Tim Dobson | 6 Jan 23:09 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Andy wrote:
> On 30/12/2007, Tim Dobson <personalwebsite <at> army.com> wrote:
  >> Here, Here. In fact one of the things I think we should be doing is
>> lobbying BBC, ITV & C4 about "Kangaroo", so they can jump in while
>> they have the chance and design it using Free Software.
> 
> I asked the FSFE about why they didn't do much (if anything) about
> iPlayer originally, apparently they have limited funds and this is not
> a priority.

I do think this is a shame. From the number of replies to this post i 
think it is quite obvious that many people from the UK in the Free 
Software community care passionately about this.

> The only way the BBC will ever use Free Software for iPlayer or it's
> successors will be if it is forced by regulators to do so. That is the
> only reason you can watch anything at all on a non-windows system
> because the BBC Trust forced the BBC to do so.

I don't think this is the case really. I think they *would* do something 
if they had more of a choice and more importantly if they were more 
aware that we thought this was a big issue prior to them developing the 
software.

> Unfortunately the Trust and Ofcom have done nothing.

It is unfortunate.

> So basically we haven't got a chance in hell without government
> intervention. And Gordon Brown said he isn't going to do anything
(Continue reading)

Dave Crossland | 7 Jan 00:42 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

(Apologies to those also subscribed to the BBC Backstage list)

On 06/01/2008, Tim Dobson <personalwebsite <at> army.com> wrote:
> Andy wrote:
>
> > The only way the BBC will ever use Free Software for iPlayer or it's
> > successors will be if it is forced by regulators to do so. That is the
> > only reason you can watch anything at all on a non-windows system
> > because the BBC Trust forced the BBC to do so.
>
> I don't think this is the case really. I think they *would* do something
> if they had more of a choice and more importantly if they were more
> aware that we thought this was a big issue prior to them developing the
> software.

Since development of the software is on-going, I encourage everyone to
contact the BBC about this issue directly and personally.

I also suggest subscribing to the BBC Backstage list which is
partially meant for community discussion with the BBC about this
issue, AIUI.

I just posted a long email to that list explaining why I think the BBC
ought to contribute to Gnash and make all its media accessible with
free software. If I've mistaken anything, please let me know :-)

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dave Crossland <dave <at> lab6.com>
Date: 6 Jan 2008 23:30
Subject: Re: [backstage] Fwd: [Gnash] Adobe EULA
(Continue reading)

Chris Lale | 7 Jan 10:41 2008
Picon

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Dave Crossland wrote:
[...]
> 
> I also suggest subscribing to the BBC Backstage list which is
> partially meant for community discussion with the BBC about this
> issue, AIUI.
[...]

Good idea. The subscription page for the backstage list [1] also mentions
backstage-developer: "a brand new list that is totally devoted to technical
developer questions and answers - no wide ranging discussions about DRM and the
like, just pure tech development talk straight from the community".

[1] http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html

--

-- 
Chris.
Jon Grant | 7 Jan 13:28 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Interesting points. I reply to just one below.

<snip>
> > Do you not think that the bbc *should* be putting some effort into gnash
> > development?
>
> I think the BBC should, yes, since that's the fastest way it will
> support viewing the streaming iPlayer with free software.

To me it seems the simplest way would be for the BBC to publish the
urls of the streams on the page.

I can't see FSF developing a multimedia framework instead of the
current narrow vision of supporting Adobe's proprietary Flash format
(short sightedness!)

Cheers, Jon
--

-- 
linkme: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jongrant
web: http://jguk.org/
Matt Lee | 7 Jan 13:41 2008
Picon

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Jon Grant wrote:

> I can't see FSF developing a multimedia framework instead of the
> current narrow vision of supporting Adobe's proprietary Flash format
> (short sightedness!)

Sorry, the FSF is not developing Gnash.

Gnash is being developed by a team of volunteers, led by Rob Savoye.

They have some money from Lulu to do this - http://www.lulumedialabs.com

I'd be interested to hear your ideas for what framework the FSF should
develop, however :)

--

-- 
Matt Lee - http://www.gnu.org/people/mattl/
Campaigns Manager
Free Software Foundation

_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
Fsfe-uk <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
MJ Ray | 7 Jan 15:00 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 12:18:45PM +0000, Jon Grant wrote: [...]
> > just like solely supporting MS-Word file format would be.
>
> But the FSF is not doing this so your arguments are a strawman.

I think the argument is that FSF is being inconsistent (again),
by publishing things like
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
criticising Microsoft's proprietary formats, while supporting
Adobe's proprietary formats.

> The
> FSF has plashed Gnash as a priority project, that doesn't mean that
> the FSF somehow "endorses" the format.

That's debatable, given at least one FSF webmaster refuses to link to
UK LUGs because apparently that would imply endorsement of everything
on their web sites.

Matt Lee <mattl <at> fsf.org> wrote:
> Jon Grant wrote:
> > I can't see FSF developing a multimedia framework instead of the
> > current narrow vision of supporting Adobe's proprietary Flash format
> > (short sightedness!)
>
> Sorry, the FSF is not developing Gnash.

That seems like a refutation of a point that wasn't made.  I think the
question is why isn't FSF developing or supporting a multimedia
(Continue reading)

Noah Slater | 7 Jan 15:12 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 02:00:55PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> I think the argument is that FSF is being inconsistent (again),
> by publishing things like
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
> criticising Microsoft's proprietary formats, while supporting
> Adobe's proprietary formats.

While open formats are important, and you will have to try hard to
find anyone on this list who disagrees.

Howver, I think you are confusing the FSF's purpose with the GNU
philosophy. Note that the FSF and the GNU Project are two completely
seperate entities and citing an essay from one to contradict the
actions of another makes no sense at all.

The FSF's goal is to support the freedoms of the user to use free
software however they like, this includes open formats.

The GNU Project's goal is to create an operating system according to a
certain set of philosophies. Even then, the GNU Project also includes
GNOME which has many applications opening and creating documents such
as .doc, .ppt, .pdf etc etc.

> That's debatable, given at least one FSF webmaster refuses to link to
> UK LUGs because apparently that would imply endorsement of everything
> on their web sites.

This is totally unrelated and I think, again, you are confusing GNU/FSF.

> That seems like a refutation of a point that wasn't made.  I think the
(Continue reading)

Dave Page | 7 Jan 15:36 2008
Picon

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 02:12:37PM +0000, Noah Slater wrote:

> The FSF's support of Flash is a very clever strategic position and
> absolutely essential if we are to get regular users to make the switch
> to a free operating system.

"are we working for freedom, or have we replaced that goal with the
shallow goal of popularity?" - rms, http://www.a42.com/node/50

> Flash is the defacto multimedia format on the WWW at the moment
> and that isn't going to change any time soon.

Not if the foremost organisation supporting open standards and free
software is supporting the reverse-engineering of a complicated moving
target, no. All Adobe has to do to maintain the lead is to out-develop
Gnash, or introduce features like DRM that Gnash would be ethically
wrong to implement. Oh wait, didn't they already introduce DRM in Flash
9?

Users don't care about Flash, they care about watching video and
animations on the Internet. Hosters like Google and YouTube and everyone
else don't care about Flash, they just use it because it's the best
thing out there and they don't care about freedom.

If the FSF were to put its weight behind open formats rather than Flash,
we'd reach your "any time soon" much sooner. Then there'd be fair
competition between the open and closed *formats*.

I'm not saying that Gnash is a bad thing, or that it should be scrapped
(especially since as free software it has the potential to do much more
(Continue reading)

Alex Hudson | 7 Jan 16:07 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only


On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 14:36 +0000, Dave Page wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 02:12:37PM +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
> > The FSF's support of Flash is a very clever strategic position and
> > absolutely essential if we are to get regular users to make the switch
> > to a free operating system.
> 
> "are we working for freedom, or have we replaced that goal with the
> shallow goal of popularity?" - rms, http://www.a42.com/node/50

I think the point is more subtle than that; obviously, rms isn't saying
that the end goal of having free software be wildly popular and in broad
usage is "shallow" :o)

> I'm not saying that Gnash is a bad thing, or that it should be scrapped
> (especially since as free software it has the potential to do much more
> than just support the Flash format), but I do think that the FSF should
> be making open format support a priority project rather than Gnash.

As I mentioned before, I think the format is a technicality.

I do think the FSF should make a priority of supporting content-creation
software, because no-one will switch to a different format if the tools
aren't there. 

I have no idea who - if anyone - is in any way well placed to develop
such software, though.

Cheers,

(Continue reading)

Matt Lee | 7 Jan 16:13 2008
Picon

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Alex Hudson wrote:

> I do think the FSF should make a priority of supporting content-creation
> software, because no-one will switch to a different format if the tools
> aren't there. 

We tried to reach out to all the developers of free software video software.

Nobody seemed to want our help - iirc, nobody even replied to us.

matt
Alex Hudson | 7 Jan 16:18 2008

Content creation (was: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only)


On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 15:13 +0000, Matt Lee wrote:
> Alex Hudson wrote:
> > I do think the FSF should make a priority of supporting content-creation
> > software, because no-one will switch to a different format if the tools
> > aren't there. 
> 
> We tried to reach out to all the developers of free software video software.
> 
> Nobody seemed to want our help - iirc, nobody even replied to us.

It doesn't surprise me. I should have made my point clearer; I wasn't
castigating FSF for having failed to support content creation software,
just observing what I think the priority ought to be.

In many ways, the FSF might be the wrong organisation. Usually, the FSF
supports projects which further GNU. In this case, I think that's the
wrong operating system - no professional graphic artist uses GNU*. The
software would need to work on Macs or maybe PCs.

There is a project supporting an alternative format - lunareclipse
(http://www.mono-project.com/Moonlight#Moonlight_IDE) - but given the
context I don't expect to see any of the anti-Flash activists on this
list go wild over it ;)

Cheers,

Alex.

* - for realistic values of "no"
(Continue reading)

rob | 7 Jan 17:06 2008

Re: Content creation (was: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only)

Quoting Alex Hudson <home <at> alexhudson.com>:

> In this case, I think that's the
> wrong operating system - no professional graphic artist uses GNU*.

Gimp, and then Inkscape, need to support CMYK.

It is that simple.

Maybe next decade? ;-)

- Rob.
Alex Hudson | 7 Jan 17:10 2008

Re: Content creation (was: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only)


On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 16:06 +0000, rob <at> robmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting Alex Hudson <home <at> alexhudson.com>:
> > In this case, I think that's the
> > wrong operating system - no professional graphic artist uses GNU*.
> 
> Gimp, and then Inkscape, need to support CMYK.
> 
> It is that simple.

It's that simple to state; but not that simple to actually implement :)

Sad in way, because free software can often do things that proprietary
vendors never will - a unified, integrated colour system is an obvious
feature. Having correct CMYK/RGB conversion throughout every app and
everything being colour-aware would be a huge feature.

> Maybe next decade? ;-)

We should be so lucky :(

Cheers,

Alex.
Matt Lee | 7 Jan 17:17 2008
Picon

Re: Content creation

Alex Hudson wrote:

> Sad in way, because free software can often do things that proprietary
> vendors never will - a unified, integrated colour system is an obvious
> feature. Having correct CMYK/RGB conversion throughout every app and
> everything being colour-aware would be a huge feature.

Rob or Crossland will know the answer to this one, I'm sure as our
resident 'creative' types...

Aren't there issues with free implementations of CMYK that require some
kind of fee to be paid? Maybe that's just Pantone(R).

- Rolf Harris
Noah Slater | 7 Jan 17:25 2008

Re: Content creation

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 04:17:38PM +0000, Matt Lee wrote:
> Aren't there issues with free implementations of CMYK that require some
> kind of fee to be paid? Maybe that's just Pantone(R).

I think it maybe that CMYK is just hard to implement...

http://rants.scribus.net/2006/06/03/why-no-cmyk-in-gimp-is-a-good-thing-now/

--

-- 
Chuck Norris <http://chopsexual.org/>

"Fighting can be a social contribution, but only in so far as
society is free to watch the results." - R. Stallman
_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
Fsfe-uk <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
rob | 7 Jan 17:40 2008

Re: Content creation

Quoting Matt Lee <mattl <at> gnu.org>:

> Aren't there issues with free implementations of CMYK that require some
> kind of fee to be paid?

Nope. CMYK is way over a hundred years old. Any patents are long gone.

The problem in implementing CMYK is (as Alex mentions) technical, not  
legal. CMYK is the opposite to RGB, mathematically speaking, so you  
need two paths for colour in your application. Even Adobe took some  
time to get this right in Illustrator, and you can't mix the two  
colour models in Adobe product documents.

If Inkscape or Gimp were really serious about professional mass  
adoption, they would drop everything else and work on colour spaces  
until they have at least CMYK, Hi Fi (e.g. Hexachrome) and spot (e.g.  
Pantone) colour support atively.

This is the *single biggest thing by far* that prevents Free Software  
tools being taken seriously for professional design use. I cannot  
overstate its importance. But of course SVG doesn't support CMYK,  
which is insane, so Inkscape can't really support CMYK without  
extending the standard (which is very tempting). Gimp should though.

It's as if graphic designers were trying to write an operating system  
and telling programmers "we're not adding mass storage support because  
you don't need to use disk drives, you can just keep your computers  
always turned on and store stuff in memory".

It is that frustrating.
(Continue reading)

Alex Hudson | 7 Jan 17:57 2008

Colour and support for colour (was: Content creation)


On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 16:40 +0000, rob <at> robmyers.org wrote:
> This is the *single biggest thing by far* that prevents Free Software  
> tools being taken seriously for professional design use. I cannot  
> overstate its importance. But of course SVG doesn't support CMYK,  
> which is insane, so Inkscape can't really support CMYK without  
> extending the standard (which is very tempting). Gimp should though.

I would also add that the OpenDocument format doesn't support CMYK in
any form:

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/office-comment/200705/msg00000.html

Thomas Zander later suggested the KDE people were looking into it as
part of their raster image format work, but that's really solving an
already-solved problem in many ways.

(As far as I know, Microsoft's OXML format is no better in this regard).

> It's as if graphic designers were trying to write an operating system  
> and telling programmers "we're not adding mass storage support because  
> you don't need to use disk drives, you can just keep your computers  
> always turned on and store stuff in memory".
> 
> It is that frustrating.

Absolutely agreed. 

Cheers,

(Continue reading)

Alex Hudson | 7 Jan 17:37 2008

Re: Content creation


On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 16:17 +0000, Matt Lee wrote:
> Aren't there issues with free implementations of CMYK that require some
> kind of fee to be paid? Maybe that's just Pantone(R).

Not as far as I know - Pantone has many freedom issues, but that's
actually many things (they have a printing process as well as a colour
matching system, for example, both of which have issues).

The major issue with CMYK is that it's not natively displayable by
computers, so you have to convert it to RGB. As you might imagine,
translating a four-dimensional value into a three-dimensional one is a
lossy one, and if you don't do it well enough the results are basically
unusable. Similar issues exist going the other direction.

As an obvious practical example, which pains me greatly, when I do any
print work for my company I have to go through this conversion crap. I
always use OpenOffice.org, but it cannot handle CMYK in any shape or
form - it just doesn't do it. So, I have to specify colours with
specific RGBs and then get the printers to replace those in the PDF
output with a Pantone shade.

If I didn't do all this, it would print fine but the colours would look
completely wrong - usually, way too saturated. In many instances, it's
bad enough to be unusable.

Plus, this process only works with specific colours: if you're trying to
print photographs or something, you're basically screwed.

Cheers,
(Continue reading)

Ian Lynch | 7 Jan 17:54 2008

Re: Content creation


On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 16:37 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 16:17 +0000, Matt Lee wrote:
> > Aren't there issues with free implementations of CMYK that require some
> > kind of fee to be paid? Maybe that's just Pantone(R).
> 
> Not as far as I know - Pantone has many freedom issues, but that's
> actually many things (they have a printing process as well as a colour
> matching system, for example, both of which have issues).
> 
> The major issue with CMYK is that it's not natively displayable by
> computers, so you have to convert it to RGB. As you might imagine,
> translating a four-dimensional value into a three-dimensional one is a
> lossy one, and if you don't do it well enough the results are basically
> unusable. Similar issues exist going the other direction.
> 
> As an obvious practical example, which pains me greatly, when I do any
> print work for my company I have to go through this conversion crap. I
> always use OpenOffice.org, but it cannot handle CMYK in any shape or
> form - it just doesn't do it. So, I have to specify colours with
> specific RGBs and then get the printers to replace those in the PDF
> output with a Pantone shade.
> 
> If I didn't do all this, it would print fine but the colours would look
> completely wrong - usually, way too saturated. In many instances, it's
> bad enough to be unusable.
> 
> Plus, this process only works with specific colours: if you're trying to
> print photographs or something, you're basically screwed.

(Continue reading)

rob | 7 Jan 18:00 2008

Re: Content creation

Quoting Ian Lynch <ian.lynch <at> zmsl.com>:

> So you have to map RGB to CMYK and it has been done in quite a few
> proprietary products so there is some sort of mathematical relationship.
> Sounds like a university applied maths project. Ok, I'm probably missing
> a lot but if that relationship was cracked and put out into the public
> domain surely it would be then relatively easy to build software to
> implement it? The mathematics wouldn't be patentable would it?

The maths is ancient, simple enough for a fine art student like me to  
understand, and is in any good graphics textbook (e.g. Foley & Van Dam).

