policies and financial affairs of the Association.
6.3 Apart from the other powers given to it by these statutes, the Assembly of Members shall also have the following powers: to elect members of the board of directors; to approve reports by officers; to approve the annual working plan; to approve the spending of money over €300.
6.4 The Assembly of Members can delegate any of its responsibilities to the Board of Directors or any other organ or officers of the Association, by the decision of the majority of its members. §7 – Meetings of the Assembly of Members
7.1 The Assembly of Members shall meet at least once a year at an Annual General Meeting (AGM) at which time it shall review and approve the assets, liabilities, income, expenditures and programmes of the Association for the past year. It shall also consider anticipated assets, liabilities, income expenditures and programmes for the upcoming year.
7.2 The Assembly of Members can also meet at Extraordinary General Meetings (EGMs) whenever required by (half of the members) or by the Board of Directors. Such request must be addressed to the Secretary who will issue the notice of the meeting to all members, according to the procedure described in paragraph 6.3 here below.
7.3 Written notice of AGMs and/or EGMs, stating the date and place of the meeting, together with an agenda of the meeting, shall be distributed to all members at least 7 (seven) days before the day on which the meeting is to be held.
7.4 A minimum presence of (half) of the members is required for meetings of the Assembly of Members to conduct business. If this minimum ('the quorum') is not obtained, the meeting shall be postponed to a specified later date and a new notice shall be sent to all members.
7.5 Each member of the Association has one vote in the Assembly of Members.
7.6 Decisions in the Assembly of Members shall be taken by majority of the members present.
7.7 Any member of the Assembly of Members shall abstain from voting on a decision on any matter in which he or she has a personal or economic interest. §8 – Board of Directors
8.1 Apart from other powers given to it by these present statutes, the Board of Directors shall be responsible for presenting an annual working plan to be approved by the Assembly of Members and safeguarding the property and good standing of the Association. The Board of Directors shall always act in accordance with the purpose of the Association.
8.2 The Board of Directors shall be composed of a diverse group people in good moral and legal standing and significant achievement in the IT industry, academia and society. They will be elected individually by the Assembly of Members by a simple majority. Each director shall serve for a term of (one) year and shall remain in office until a successor takes office, or until death, resignation or removal.
8.3 The Board of Directors shall consist of at least 5 (five) Members.
8.4 Members of the Board of Directors can be removed before the end of their term by a vote at an AGM or EGM of the Assembly of Members.
8.5 In case of the death, resignation or removal of a member of the Board of Directors, the Assembly of Members shall elect a successor to serve the remaining term.
8.6 Decisions by the Board of Directors shall be by majority.
8.7 The Board of Directors can decide to refer any matter to the Assembly of Members for decision.
8.8 No remuneration or compensation shall be paid to the Directors without the approval of the Assembly of Members and only where the remuneration or compensation is reasonable and for work performed for the Association.
8.9 Any member of the Board of Directors shall abstain from voting on a decision on any matter in which he or she has a personal or economic interest. §9 – Officers and Employees
9.1 If necessary, the Board of Directors shall appoint employed Officers or hire agents to undertake the daily conduct of business of the Association. The terms of their employment will be determined by the Board of Directors upon a simple majority approval by the Assembly of Members.
9.2 The Officers will be employed under a written agreement that details all salaries and benefits to be paid to the Officer. Any salary or benefit shall be reasonable and paid only for work performed for the Association. 9.3 Any Officer may resign at any time by giving written notice to the Board of Directors, to the chairman of the board, to the vice-chair, or to the secretary of the Association. Any such resignation shall take effect at the time specified therein, or, if the time be not specified therein, upon its acceptance by the Board of Directors. §10 - Financing of the Association
10.1 The funds required for the Association are raised through:
* membership fees, * entry fees from the annual conference * sponsoring fees paid for the conference * contributions by government and other public bodies * donations * other financial contributions made by third parties, * benefits paid to the Association for activities it pursues for the common good, including lectures.
10.2 The members pay fees based on the decision taken by the Assembly of Members in simple majority vote.
10.3 No portion of the income or property aforesaid shall be paid or transferred, directly or indirectly, by way of dividend, bonus or otherwise by way of profit, to persons who, at any time are, or have been Members of the Association or to any one or more of them or to any person claiming through any one or more of them. This includes associates, friends and family.
10.4 Except, with the previous approval of the Assembly of Members, no remuneration or other benefit in money or moneys worth shall be given by the Association to any of its Members, whether officers or employees of the Association or not, except payment of out of pocket expenses, reasonable and proper interest on money lent, or reasonable and proper rent on premises let to the Association.
10.5 Nothing in this clause shall prevent the payment by the Association in good faith of reasonable remuneration to any of its officers or employees or to any other person in return for any services actually rendered to the Association. §11 - Liquidation
11.1 In case of a liquidation of the Association or termination of its tax-privileged status any assets remaining after the discharge of liabilities will become assets of the:
University of Prishtina Address: Rektorati, Rr. Nene Tereza, p/n
10 000 Prishtina
Tel: +381 (38) 244183 Fax: +381 (38) 244187
which has to use them exclusively and directly for non-for-profit purposes only. §12 – Amendments to the Statutes
12.1 The present statutes can be amended by the decision of a three fourth majority of the Assembly of Members. §13 – Reporting Periods and Accounting Years
13.1 The Board of Directors and appointed Officers shall provide annual reports to the Assembly of Members AGMs or whenever requested by an EGM.
13.2 The accounting year of the Association shall coincide with the civil year. §14 - Inception of the Articles of Association
14.1 These Articles of Association come into effect immediately following a decision by the Assembly of Members on xx February 2008 in Prishtina, Republic of Kosovo, and online.
On Sonntag, 1. Februar 2009, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
we have a new charter for our new Free Software, Open source and Wikimedia organization,
The idea is to create a local organization that promotes and supports
- free/libre software
- open source
Note that for software, "open source" is just a different word for "free Software". (The people use those different words for the same status of the software out of different motivations.)
The way you wrote it above, it looks like you believe those are two different things, they are not. It is a bit like saying, oh I like to eat apples, les pommes and äpfel.
Bernhard
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 02:21:53PM +0100, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
On Sonntag, 1. Februar 2009, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
we have a new charter for our new Free Software, Open source and Wikimedia organization,
The idea is to create a local organization that promotes and supports
- free/libre software
- open source
Note that for software, "open source" is just a different word for "free Software". (The people use those different words for the same status of the software out of different motivations.)
The way you wrote it above, it looks like you believe those are two different things, they are not. It is a bit like saying, oh I like to eat apples, les pommes and äpfel.
Not at all.
Open Source is a development method, Free Software is a political movement.
Both of these things produce software as a byproduct.
They can, and should, be treated differently.
On Montag, 2. Februar 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
Note that for software, "open source" is just a different word for "free Software". (The people use those different words for the same status of the software out of different motivations.)
The way you wrote it above, it looks like you believe those are two different things, they are not. It is a bit like saying, oh I like to eat apples, les pommes and äpfel.
Not at all.
Open Source is a development method, Free Software is a political movement.
"Open Source" is by design a different word for Free Software. http://web.archive.org/web/20060924132033/www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.ph... "The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for free software."
Regarding software, both mean the same status, that the software user has all four freedoms. Software itself cannot be a group of people.
A software being fFree Software does not say much about the development model, you can still completely develop it in a closed way. In other words: An "Open Source" software can be developed "closed". And proprietary software (aka "unfree") can be developed in the open.
Both of these things produce software as a byproduct. They can, and should, be treated differently.
If you want to foster open development, why not say so? It spreads confusion to let people think "open source" and "free software" are different status attributed of software. Overall they are not. (Experts like Debian, FSF and OSI sometimes discuss details, but this does not change the situation that it is all the same by design.)
Bernhard
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 04:09:33PM +0100, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
"Open Source" is by design a different word for Free Software. http://web.archive.org/web/20060924132033/www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.ph... "The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for free software."
Regarding software, both mean the same status, that the software user has all four freedoms. Software itself cannot be a group of people.