You just need to implement it wherever you use colour. Which for  
projects the size of Gimp or Inkscape is not a simple task. Plus SVG  
doesn't support it at all and you need colour management to get the  
colours looking bearable on different devices. It gets less simple  
very quickly. :-)

- Rob.
Dave Crossland | 7 Jan 18:05 2008

Re: Content creation

On 07/01/2008, Ian Lynch <ian.lynch <at> zmsl.com> wrote:
>
> So you have to map RGB to CMYK and it has been done in quite a few
> proprietary products

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LittleCMS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
Sam Liddicott | 7 Jan 22:31 2008

Re: Content creation

Dave Crossland wrote:
On 07/01/2008, Ian Lynch <ian.lynch <at> zmsl.com> wrote:
So you have to map RGB to CMYK and it has been done in quite a few proprietary products
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LittleCMS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_space

Inkscape remaps my CMYK colours to a different mix (via RGB), which depending on the inks and paper may not result in the same shade.

Sam

_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
Fsfe-uk <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
Alex Hudson | 7 Jan 22:52 2008

Re: Content creation


On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 21:31 +0000, Sam Liddicott wrote:
> Inkscape remaps my CMYK colours to a different mix (via RGB), which
> depending on the inks and paper may not result in the same shade.

Sadly, it's the same deal as OpenOffice.org - it's not CMYK support,
it's the ability to crudely translate CMYK colour values into RGB. I'm
not even sure it's doing that right - if you whack the K to zero you
basically get an inverse RGB, 

The "may not" in your sentence really ought to be "will virtually
never", with any ink or paper :( Worse than that, it's not even going to
look right on the screen, let alone the printer.

Let me show you a really clear example:

	http://www.alexhudson.com/stuff/rgb-v-cmyk.png

That image shows two colours, in RGB, both translated from CMYK. On the
left the conversion was done with OOo in this instance, but any naive
CMYK->RGB translation would be the same. On the right, the translation
was done by a print shop Macintosh. 

The difference is huge and obvious. If all your colours are in error by
the margin on the left, you basically cannot work seriously, because you
have no idea what things will look like. 

Cheers,

Alex.
Alex Hudson | 7 Jan 18:14 2008

CMYK (was: Content creation)


On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 16:54 +0000, Ian Lynch wrote:
> So you have to map RGB to CMYK and it has been done in quite a few
> proprietary products so there is some sort of mathematical relationship.
> Sounds like a university applied maths project. Ok, I'm probably missing
> a lot but if that relationship was cracked and put out into the public
> domain surely it would be then relatively easy to build software to
> implement it? The mathematics wouldn't be patentable would it? 

The actual maths is relatively easy, and it's not patented, no. It's
just hard to do well in practice.

So, basic colour theory says that Cyan + Magenta + Yellow (C+M+Y) in
equal proportion is going to give you Black eventually, in the same way
you get white from red, green and blue. Practice is, for various
reasons, it comes out mucky brown. So, then people added Black (K) ink.
Problem is, C+M+Y == K, so if you want a dark colour, what proportion of
that darkness comes from the black? You could turn up the CMY values, or
you could increase the K value - you have two degrees of freedom there,
and they're not equivalent, and the relationship isn't overly
straightforward.

Then you get into issues like, well, what actual paint is being used?
How well does it mix chemically? Is the paper ok holding a lot of ink,
or will that cause things to run/smear/whatever? You know in theory what
tone is supposed to come out when you mix things in a certain way, but
it doesn't actually work in practice.

Then you have the issue of, how do I make sure what I see on the screen
is actually the same colour as what will print? What you have to do is
buy a colourimeter and actually *measure* the output of your monitor.
Printers do similar things with their print output. Then your software
is supposed to tweak images on your screen slightly - maybe via the
video drivers, who knows - so that the imperfections/setup of your
hardware is kind of "cancelled out" by the tweaks to the image, so that
the right colour ends up coming out.

If your images are in CMYK, and you're having to do all this colour
space conversion a. to get them into RGB and b. take into account the
oddness of your video hardware, that starts to become a more and more
complex task.

All these issues and more make CMYK "hard", because you're basically
talking about dealing with output which keeps needing to be bodged in
various ways to make the end result "right". 

Cheers,

Alex.
Ian Lynch | 7 Jan 18:40 2008

Re: CMYK (was: Content creation)

On Mon, 2008-01-07 at 17:14 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:

> Then you have the issue of, how do I make sure what I see on the screen
> is actually the same colour as what will print? What you have to do is
> buy a colourimeter and actually *measure* the output of your monitor.
> Printers do similar things with their print output. Then your software
> is supposed to tweak images on your screen slightly - maybe via the
> video drivers, who knows - so that the imperfections/setup of your
> hardware is kind of "cancelled out" by the tweaks to the image, so that
> the right colour ends up coming out.
> 
> If your images are in CMYK, and you're having to do all this colour
> space conversion a. to get them into RGB and b. take into account the
> oddness of your video hardware, that starts to become a more and more
> complex task.
> 
> All these issues and more make CMYK "hard", because you're basically
> talking about dealing with output which keeps needing to be bodged in
> various ways to make the end result "right". 

Sounds like it needs a big database of known things that work. Look up
the situation and if it's not covered fill it in. Start with something
that is approximate and gradually improve it over time. Sounds very open
sourceish and internet collaborative to me :-)

Ian
--

-- 
New QCA Accredited IT Qualifications
www.theINGOTs.org

You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. 
Dave Crossland | 7 Jan 17:40 2008

Re: Content creation (was: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only)

On 07/01/2008, rob <at> robmyers.org <rob <at> robmyers.org> wrote:
> Quoting Alex Hudson <home <at> alexhudson.com>:
>
> > In this case, I think that's the
> > wrong operating system - no professional graphic artist uses GNU*.
>
> Gimp, and then Inkscape, need to support CMYK. It is that simple.
> Maybe next decade? ;-)

Maybe Krita and Karbon will do it first.

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
Dave Crossland | 7 Jan 16:13 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 07/01/2008, Alex Hudson <home <at> alexhudson.com> wrote:
>
> I do think the FSF should make a priority of supporting content-creation
> software, because no-one will switch to a different format if the tools
> aren't there.
>
> I have no idea who - if anyone - is in any way well placed to develop
> such software, though.

Indeed it is a shame that the http://www.flameproject.org/ isn't part
of the GNU project. Who knows, maybe one day? :-)

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
rob | 7 Jan 17:07 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Quoting Dave Crossland <dave <at> lab6.com>:

> Indeed it is a shame that the http://www.flameproject.org/ isn't part
> of the GNU project. Who knows, maybe one day? :-)

"Monday, 7th January 2008
It's been extremely slow going. Almost definitely decided to redo the  
swf output to use Ming instead. Also considering dropping the animated  
svg output, which will simplify things, and I'm pretty sure the result  
I want can be done with Ajax these days."

Doesn't sound good for SVG just now...

- Rob.
Dave Crossland | 7 Jan 17:40 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 07/01/2008, rob <at> robmyers.org <rob <at> robmyers.org> wrote:
>
> Doesn't sound good for SVG just now...

In 2003 the "SVG can replace Flash" idea was reasonable because Adobe
was using it to compete with Macromedia.

In 2008, SVG is cool for static vector art and simple animations, but
for the kind of complex media formats Flash is used for? No way.

The W3C ought to promote Xiph codecs by including them in its standards. Sure.

The FSF and the GNU project ought to press the W3C to do that, but
neither have much influence there, afaik.

The section on "Binary vs. Parsed Protocols" in
http://savingtheinternetwithhate.com/design.html is perhaps relevant
here.

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
Noah Slater | 7 Jan 17:45 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 04:40:02PM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
> In 2008, SVG is cool for static vector art and simple animations, but
> for the kind of complex media formats Flash is used for? No way.

Where, specifically, does SVG & EMCA Script fall short?

--

-- 
Noah Slater <http://bytesexual.org/>

"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as
society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman
_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
Fsfe-uk <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
Dave Crossland | 7 Jan 17:50 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 07/01/2008, Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 04:40:02PM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
> > In 2008, SVG is cool for static vector art and simple animations, but
> > for the kind of complex media formats Flash is used for? No way.
>
> Where, specifically, does SVG & EMCA Script fall short?

URL of an example piece of SVG+EMCA that is comparable to a typical
rich piece of Flash, please :-)

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
Noah Slater | 7 Jan 17:53 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 04:50:10PM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
> URL of an example piece of SVG+EMCA that is comparable to a typical
> rich piece of Flash, please :-)

Hey, you're the one making the statements, you have to defend them!

From my limited understanding, the technology is there to match most
of the things that Flash can do, including embeds of rich media.

Am I mistaken? Or is it that you meant that most people don't do this?
That is a very different kettle of fish.

--
Noah Slater <http://bytesexual.org/>

"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as
society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman
_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
Fsfe-uk <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
Dave Crossland | 7 Jan 18:08 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 07/01/2008, Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 04:50:10PM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
> > URL of an example piece of SVG+EMCA that is comparable to a typical
> > rich piece of Flash, please :-)
>
> Hey, you're the one making the statements, you have to defend them!
>
> From my limited understanding, the technology is there to match most
> of the things that Flash can do, including embeds of rich media.
>
> Am I mistaken? Or is it that you meant that most people don't do this?
> That is a very different kettle of fish.

I'm not aware of _any_ person who has done this, and my understanding
is that the technology is not there.

Please show me the URL that disproves me that you seem to be aware of :-)

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
Noah Slater | 7 Jan 18:17 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 05:08:11PM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
> Please show me the URL that disproves me that you seem to be aware of :-)

Meh, I'm happy to argue in ignorance of the facts. ;)

--

-- 
Noah Slater <http://bytesexual.org/>

"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as
society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman
_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
Fsfe-uk <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
Dave Crossland | 7 Jan 18:52 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 07/01/2008, Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 05:08:11PM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
> > Please show me the URL that disproves me that you seem to be aware of :-)
>
> Meh, I'm happy to argue in ignorance of the facts. ;)

When Adobe was betting on SVG as a Flash killer, it could have been.
That Adobe bought Macromedia was IMO chiefly for Flash; which
demonstrates to me that it would have been more expensive for Adobe to
develop SVG into Flash killer than buy Flash.

The limited resources of the free software movement are therefore
better spend on making a free Flash runtime and developer tools.

Gnash is sponsoring Ming, lets not forget, which will underlie content
creation tools, Flame being the first example since Macromedia
Captivate is a small subset of Flash focused on a useful purpose.

PDF was controlled by Adobe and recently became an ISO standard.
MS-DOC was so bad that ODF became an ISO standard instead, and MS is
now fighting that tooth and nail. Flash is a technically sound
multimedia platform. Adobe has said that it tightly controls Flash
runtimes for the same reason Sun kept a grip on Java runtimes: because
"works the same on all runtimes" is compelling.

Given that there are several Flash runtimes in development as free
software, and given that the are free and run nicely on GNU+Linux they
will be appearing in many embedded computers in 2009, it would make
sense for Adobe to make Flash a "open" standard at ISO or similar, so
that all clients can work towards ISO compliance and the "write many
run many" apocalypse is avoided.

If the don't, perhaps Gnash will become a "defacto" Flash standard,
and not the Adobe runtime, because freedom matters to embedded
hardware vendors who together (and certainly some on their own) dwarf
Adobe in the total economy.

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
Dave Crossland | 7 Jan 18:54 2008
Picon

Re: Anyone Else going to this Conference?

It was more the fact that was going to be a Conference that I was trying to 
bring to the attention of those on this list just in case we weren't aware 
of it.

This bit: 
> I'm due to present a paper later this month at an international teachers
> conference with the title "Open Source Software - A Bridge Across the
> Digital Divide?" which will include some FreeBSD advocacy. 

It struck me that here was an opportunity for either AFFS or FSFE to 'horn 
in' on someone else's captive audience.

Perhaps "cb" <ecliptica.ww <at> virgin.net> could be contacted and the 
whereabouts of this conference ascertained.
--

-- 
John Seago
Jon Grant | 7 Jan 22:49 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Hi Noah,

On 07/01/2008, Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 04:40:02PM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
> > In 2008, SVG is cool for static vector art and simple animations, but
> > for the kind of complex media formats Flash is used for? No way.
>
> Where, specifically, does SVG & EMCA Script fall short?

Lack of Audio and Video? Take a look at this Bejewled game for an
example of what AJAX can do:

http://static.popcap.com/iphone/

--

-- 
linkme: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jongrant
web: http://jguk.org/
Dave Crossland | 8 Jan 00:34 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 07/01/2008, Jon Grant <jg <at> jguk.org> wrote:
> Hi Noah,
>
> On 07/01/2008, Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 04:40:02PM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
> > > In 2008, SVG is cool for static vector art and simple animations, but
> > > for the kind of complex media formats Flash is used for? No way.
> >
> > Where, specifically, does SVG & EMCA Script fall short?
>
> Lack of Audio and Video?

An friend of mine who worked on some SVG project writes:

"I love SVG and with other standard technology like ECMAscript, it can do
some very powerful things. However its no Flash. Even the guys at Joost
had to use XUL and some weird Video hacking to get everything to work
smoothly together like Flash.

A non-flash player using SVG, XHTML, DOM, etc is worth developing but so
is Gnash. Tackling the problem form both ends, makes sense."

> Take a look at this Bejewled game for an
> example of what AJAX can do: http://static.popcap.com/iphone/

Tasty but not Affero GPL :-(

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
Justin Clift | 7 Jan 16:28 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only


Dave Crossland wrote:
> On 07/01/2008, Alex Hudson <home <at> alexhudson.com> wrote:
>> I do think the FSF should make a priority of supporting content-creation
>> software, because no-one will switch to a different format if the tools
>> aren't there.
>>
>> I have no idea who - if anyone - is in any way well placed to develop
>> such software, though.
> 
> Indeed it is a shame that the http://www.flameproject.org/ isn't part
> of the GNU project. Who knows, maybe one day? :-)

Heh, no argument from me. :)

Let's see what the next few weeks bring, as I really need to get the new
release of Flame out the door so that we can at least get basic swf
files done, then see what position we're in after that.

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

--
The Flame Project - Open Source GUI for animated SVG & Flash
http://www.flameproject.org

Ian Lynch | 7 Jan 16:24 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only


> As I mentioned before, I think the format is a technicality.
> 
> I do think the FSF should make a priority of supporting content-creation
> software, because no-one will switch to a different format if the tools
> aren't there. 

+1, only slight issue is Adobe might sue them for infringing its patents
but I doubt they would be successful. 

> I have no idea who - if anyone - is in any way well placed to develop
> such software, though.

I know Tony Cheal did some very good stuff like this back in the old
Acorn days so probably there is expertise around, its finding money or
motivation or both to get it done. I would think at least some of what
is in Inkscape would be usable.

Ian
--

-- 
New QCA Accredited IT Qualifications
www.theINGOTs.org

You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. 
Ralph Corderoy | 8 Jan 15:23 2008
Picon

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only


Hi,

Dave Page wrote:
> If the FSF were to put its weight behind open formats rather than
> Flash, we'd reach your "any time soon" much sooner. Then there'd be
> fair competition between the open and closed *formats*.

I'd like to see the FSF and all its advocates stop their effort at
retronaming Linux as GNU+Linux, putting the backs up of many people who
are on their side to start with, and instead help GNU GPL license
enforcement.  There's many, many violations by companies shipping
hardware, as any subscriber to gpl-violations.org can tell, yet despite
us telling gpl-v...org or the FSFE's Freedom Task Force they're
unfortunately too undermanned to respond or inform the public of their
progress.

Cheers,

Ralph.
Ciaran O'Riordan | 8 Jan 17:41 2008
Picon

Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only


> [...]gpl-violations.org[...]or the FSFE's Freedom Task Force they're
> unfortunately too undermanned to respond or inform the public of their
> progress.

You're right, but I'd also add that sometimes longterm enforcement is best
achieved quietly.

As for having insufficient resources to work on awareness of our work, the
solution, like the solution to why FSFE can't do more on the iPlayer issue,
is to make FSFE much, much bigger.

FSFE had income/expenditure of ~£180k in 2006.  That's for it's European/EU
work, it's global work in WIPO/WSIS, and it's national work for 710 million
people.  The annual budget has grown consistently by about 50% each year,
which is very good for a non-profit, but it's not going to give FSFE surplus
resources in the short or medium term.

What we need is:

1. Large drives to increase Fellowship subscriptions:
   http://fsfe.org/

2. People to solicit businesses to donate lump sums:
   http://fsfeurope.org/help/donate.en.html
   (as well as individuals and philanthropists)

3. People to purchase FTF training courses:
   http://fsfeurope.org/projects/ftf/trainingcourse.en.html

If we want FSFE to be in a position to work on all the important issues of
software freedom, we have to increase the organisation's rate of growth.

Would anyone like to work on a mass effort to increase one of these funding
channels?  ...such as a membership drive or other campaign?

And, please consider each of these ideas individually.

--

-- 
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
Shane Martin Coughlan | 8 Jan 19:08 2008

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Ciaran O'Riordan wrote:
>> [...]gpl-violations.org[...]or the FSFE's Freedom Task Force they're
>> unfortunately too undermanned to respond or inform the public of their
>> progress.
> 
> You're right, but I'd also add that sometimes longterm enforcement is best
> achieved quietly.

As Ciaran said, a lot of the work we do is relatively quiet.  Solving
individual licensing problems is one area of activity, but there is also
a substantial amount of work on other levels, such as broader
discussions with regards ODM purchasing contract agreements, compliance
terms and ensuring that personnel in companies understand licensing
obligations and are in a position to deal with any issues that arise.
We're looking at solving the long-term issues in the marketplace as a
key objective.  The FTF is not just about violations.  We do training,
we help people plan adoption of Free Software, we help people improve
their usage of Free Software and we work to create communication
channels between multiple stakeholders.