The FSFE concerns its self with a LOT more than just software. It is also important to support developers, groups, events, promotion, education, and all the other things which might further the core set of principals. In this respect, supporting Open Source and supporting Free Software is an important distinction to make. Don't conflate the two just because the byproduct is the same. This organisation is concerned the whole ecosystem surrounding that.
If you want to foster open development, why not say so? It spreads confusion to let people think "open source" and "free software" are different status attributed of software. Overall they are not. (Experts like Debian, FSF and OSI sometimes discuss details, but this does not change the situation that it is all the same by design.)
The FSFE is not planning to do this, from my reading. They are making a statement that they wish to support Open Source and Free Software as separate groups, which is a fantastic thing.
* Noah Slater nslater@tumbolia.org [2009-02-02 16:11:58 +0000]:
The FSFE is not planning to do this, from my reading. They are making a statement that they wish to support Open Source and Free Software as separate groups, which is a fantastic thing.
Why do you think FSFE consider them as seperated groups?
I personally do not consider Open Source and Free Software as seperate _groups_. They are different names for the same thing. Open Source is a failed marketing term for Free Software. Free Software is the better term, that is why we had the "We speak about Free Software" [1] campaign.
Best wishes, Matthias
1. http://www.fsfeurope.org/documents/whyfs.en.html
On Tue, Feb 3, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Matthias Kirschner mk@fsfe.org wrote:
- Noah Slater nslater@tumbolia.org [2009-02-02 16:11:58 +0000]:
The FSFE is not planning to do this, from my reading. They are making a statement that they wish to support Open Source and Free Software as separate groups, which is a fantastic thing.
Why do you think FSFE consider them as seperated groups?
I personally do not consider Open Source and Free Software as seperate _groups_. They are different names for the same thing. Open Source is a failed marketing term for Free Software. Free Software is the better term, that is why we had the "We speak about Free Software" [1] campaign.
Well, I also speak about free software, but I also speak about open source. I agree that free software is better, and it is my first choice, but if I cannot have this freedom and I am given only "open source" then I am practical and I use that as well. We are talking about a nation that is struggling to survive and people who just want jobs, many have heard about open source, and we need to reach them to tell them about free software.
So I have to remain firm that we will also talk about open source, because that is what people know. I am willing to expand on why free software is better and be more distinct, if you want to help I would be grateful.
I would love to have your comments or suggestions on the charter on how to make it better. I am open to your comments, and we need to get this ready for signing asap.
thanks, mike
On Dienstag, 3. Februar 2009, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
Well, I also speak about free software, but I also speak about open source. I agree that free software is better, and it is my first choice, but if I cannot have this freedom and I am given only "open source" then I am practical and I use that as well.
I was criticising _how_ you have used "open source".
You did use it in a way that people will falsely let to me believe that it those might be different states for one piece of software, which is wrong. I consider it okay to start where people stand, using the terms they know, and then go to a better explained state.
Usually I use it like Free Software (another word for it is "Open Source") is good for society and business.
Or Free Software (some say "Open Source") will foster equal chances in education
Maybe Free Software (Open Source) is good for science because someone can try to falsify the results and learn from how the other have done it.
But "apples, les pommes and äpfel" let me believe there are three different kind of fuits on the table. Personally I even find this worse than using "Open Source" consitantly. If you would do that, at least you were clear about what it is which is a precondition for telling anybody - and other people would understand me criticising you for this choice as Free Software is much more instructive.
Best, Bernhard
On Montag, 2. Februar 2009, Noah Slater wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 04:09:33PM +0100, Bernhard Reiter wrote:
"Open Source" is by design a different word for Free Software. http://web.archive.org/web/20060924132033/www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq .php "The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for free software."
Regarding software, both mean the same status, that the software user has all four freedoms. Software itself cannot be a group of people.
The FSFE concerns its self with a LOT more than just software. It is also important to support developers, groups, events, promotion, education, and all the other things which might further the core set of principals.
True, we do. We cannot prevent other people inventing new names for the status of Software that mean the same, examples "open source" (marketing-term) "libre software" (a new attempt to avoid missunderstandings) "foss" (try-not-to-hurt-anybody-but-probably-not-clear-about-it-myself) "floss" (even-more-embracing-attempt-or-in-need-of-cleaning-teeth) ;)
In this respect, supporting Open Source and supporting Free Software is an important distinction to make.
Regarding software it is not a distinction, still it is important which term to use as some are harder to understand as others and the group of people coming up with the terms have different agendas. The Open Source Initiative for instance wanted to sell Free Software on technical merits only and in a second step teach them about Freedom. Some consider this plan failed. Also they wanted to blend out effect of society and longer term effects on business. So even for businesses this did not fully work out, as there are even better arguments which they excluded from their arguments.
Best, Bernhard
I don't agree :
free software and open source have different meaning to many people. If you look at the "open source" people at microsoft you will find 200+, but for "free software" only 23.
http://www.linkedin.com/search?proposalType=Y&newnessType=Y&search=&...
Now, opensource is a trademark and has a specific meaning, we want to show support of that.
Free software is also a well defined term and has a specific meaning, we want to show support of that.
We also want to show that we support free software more than open source if we have a choice, but we do not always have this choice.
That is why we say "free software" and "open source" because we want to say that we prefer the idea of free software to the idea of "open source" but support both.
Also, most people want to just hear "open source" and are scared of the the term "free software".
I have to fight to get the term free software into the charter, and personally I am a big support of the fsf, and the fsfe even if I don't agree all the time, I still support them.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.unix.programmer/browse_thread/thread/df1...
Thanks, mike
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 05:35:08PM +0100, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
I have to fight to get the term free software into the charter, and personally I am a big support of the fsf, and the fsfe even if I don't agree all the time, I still support them.
This must be a joke, or a misunderstanding.
You had to fight to get the Free Software Foundation Europe to include this?
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Noah Slater nslater@tumbolia.org wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 05:35:08PM +0100, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
I have to fight to get the term free software into the charter, and personally I am a big support of the fsf, and the fsfe even if I don't agree all the time, I still support them.
This must be a joke, or a misunderstanding.
You had to fight to get the Free Software Foundation Europe to include this?
This is a misunderstanding.
I had to fight with the other supporters of the conference, not all have the free software background that I have.
We have had *no* support from anyone on this effort, it has been my personal effort.
Only recently have we gotten enough people to form a NGO in Kosovo. But we do not have any official support from any open source organization at the moment. We hope that when the first conference takes place peacefully and successfully that people will jump on the bandwagon.
here is my letter describing the project, in english and albanian. http://code.google.com/p/sfck/wiki/PageName
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 06:51:41PM +0100, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:41 PM, Noah Slater nslater@tumbolia.org wrote:
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 05:35:08PM +0100, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
I have to fight to get the term free software into the charter, and personally I am a big support of the fsf, and the fsfe even if I don't agree all the time, I still support them.
This must be a joke, or a misunderstanding.
You had to fight to get the Free Software Foundation Europe to include this?
This is a misunderstanding.
Great, thanks for the clarification!
On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 17:35 +0100, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
I don't agree :
free software and open source have different meaning to many people. If you look at the "open source" people at microsoft you will find 200+, but for "free software" only 23.
http://www.linkedin.com/search?proposalType=Y&newnessType=Y&search=&...
How is a linkedIn flawed statistic (there are non MS employees in your search why you imply they are all poeople that work or have worked at Microsoft) based on a search term mean anything ?
Now, opensource is a trademark and has a specific meaning, we want to show support of that.
False. Open Source is not a Trademark. And its meaning is also often not as clear as some people want you to believe, at least not in common people's minds.
Free software is also a well defined term and has a specific meaning, we want to show support of that.
We also want to show that we support free software more than open source if we have a choice, but we do not always have this choice.
can you give me examples of software that is Free Software but not Open Source or OS but not FS ?
Simo.
Am Montag, dem 02. Feb 2009 schrieb simo:
Now, opensource is a trademark and has a specific meaning, we want to show support of that.