However, I do want to address your concerns about response time from the
FTF.  What areas of specific improvement would you like to see with
regards response?  Quite a few people do report violations to the FTF
and we queue these cases for investigation.  Some are processed more
quickly than others.  Clear-cut problems are discussed with vendors and
frequently measures are undertaken to correct the problem at hand.
Would you like to see the FTF informing the reporter of a problem of
such actions?  Of course, such reportage does consume additional time
and resources on our part, but if several people felt that it was a
necessity then it's something I would like to take into consideration.

At the moment, if people report a clear cut problem I often state that
the FTF will investigate, and then we work to resolve the issue.  Status
reports back to the original reporter in such cases are given low
priority and our focus is on resolution of the issues at hand.

It's true that we have quite a few cases to work on and we are
exceptionally busy most of the time.  I'd love if we had more resources
in terms of volunteers helping out.  If people are interested in lending
a hand then please contact me.

If there have been cases where we have failed to provide adequate
response then I apologise.  I can assure you that we want to do our best
and we are continually working to improve our processes.

As a further note, I'd like to once again re-emphasise what Ciaran said:

"FSFE had income/expenditure of ~£180k in 2006.  That's for it's
European/EU work, it's global work in WIPO/WSIS, and it's national work
for 710 million people.  The annual budget has grown consistently by
about 50% each year, which is very good for a non-profit, but it's not
going to give FSFE surplus resources in the short or medium term.

What we need is:

1. Large drives to increase Fellowship subscriptions:
   http://fsfe.org/

2. People to solicit businesses to donate lump sums:
   http://fsfeurope.org/help/donate.en.html
   (as well as individuals and philanthropists)

3. People to purchase FTF training courses:
   http://fsfeurope.org/projects/ftf/trainingcourse.en.html

If we want FSFE to be in a position to work on all the important issues
of software freedom, we have to increase the organisation's rate of growth.

Would anyone like to work on a mass effort to increase one of these
funding channels?  ...such as a membership drive or other campaign?"

Shane

--

-- 
Shane Coughlan
FTF Coordinator
Free Software Foundation Europe
Office: +41435000366 ext 408 / Mobile: +41792633406
coughlan <at> fsfeurope.org
Support Free Software > http://fsfe.org

_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
Fsfe-uk <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
MJ Ray | 9 Jan 11:19 2008

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Shane Martin Coughlan <coughlan <at> fsfeurope.org> wrote: [...]
> Would you like to see the FTF informing the reporter of a problem of
> such actions?  Of course, such reportage does consume additional time
> and resources on our part, but if several people felt that it was a
> necessity then it's something I would like to take into consideration.

I would like to see that.  I can't see how any organisation can hope
to build confidence without some progress reporting back to the
submitters.  Something short at the end of the case is needed.  A
3-line summary would be adequate (that's what the Information
Commission usually sends when I report privacy violations), but it
needs something.  It would also be an excellent time to request money.

[...]
> 1. Large drives to increase Fellowship subscriptions:
>    http://fsfe.org/

The number of bounces from dead  <at> fsfe.org addresses suggests that it
also needs some work to improve retention, so I'm not wholly confident
in encouraging people there.  Can someone post the retention rate?

> 2. People to solicit businesses to donate lump sums:
>    http://fsfeurope.org/help/donate.en.html
>    (as well as individuals and philanthropists)

Given recent stuff, I'll replace my request to add FSF to my
business's support with one to add FSFE, rather than remove it.

Related question: is AFFS forwarding FSFE donations at the mo?

> 3. People to purchase FTF training courses:
>    http://fsfeurope.org/projects/ftf/trainingcourse.en.html

What's needed to bring these to the UK?

Regards,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Shane Martin Coughlan | 9 Jan 11:43 2008

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Hi MJ

MJ Ray wrote:
> submitters.  Something short at the end of the case is needed.  A
> 3-line summary would be adequate (that's what the Information
> Commission usually sends when I report privacy violations), but it
> needs something.  It would also be an excellent time to request money.

I will try to ensure that each resolved issue results in a short notice
to the original submitter from this point forward.  Of course, sometimes
it takes a very long time to close an issue.

> Related question: is AFFS forwarding FSFE donations at the mo?

I don't know the answer to this one.  Alex, can you pick it up?

>> 3. People to purchase FTF training courses:
>>    http://fsfeurope.org/projects/ftf/trainingcourse.en.html
> 
> What's needed to bring these to the UK?

We need to establish a relationship or a series of relationships with
local training suppliers.  We would like to target area of large
technology usage and growth if possible.  It would be very useful to
have local knowledge about geographic areas to target, training
providers who might be interested in co-delivering courses, and
suggestions about what's required in the UK marketplace.

Shane

--

-- 
Shane Coughlan
FTF Coordinator
Free Software Foundation Europe
Office: +41435000366 ext 408 / Mobile: +41792633406
coughlan <at> fsfeurope.org
Support Free Software > http://fsfe.org
Alex Hudson | 9 Jan 11:59 2008

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only


On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 11:43 +0100, Shane Martin Coughlan wrote:
> > Related question: is AFFS forwarding FSFE donations at the mo?
> 
> I don't know the answer to this one.  Alex, can you pick it up?

I guess there are a couple of parts to this answer. 

The original agreement with the FSFE was that we would collect
donations, but only forward them once they reached a certain level - I
imagine to save on transfer fees and exchange fees. Last time we looked,
we hadn't reached that level, but that was sometime last Autumn IIRC, so
it may well be that we're past that level.

The slightly wider question of what we should do with the AFFS is
something I've been meaning to bring up on this list for a while, but
for various reasons - mostly my "urgent" priorities outweighing my
"important" priorities for a little while - haven't been able to. This
is something that we should discuss, though, particularly since I know
of at least one set of people who want to re-invent that wheel.

> >> 3. People to purchase FTF training courses:
> >>    http://fsfeurope.org/projects/ftf/trainingcourse.en.html
> > 
> > What's needed to bring these to the UK?
> 
> We need to establish a relationship or a series of relationships with
> local training suppliers.  We would like to target area of large
> technology usage and growth if possible.  It would be very useful to
> have local knowledge about geographic areas to target, training
> providers who might be interested in co-delivering courses, and
> suggestions about what's required in the UK marketplace.

We deliver training in the UK, both in London and at our offices in
Chesterfield, and I can say that it's not something we work very hard at
because it doesn't really "bring in the beef" so to speak.

For FSFE, I would suggest that a larger audience seminar style product
would be much more suitable, because the economies of scale would help
make it a profitable proposition. I think smaller groups would be
viable, but I'm not sure that you'd do much better than break-even
(particularly if you're flying people in to speak, etc.)

I'm not sure I can speak for other companies too much, but my impression
is that training in the UK for anything related to free software is
pretty much very quiet. For programming language training it seems to be
viable, and for some specific web apps, but aside from that it's pretty
tough - I'm pretty sure one UK org. found it couldn't even give training
away if it was offered for free in many instances.

How good an idea do you have of your target audience?

Cheers,

Alex.
Paul Waring | 9 Jan 12:10 2008
Picon

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 10:59:02AM +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
> I'm not sure I can speak for other companies too much, but my impression
> is that training in the UK for anything related to free software is
> pretty much very quiet. For programming language training it seems to be
> viable, and for some specific web apps, but aside from that it's pretty
> tough - I'm pretty sure one UK org. found it couldn't even give training
> away if it was offered for free in many instances.

There are a number of companies offering training in free software -
GBDirect (www.gbdirect.co.uk) is just one that I can think of. The UKUUG
also runs tutorials several times a year on topics such as RT (which I
believe the gnu.org webmasters use so it *must* be good!):

http://www.ukuug.org/events/rt/

There are other groups as well, but I think such training is generally
offering by quite small companies who most people might not have heard
of.

Paul

--

-- 
Paul Waring
http://www.pwaring.com
Alex Hudson | 9 Jan 12:23 2008

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only


On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 11:10 +0000, Paul Waring wrote:
> There are a number of companies offering training in free software -
> GBDirect (www.gbdirect.co.uk) is just one that I can think of.

Oh indeed, I'm not saying it doesn't happen. But for example, if you
look at their training schedule:

	http://training.gbdirect.co.uk/schedule.html

.... there's not a _huge_ amount of free software on there. I would bet
they do more training in Cisco than any of the free software stuff put
together. And I don't think, in that regard, they'll be much different
to any other org. out there. There is demand there, I just don't think
it's very big, particularly once you get out of Apache/PHP/MySQL, server
admin and vendor (SUSE/RedHat/LPI) training.

> There are other groups as well, but I think such training is generally
> offering by quite small companies who most people might not have heard
> of.

Yeah, I would tend to agree with that. I don't think there's many people
doing it, and those that are doing it are probably very specialised into
specific applications / languages / certs etc. 

Cheers,

Alex.
Richard Smedley | 9 Jan 12:43 2008

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only


On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 10:59 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
> The slightly wider question of what we should do with the AFFS is
> something I've been meaning to bring up on this list for a while, 

Start a new thread, we're listening ;)

> I'm not sure I can speak for other companies too much, but my impression
> is that training in the UK for anything related to free software is
> pretty much very quiet. For programming language training it seems to be
> viable, and for some specific web apps, but aside from that it's pretty
> tough - I'm pretty sure one UK org. found it couldn't even give training
> away if it was offered for free in many instances.

Our training is offered only within the third sector, and there
we're quite busy with user training (FOSS Desktop, Scribus, etc.),
and a little IT Strategy training. With the latter the problem is
that the people who most need it are least likely to take it,
so we have to partner with their funders for a carrot and stick
approach :-/

On the admin side The PILOTs [1] will be launching in a few weeks,
giving a framework for training accidental techies and other
small org admins in *nix networks :-)

Cheers,

 - Richard

[1] http://www.thepilots.org/   - site is a little behind current work.

--

-- 
Richard Smedley,                                          rs <at> m6-it.org
Technical Director,                                      www.M6-IT.org
M6-IT CIC                                         +44 (0)779 456 07 14

Sustainable Third Sector IT solutions. PRINCE2 [TM] Project Management
Training * Certification * Support * Networking * Web * Database * CRM

M6-IT is a Community Interest Company, limited by guarantee.
Registered in England & Wales,                Registration No: 6040154
11 St Marks Road, Stourbridge, West Midlands, DY9 7DT

Northern Office:       4, Hollins Green, Bradwall, Cheshire, CW10 0LA.

Welsh office/ Swyddfa Gogledd Cymru: e-mail / e-bost - cymru <at> m6-it.org

Southern Office: Bristol                     contact matthew <at> m6-it.org
MJ Ray | 9 Jan 16:27 2008

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Richard Smedley <smedley358 <at> btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-01-09 at 10:59 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
> > pretty much very quiet. For programming language training it seems to be
> > viable, and for some specific web apps, but aside from that it's pretty
> > tough - I'm pretty sure one UK org. found it couldn't even give training
> > away if it was offered for free in many instances.

Yes, hat's pretty much my experience.  My company (software.coop) is
in the third sector but offers services to all.  I don't really push
training and we only really sell it as an add-on to other work. Our
free tester sessions have had positive feedback, but some of them have
had low turnouts, so there's not been one for some time and our course
materials need updating.

[...]
> On the admin side The PILOTs [1] will be launching in a few weeks,
> giving a framework for training accidental techies and other
> small org admins in *nix networks :-)

I'm still disappointed that the FDL has been used for that.  We need
to promote these skills more widely and easily than that allows.

Regards,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
rob | 9 Jan 16:33 2008

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Quoting MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop>:

> I'm still disappointed that the FDL has been used for that.  We need
> to promote these skills more widely and easily than that allows.

What are the problems with the FDL for that?

- Rob.
MJ Ray | 10 Jan 08:23 2008

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

rob <at> robmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop>:
> > I'm still disappointed that the FDL has been used for that.  We need
> > to promote these skills more widely and easily than that allows.
>
> What are the problems with the FDL for that?

Some of them are general to strong copyleft, similar to why you'd use
the LGPL rather than the GPL for a library.  There are other skills
out there which we need to win mindset from and more liberal terms help
to do that more cheaply.

Some of them are FDL-specific, like allowing any group to attach
permanent obnoxious advertising or poison pills, or including the FDL
1.2 licence inline.  See http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl#general

The SFDL would probably remove some of those drawbacks, but not all.

Hope that explains,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Dave Crossland | 10 Jan 13:06 2008

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 10/01/2008, MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> rob <at> robmyers.org wrote:
> > Quoting MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop>:
> > > I'm still disappointed that the FDL has been used for that.  We need
> > > to promote these skills more widely and easily than that allows.
> >
> > What are the problems with the FDL for that?
>
> Some of them are general to strong copyleft, similar to why you'd use
> the LGPL rather than the GPL for a library.  There are other skills
> out there which we need to win mindset from and more liberal terms help
> to do that more cheaply.

This sounds like a general endorsement that applies the Open Font
License's weak copyleft, which I hope to start a discussion about on
the OFL list shortly and look forward to your contributions there, MJ
:-)

> Some of them are FDL-specific, like allowing any group to attach
> permanent obnoxious advertising or poison pills, or including the FDL
> 1.2 licence inline.  See http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl#general
>
> The SFDL would probably remove some of those drawbacks, but not all.

I hope that you've engaged the FSF about all the specific drawbacks
you see in SFDL.

I'm not sure how the wikipedia/fdl/cc thing is progressing; anyone
care to start a new thread about that? :-)

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
MJ Ray | 10 Jan 13:53 2008

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

"Dave Crossland" <dave <at> lab6.com> wrote:
> This sounds like a general endorsement that applies the Open Font
> License's weak copyleft, which I hope to start a discussion about on
> the OFL list shortly and look forward to your contributions there, MJ
> :-)

I don't think I've ever complained about OFL's weak copyleft.  It was 
the supertrademark clause which was the main trouble.

[...]
> I hope that you've engaged the FSF about all the specific drawbacks
> you see in SFDL.

I'm locked out of the consultations, as explained at
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.fsf.europe.discussion/1092
- that bug keeps recurring and it seems I cannot reopen the report.

Francesco Poli has broadly similar concerns to mine, such as
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00124.html
but I've not seen any positive FSF response, only "can't do"s like
http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/summarydecision.html?filename=%3C%%20%20%%3E&id=2287

How is it possible to engage the FSF these days?  It seems that the
only route left is causing small explosions and they're expensive to
free software and probably harmful to FSFE's good work.

Regards,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Dave Crossland | 10 Jan 14:21 2008

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 10/01/2008, MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> "Dave Crossland" <dave <at> lab6.com> wrote:
> > This sounds like a general endorsement that applies the Open Font
> > License's weak copyleft, which I hope to start a discussion about on
> > the OFL list shortly and look forward to your contributions there, MJ
> > :-)
>
> I don't think I've ever complained about OFL's weak copyleft.

Sure - and now you've made a good case for when weak (ie, very simple
and unburdensome) copyleft is appropriate in general, that applies to
fonts and is implemented by the OFL. Which is good to hear :-)

> It was the supertrademark clause which was the main trouble.

I'd welcome your thoughts on the trademark part of the "additional
terms" of GPLv3.

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
Dave Crossland | 10 Jan 14:39 2008

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 10/01/2008, MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> "Dave Crossland" <dave <at> lab6.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > I hope that you've engaged the FSF about all the specific drawbacks
> > you see in SFDL.
>
> I'm locked out of the consultations, as explained at
> http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.fsf.europe.discussion/1092
> - that bug keeps recurring and it seems I cannot reopen the report.

I am very sympathetic to this; I had some comments on Affero GPL that
I never posted because when I tried stet was buggy and I never got
round to trying again in time for the final release; but I'm overall
happy with the final draft so dropped it. When I first used stet I had
no problems though; perhaps it scales poorly.

> Francesco Poli has broadly similar concerns to mine, such as
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/12/msg00124.html

Thanks for thee links, especially this one, not seen them before.

Is there a good list of posts to d-l about FDL issues? Or will I need
to rely on my own searching heuristics for finding them?

> but I've not seen any positive FSF response, only "can't do"s like
> http://gplv3.fsf.org/comments/rt/summarydecision.html?filename=%3C%%20%20%%3E&id=2287

I'm sad to see this, because the claim that "wikipedia under GPL would
mean wikitext source with html pages" is false; the source code
distribution requirement has MANY ways for source to be distributed.

> How is it possible to engage the FSF these days?  It seems that the
> only route left is causing small explosions and they're expensive to
> free software and probably harmful to FSFE's good work.

I'm sad to hear you feel insurrection is an effective strategy; I
won't support that.

I think of this:

"I invite them to represent themselves in any way they choose, and
pledge to work with them to create, even at this late date, a form of
participation in the deliberations about [FSF licenses] that would
reflect their preferred means of work"
- http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/blog/licenses/gpl/gpl3/kernel-statement.html

Although Eben seems only indirectly involved formally with the FSF via
the SFLC, I hope that this kind of sentiment remains at the FSF.

Matt Lee started working for the FSF in an official capacity recently,
and lives in Manchester which is nearby (relative to Boston.) I am
trying to arrange a visit to Manchester myself sometime in February;
perhaps we three can arrange to meet face to face. I'll drive :-)

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
rob | 10 Jan 15:29 2008

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Quoting MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop>:

> How is it possible to engage the FSF these days?

I find email and chat work fine.

- Rob.
MJ Ray | 11 Jan 11:18 2008

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

rob <at> robmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop>:
> > How is it possible to engage the FSF these days?
>
> I find email and chat work fine.

Got some links you'd like to share.  The ones from the web site that
I've been using seem to be dead.