False. Open Source is not a Trademark. And its meaning is also often not as clear as some people want you to believe, at least not in common people's minds.
Well, "Open Source" is not a trademark, but "Open Source Initiative Approved License" is. http://opensource.org/trademark
However on that page you can read "To be eligible to use the mark, you must: * Only use the term "Open Source" to refer to software distributed under an OSI Approved License." Does that mean, that you can use no other term, ie. "Free Software", or does it just mean, that the license must be OSI Approved?
can you give me examples of software that is Free Software but not Open Source or OS but not FS ?
For example Open Watcom is Open Source, but not Free Software. http://opensource.org/licenses/sybase.php
P.S.: I also prefer the term Free Software for my projects.
On Dienstag, 3. Februar 2009, list@akfoerster.de wrote:
can you give me examples of software that is Free Software but not Open Source or OS but not FS ?
For example Open Watcom is Open Source, but not Free Software. http://opensource.org/licenses/sybase.php
Evaluating which license or other conditions best ensure the four freedoms is a ever ongoing process (at least because legislation changes from day to day).
So there will always be examples where the leading experts are not sure about. To me the leading experts are the major FSFs, Debian and OSI. (At least those are the ones putting in significant time evaluating software and licenses.)
Step back a few steps and this does not change the overal picture: There is Free and un-free Software. Some groups use a different word for Free Software.
Bernhard
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Bernhard Reiter reiter@fsfeurope.org wrote:
On Dienstag, 3. Februar 2009, list@akfoerster.de wrote:
can you give me examples of software that is Free Software but not Open Source or OS but not FS ?
For example Open Watcom is Open Source, but not Free Software. http://opensource.org/licenses/sybase.php
Evaluating which license or other conditions best ensure the four freedoms is a ever ongoing process (at least because legislation changes from day to day).
So there will always be examples where the leading experts are not sure about. To me the leading experts are the major FSFs, Debian and OSI. (At least those are the ones putting in significant time evaluating software and licenses.)
Step back a few steps and this does not change the overal picture: There is Free and un-free Software. Some groups use a different word for Free Software.
Well, I see your perspective. And I appreciate your effort in explaining it.
I still don't agree, because for me free software is an ethical and political movement that involves moral judgements.
Open source is just that, open source. Now I support the free software movement, but I also support the open source people to distance themselves from it.
The free software movement makes itself unpopular in places that do not want people to have too much freedom.
For example, lets say you spend all your effort, years and years you invested in creating a product and all of a sudden someone figures out how to go around your license and create a plug in that would allow someone to go around the barb wire you strung up, then you would do anything to stop them.
I think that you can imagine what I am trying to say, sometimes people don't care about freedom because they need to survive.
Now, these people like the idea of open source better, because they have no strings attached and they can choose to hide the source if they need to. This is better than making contradictory licenses that say that you have the freedom to use the software for any purpose but not the right to use in for the purpose of interfacing to a plug in.
mike
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 19:27 +0100, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Bernhard Reiter reiter@fsfeurope.org wrote:
On Dienstag, 3. Februar 2009, list@akfoerster.de wrote:
can you give me examples of software that is Free Software but not Open Source or OS but not FS ?
For example Open Watcom is Open Source, but not Free Software. http://opensource.org/licenses/sybase.php
Evaluating which license or other conditions best ensure the four freedoms is a ever ongoing process (at least because legislation changes from day to day).
So there will always be examples where the leading experts are not sure about. To me the leading experts are the major FSFs, Debian and OSI. (At least those are the ones putting in significant time evaluating software and licenses.)
Step back a few steps and this does not change the overal picture: There is Free and un-free Software. Some groups use a different word for Free Software.
Well, I see your perspective. And I appreciate your effort in explaining it.
I still don't agree, because for me free software is an ethical and political movement that involves moral judgements.
Open source is just that, open source. Now I support the free software movement, but I also support the open source people to distance themselves from it.
The free software movement makes itself unpopular in places that do not want people to have too much freedom.
For example, lets say you spend all your effort, years and years you invested in creating a product and all of a sudden someone figures out how to go around your license and create a plug in that would allow someone to go around the barb wire you strung up, then you would do anything to stop them.
I think that you can imagine what I am trying to say, sometimes people don't care about freedom because they need to survive.
Now, these people like the idea of open source better, because they have no strings attached and they can choose to hide the source if they need to. This is better than making contradictory licenses that say that you have the freedom to use the software for any purpose but not the right to use in for the purpose of interfacing to a plug in.
I think you have very confused ideas about what is Open Source.
I think you are confusing copyleft with Free Software and non-copyleft with Open Source.
You are *wrong*. And you shouldn't embed such completely wrong believes in any charter that is binding people to something as it would bind people to fantasies.
Free Software encompass all copyleft and non-copyleft licenses just as much as Open Source does.
There is *no* practical difference between the licenses that can be said to be Open Source or Free Software.
If you want to do justice to the people you are going to address you better take Free Software and Open Source as synonyms until you understand where the difference lies. You'll do much less damage that way.
Simo.
Hows this, we just quote stallman like this : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/09/15/rms_why_open_source_needs/
"""The free software movement, since its inception in 1984, has had a political goal, political in the highest sense of the word. We are concerned with the question of what kind of society we should live in. We believe that computer users should have the freedom to share and change software, and we developed the GNU operating system for that purpose. (Linux, the kernel that Linus Torvalds wrote, is normally used together with GNU, in the GNU/Linux combination; see Linux and the GNU Project.)
The open source movement was founded in 1998 by people who wanted to talk about our system without mentioning the political ideals that motivated us to develop it. They got lots of publicity, and as a result most of the users of our software think it was developed under the name of open source for apolitical reasons. A recent survey showed that more developers prefer the affiliation with free software, on account of our principles, but the users get a misleading picture of this. That picture contributes to the political weakness in our community. """
So he talks about two movements, you are saying that they are one. So, I can just define my terms as such :
"""the Free Software and Open Source Association of Kosova ASLH supports the free software movement and the open source movement, but prefers the Free software movement if given a choice.
the Free Software and Open Source Association Kosova ASLH supports the free software foundations license GPL and GFDL and the open source licenses that are listed in its pages but prefers the Free software foundations licenses. Also the licenses from the creative commons are also supported.
the Organisation will support software and developers of software that work on the FSF licenses, but also the OSI approved licenses and also the CC licenses. """
I this this is more clear, and it avoids talking about free software vs open source but talks about the movements and the licenses of them that is easier to deal with.
What do you think about this? thanks,
mike
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 8:40 PM, simo simo.sorce@xsec.it wrote:
On Wed, 2009-02-04 at 19:27 +0100, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Bernhard Reiter reiter@fsfeurope.org wrote:
On Dienstag, 3. Februar 2009, list@akfoerster.de wrote:
can you give me examples of software that is Free Software but not Open Source or OS but not FS ?
For example Open Watcom is Open Source, but not Free Software. http://opensource.org/licenses/sybase.php
Evaluating which license or other conditions best ensure the four freedoms is a ever ongoing process (at least because legislation changes from day to day).
So there will always be examples where the leading experts are not sure about. To me the leading experts are the major FSFs, Debian and OSI. (At least those are the ones putting in significant time evaluating software and licenses.)
Step back a few steps and this does not change the overal picture: There is Free and un-free Software. Some groups use a different word for Free Software.
Well, I see your perspective. And I appreciate your effort in explaining it.
I still don't agree, because for me free software is an ethical and political movement that involves moral judgements.
Open source is just that, open source. Now I support the free software movement, but I also support the open source people to distance themselves from it.
The free software movement makes itself unpopular in places that do not want people to have too much freedom.
For example, lets say you spend all your effort, years and years you invested in creating a product and all of a sudden someone figures out how to go around your license and create a plug in that would allow someone to go around the barb wire you strung up, then you would do anything to stop them.
I think that you can imagine what I am trying to say, sometimes people don't care about freedom because they need to survive.
Now, these people like the idea of open source better, because they have no strings attached and they can choose to hide the source if they need to. This is better than making contradictory licenses that say that you have the freedom to use the software for any purpose but not the right to use in for the purpose of interfacing to a plug in.