Regards,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
rob | 11 Jan 12:15 2008

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Quoting MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop>:

> rob <at> robmyers.org wrote:
>> Quoting MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop>:
>> > How is it possible to engage the FSF these days?
>>
>> I find email and chat work fine.
>
> Got some links you'd like to share.  The ones from the web site that
> I've been using seem to be dead.

For email I tend to use:

rms <at> gnu.org

mattl <at> gnu.org

licensing <at> fsf.org

Depending on what I am trying to discuss. I've pointed other people to  
these addresses with no problem.

If any of the addresses at: http://www.fsf.org/about/contact.html are  
broken I'm sure the FSF's webmaster can take a look.

- Rob.
Matt Lee | 11 Jan 15:45 2008
Picon

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

rob <at> robmyers.org wrote:

> For email I tend to use:
> 
> rms <at> gnu.org
> 
> mattl <at> gnu.org
> 
> licensing <at> fsf.org
> 
> Depending on what I am trying to discuss. I've pointed other people to
> these addresses with no problem.

I can confirm these all work.

Mark, if you're having problems reaching us, please email me or ping me
on jabber - mattl <at> fsf.org - anyone is welcome to add me to their list.

matt
Shane Martin Coughlan | 9 Jan 15:39 2008

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Hi Alex

Alex Hudson wrote:
> For FSFE, I would suggest that a larger audience seminar style product
> would be much more suitable, because the economies of scale would help
> make it a profitable proposition. 

How many people would you envisage attending such an event?

> I'm not sure I can speak for other companies too much, but my impression
> is that training in the UK for anything related to free software is
> pretty much very quiet. 

We've found that there is increasing interest in the strategic use of
Free Software in business environments, though the market is still
relatively new.

> How good an idea do you have of your target audience?

We currently target project managers, engineers and upper managers in
the consideration and adoption phase of Free Software.

I'd be glad to forward you a copy of the current course handbook if you
would be interested.

Regards

Shane

--

-- 
Shane Coughlan
FTF Coordinator
Free Software Foundation Europe
Office: +41435000366 ext 408 / Mobile: +41792633406
coughlan <at> fsfeurope.org
Support Free Software > http://fsfe.org
Dave Crossland | 10 Jan 13:15 2008

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 09/01/2008, Shane Martin Coughlan <coughlan <at> fsfeurope.org> wrote:
>
> We currently target project managers, engineers and upper managers in
> the consideration and adoption phase of Free Software.

As anyone on the BBC Backstage list known, I've been lobbying the BBC
on that list about its consideration and adoption of Free Software and
I'm happy to free culture license anything posted there for anyone to
use if they'd like. I try to put the better posts I make on my blog
(understandinglimited.com) where they are FDL and BY-SA.

> I'd be glad to forward you a copy of the current course handbook if you
> would be interested.

Yes please :-)

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
(Personal opinion only!)
Philip Hands | 9 Jan 13:38 2008

Re: Growing FSFE Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 11:43:05AM +0100, Shane Martin Coughlan wrote:
> Hi MJ
> 
> MJ Ray wrote:
...
> >> 3. People to purchase FTF training courses:
> >>    http://fsfeurope.org/projects/ftf/trainingcourse.en.html
> > 
> > What's needed to bring these to the UK?
> 
> We need to establish a relationship or a series of relationships with
> local training suppliers.  We would like to target area of large
> technology usage and growth if possible.  It would be very useful to
> have local knowledge about geographic areas to target, training
> providers who might be interested in co-delivering courses, and
> suggestions about what's required in the UK marketplace.

I'd imagine that the Open Source Consortium has several members that
would be able to give such training:

   http://www.opensourceconsortium.org/

of course, they may not be willing to talk to you since you've got into
bed with Open Forum Europe.

Cheers, Phil.
Noah Slater | 8 Jan 18:14 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:23:46PM +0000, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> I'd like to see the FSF and all its advocates stop their effort at
> retronaming Linux as GNU+Linux

Retronaming? Are you kidding? Next you'll be saying that Free Software
is an attempt to retroname the Open Source movement. Revisionists like
Linus and ESR do real damage to the Free Software movement, we need to
work hard to undo thier harmful work.

> putting the backs up of many people who are on their side to start
> with,

You mean like Linus and his merry men? Or perhaps ESR and the OSI? 

Ha. Sure.

--

-- 
Noah Slater <http://bytesexual.org/>

"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as
society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman
_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
Fsfe-uk <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
MJ Ray | 8 Jan 18:49 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:23:46PM +0000, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> > I'd like to see the FSF and all its advocates stop their effort at
> > retronaming Linux as GNU+Linux
>
> Retronaming? Are you kidding? Next you'll be saying that Free Software
> is an attempt to retroname the Open Source movement. Revisionists like
> Linus and ESR do real damage to the Free Software movement, we need to
> work hard to undo thier harmful work.

Arguably, calling the operating system GNU+Linux or Linux+GNU, while
more accurate, is retronaming in a way.  I'm not sure that Open Source
is a revision of Free Software - it's more a marketing campaign that
then became a tail that tries to wag the dog, encouraged by people
with various motives and interests, mostly in taking control.

Anyway, please finish this subthread (there will be a slight delay on
posts to it from now on) and direct the discussion towards the
"Growing FSFE" one.  We all know the views on GNU+Linux - unless
you've a killer unknown argument or link, please don't take the list
around in circles.

Thanks,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Noah Slater | 8 Jan 19:59 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 05:49:26PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Arguably, calling the operating system GNU+Linux or Linux+GNU, while
> more accurate, is retronaming in a way.

No, you are totally wrong.

  "Starting this Thanksgiving I am going to write a complete
  Unix-compatible software system called GNU (for Gnu's Not Unix), and
  give it away free to everyone who can use it.  Contributions of time,
  money, programs and equipment are greatly needed. "

  Richard Stallman, Sept 27 1983

  http://groups.google.com/group/net.unix-wizards/msg/4dadd63a976019d7

  "I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and
  professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones.  This has been brewing
  since april, and is starting to get ready.  I'd like any feedback on
  things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat
  (same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons)
  among other things).

  Linus Torvalds, Aug 26 1991

  http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.minix/msg/b813d52cbc5a044b

The GNU operating system predates Linux by 8 years.

> I'm not sure that Open Source is a revision of Free Software

The Free Software Foundation was started in 1985 by RMS.

The Open Source Initiative was founded in 1998 by ESR.

Free Software predates Open Source by 15 years.

> Anyway, please finish this subthread (there will be a slight delay on
> posts to it from now on) and direct the discussion towards the
> "Growing FSFE" one.  We all know the views on GNU+Linux - unless
> you've a killer unknown argument or link, please don't take the list
> around in circles.

Is this list moderated? What do you mean delay? I didn't realise we
were only allowed to discuss things deemed suitable subject matter.

If you look closely, I am not arguing the point that GNU/Linux is the
correct name, I am arguing the point that the FSF still needs to
protect and campaign the name. A very differnt topic and a very
important one.

--

-- 
Noah Slater <http://bytesexual.org/>

"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as
society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman
_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
Fsfe-uk <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
Chris Croughton | 8 Jan 21:56 2008
Picon

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 06:59:37PM +0000, Noah Slater wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 05:49:26PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Arguably, calling the operating system GNU+Linux or Linux+GNU, while
> > more accurate, is retronaming in a way.
> 
> No, you are totally wrong.
> 
>   "Starting this Thanksgiving I am going to write a complete
>   Unix-compatible software system called GNU (for Gnu's Not Unix), and
>   give it away free to everyone who can use it.  Contributions of time,
>   money, programs and equipment are greatly needed. "
> 
>   Richard Stallman, Sept 27 1983
> 
>   http://groups.google.com/group/net.unix-wizards/msg/4dadd63a976019d7
> 
>   "I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and
>   professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones.  This has been brewing
>   since april, and is starting to get ready.  I'd like any feedback on
>   things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat
>   (same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons)
>   among other things).
> 
>   Linus Torvalds, Aug 26 1991
> 
>   http://groups.google.com/group/comp.os.minix/msg/b813d52cbc5a044b
> 
> The GNU operating system predates Linux by 8 years.

So?  BSD predates both.  I know, let's call it GNU/Linux/BSD/Unix!
Throw in SCO, Novell and IBM as well for fun, they all claim to have
written bits of it.

As Linus' comment makes clear, although he was aware of the GNU project
his OS was not derived from it.  Indeed, the GNU Hurd was started at
about the same time as the Linux kernel and didn't become operational
until long after there were several complete Linux distributions (I
don't know anyone who uses the Hurd, is it still even supported?  The
last release seems to have been in 1999).

> > I'm not sure that Open Source is a revision of Free Software
> 
> The Free Software Foundation was started in 1985 by RMS.
> 
> The Open Source Initiative was founded in 1998 by ESR.
> 
> Free Software predates Open Source by 15 years.

"Post hoc ergo propter hoc" again.  One of the well-known fallacies.
The term "Open Source" was around well before ESR founded the OSI
(Wikipedia says it was used "as early as 1987"), and certainly the
concept was around much earlier (much of the early Internet structure
was based around open source, with several of the implementations not
only being open but defining the protocols used).

> > Anyway, please finish this subthread (there will be a slight delay on
> > posts to it from now on) and direct the discussion towards the
> > "Growing FSFE" one.  We all know the views on GNU+Linux - unless
> > you've a killer unknown argument or link, please don't take the list
> > around in circles.
> 
> Is this list moderated? What do you mean delay? I didn't realise we
> were only allowed to discuss things deemed suitable subject matter.

I haven't heard before that it's moderated.  Who is in charge of that?

> If you look closely, I am not arguing the point that GNU/Linux is the
> correct name, I am arguing the point that the FSF still needs to
> protect and campaign the name. A very differnt topic and a very
> important one.

Well, I'm one of the people who gets annoyed with that "campaign".  As
far as I'm concerned it's just as much hijacking the name as it would be
to talk of "GNU/BSD", the BSD systems I know have just as much GNU/FSF
owned software as do Linux systems.  Heck, I know Windows systems with
as much.

Chris C
Noah Slater | 9 Jan 01:38 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 08:56:51PM +0000, Chris Croughton wrote:
> So?  BSD predates both.  I know, let's call it GNU/Linux/BSD/Unix!
> Throw in SCO, Novell and IBM as well for fun, they all claim to have
> written bits of it.

Your comments illustrate a lack of understanding or a joke, I'm not
sure which - so appologies if I got it wrong.

Clearly the name is used to describe the important components, if you
can show me an operting system that is actually comprised of GNU,
Linux, BSD and Unix I will take your comments seriously.

Until that time, GNU is an operating system and Linux is one of it's
kernels. Sure, BSD is an operating system and it has it's own kernel,
the same with OpenSolaris. It doesn't effect the specific case of a
GNU system being run with a Linux kernel.

If you actually run an operating system with the Linux kernel as well
as the Linux user space tools, C library and shell then you should be
calling it Linux, but only then.

> As Linus' comment makes clear, although he was aware of the GNU project
> his OS was not derived from it.

Sure, but Linux these days means his kernel not his operating system.

--

-- 
Noah Slater <http://bytesexual.org/>

"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as
society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman
_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
Fsfe-uk <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
Dave Crossland | 9 Jan 03:01 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 08/01/2008, Chris Croughton <affs <at> keristor.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > The GNU operating system predates Linux by 8 years.
>
> So?  BSD predates both.  I know, let's call it GNU/Linux/BSD/Unix!

Please read the FAQ on this issue in full -
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html

It answers this exaggeration at
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#many and I am quoting that
part in full here in case you have a specific objection to it.

-- 8< --
Q: Many other projects contributed to the system as it is today; it
includes TeX, X11, Apache, Perl, and many more programs. Don't your
arguments imply we have to give them credit too? (But that would lead
to a name so long it is absurd.)

A:    What we say is that you ought to give the system's principal
developer a share of the credit. The principal developer is the GNU
Project, and the system is basically GNU.

    If you feel even more strongly about giving credit where it is
due, you might feel that some secondary contributors also deserve
credit in the system's name. If so, far be it from us to argue against
it. If you feel that X11 deserves credit in the system's name, and you
want to call the system GNU/X11/Linux, please do. If you feel that
Perl simply cries out for mention, and you want to write
GNU/Linux/Perl, go ahead.

    Since a long name such as
GNU/X11/Apache/Linux/TeX/Perl/Python/FreeCiv becomes absurd, at some
point you will have to set a threshold and omit the names of the many
other secondary contributions. There is no one obvious right place to
set the threshold, so wherever you set it, we won't argue against it.

    Different threshold levels would lead to different choices of name
for the system. But one name that cannot result from concerns of
fairness and giving credit, not for any possible threshold level, is
"Linux". It can't be fair to give all the credit to one secondary
contribution (Linux) while omitting the principal contribution (GNU).
-- 8< --

> Throw in SCO, Novell and IBM as well for fun, they all claim to have
> written bits of it.

Although many individuals and large companies have written parts of
the GNU+Linux operating system, they did not start the project and are
not the largest contributor. GNU did start the development of the
system and remains the largest single contributor.

Some numbers to back this up are at
http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/redhat71-v1/redhat71sloc.html (hello
killer link) and this part is particularly relevant:

"The data here can be used to justify calling the system either
``Linux'' or ``GNU/Linux.'' It's clear that the largest single
component in the operating system is the Linux kernel, so it's at
least understandable how so many people have chosen to name the entire
system after its largest single component (``Linux''). It's also clear
that there are many contributors, not just the GNU project itself, and
some of those contributors do not agree with the GNU project's
philosophy. On the other hand, many of the largest components of the
system are essentially GNU projects: gcc, gdb, emacs, binutils (a set
of commands for binary files), and glibc (the C library). Other GNU
projects in the system include binutils, bash, gawk, make, textutils,
sh-utils, gettext, readline, automake, tar, less, findutils,
diffutils, and grep. This is not even counting GNOME, a GNU project.
In short, the total of the GNU project's code is much larger than the
Linux kernel's size. Thus, by comparing the total contributed effort,
it's certainly justifiable to call the entire system ``GNU/Linux'' and
not just ``Linux,'' and using the term GNU/Linux both credits its
contributions and eliminates some ambiguity. Thus, I've decided to
switch to the ``GNU/Linux'' terminology here."

> As Linus' comment makes clear, although he was aware of the GNU project
> his OS was not derived from it.

You are confusing an operating system with a kernel.

Please read http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#afterkernel :-)

> Indeed, the GNU Hurd was started at
> about the same time as the Linux kernel and didn't become operational
> until long after there were several complete Linux distributions (I
> don't know anyone who uses the Hurd, is it still even supported?  The
> last release seems to have been in 1999).

The Hurd is generally irrelevant to this discussion. That there were
distributions of the GNU OS combined with the Linux kernel before the
Hurd ran is irrelevant.

> "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" again.  One of the well-known fallacies.

One reason to credit the GNU project with the name of the OS is that
it started the development of the system. Noah was proposing that
reason, I think. This is not fallacious in the way you describe.

> I haven't heard before that it's moderated.  Who is in charge of that?

+1

> > If you look closely, I am not arguing the point that GNU/Linux is the
> > correct name, I am arguing the point that the FSF still needs to
> > protect and campaign the name. A very differnt topic and a very
> > important one.
>
> Well, I'm one of the people who gets annoyed with that "campaign"

I'm sorry to hear that :-(

> As far as I'm concerned it's just as much hijacking the name as it would be
> to talk of "GNU/BSD", the BSD systems I know have just as much GNU/FSF
> owned software as do Linux systems.  Heck, I know Windows systems with
> as much.

Again, please read the FAQ in full. Specifically,
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#bsd answers this:

-- 8< --
Q: Should we say "GNU/BSD" too?

A:    We don't call the BSD systems (FreeBSD, etc.) "GNU/BSD" systems,
because that term does not fit the history of the BSD systems.

    The BSD system was developed by UC Berkeley as non-free software
in the 80s, and became free in the early 90s. A free operating system
that exists today is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU
system, or a kind of BSD system.

    People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a variant of GNU, as
GNU/Linux is. It is not. The BSD developers were inspired to make
their code free software by the example of the GNU Project, and
explicit appeals from GNU activists helped convince them to start, but
the code had little overlap with GNU.

    BSD systems today use some GNU packages, just as the GNU system
and its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they
are two different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers
did not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, so a name like
GNU/BSD would not fit the situation.

    The connection between GNU/Linux and GNU is much closer, and
that's why the name "GNU/Linux" is appropriate for it.

    There is a version of GNU which uses the kernel from NetBSD. Its
developers call it "Debian GNU/NetBSD", but "GNU/kernelofNetBSD" would
be more accurate, since NetBSD is an entire system, not just the
kernel. This is not a BSD system, since most of the system is the same
as the GNU/Linux system.
-- 8< --

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
Yavor Doganov | 17 Jan 14:45 2008
Picon

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

В Wed, 09 Jan 2008 03:01:47 +0100, Dave Crossland написа:

> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#bsd answers this:
[...]
>     There is a version of GNU which uses the kernel from NetBSD. Its
> developers call it "Debian GNU/NetBSD", but "GNU/kernelofNetBSD" would
> be more accurate, since NetBSD is an entire system, not just the kernel.
> This is not a BSD system, since most of the system is the same as the
> GNU/Linux system.

FWIW, this paragraph is not entirely accurate, as clarified in 
http://bugs.debian.org/419081.  Based on the resolution of this bug and 
probably a closer look at Gentoo's ports the text will be amended.  For 
now, I only managed to write 
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html#gnubsd (which was approved by 
RMS some time ago) because this paragraph was slightly misleading and 
confusing given the existence of GNU/kFreeBSD (which in no doubt is a 
nearly mature variant of the GNU system, just like GNU/Linux -- but far 
less popular).