I think you have very confused ideas about what is Open Source.
I think you are confusing copyleft with Free Software and non-copyleft with Open Source.
You are *wrong*. And you shouldn't embed such completely wrong believes in any charter that is binding people to something as it would bind people to fantasies.
Free Software encompass all copyleft and non-copyleft licenses just as much as Open Source does.
There is *no* practical difference between the licenses that can be said to be Open Source or Free Software.
If you want to do justice to the people you are going to address you better take Free Software and Open Source as synonyms until you understand where the difference lies. You'll do much less damage that way.
Simo.
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:15 PM, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
So he talks about two movements, you are saying that they are one.
RMS talks about two movements, but Simo is talking about the software: two separate things. At the moment one can safely assume that all software classified as Free/LIbre by FSF standard is also Open Source by OSI standard.
Once you get that distinction you'll be able to improve your charter and do good to your country
/stef
* Stefano Maffulli wrote, On 05/02/09 07:30:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:15 PM, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
So he talks about two movements, you are saying that they are one.
RMS talks about two movements, but Simo is talking about the software: two separate things. At the moment one can safely assume that all software classified as Free/LIbre by FSF standard is also Open Source by OSI standard.
Once you get that distinction you'll be able to improve your charter and do good to your country
I think you've touched the root of many misunderstandings on this mailing list.
Thank-you
Sam
Stefano Maffulli smaffulli@gmail.com wrote:
[...] At the moment one can safely assume that all software classified as Free/LIbre by FSF standard is also Open Source by OSI standard. [...]
If anyone cares about the differences between the actual approvals, a current pseudo-diff is at http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/fsf-osi-list-diff.txt
Many of the differences are a result of process differences. As I understand it, a lawyer advocates a licence in the OSI process, so it requires the licensor to contribute (and many licensors couldn't care less about OSI); but FSF does an independent review, so FSF has to decide it's worth reviewing. In case it's not obvious, I think FSF's independent foundation-led review is much the better of those two.
There are two licences that OSI approved but FSF lists as non-free: NASA Open Source Agreement and the Reciprocal Public License. Both of these are "send-back-ware" which many debian developers agree are non-free (OSI's OSDefinition is based on the Debian Free Software Guidelines), but I think an early OSI advisor thought was a good idea, so those approvals look like an OSI bug to me.
Hope that helps,
On Donnerstag, 5. Februar 2009, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 10:15 PM, jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com
jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
So he talks about two movements, you are saying that they are one.
RMS talks about two movements, but Simo is talking about the software: two separate things. At the moment one can safely assume that all software classified as Free/LIbre by FSF standard is also Open Source by OSI standard.
Once you get that distinction you'll be able to improve your charter and do good to your country
Simo, Stef, thanks for explaning my point, you've did a good job!
Note on the subject of movements, there is a completely seperate issue: The FSFE maintains that there is one movement, though there are at least two subgroups one being "Free Software people" and others "Open Source people". In brief our reasons for speaking about one movement are that we cannot conquer the word "movement" and that even "Open Source people" are not completely politic-agnostic and having and influence on society. Scientists usually will understand "social movement" or "cultural movement" in a much larger grouping of the topic, so they will most likely see one movement. (Here I again prefer the wording "Free Software movement".)
Oh, btw, Richard is not the only one that thinks and speaks about Free Software, so quoting him is not authoritative on the whole movement nor on all major FSFs. I believe the FSFE position on this matter has convinced a number of Free Software leaders over the years, including Richard (the quote was from 2002 or so).
Best Regards, Bernhard
* Bernhard Reiter bernhard@intevation.de [2009-02-05 11:29:33 +0100]:
Note on the subject of movements, there is a completely seperate issue: The FSFE maintains that there is one movement, though there are at least two subgroups one being "Free Software people" and others "Open Source people". In brief our reasons for speaking about one movement are that we cannot conquer the word "movement" and that even "Open Source people" are not completely politic-agnostic and having and influence on society. Scientists usually will understand "social movement" or "cultural movement" in a much larger grouping of the topic, so they will most likely see one movement. (Here I again prefer the wording "Free Software movement".)
Fully agree :)
Oh, btw, Richard is not the only one that thinks and speaks about Free Software, so quoting him is not authoritative on the whole movement nor on all major FSFs. I believe the FSFE position on this matter has convinced a number of Free Software leaders over the years, including Richard (the quote was from 2002 or so).
E.g. here a quote from Richard in one of his latest interviews [1]:
"Free software" and "open source" are the names of two different political viewpoints within the free software community - the community built by the free software movement.
I think that is much better than talking about differnent movements.
Best wishes, Matthias
1. http://www.pcauthority.com.au/News/128513,qa-richard-stallman-founder-of-the...
RMS talks about two movements, but Simo is talking about the software: two separate things. At the moment one can safely assume that all software classified as Free/LIbre by FSF standard is also Open Source by OSI standard.
For pedants: there have been some exceptions. The Netscape Public License is FSF "free software" but not OSI "open source" as it gave special privileges to Netscape. (I checked with Danese Cooper at OSI on this question in 2002 and she confirmed this.) However, Netscape used its NPL powers to relicense all NPL files as Mozilla Public License, which is acceptable to both.
I don't know of any license that's OSI-approved that isn't also FSF "free software".
- d.
Am Donnerstag, dem 05. Feb 2009 schrieb David Gerard:
For pedants: there have been some exceptions.
[...]
I don't know of any license that's OSI-approved that isn't also FSF "free software".
As I mentioned, I remember the license for Open Watcom was rejected by the FSF. I don't know the exact reasons anymore. But the reasons for rejecting the NASA Open Source Agreement is still there on their licenses page...
But I did not want to harp on that. We all agree that those are just few exceptions. All in all Free Software and Open Source accept almost the same licenses. Saying "different viewpoints in one community" sounds good for me.
"jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com" jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/09/15/rms_why_open_source_needs/ [...] The open source movement was founded in 1998 by people who wanted to talk about our system without mentioning the political ideals that motivated us to develop it. [...]
Much respect for Stallman, but I don't think that's accurate. He wasn't at the founding meeting (which was a bug), the initial statement http://www.catb.org/~esr/open-source.html doesn't reflect that and I don't think anyone can seriously think ESR is scared of politics. Maybe the open source movement was promoted, encouraged (co-opted?) by people who wanted to avoid mentioning the political ideals, but I don't think it was founded by them.
Anyway, if one wants to promote free software, speak about free software. Don't obsess about what open source is doing. Play the ball, not the other player.
Regards,
Am Mittwoch, dem 04. Feb 2009 schrieb jamesmikedupont@googlemail.com:
For example, lets say you spend all your effort, years and years you invested in creating a product and all of a sudden someone figures out how to go around your license and create a plug in that would allow someone to go around the barb wire you strung up, then you would do anything to stop them.
What exactly are you talking about?
Now, these people like the idea of open source better, because they have no strings attached and they can choose to hide the source if they need to.
That is absolutely wrong!
It is true that the Free Software movement and the Open Source people have different ideals and concentrate on different aspects. So they are different groups. But they do support almost the same licenses (with only a few minor exceptions). The Open Source initiative has approved all the software licenses of the GNU project and they also see the GPL as the most important license.
Hiding the source is also not allowed by the Open Source definition. See point 2.
There are (unfortunately) licenses, that don't require modifications to be also free/open. Those are accepted as Free Software as well as as Open Source. So, there is also no difference.
This is better than making contradictory licenses that say that you have the freedom to use the software for any purpose but not the right to use in for the purpose of interfacing to a plug in.
Could you please be more precise, where you see a cotradiction?
You always have the right to use it with other code and you don't need to publish your code at all. But *if* you publish your code, the GPL enforces that you give your users the same freedoms that have been given to you by the original author(s). I don't see any contradiction here.
I do see a contradiction on the side of those who like to take code of others but not to give theirs. Because that means denying freedom. The "freedom" to deny freedom *is* a contradiction to me.