(Personally, I can't say if a system based on NetBSD's kernel and 
NetBSD's libc can be correctly referred as GNU/NetBSD since I've never 
used a BSD system.)
Ian Lynch | 9 Jan 10:18 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only


> > The GNU operating system predates Linux by 8 years.
> 
> So?  BSD predates both.  I know, let's call it GNU/Linux/BSD/Unix!
> Throw in SCO, Novell and IBM as well for fun, they all claim to have
> written bits of it.
> 
> As Linus' comment makes clear, although he was aware of the GNU project
> his OS was not derived from it.  Indeed, the GNU Hurd was started at
> about the same time as the Linux kernel and didn't become operational
> until long after there were several complete Linux distributions (I
> don't know anyone who uses the Hurd, is it still even supported?  The
> last release seems to have been in 1999).

I always thought the GNU bit was nothing to do with the kernel but
supporting software developed by GNU that goes around the kernel or
comes with each distro eg Gnome. If BSD code is in similar significant
quantities there is a case for including it's name. Can you confirm that
there is a significant amount of code from the BSD project in most Linux
"kernelled" distros? SCO code? I thought that notion had been
discredited in court. KDE also gets some similar recognition with Ubuntu
in Kubuntu. Can't see a problem with Kubuntu GNU/Linux myself but I'm
sure many people will just abbreviate it to Linux for convenience. 

> Well, I'm one of the people who gets annoyed with that "campaign".  As
> far as I'm concerned it's just as much hijacking the name as it would be
> to talk of "GNU/BSD", the BSD systems I know have just as much GNU/FSF
> owned software as do Linux systems.  Heck, I know Windows systems with
> as much.

That isn't the same thing though. You could campaign to call it GNU BSD
or GNU Windows if you wanted to on those grounds but it doesn't
invalidate a request for originators of code distributed with the Linux
kernel to ask for recognition and some people think its fair to do so.

Ian
--

-- 
New QCA Accredited IT Qualifications
www.theINGOTs.org

You have received this email from the following company: The Learning
Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79
8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and Wales. 
Matt Lee | 8 Jan 20:35 2008
Picon

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

MJ Ray wrote:

> Anyway, please finish this subthread (there will be a slight delay on
> posts to it from now on) and direct the discussion towards the
> "Growing FSFE" one.  We all know the views on GNU+Linux - unless
> you've a killer unknown argument or link, please don't take the list
> around in circles.

If anyone would like to discuss GNU/Linux or anything else, without fear
of delays or being told to shut up and go away, Manchester Free Software
has a list that will happily accommodate you.

	http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsuk-manchester

We're a bit Manchester-centric right now, but we do want to expand and
get other groups going. These groups are not GLUGs (or LUGs) but rather
groups about free software, itself.

Plus, as an added bonus, MJ Ray is not on our list.

Join us now and share the software,

matt
Manchester Free Software
Tim Dobson | 8 Jan 21:01 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Matt Lee wrote:
> If anyone would like to discuss GNU/Linux or anything else, without fear
> of delays or being told to shut up and go away, Manchester Free Software
> has a list that will happily accommodate you.
> 
> 	http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsuk-manchester
> 
> We're a bit Manchester-centric right now, but we do want to expand and
> get other groups going. These groups are not GLUGs (or LUGs) but rather
> groups about free software, itself.

To be fair we aren't that manchester centric. we have meetings in 
manchester, but there are mailing list members from all over the north 
of England,
Matters discussed are rarely about local events and are more issues 
which one expect to find on a national mailing list.
I suggest anyone interested in free software join it, you can always 
choose to unsubscribe.
But mattl is right. it won't be censored on unpopular topics.

-Tim

--
www.dobo.urandom.co.uk
----
If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us
still has one object.
If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now
has two ideas.   -  George Bernard Shaw
--

-- 
Tim Dobson | 8 Jan 21:01 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

MJ Ray wrote:
> Anyway, please finish this subthread (there will be a slight delay on
> posts to it from now on) and direct the discussion towards the
> "Growing FSFE" one.  We all know the views on GNU+Linux - unless
> you've a killer unknown argument or link, please don't take the list
> around in circles.

I'm sorry I have to agree with nslater here.
I don't think this thread should be killed simply because the topic is 
unpopular with some people. I think it is damaging for the list to make 
decisions in these sort of circumstances. The same decision was made on 
the ManLUG mailing list and about half the active participants forked, 
Ultimately not a good thing for the list, despite it perhaps seeming to 
be in the short term.

The whole point of a discussion list is to discuss and IMHO I think that 
is crucial to working towards a greater understanding between those who 
call it "Linux" and those who call it "GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux).
I believe this co-operation is necessary for greater co-operation within 
Software developing in the greater Free Software Community.

I would therefore argue that civilised debate about different Naming 
Schemes is crucial for Free Software, Open Source, and Linux and 
GNu+Linux supporters alike, and that attempting to quell such 
interaction is an dis-service to the Ideology of Free Software, and even 
Open Source.

--
www.dobo.urandom.co.uk
----
If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us
still has one object.
If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now
has two ideas.   -  George Bernard Shaw
--

-- 
MJ Ray | 9 Jan 02:02 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Tim Dobson <personalwebsite <at> army.com> wrote:
> I don't think this thread should be killed simply because the topic is 
> unpopular with some people.   [...]

Again, this misunderstanding.  This thread isn't being killed - it's
being chilled.  For a proper discussion, it needs a bit less heat than
it's getting at the moment.

> I would therefore argue that civilised debate about different Naming 
> Schemes is crucial for Free Software, Open Source, and Linux and 
> GNu+Linux supporters alike, and that attempting to quell such 
> interaction is an dis-service to the Ideology of Free Software, and even 
> Open Source.

Is it really a civilised debate when usually level-headed participants
are slinging personal insults at other subscribers, or trying to fork
the list?  I don't think it is.  I'm reluctant to block the entire
topic completely, but a little reflection should help some posters.

As for Ideology... I never got that ology.  Let's do some practical
things.  If anyone wants, start a topic like: how to convince a Linux
User Group to use a better name.  Maybe Devon+Cornwall might give some
ideas, as I think they added GNU to their name a while after the start.

Hope that explains,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Dave Crossland | 8 Jan 19:06 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 08/01/2008, Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:23:46PM +0000, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> > I'd like to see the FSF and all its advocates stop their effort at
> > retronaming Linux as GNU+Linux
>
> Retronaming? Are you kidding?

It saddens me that Ralph reads history this way - especially after I
spent tens of hours on the unpublished-archived Dorset GNU+Linux User
Group mailing list  :-(

> > putting the backs up of many people who are on their side to start
> > with,
>
> You mean like Linus and his merry men? Or perhaps ESR and the OSI?
> Ha. Sure.

The lengthy discussions on the Dorset list last month resulted in some
list members mailing Ralph (who admins the list) offlist to complain
about the discussion, presumably because they don't know how to use
the advanced "mute thread" features of their email clients, and Ralph
said "the thread is now declared closed and the topic unwelcome."

Which makes me surprised when you mentions it here, Ralph.

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
Noah Slater | 8 Jan 19:47 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 07:06:13PM +0100, Dave Crossland wrote:
> The lengthy discussions on the Dorset list last month resulted in some
> list members mailing Ralph (who admins the list) offlist to complain
> about the discussion, presumably because they don't know how to use
> the advanced "mute thread" features of their email clients, and Ralph
> said "the thread is now declared closed and the topic unwelcome."

The exact same thing happened on the ManLUG mailing list after about
100 or so emails. ManLUG is also unpublished. I think I'm spotting a
trend here.

> Which makes me surprised when you mentions it here, Ralph.

It's not that the subject is unwelcome, it's the discussion of it
which seems to annoy so many people.

--

-- 
Noah Slater <http://bytesexual.org/>

"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as
society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman
_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
Fsfe-uk <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
MJ Ray | 9 Jan 01:50 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Three replies in one, you lucky lucky people.

"Dave Crossland" <dave <at> lab6.com> wrote: [...]
> list members mailing Ralph (who admins the list) offlist to complain
> about the discussion, presumably because they don't know how to use
> the advanced "mute thread" features of their email clients, [...]

Not all email clients have such features.  It's much more polite not
to post too many emails about one topic, especially if it goes around
in circles, as definitions have to.

Matt Lee <mattl <at> gnu.org> wrote: [...]
> If anyone would like to discuss GNU/Linux or anything else, without fear
> of delays or being told to shut up and go away, Manchester Free Software
> has a list that will happily accommodate you.
> 	http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsuk-manchester

Anyone near Manchester should join that list.  However, I wish it a
flamewar soon so that its seemingly undisclosed charter is shown for
the problem that it is.

> [...] Plus, as an added bonus, MJ Ray is not on our list. [...]

Please try to keep it positive and polite.  I'm even more surprised by
this personal attack coming from someone who has my direct line
details but appears to have made no effort to contact me about
whatever problem they have.  Great PR job by an FSF worker there(!)

Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 05:49:26PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Arguably, calling the operating system GNU+Linux or Linux+GNU, while
> > more accurate, is retronaming in a way.
>
> No, you are totally wrong. [GNU's history]

That's your side of the argument, with which I agree personally, and
I'm happy to be a developer of a free software operating system which
includes GNU in its name (which even GNU's current favourite gNewSense
doesn't appear to).

We have to accept that many GNU-based operating systems called
themselves Linux at the outset and attempting to change their name is
a change of name.

> > I'm not sure that Open Source is a revision of Free Software
[...]
> Free Software predates Open Source by 15 years.

I know the dates.  That doesn't make one a revision of the other.  I
also know what the Open Source Initiative was originally claimed to
do, how it failed and I watched it develop into something a bit harmful.

> > Anyway, please finish this subthread (there will be a slight delay on
> > posts to it from now on) 
>
> Is this list moderated? What do you mean delay? I didn't realise we
> were only allowed to discuss things deemed suitable subject matter.

No, this list isn't moderated, but it is managed.

By delay, I mean posts will be held for a few hours.  Nothing that
doesn't break the guidelines will be rejected, but this topic needs to
avoid spiralling into another flamewar and I think adding a delay will
help that, as it has before, by allowing time for reflection.

Of course we are only allowed to discuss things deemed suitable
subject matter - nearly all mailing lists operate within a defined
topic, usually shown on the page where you subscribe/unsubscribe which
is linked in every footer.  The one for this list hasn't changed in
years, and it explicitly says that debating definitions is not
welcome.  There are other places, with more resources, which are more
suitable for that, such as perhaps
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion

> If you look closely, I am not arguing the point that GNU/Linux is the
> correct name, I am arguing the point that the FSF still needs to
> protect and campaign the name. A very differnt topic and a very
> important one.

If we have to look closely, the message isn't clear enough IMO. These
are emotive topics and some people won't look closely.  Please try to
deal with that.  I thought it seemed more like debating definitions of
retronaming and open source, which isn't helpful.

Regards,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Ralph Corderoy | 9 Jan 18:33 2008
Picon

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only


Hi,

Dave Crossland wrote:
> On 08/01/2008, Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:23:46PM +0000, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> > > I'd like to see the FSF and all its advocates stop their effort at
> > > retronaming Linux as GNU+Linux
> >
> > Retronaming? Are you kidding?
> 
> It saddens me that Ralph reads history this way - especially after I
> spent tens of hours on the unpublished-archived Dorset GNU+Linux User
> Group mailing list  :-(

Dave, we're the Dorset Linux User Group, as you well know.  If we wish
to call ourselves a Linux User Group I sugest you respect that, even if
you refer to a machine running Linux and GNU software as GNU+Linux.

> > > putting the backs up of many people who are on their side to start
> > > with,
> >
> > You mean like Linus and his merry men? Or perhaps ESR and the OSI?
> > Ha. Sure.
> 
> The lengthy discussions on the Dorset list last month resulted in some
> list members mailing Ralph (who admins the list) offlist to complain
> about the discussion, presumably because they don't know how to use
> the advanced "mute thread" features of their email clients,

No, it was because they saw you as an individual had a position that
would not change and as long as two or three others were willing to keep
arguing the point with you then, given they were unlikely to change
either, you'd just keep making your "You're wrong.  Here, read the GNU
FAQ and you'll believe." statements along with posting verbatim chunks
of said FAQ.

They thought, rightly in my opinion and the other list admin., that the
list becoming an *endless* sequence of posts that were making no
progress on the issue would spoil a quiet list for those that like to
chat about using Linux on their Dorset desktop.  You'd made your point,
told those interested where to find further information, but seemingly
wouldn't stop until everyone was converted or stopped disagreeing with
you.

> and Ralph said "the thread is now declared closed and the topic
> unwelcome."

For which I was then congratulated off-list and on-list, except I
stopped the on-list ones getting through to avoid inflaming things
again.

> Which makes me surprised when you mentions it here, Ralph.

I didn't.  You did.  I'm talking about the actions of FSF worker Matt
Lee and the resulting long thread on the lugmaster list which only
stopped when the list admin. called a halt.

Cheers,

Ralph.
Dave Crossland | 11 Jan 14:32 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 09/01/2008, Ralph Corderoy <ralph <at> inputplus.co.uk> wrote:
>
> No, it was because they saw you as an individual had a position that
> would not change

I'm sad to hear this is the case, because of course I may change my
positions and often do when I hear others views and see the sense in
them :-)

I found the debate on the Dorset list interesting and thoughtful and
gained new insights into this issue in researching my posts.

I'm sad that people don't know how to "mute" the threads they find
boring other than asking to censor the participants.

> and as long as two or three others were willing to keep
> arguing the point with you then, given they were unlikely to change
> either, you'd just keep making your "You're wrong.  Here, read the GNU
> FAQ and you'll believe." statements along with posting verbatim chunks
> of said FAQ.

I was hoping they would specify why they think the answers in that FAQ
are inadequate answers their objections.

> They thought, rightly in my opinion and the other list admin., that the
> list becoming an *endless* sequence of posts that were making no
> progress on the issue would spoil a quiet list for those that like to
> chat about using Linux on their Dorset desktop.

This is a disservice to those who found the debate engaging and to
those who could benefit from communal support for their use of
features in their email clients for dealing with uninteresting
debates.

> You'd made your point,
> told those interested where to find further information, but seemingly
> wouldn't stop until everyone was converted or stopped disagreeing with
> you.

The motive for debate is not scoring or making points; is about
hearing others views and their critiques of our views.

The motive is not to change people's minds, since we have free will,
we can choose to change our own minds.

Neither is it to stop them agreeing with you, it is the opposite; to
keep them disagreeing so we all become more informed.

Finally, it is not to "convert" them - another exaggeration that
rational debate is akin to religious prosthelizing.

> > and Ralph said "the thread is now declared closed and the topic
> > unwelcome."
>
> For which I was then congratulated off-list and on-list, except I
> stopped the on-list ones getting through to avoid inflaming things
> again.

IMO it would be better if you didn't censor them so I could suggest
they learn about their email clients "mute" features :-)

> > Which makes me surprised when you mentions it here, Ralph.
>
> I didn't.  You did.  I'm talking about the actions of FSF worker Matt
> Lee and the resulting long thread on the lugmaster list which only
> stopped when the list admin. called a halt.

That list is not public and until you mention now it I had not heard
rumours about any such discussion from anyone. You said,

> > > I'd like to see the FSF and all its advocates stop their effort at
> > > retronaming Linux as GNU+Linux

which has nothing to do with the lugmaster list and brings up the topic again.

I enjoy talking about this because I think it is interesting; you
appear not to enjoy talking about it, so I kindly suggest you do not
mention it :-)

Best,

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
Ralph Corderoy | 11 Jan 15:25 2008
Picon

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only


Hi Dave,

> > > Which makes me surprised when you mentions it here, Ralph.
> >
> > I didn't.  You did.  I'm talking about the actions of FSF worker
> > Matt Lee and the resulting long thread on the lugmaster list which
> > only stopped when the list admin. called a halt.
> 
> That list is not public and until you mention now it I had not heard
> rumours about any such discussion from anyone. You said,
> 
> > > > I'd like to see the FSF and all its advocates stop their effort
> > > > at retronaming Linux as GNU+Linux
> 
> which has nothing to do with the lugmaster list and brings up the
> topic again.

You say the lugmaster list is not public but then state that something
has nothing to do with the list?

The recent thread on the lugmaster list to which I'm referring is
directly connected to FSF(E)'s pursual of the GNU+Linux moniker.

Cheers,

Ralph.
Dave Crossland | 12 Jan 21:00 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 11/01/2008, Ralph Corderoy <ralph <at> inputplus.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Which makes me surprised when you mentions it here, Ralph.
> > >
> > > I didn't.  You did.  I'm talking about the actions of FSF worker
> > > Matt Lee and the resulting long thread on the lugmaster list which
> > > only stopped when the list admin. called a halt.
> >
> > That list is not public and until you mention now it I had not heard
> > rumours about any such discussion from anyone. You said,
> >
> > > > > I'd like to see the FSF and all its advocates stop their effort
> > > > > at retronaming Linux as GNU+Linux
> >
> > which has nothing to do with the lugmaster list and brings up the
> > topic again.
>
> You say the lugmaster list is not public but then state that something
> has nothing to do with the list?
>
> The recent thread on the lugmaster list to which I'm referring is
> directly connected to FSF(E)'s pursual of the GNU+Linux moniker.

Sorry if my wording was poorly structured and ambiguous.

Originally you said,

> > > I'd like to see the FSF and all its advocates stop their effort at
> > > retronaming Linux as GNU+Linux

This seems like a "This statement is false" kind of paradox :-)

Personally, if I don't want to discuss a topic, I'll just ignore it.

I hope you'll consider that approach.

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
Ralph Corderoy | 12 Jan 21:46 2008
Picon

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only


Hi Dave,

> Sorry if my wording was poorly structured and ambiguous.
> Originally you said,
> 
> > > > I'd like to see the FSF and all its advocates stop their effort
> > > > at retronaming Linux as GNU+Linux
> 
> This seems like a "This statement is false" kind of paradox :-)

You've lost me there, it seems like a statement of what I'd like them to
do, but I don't think it matters...

> Personally, if I don't want to discuss a topic, I'll just ignore it.
> I hope you'll consider that approach.

OK.  Two things.  You suggested to this list that having told you and
others to shut up discussing GNU+Linux on the Dorset LUG list I then
came here and brought up that very discussion.  I didn't, as I hope is
now clear, I was bringing up the lugmaster discussion, of which it seems
you had no visibility, which happened to occur soon after.  So I'm not
as much of a hypocrite as it may seem.  :-)

The reason for bringing it up will hopefully be made clear in my
half-written reply to Ciaran and Shane, but asking for EUR60 on the one
hand whilst castigating us for calling it "Linux" isn't a great way to
persuade people to open their wallets.

Hopefully, that's an end to it and I can return to my other draft.  :-)

Cheers,

Ralph.
Noah Slater | 13 Jan 03:08 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 02:25:56PM +0000, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> The recent thread on the lugmaster list to which I'm referring is
> directly connected to FSF(E)'s pursual of the GNU+Linux moniker.

You mean GNU/Linux? Why does everyone on this list insist on calling
it GNU+Linux, even when incorrectly citing the FSF.

--

-- 
Noah Slater <http://bytesexual.org/>

"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as
society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman
Dave Crossland | 13 Jan 14:42 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 13/01/2008, Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 02:25:56PM +0000, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> > The recent thread on the lugmaster list to which I'm referring is
> > directly connected to FSF(E)'s pursual of the GNU+Linux moniker.
>
> You mean GNU/Linux?

RMS seems to write "GNU/Linux" and say "GNU+Linux."

To me, the / looks better typographically, but the + sounds better
when spoken and makes more sense because a "/" means boolean "OR" in
everyday language. So I say and write "+" and because I do so
consistently, the meme takes hold ;-)

> Why does everyone on this list insist on calling
> it GNU+Linux, even when incorrectly citing the FSF.

The GNU project asks for fairness in crediting their work, and to
promote the idea of software freedom, and asks for either a "/" or a
"+" but not a " " since that implies Linux is a GNU program like GNU
Gnash.

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
Jon Grant | 13 Jan 18:00 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Evening,

On 13/01/2008, Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 02:25:56PM +0000, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> > The recent thread on the lugmaster list to which I'm referring is
> > directly connected to FSF(E)'s pursual of the GNU+Linux moniker.
>
> You mean GNU/Linux? Why does everyone on this list insist on calling
> it GNU+Linux, even when incorrectly citing the FSF.

No idea about others, but personally I started writing GNU+Linux about
two years ago as its better English, as the slash is an: either/or
situation.

The GNU argument (for calling it GNU/Linux) mentions the GPL (as I
recall), covering many projects, many of which are not copyright owned
by GNU, so perhaps they should have campaigned for calling it
GPL+Linux if that licence is their key point. (although Linux is also
covered by GPL!)

Cheers, Jon
--

-- 
linkme: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jongrant
web: http://jguk.org/
Philip Hands | 14 Jan 19:12 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 05:00:05PM +0000, Jon Grant wrote:
> Evening,
> 
> On 13/01/2008, Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 02:25:56PM +0000, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> > > The recent thread on the lugmaster list to which I'm referring is
> > > directly connected to FSF(E)'s pursual of the GNU+Linux moniker.
> >
> > You mean GNU/Linux? Why does everyone on this list insist on calling
> > it GNU+Linux, even when incorrectly citing the FSF.
> 
> No idea about others, but personally I started writing GNU+Linux about
> two years ago as its better English, as the slash is an: either/or
> situation.

or it can be read as mathematical division, which (at least in UK English)
can be spoken as "GNU over Linux" which is pretty much exactly right.

Of course, this thread seems to show that it should be pronounced 
"GNU divided by Linux" ;-)

Cheers, Phil.
MJ Ray | 13 Jan 08:27 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

"Dave Crossland" <dave <at> lab6.com> wrote:
> I'm sad that people don't know how to "mute" the threads they find
> boring other than asking to censor the participants.

The above point was repeated three times in that one mail, which was
rather unnecessary.

We can mute the thread for all googlemail users by sending them known
spam with forged headers that make it look like part of the thread.

In general, be liberal and accept that not everyone filters mail from
their local user groups.  Be conservative in what you generate.

> I was hoping they would specify why they think the answers in that FAQ
> are inadequate answers their objections. [...]

The GNU/Linux FAQ is inadequate because it ignores frequently asked
questions like "Is this just credit-seeking by the GNU project?" "Why
does FSF still reject some groups who call it GNU/Linux?" and "How
have groups been persuaded to call it GNU/Linux?"

Some of the questions there that actually are frequently-asked ones,
such as the X11-Apache-Perl one, have weak answers and don't give
references to support the claims.  An answer sounds like mere opinion
even when it could be more quantitative.

Also, much of it focuses on what the GNU project doesn't or didn't do,
rather than what it does.  It's a rather negative and grating tone.

Finally, it's unstructured (compare with the GPL FAQ) and rather
random.  There are lots of questions there but I suspect many of them
are relatively uncommon.  It's mostly a list of "Questions I Wish Were
Frequently Asked" as far as I can tell.

So there you have it: that FAQ is a random list of weak answers to
unasked questions in an irritating tone.  I don't remember it ever
helping me in persuading people to name GNU.  Reposting chunks of it
seems to border on trolling in many free software forums.

And you may not fix those bugs, because it's verbatim copying terms.
Once you are aware of the problems, you need to wait until you have
forgotten the FAQ and can write something which isn't a derivation.

Hope that helps,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Noah Slater | 13 Jan 14:22 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 07:27:00AM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> In general, be liberal and accept that not everyone filters mail from
> their local user groups.  Be conservative in what you generate.

If someone is technical enought to be subscribed to a LUG mailing list
they should be technical enough to deploy mail filters.

--

-- 
Noah Slater <http://bytesexual.org/>

"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as
society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman
Dave Crossland | 13 Jan 15:12 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 13/01/2008, MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> "Dave Crossland" <dave <at> lab6.com> wrote:
> > I'm sad that people don't know how to "mute" the threads they find
> > boring other than asking to censor the participants.
>
> The above point was repeated three times in that one mail, which was
> rather unnecessary.

Apologies for that.

> We can mute the thread for all googlemail users by sending them known
> spam with forged headers that make it look like part of the thread.

Isn't this is true of all Bayesian filters?

> > I was hoping they would specify why they think the answers in that FAQ
> > are inadequate answers their objections. [...]
>
> The GNU/Linux FAQ is inadequate because

Thanks for this feedback :-)

> And you may not fix those bugs, because it's verbatim copying terms.

You may fix the bugs by reporting them to webmasters <at> gnu.org and also
by volunteering to help webmaster the GNU website and then help draft
a new version?

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
MJ Ray | 13 Jan 16:18 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

"Dave Crossland" <dave <at> lab6.com> wrote:
> On 13/01/2008, MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop> wrote:
> > And you may not fix those bugs, because it's verbatim copying terms.
>
> You may fix the bugs by reporting them to webmasters <at> gnu.org and also
> by volunteering to help webmaster the GNU website and then help draft
> a new version?

I'll forward the last mail now it's written, but most of my bug
reports about GNU websites are unanswered, rejected, deferred or
the bugs reappear later, so I usually work on more productive tasks.

I won't help webmaster the GNU website because it's under terms I
disagree with and I doubt they'd accept a redrafting under the GPL
without copyright assignment.  I could volunteer for other groups
which do stuff I disagree with and I could even write on similar
topics for other bosses under copyright terms I don't like for money
(I get about an offer a month lately).  Generally, I don't do help
groups under unacceptable terms and it's a bit silly to suggest I do
so.  It almost makes me wish I hadn't answered the question of what's
wrong with the GNU FAQ.

The bugs in FSF+GNU websites are mere irritations to me, but they're
vital problems for FSF in getting their message out there. They mean
those sites are less widely used than competitors.  I try to persuade
FSF to open the sites under more liberal licences and describe how to
download the site source code, which would get them more
contributions, but they don't.  Even when I persisted long enough with
one bit to get source code, it was unnecessarily hacking-hostile and
not the current version.

As a result, FSF offerings are not as good as they could be if they
were free software, developed openly.  For example, I don't search
http://directory.fsf.org/ as often as other sites mainly because it's
18 tabs to reach the search box and there's no access key for it.
I've mentioned this sort of thing a few times and that particular one
recently, but similar things keep happening.

If you can see how to fix those problems, go ahead.  Otherwise, we'll
keep on working around FSF, building things like www.lug.org.uk/lugs/
which works rather than something GNU which doesn't.

Regards,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Yavor Doganov | 17 Jan 15:34 2008
Picon

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

В Sun, 13 Jan 2008 07:27:00 +0000, MJ Ray написа:

> The GNU/Linux FAQ is inadequate because it ignores frequently asked
> questions like "Is this just credit-seeking by the GNU project?"

The GNU/Linux FAQ does not attempt to answer all questions in their 
entirety, it is intended to be read as a supplement to other articles 
like linux-and-gnu, why-gnu-linux and gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.

> "Why does FSF still reject some groups who call it GNU/Linux?"

This is explained at /gnu/gnu-user-groups.

> and "How have groups been persuaded to call it GNU/Linux?"

There is no single answer to this question.  And unfortunately
most of the groups call it "Linux".

> Some of the questions there that actually are frequently-asked ones,
> such as the X11-Apache-Perl one, have weak answers and don't give
> references to support the claims.

Why do you think it's a weak answer?  IMO it's very persuasive. Like
this one:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-August/msg00101.html

Alan Cox is not exactly the person who is afraid to argue or defend his
position, but there were no followups to this message.  Not surprising.

> Finally, it's unstructured (compare with the GPL FAQ) and rather random.
> There are lots of questions there but I suspect many of them are
> relatively uncommon.  It's mostly a list of "Questions I Wish Were
> Frequently Asked" as far as I can tell.

This is because of the way this article has evolved.  You are wrong that
this is an artificial compilation; initially the article contained only 
a few questions asked by various people when the GNU project began this 
educational campaign.  Most of the questions were asked in real life, at 
various speeches, interviews, or by mail from people who wrote to RMS and 
the various GNU addresses.  The CVS history is public and in case you're 
interested you can take a look at it:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html?root=www&view=log

> So there you have it: that FAQ is a random list of weak answers to
> unasked questions in an irritating tone.

I never found it irritating, but I'm not a native speaker so I won't 
argue.  This is subjective, anyway.

> I don't remember it ever helping me in persuading people to name GNU. 

I believe you.  Try harder, and don't give up.  Persuading people is 
difficult, with or without the help of the essays.  I don't think that 
the sycophantic followers of Linus Torvalds can be persuaded, but that 
shouldn't stop us trying.

I am mostly enjoying success on this front, personally.  Last year I have 
persuaded several LUGs to change their name, without even trying hard.  
In 2006 following a discussion initiated by me [1] the GNOME Foundation 
made this a policy (that was hard, though).  Most of the people I know 
also started calling it GNU/Linux.  But this is not to say that the 
campaign is successful, we are still very far from that point.

[1] http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-August/msg00078.html

> And you may not fix those bugs, because it's verbatim copying terms.

Sure you can, but the changes have to be approved by the author, who is 
the leader of the GNU project.  If the license allowed arbitrary changes, 
it would turn the article into "Why we should call the OS Linux" very 
quickly.  Personal opinions are just that: personal opinions.  I don't
think it is useful for the society to modify them.
MJ Ray | 17 Jan 16:40 2008

Re: the GNU/Linux FAQ, was: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Yavor Doganov <yavor <at> gnu.org> wrote:
> В Sun, 13 Jan 2008 07:27:00 +0000, MJ Ray написа:
> > The GNU/Linux FAQ is inadequate because it ignores frequently asked
> > questions like "Is this just credit-seeking by the GNU project?"
>
> The GNU/Linux FAQ does not attempt to answer all questions in their 
> entirety, it is intended to be read as a supplement to other articles 
> like linux-and-gnu, why-gnu-linux and gnu-users-never-heard-of-gnu.

That is another reason why it is inadequate.  No conversation like:

  Newbie: Can you summarise why we should call it GNU/Linux?
  GNUbie: Here, read these four rambling web pages.
  Newbie: *snore*

will convince many people.

But the point I was trying to make before was that it both answers
many questions which are not very frequently asked *and* ignores some
that I suspect are among the most frequently asked - because they are
hard, perhaps?

I often look at company-produced FAQs, look for a really obvious
question, then look at what is actually there, and decide "crock of
marketing ****".  I'd much rather people didn't have the same reaction
to this FAQ.

> > "Why does FSF still reject some groups who call it GNU/Linux?"
>
> This is explained at /gnu/gnu-user-groups.

Not really, as "we suggest that you avoid acronyms that contain 'lug'"
actually seems to mean "you must..." in most cases and things like
that.

> > and "How have groups been persuaded to call it GNU/Linux?"
>
> There is no single answer to this question.

Then there are answers to it!!!  Don't fear diversity of opinion!
Give a few examples to inspire if poss, rather than just ducking it.

> And unfortunately most of the groups call it "Linux".

Including most of the groups who were persuaded once, I suspect, as
most renamed groups get SFA thanks or support AFAICT and so the
Linux-namers usually get revenge on the free software advocates.

> > Some of the questions there that actually are frequently-asked ones,
> > such as the X11-Apache-Perl one, have weak answers and don't give
> > references to support the claims.
>
> Why do you think it's a weak answer?  IMO it's very persuasive. 

It doesn't give references to support the claims.  See Dave
Crossland's (IIRC) message earlier in the thread which linked a study
by David Wheeler(?).

> Like this one:
> http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2006-August/msg00101.html

Like the FAQ, it also fails to use available references.

> Alan Cox is not exactly the person who is afraid to argue or defend his
> position, but there were no followups to this message.  Not surprising.

In the absence of an "OK, you're right" message, I think it's
dangerous to infer much from that.

> > Finally, it's unstructured (compare with the GPL FAQ) and rather random.
> > There are lots of questions there but I suspect many of them are
> > relatively uncommon.  It's mostly a list of "Questions I Wish Were
> > Frequently Asked" as far as I can tell.
>
> This is because of the way this article has evolved.  You are wrong that
> this is an artificial compilation;

OK, so can someone give the numbers then?

> initially the article contained only 
> a few questions asked by various people when the GNU project began this 
> educational campaign.  Most of the questions were asked in real life, at 
> various speeches, interviews, or by mail from people who wrote to RMS and 
> the various GNU addresses.

That means they are "asked questions" but not necessarily "frequently
asked questions".  See the difference?  *frequently*

> The CVS history is public and in case you're 
> interested you can take a look at it:
> http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html?root=www&view=log

So?  It's good to be open, but most of them say things like "(always):
New answer." with no suggestion where they came from.  There are also
many cross-references to rt.gnu.org which I think is private and used
instead of the public one at http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?group=www

[...]
> > I don't remember it ever helping me in persuading people to name GNU. 
>
> I believe you.  Try harder, and don't give up.  Persuading people is 
> difficult, with or without the help of the essays.  I don't think that 
> the sycophantic followers of Linus Torvalds can be persuaded, but that 
> shouldn't stop us trying.

I doubt there are many sycophantic followers of Linus Torvalds, if any.

The GNU project could make it easier by providing better resources and
more support to persuaders, but denying the weaknesses of materials
like the GNU/Linux FAQ, as done in this thread, suggests that ain't
gonna happen any time soon.  So I can't really blame anyone who
prefers to spend their time on easier wins.

[...]
> > And you may not fix those bugs, because it's verbatim copying terms.
>
> Sure you can, but the changes have to be approved by the author, who is 
> the leader of the GNU project.  If the license allowed arbitrary changes, 
> it would turn the article into "Why we should call the OS Linux" very 
> quickly.  Personal opinions are just that: personal opinions.  I don't
> think it is useful for the society to modify them.

The GNU/Linxu FAQ is just a personal opinion of the leader of the GNU
project and not a practical tool?  I think that summarises many of the
problems with both the FAQ and the GNU marketing effort.

If we couldn't defend this view from "Why we should call the OS Linux"
and if it really is easy to change that FAQ into that (I don't see how
it would be if it actually gave substantive references where
available), then maybe our view wouldn't deserve to win after all.

But I think we could defend it, so it should prevail.  It's a shame
the GNU project is less confident than me, isn't it?

Regards,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Yavor Doganov | 18 Jan 14:49 2008
Picon

Re: the GNU/Linux FAQ, was: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

В Thu, 17 Jan 2008 15:40:43 +0000, MJ Ray написа:

> Yavor Doganov <yavor <at> gnu.org> wrote:
>> The GNU/Linux FAQ does not attempt to answer all questions 
> 
> That is another reason why it is inadequate.  No conversation like:
> 
>   Newbie: Can you summarise why we should call it GNU/Linux? 
[...] 
> will convince many people.

Sure.  A free software activist is doomed if she relies on simply
pointing to URL's as answers.  The essays are supplementary materials,
and cannot replace a speech, interview, discussion or a QA session.
If it was so, RMS would just sit in his lair and only committing
improvements of the articles.

Anyway, to this question of Newbie I'd explain in my own words and
then point to why-gnu-linux -- IMHO this is the most important
article, which also answers the first question from your "missing
questions" triplet.

> But the point I was trying to make before was that it both answers
> many questions which are not very frequently asked *and* ignores
> some that I suspect are among the most frequently asked - because
> they are hard, perhaps?

I am not aware of any question on this topic that is hard to answer.
Some require more thought and investigation, for example whether
Minix3 or Syllable are variants of the GNU system. 

> I often look at company-produced FAQs [...]  I'd much rather people
> didn't have the same reaction to this FAQ.

Yeah, the feeling is familiar, but I never had that feeling for the
GNU/Linux FAQ.

> Not really, as "we suggest that you avoid acronyms that contain
> 'lug'" actually seems to mean "you must..." in most cases and things
> like that.

Read below "A note about GNU/Linux user groups".  It is quite clear
that we will reject a GNU/Linux group that uses the proper name, but
has articles that "help" users to install non-free software (or
advertisements).

>> > and "How have groups been persuaded to call it GNU/Linux?"
>>
>> There is no single answer to this question.
> 
> Then there are answers to it!!!  [...] Give a few examples to
> inspire if poss, rather than just ducking it.

This is a probably a good idea.

>> > Some of the questions there that actually are frequently-asked
>> > ones, such as the X11-Apache-Perl one, have weak answers and
>> > don't give references to support the claims.
>>
>> Why do you think it's a weak answer?  IMO it's very persuasive.
> 
> It doesn't give references to support the claims.  See Dave
> Crossland's (IIRC) message earlier in the thread which linked a
> study by David Wheeler(?).

What references?  A study that shows how important components are
libc, binutils, the GNU build system, etc?  Or that the GNU project
has been involved in writing and assembling together the essential
components since day 1?  A reference like David Wheeler's is nothing
more than a his personal opinion and I'm not sure if it would help.
Even Wikipedia is not a reliable resource that will convince
everybody.

> Like the FAQ, it also fails to use available references.

What exactly from what RMS says has to be backed up with proof?  These
are well known facts, even to those from the other "camp".

> In the absence of an "OK, you're right" message, I think it's
> dangerous to infer much from that.

OK, I'll assume you're right.

>> This is because of the way this article has evolved.  You are wrong
>> that this is an artificial compilation;
> 
> OK, so can someone give the numbers then?

Not me.  You claimed that this FAQ was just made up for "marketing"
reasons, which is not true.  I don't think that it's worth spending my
time in digging just to figure out which question was asked when and how.
Maybe, if a sufficiently energetic person with archaeological
interests steps up, this is doable.  Many things are in the memories
of RMS and other people, though.

> That means they are "asked questions" but not necessarily "frequently
> asked questions".  See the difference?  *frequently*

Yes, I see the difference.  I am not aware of any frequently asked
question that is omitted (deliberately or not).  Perhaps some of the
questions are not frequently asked, but RMS has decided to include
them because they are important.

> most of them say things like "(always):
> New answer." with no suggestion where they came from.

Some people write verbose logs, others don't.  RMS usually follows the
GNU standards so this log entry describes the change but not the
reasons for it (the reasons for adding a new answer are obvious
anyway).  What would be the benefit if the log was:

	(always): New answer to a question by Misausuka Madoto asked
	at Osaka during my speech on Oct 17, 2005.

> There are also many cross-references to rt.gnu.org which I think is
> private

Yes, and rightly so.  Many people do not want their personality
disclosed and the correspondence need not be public.

> The GNU project could make it easier by providing better resources and
> more support to persuaders,

Yes, I agree.  Basically, like other free software projects, the
people in the GNU project do the best they can, and often they fail.  If 
you think there are hordes of people involved in maintaining the articles 
or doing tedious infrastructure work, you are wrong.

> but denying the weaknesses of materials like the GNU/Linux FAQ,

I didn't deny anything of that kind.  There is most definitely room
for improvement, likewise for all articles.

> suggests that ain't gonna happen any time soon.

You realize that a report that a specific article is vague, poorly
structured and doesn't serve its purpose is not very helpful when the
report itself is vague?  Please give concrete examples and
suggestions, like:

1) Questions "Foo" and "Bar" are frequently asked, but missing.
2) The answers should be in {chronological,thematical,importance}
   order, because ...
3) Answer "Baz" is poor, because...  (A beter one would be ...)

> The GNU/Linxu FAQ is just a personal opinion of the leader of the GNU
> project and not a practical tool?

I did not say this.  This article is a statement of the GNU project
and you and I cannot make arbitrary changes.  What we consider a
"bugfix" may be "introducing a new bug".

> I think that summarises many of the problems with both the FAQ and
> the GNU marketing effort.

There is no "GNU marketing effort", this is an educational campaign.

> If we couldn't defend this view from "Why we should call the OS Linux"
> and if it really is easy to change that FAQ into that

"Hyberbole" and "metaphor" are common methods in literature and casual
speech, so any attempt to read them literally leads to
misunderstanding, at best.  Rephrasing myself for those minds used to
mechanical parsing:

"If the license of the article allowed arbitrary modifications, it
would be possible, in theory and in practice, that someone makes a
change which does not correspond to the views of the GNU project.
Republishing such modified version would be confusing and
counter-productive, because one of the main purposes of these articles
is to raise awareness and *avoid* confusion."

The society does not suffer from these distribution terms, because
none of the basic freedoms is threatened and anyone can propose
improvement.  Also, anyone can quote and rebut statements/views
expressed in gnu.org essays without the obvious disadvantage of
misrepresenting them.

> It's a shame the GNU project is less confident than me, isn't it?

I wonder how nearly 24 years of constant, stubborn, consistent and
non-retreating way of managing the battle can possibly lead to such a
conclusion.
Jon Grant | 13 Jan 00:35 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 08/01/2008, Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:23:46PM +0000, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> > I'd like to see the FSF and all its advocates stop their effort at
> > retronaming Linux as GNU+Linux
>
> Retronaming? Are you kidding? Next you'll be saying that Free Software
> is an attempt to retroname the Open Source movement. Revisionists like
> Linus and ESR do real damage to the Free Software movement, we need to
> work hard to undo thier harmful work.

do you genuinely believe that Linus is doing damage? I can't think of
any instances of his damage doing myself, and to be frank the FSF
sponsoring Adobe's Flash format in their  pure Flash GPLFlash/Gnash
GNU project (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/) seems far more worthy
of a damage claim since they are unwilling to aim for anything better
for web-multimedia. Will FSF be sponsoring a GPL_ActiveX GNU project
next? or GNU_Multimedia which can only decode WMV files?

...IMHO we need to keep things in perspective (FS vs Open Source), and
not squabble with people who are 90% thinking the same because they
don't agree with us on 10%.

Jon
Dave Crossland | 13 Jan 15:02 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 12/01/2008, Jon Grant <jg <at> jguk.org> wrote:
> On 08/01/2008, Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 02:23:46PM +0000, Ralph Corderoy wrote:
> > > I'd like to see the FSF and all its advocates stop their effort at
> > > retronaming Linux as GNU+Linux
> >
> > Retronaming? Are you kidding? Next you'll be saying that Free Software
> > is an attempt to retroname the Open Source movement. Revisionists like
> > Linus and ESR do real damage to the Free Software movement, we need to
> > work hard to undo thier harmful work.
>
> do you genuinely believe that Linus is doing damage?

Maintaining an excellent free software kernel for the GNU OS is
crucially important and celebratory work.

Not promoting the idea of software freedom is damaging.

When he says things that mean "The Linux OS started in 1991 because I
wrote a kernel for fun" he is misleading people about the difference
between an OS and a kernel which is confusing, taking credit for the
GNU OS which is unfair, and not helping to inform people about the
idea of software freedom.

> I can't think of
> any instances of his damage doing myself, and to be frank the FSF
> sponsoring Adobe's Flash format in their  pure Flash GPLFlash/Gnash
> GNU project (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/) seems far more worthy
> of a damage claim since they are unwilling to aim for anything better
> for web-multimedia

I thought we established there isn't anything better for web
multimedia. Show me URLs of better technology :-)

> Will FSF be sponsoring a GPL_ActiveX GNU project next?

Being unable to view Active X wrapped media is not a "Top 5" reason to
not switch to GNU+Linux or to install proprietary software on
GNU+Linux. So I doubt it. But if it was as much of a social problem,
I'd expect so.

Active X is obsolete afaik; Silverlight seems the equivalent problem
today. If Novell hadn't done Mono and then Moonlight, I can imagine
that dotGNU would have grown and then done a Silverlight
implementation.

> or GNU_Multimedia which can only decode WMV files?

I can imagine a GNU WMV codec project; if users want to see WMV files
and will not switch to GNU+Linux or to install proprietary software on
GNU+Linux, this kind of program needs to be written as  free software.

> ...IMHO we need to keep things in perspective (FS vs Open Source), and
> not squabble with people who are 90% thinking the same because they
> don't agree with us on 10%.

The concept of software freedom and the original goal of using
exclusively free software has nearly been snuffed out, and IMHO its
important to keep things in perspective and not let it disappear from
sight.

Calling the OS GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux is a simple way to do that which
anyone can do and takes only a few seconds each day.

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
Jon Grant | 13 Jan 18:30 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Hi,

On 13/01/2008, Dave Crossland <dave <at> lab6.com> wrote:
[...]
> Not promoting the idea of software freedom is damaging.
>
> When he says things that mean "The Linux OS started in 1991 because I
> wrote a kernel for fun" he is misleading people about the difference
> between an OS and a kernel which is confusing, taking credit for the
> GNU OS which is unfair, and not helping to inform people about the
> idea of software freedom.

Could you link me to that quote please. I agree that if he calls it
his OS when it's using many other people's software then that is
misleading. I don't know how damaging it is though, have their been
any negative consequences because of this?

BTW, I'm writing this email in Firefox, which as we all know started
out as being released as "Open Source" by Netscape back in Jan 1998.
I'd say Firefox is now arguably the most popular free piece of
software on the net which consumers will use directly. It's currently
available under the GPL amongst other licenses.

> > I can't think of
> > any instances of his damage doing myself, and to be frank the FSF
> > sponsoring Adobe's Flash format in their  pure Flash GPLFlash/Gnash
> > GNU project (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/) seems far more worthy
> > of a damage claim since they are unwilling to aim for anything better
> > for web-multimedia
>
> I thought we established there isn't anything better for web
> multimedia. Show me URLs of better technology :-)

You're right. Lack of audio/video integration in a browser makes us
not as "popular" as Flash, and it remains that way while organisations
fund pure Flash implementations.

> > Will FSF be sponsoring a GPL_ActiveX GNU project next?
>
> Being unable to view Active X wrapped media is not a "Top 5" reason to
> not switch to GNU+Linux or to install proprietary software on
> GNU+Linux. So I doubt it. But if it was as much of a social problem,
> I'd expect so.

People have been able to switch to GNU+Linux distros for years and
watch Flash which is available as a proprietary addon package from
Adobe. I don't know of anyone who would refuse to ditch MS-Windows for
GNU+Linux because they would have to "sell-out" and not install a the
same proprietary Flash plug-in they previously did on MS-Windows, to
be frank, it's simply not an issue for users migrating.

> Active X is obsolete afaik; Silverlight seems the equivalent problem
> today. If Novell hadn't done Mono and then Moonlight, I can imagine
> that dotGNU would have grown and then done a Silverlight
> implementation.

Good point.

> > or GNU_Multimedia which can only decode WMV files?
>
> I can imagine a GNU WMV codec project; if users want to see WMV files
> and will not switch to GNU+Linux or to install proprietary software on
> GNU+Linux, this kind of program needs to be written as  free software.

It would be shame if they promoted such a project 100% to the
detriment of a non-proprietary like Theora though.

> > ...IMHO we need to keep things in perspective (FS vs Open Source), and
> > not squabble with people who are 90% thinking the same because they
> > don't agree with us on 10%.
>
> The concept of software freedom and the original goal of using
> exclusively free software has nearly been snuffed out, and IMHO its
> important to keep things in perspective and not let it disappear from
> sight.
>
> Calling the OS GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux is a simple way to do that which
> anyone can do and takes only a few seconds each day.

I call mine Ubuntu recently, I hear others just calling by the distro
name too. It doesn't detract from the fact that it contains X, Gnome,
loads of GNU and other bits.

Cheers, Jon
Dave Crossland | 13 Jan 22:19 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 13/01/2008, Jon Grant <jg <at> jguk.org> wrote:
> On 13/01/2008, Dave Crossland <dave <at> lab6.com> wrote:
> > Not promoting the idea of software freedom is damaging.
> >
> > When he says things that mean "The Linux OS started in 1991
>
> Could you link me to that quote please.

I did not say this was a direct quote of his. But he says things that
are equivalent in meaning to this, by confusing the kernel with the
OS, and a good example of this is the Revolution OS interview as
quoted at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU/Linux_naming_controversy#Opinions_supporting_.22Linux.22

and that idea has spread widely:

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Linux+started+in+1991 pulls up
http://www.amazon.com/review/R223GJFDXQMOOG which is a good example of
the kind of confusion I mean;
http://www.google.com/search?q=torvalds++%22the+linux+operating+system%22+%22started+in+1991%22
pulls up http://cbbrowne.com/info/linux.html

> I agree that if he calls it
> his OS when it's using many other people's software then that is
> misleading. I don't know how damaging it is though, have their been
> any negative consequences because of this?

The idea of software freedom is alien to most users of the OS.

When we include GNU in the name of the OS, we prompt people to inquire
(at some point, on their own, or now and to us) about what GNU is,
when it was started, who started it, and _why_.

> > > I can't think of
> > > any instances of his damage doing myself, and to be frank the FSF
> > > sponsoring Adobe's Flash format in their  pure Flash GPLFlash/Gnash
> > > GNU project (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/) seems far more worthy
> > > of a damage claim since they are unwilling to aim for anything better
> > > for web-multimedia
> >
> > I thought we established there isn't anything better for web
> > multimedia. Show me URLs of better technology :-)
>
> You're right. Lack of audio/video integration in a browser makes us
> not as "popular" as Flash,

Flash is a lot more than A/V transport; you're mixing issues I think
:-) A/V integration in browsers is something for the W3C/WHATWG and
browser developers; browser plugins are straightforward to develop and
ship pre configured in default distributions of browsers.

> and it remains that way while organisations fund pure Flash implementations.

Gnash is not a pure Flash implementation; it supports free codecs and
other freedom-friendly things not in Adobe Flash.

> > > Will FSF be sponsoring a GPL_ActiveX GNU project next?
> >
> > Being unable to view Active X wrapped media is not a "Top 5" reason to
> > not switch to GNU+Linux or to install proprietary software on
> > GNU+Linux. So I doubt it. But if it was as much of a social problem,
> > I'd expect so.
>
> People have been able to switch to GNU+Linux distros for years and
> watch Flash which is available as a proprietary addon package from
> Adobe. I don't know of anyone who would refuse to ditch MS-Windows for
> GNU+Linux because they would have to "sell-out" and not install a the
> same proprietary Flash plug-in they previously did on MS-Windows, to
> be frank, it's simply not an issue for users migrating.

That it doesn't work out of the box is a reason for users I know.

There is a difference between them not switching and using lots of
proprietary software, and switching and using a few bits of
proprietary software. But the latter is still a problem.

> > > or GNU_Multimedia which can only decode WMV files?
> >
> > I can imagine a GNU WMV codec project;
>
> It would be shame if they promoted such a project 100% to the
> detriment of a non-proprietary like Theora though.

I am unaware of non-proprietary equivalent alternatives that it is
detrimental to.

> > Calling the OS GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux is a simple way
> > to do that which anyone can do and takes only a few
> > seconds each day.
>
> I call mine Ubuntu recently, I hear others just calling by the distro
> name too. It doesn't detract from the fact that it contains X, Gnome,
> loads of GNU and other bits.

"Ubuntu and Fedora are a kind of what, though? :-)

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
Jon Grant | 16 Jun 19:16 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Hi, sorry for the late reply, just catching up.

[...]
> > > > I can't think of
> > > > any instances of his damage doing myself, and to be frank the FSF
> > > > sponsoring Adobe's Flash format in their  pure Flash GPLFlash/Gnash
> > > > GNU project (http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/) seems far more worthy
> > > > of a damage claim since they are unwilling to aim for anything better
> > > > for web-multimedia
> > >
> > > I thought we established there isn't anything better for web
> > > multimedia. Show me URLs of better technology :-)
> >
> > You're right. Lack of audio/video integration in a browser makes us
> > not as "popular" as Flash,
>
> Flash is a lot more than A/V transport; you're mixing issues I think
> :-) A/V integration in browsers is something for the W3C/WHATWG and
> browser developers; browser plugins are straightforward to develop and
> ship pre configured in default distributions of browsers.

Not in my experience with RedHat, Mandrake, Debian and Ubuntu...

It is only left to W3C/WHATWG to try define something (and then get
Nokia force to drop) because no one else in the industry will lead an
effort. There is no QuickTime equivalent for browsers on GNU+Linux
distros. Gnash should at the *least* be a capable plugin like
QuickTime is on ms-windows s there is an alternative and websites
don't need to only go with Adobe Flash to do video,

> > and it remains that way while organisations fund pure Flash implementations.
>
> Gnash is not a pure Flash implementation; it supports free codecs and
> other freedom-friendly things not in Adobe Flash.

Hmm, maybe it has broadened after all then? RMS was arguing that they
would only do lash last time I bought it up when FSF started
sponsoring the GPLFlash development.

There needs to be something as flexible as QuickTime as part of the
browser on GNU+Linux distros which supports Theora and Vorbis.

Do you a link to information about it supporting free codecs now? I
can't find anything on the Gnash or FSF websites about what you
mention. If Gnash can play video files from <embed> tags, Theora, XviD
etc that would be great

http://wiki.gnashdev.org/wiki/index.php/Overview

http://wiki.gnashdev.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page

> > > > Will FSF be sponsoring a GPL_ActiveX GNU project next?
> > >
> > > Being unable to view Active X wrapped media is not a "Top 5" reason to
> > > not switch to GNU+Linux or to install proprietary software on
> > > GNU+Linux. So I doubt it. But if it was as much of a social problem,
> > > I'd expect so.
> >
> > People have been able to switch to GNU+Linux distros for years and
> > watch Flash which is available as a proprietary addon package from
> > Adobe. I don't know of anyone who would refuse to ditch MS-Windows for
> > GNU+Linux because they would have to "sell-out" and not install a the
> > same proprietary Flash plug-in they previously did on MS-Windows, to
> > be frank, it's simply not an issue for users migrating.
>
> That it doesn't work out of the box is a reason for users I know.
>
> There is a difference between them not switching and using lots of
> proprietary software, and switching and using a few bits of
> proprietary software. But the latter is still a problem.
>
> > > > or GNU_Multimedia which can only decode WMV files?
> > >
> > > I can imagine a GNU WMV codec project;
> >
> > It would be shame if they promoted such a project 100% to the
> > detriment of a non-proprietary like Theora though.
>
> I am unaware of non-proprietary equivalent alternatives that it is
> detrimental to.

Theora?

if OpenOffice was developed to only decode MS-Word formatted documents
it would be the same situation, and I wouldn't endorse that approach!

Cheers, Jon
Noah Slater | 14 Jan 16:36 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 02:02:53PM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
> When he says things that mean "The Linux OS started in 1991 because I
> wrote a kernel for fun" he is misleading people about the difference
> between an OS and a kernel which is confusing, taking credit for the
> GNU OS which is unfair, and not helping to inform people about the
> idea of software freedom.

Just to nitpick, Linus did create the Linux OS but it was pretty
rubbish (or so I deduce) appart from the kernel. They then took the
GNU OS (sans the kernel) and created GNU/Linux.

He's still misleading, but at least he's not lying, the Linux OS does
exist for those silly enought to look for it. ;)

--

-- 
Noah Slater <http://bytesexual.org/>

"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as
society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman
Dave Crossland | 14 Jan 16:37 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 14/01/2008, Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
>
> Just to nitpick, Linus did create the Linux OS but it was pretty
> rubbish (or so I deduce) appart from the kernel.

I thought it was only ever a kernel and was initially combined with
Minix, then GNU.

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
MJ Ray | 14 Jan 16:35 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

"Dave Crossland" <dave <at> lab6.com> wrote:
> I thought we established there isn't anything better [than Flash] for web
> multimedia. Show me URLs of better technology :-)

I'm not sure we've established what "better" means here, let alone
whether Flash is the best.

[...]
> Being unable to view Active X wrapped media is not a "Top 5" reason to
> not switch to GNU+Linux or to install proprietary software on
> GNU+Linux. So I doubt it. But if it was as much of a social problem,
> I'd expect so.

What Top 5 list is this referring to?

[...]
> Calling the OS GNU/Linux or GNU+Linux is a simple way to do that which
> anyone can do and takes only a few seconds each day.

While it's (relatively) easy to change one's own behaviour, changing
existing agreements like user group names is much harder.  It involves
compromise and I think it was such compromises that gave us FOSS and
FLOSS.  However, there seems to be no acceptable compromise for the OS
and user group names yet: both Local User Group and Linux+GNU User
Group (to preserve the built LUG branding) have been rejected.

Also, don't underestimate the animal magic.  Tux is far cuter than the
most common GNUs.  It's a bit surprising that the GNU project seems to
have switched to the bold alternative GNU (which is quite similar to
the previous one, enough so that
http://www.gnu.org/graphics/agnuhead.html
still suggests it is the old head on the home page and I doubt many
people will notice it) instead of one of the more cuddly 3D ones (say
Georg Bahlon's, or the meditating GNU).

Regards,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
rob | 15 Jan 16:34 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Quoting MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop>:

> It's a bit surprising that the GNU project seems to
> have switched to the bold alternative GNU (which is quite similar to
> the previous one, enough so that
> http://www.gnu.org/graphics/agnuhead.html
> still suggests it is the old head on the home page and I doubt many
> people will notice it) instead of one of the more cuddly 3D ones (say
> Georg Bahlon's, or the meditating GNU).

I like the meditating GNU but not everyone is a meditation fan.  
Bahlon's GNU will probably give me nightmares tonight.

Both are too complex to serve as logos. Tux has nice shading but  
simple forms and downsamples well.

- Rob.
MJ Ray | 7 Jan 15:47 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 02:00:55PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > I think the argument is that FSF is being inconsistent (again),
> > by publishing things like
> > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
> > criticising Microsoft's proprietary formats, while supporting
> > Adobe's proprietary formats.
>
> [...] I think you are confusing the FSF's purpose with the GNU
> philosophy. Note that the FSF and the GNU Project are two completely
> seperate entities and citing an essay from one to contradict the
> actions of another makes no sense at all.

I wonder if you are ignorant of the link between the FSF and the GNU
Project.  They are far from completely seperate entities.  For
examples, look at the copyright footers, or the GNU project history:-

  "The Free Software Foundation was founded in October 1985, initially
  to raise funds to help develop GNU."
  http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-history.html

As well as being written by FSF's founder and president, at the time
of its original publication, the above essay was at the URL
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
as you can confirm from
http://web.archive.org/*/www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

Is it no longer FSF's position that Word attachments impede people
from switching to free software?

Regards,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Noah Slater | 7 Jan 15:53 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 02:47:53PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> I wonder if you are ignorant of the link between the FSF and the GNU
> Project.  They are far from completely seperate entities.

They are linked but seperate. Seperate names, websites, staff and goals.

> Is it no longer FSF's position that Word attachments impede people
> from switching to free software?

I cannot speak for the FSF.

Quoting GNU to criticise the FSF is still misleading however.

--

-- 
Noah Slater <http://bytesexual.org/>

"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as
society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman
_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
Fsfe-uk <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
MJ Ray | 7 Jan 16:01 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 02:47:53PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> > Is it no longer FSF's position that Word attachments impede people
> > from switching to free software?
>
> I cannot speak for the FSF.
>
> Quoting GNU to criticise the FSF is still misleading however.

I'm not just quoting GNU!  I'm quoting the FSF's president from a
document that used to be on www.fsf.org!  Stop weaseling and address
the point!  Why one standard for Word but another for Flash?

At the moment, I'm with Dave Page on Gnash and FSF.
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Noah Slater | 7 Jan 16:04 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:01:52PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> I'm not just quoting GNU!  I'm quoting the FSF's president from a
> document that used to be on www.fsf.org!  Stop weaseling and address
> the point!  Why one standard for Word but another for Flash?

There isn't a double standard. I can use Word documents just fine
using GNOME, which is a GNU Project. So what's your point?

--

-- 
Noah Slater <http://bytesexual.org/>

"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as
society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman
_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
Fsfe-uk <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
Jon Grant | 7 Jan 22:12 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Hi there Noah,

<snip>
> The GNU Project's goal is to create an operating system according to a
> certain set of philosophies. Even then, the GNU Project also includes
> GNOME which has many applications opening and creating documents such
> as .doc, .ppt, .pdf etc etc.

GNOME does not purely support and work with .doc, .ppt files, if GNU
was advocating that I would also not agree with that stance. .doc and
.ppt formats can only be used temporarily as part of a migration
strategy to something open in my view...

> > That's debatable, given at least one FSF webmaster refuses to link to
> > UK LUGs because apparently that would imply endorsement of everything
> > on their web sites.
>
> This is totally unrelated and I think, again, you are confusing GNU/FSF.
>
> > That seems like a refutation of a point that wasn't made.  I think the
> > question is why isn't FSF developing or supporting a multimedia
> > framework, instead of supporting Gnash?
>
> Again, confusing FSF/GNU. The FSF doesn't develop software.

The FSF runs the GNU project, it is even in the title of this page:

"Gnash - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF)"
http://www.gnu.org/software/gnash/

People could argue that to all intents and purposes FSF == GNU and
vice versa, but that is probably a separate debate.

> The FSF's support of Flash is a very clever strategic position and
> absolutely essential if we are to get regular users to make the switch
> to a free operating system.

I'm not sure how clever it is, it seems pretty obvious to support de
facto formats when their is no choice otherwise like MS-Word files.
However, it shouldn't be the primary format supported and advocated,
which is what FSF/GNU are doing as I see it.

> No matter how much you dislike Flash, as do I, not including a free
> Flash player with GNU/Linux is shortsighted at best, damaging at
> worst. Flash is the defacto multimedia format on the WWW at the moment
> and that isn't going to change any time soon.
>
> Sure, build a better, open, format - but until that becomes popular
> Flash is still important for the FSF to get support from regular
> users.

I think we may be arguing the same side of the argument here, why not
share some of the resources 50/50 with a better open format? rather
than 100% supporting Adobe's proprietary Flash format? -- this is the
only real point I wished to make.

Kind regards, Jon
--

-- 
linkme: http://www.linkedin.com/in/jongrant
web: http://jguk.org/
Matt Lee | 7 Jan 15:36 2008
Picon

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

MJ Ray wrote:

> That's debatable, given at least one FSF webmaster refuses to link to
> UK LUGs because apparently that would imply endorsement of everything
> on their web sites.

Or rather, as the webmaster in question, we have a list of GLUGs, and
will link to any GNU/Linux user group. The page says this...

	If you are forming a GNU/Linux User Group, we suggest that you
	avoid acronyms that contain "lug" (unless part of "glug"). Those
acronyms will lead people to assume that it is a Linux User 	
	Group, in effect giving an incorrect impression.

If you know of any groups, in any country, not on the list:

	http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-user-groups.html

And they are GNU/Linux user groups, are not actively anti-GNU/FSF and
position free software equally or greater than open source, then speak
up, they'll get linked, with pleasure.

Kind regards,

matt
MJ Ray | 7 Jan 15:57 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Matt Lee <mattl <at> gnu.org> wrote: [...]
> 	If you are forming a GNU/Linux User Group, we suggest that you
> 	avoid acronyms that contain "lug" (unless part of "glug"). Those
> acronyms will lead people to assume that it is a Linux User 	
> 	Group, in effect giving an incorrect impression. [...]

(Hi Matt-Kibo!) And it's utter nonsense, which has killed at least two
attempts to give GNU equal billing with Linux in group names.  Is this
to stop existing groups keeping their acronyms and domains?  They have
sinned!  They must pay a penalty!  Do more marketing work!

It doesn't much matter what the group is called, whether it's a LUG or
a FUG or a WUG - it matters what it *does* yet there seems to be no
plan to verify that listed GLUGs actually help free software.  It
looks like all dictionary lawyerism and no practical standards,
similar to the horrendous "Social Enterprise" mistakes.  There are
lots of very helpful free software groups listed on www.lug.org.uk

Anyway, that wasn't what I was getting at - I was describing the usual
rationale for those conditions, which claimed that linking is
necessarily a form of approval, rather than simply cataloguing.

Hope that explains,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Noah Slater | 7 Jan 16:01 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 02:57:37PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Anyway, that wasn't what I was getting at - I was describing the usual
> rationale for those conditions, which claimed that linking is
> necessarily a form of approval, rather than simply cataloguing.

But yours is a flawed annalogy. People want to use Flash, the FSF is
not going to change that in the short term. The FSF would rather
people use Flash using free software. Your proposals imply that you
would rather that people continued to use non-free software.

--

-- 
Noah Slater <http://bytesexual.org/>

"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as
society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman
_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
Fsfe-uk <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
MJ Ray | 7 Jan 16:43 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
> [...] Your proposals imply that you
> would rather that people continued to use non-free software.

Huh?  What a bad attempt at telepathy.  I would rather that people
used free software to view open formats containing Flash-like content.

Using free software to view closed formats is very much a second
choice, because of the risk of the free software being like a cheap
taster that gets users "hooked" on the "drug" of the closed format,
encouraging them to use the format-controller's proprietary software
viewer to get access to the latest features.

Of course, having no way to convert the closed formats to something
more useful is even worse.  Does Gnash include a converter usually?  I
keep seeing it described as a player only and I can't see how to save
video from the documentation, but I might be missing something.

Regards,
--

-- 
MJ Ray http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html tel:+44-844-4437-237 -
Webmaster-developer, statistician, sysadmin, online shop builder,
consumer and workers co-operative member http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ -
Writing on koha, debian, sat TV, Kewstoke http://mjr.towers.org.uk/
Noah Slater | 7 Jan 16:48 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 03:43:20PM +0000, MJ Ray wrote:
> Huh?  What a bad attempt at telepathy.  I would rather that people
> used free software to view open formats containing Flash-like content.

Natch. But given that you cant control what formats people are using
on the web in the short term you are left with two choices:

 a) Tell people they shouldn't use YouTube
 2) Tell people to use non-free Flash players to use YouTube
 d) Provide a free software alternative for people to use YouTube

Option a is doomed to failure and is incredibly wrongheaded.

Option 2 is untenable for a free software advocate.

Option d is the only option left...

--

-- 
Noah Slater <http://bytesexual.org/>

"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as
society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman
_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
Fsfe-uk <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
Tim Dobson | 7 Jan 19:08 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Noah Slater wrote:
>  a) Tell people they shouldn't use YouTube
>  2) Tell people to use non-free Flash players to use YouTube
>  d) Provide a free software alternative for people to use YouTube
> 
> Option a is doomed to failure and is incredibly wrongheaded.
> 
> Option 2 is untenable for a free software advocate.
> 
> Option d is the only option left...

Nicely put.

What they are suggesting is option IV which is recreate youtube with a 
free format, which still includes Option a, which fails for the same reason.

--
www.dobo.urandom.co.uk
----
If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us
still has one object.
If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now
has two ideas.   -  George Bernard Shaw
Dave Crossland | 8 Jan 12:29 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 07/01/2008, Tim Dobson <tim_dobson <at> army.com> wrote:
>
> What they are suggesting is option IV which is recreate youtube with a
> free format, which still includes Option a, which fails for the same reason.

Gnash will enable a youtube with a free format using the Flash
architecture but 100% free software, because it spans the Gnash
runtime and Cygnal, a replacement for Flash Media Server.

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
Noah Slater | 8 Jan 12:34 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:29:31AM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
> > What they are suggesting is option IV which is recreate youtube with a
> > free format, which still includes Option a, which fails for the same reason.
> 
> Gnash will enable a youtube with a free format using the Flash
> architecture but 100% free software, because it spans the Gnash
> runtime and Cygnal, a replacement for Flash Media Server.

But the original point I was elluding to was that YouTube is really,
really, really, really, really, smegging big. It's not going anywhere soon.

It's all well and good waxing lyrical about how X or Y suggestions
would work if only YouTube used this format or that format, but it's
not very constructive because YouTube don't do any of that yet.

Gnash works here and now for using YouTube and that's vitally important.

--

-- 
Noah Slater <http://bytesexual.org/>

"Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as
society is free to use the results." - R. Stallman
_______________________________________________
Fsfe-uk mailing list
Fsfe-uk <at> gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsfe-uk
Dave Crossland | 8 Jan 12:41 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

On 08/01/2008, Noah Slater <nslater <at> bytesexual.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 11:29:31AM +0000, Dave Crossland wrote:
> > > What they are suggesting is option IV which is recreate youtube with a
> > > free format, which still includes Option a, which fails for the same reason.
> >
> > Gnash will enable a youtube with a free format using the Flash
> > architecture but 100% free software, because it spans the Gnash
> > runtime and Cygnal, a replacement for Flash Media Server.
>
> But the original point I was elluding to was that YouTube is really,
> really, really, really, really, smegging big. It's not going anywhere soon.
>
> It's all well and good waxing lyrical about how X or Y suggestions
> would work if only YouTube used this format or that format, but it's
> not very constructive because YouTube don't do any of that yet.
>
> Gnash works here and now for using YouTube and that's vitally important.

+1 :-)

--

-- 
Regards,
Dave
rob | 7 Jan 17:00 2008

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

Quoting MJ Ray <mjr <at> phonecoop.coop>:

> Of course, having no way to convert the closed formats to something
> more useful is even worse.  Does Gnash include a converter usually?  I
> keep seeing it described as a player only and I can't see how to save
> video from the documentation, but I might be missing something.

Adding conversion functionality is a copyright minefield in  
non-Fair-Use jurisdictions.

- Rob.
Matt Lee | 7 Jan 16:02 2008
Picon

Re: BBC's DRM Iplayer windows only

MJ Ray wrote:

> (Hi Matt-Kibo!) And it's utter nonsense, which has killed at least two
> attempts to give GNU equal billing with Linux in group names.  Is this
> to stop existing groups keeping their acronyms and domains?  They have
> sinned!  They must pay a penalty!  Do more marketing work!
> 
> It doesn't much matter what the group is called, whether it's a LUG or
> a FUG or a WUG - it matters what it *does* yet there seems to be no
> plan to verify that listed GLUGs actually help free software.  It
> looks like all dictionary lawyerism and no practical standards,
> similar to the horrendous "Social Enterprise" mistakes.  There are
> lots of very helpful free software groups listed on www.lug.org.uk
> 
> Anyway, that wasn't what I was getting at - I was describing the usual
> rationale for those conditions, which claimed that linking is
> necessarily a form of approval, rather than simply cataloguing.

I hereby invoke Godwin's law by referring to myself as a nazi and
comparing my own actions to those of Hitler.

Now, let's get back on to discussing the iPlayer.

matt

Gmane