Some more good "On Trumpism" type posts:
- George Lakoff on "Why Trump?"; probably the clearest article on why Trump is so appealing to those he appeals to
- Text analysis of Trump's tweets, showing that he writes on a different phone from his staffers, and writes radically different messages
Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo shared this.
I am going to talk about copyleft at FISL next week.
Any suggestions on addressing pro-permissive-licenses or anti-copyleft people? I would expect some of the audience to be part of that group. But not the majority of the audience.
Should I address more of the public that doesn't know too much about copyleft, GPL and enforcement work, and how that is important? And maybe warn them about anti-copyleft?
Marcelo Santana likes this.
Marcelo Santana shared this.First level itens are questions/objections that might come from the public. Second level are part of the possible answer.
* GPL/AGPL/FDL are too long and require huge license notices.
** These are the only licenses that:
*** Define what "source code"/"source files" is. **Most** (not all) of the other licenses (specially: CC BY, CC BY-SA) don't have such definition.
*** Specially in the case of the latest GPL (I have only read **this** entirely): Have provisions against digital handcuffs.
*** Specially in the case of the latest GPL: Have previsions against overpriced redistribution if the redistribution in binary/ready/object form is made **first and with a price/charge**, in which the redistribution of the source happens only when requested by the user and so the redistributor tries to charge once again (in this case, the GPL limits the second charge to the direct costs associated with a phisical redistribution, so the redistributor cannot put profit margin upon this charge). This doesn't apply if the redistribution happens in source form only, and also in some other scenarios described in the GPL.
* These licenses require that one inserts the license notices in every file.
* Are functional data under the Peer Production License, a copyfarleft license, considered free/libre?
** No, because it restricts selling. The PPL can be used for non-functional data. The Telecomunist Manifest, that created the copyfarleft movement advises *against* using the PPL for functional data, and *considers* the GPL and related strong copyleft licenses as the best ones for functional works. See: <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#PPL>.
* Is ZFS free/libre software?
** Yes, it is. However, due to poor licensing choice from the copyright holders of the ZFS implementation for the Linux kernel, redistributors must-not redistribute ZFS in object/binary form, only in source form. See: <https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and-linux>.
* Is CC BY-SA a GPL equivalent for non-functional works?
** Not exactly. The closer equivalent is Free/Libre Art License, this is the license that the FSF recommends for non-functional data. See: <https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html.en#OtherWorks>.
Regarding your last questions: It all depends on your target-audience. If you know that they are willing to learn such things, do so. Note that according to The Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement published by FSF and Software Freedom Conservancy (<https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles>), this must be done in a collaborative way first, presenting suggestions, asking for the violators to help on solving the issue together with you, and perhaps even asking them to assign someone from their group as a "copyleft compliance manager" for that issue. There's a rescent discussion on libreplanet-discuss mailing list about GPL enforcement in China, in which someone suggested this "manager" assignment, see: <https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/libreplanet-discuss/2016-06/msg00052.html>.
O rnetclient 2016.0 já está disponível aqui.
A nova versão suporta a transmissão de declarações de 2016, além de retificações de 2013 a 2015. Possivelmente, anos posteriores são suportados, desde que não haja mudanças inesperadas no protocolo da Receita Federal.
Outras melhorias incluem:
- Não transmitir a declaração se não for possível gravar o arquivo de recibo. Em versões anteriores, se um arquivo de recibo já existisse, o arquivo não era sobrescrito, mas o novo recibo não era gravado em nenhum arquivo.
- Teste unitário, verificando que alterações no código ainda permitem a correta identificação e leitura de declarações de anos anteriores.
Agradeço ao Gabriel F. T. Gomes pelos testes e contribuições a esta versão.
Caso tenha algum problema com o uso do rnetclient, por favor, reporte na lista software-impostos.
I just won a tablet of my choice, and picked up a Samsung Galaxy Tab S2. It uses Exynos, which has good upstream support. It will be nice to try to bring Debian to it.
I am the owner of a Samsung Chromebook, which also uses Exynos, though an older one. It runs Debian with a non-upstream kernel I built from source. I tried bringing upstream to it, but never got to the same level of hardware support, so I still use the older kernel as the primary boot option.
Realizing I need to start working harder on this problem, I decided I needed to backup my files from there, and start working on a USB partition arrangement for booting Debian Installer. Then, I found out that my last upgrade of systemd broke the system boot, it refuses to start anything else because it can't mount some special filesystems du jour that my old kernel don't support. I doubt my build of a newer kernel will work either.
Now I will need to waste some time for some special recovery mode that I will need to come up with in order to start real work. It's also a nice chance to try and see if systemd upstream would accept patches to be more friendly with older kernels.
Interesting that I mention Matchstick TV and OpenFlint, based on Firefox OS in my last post, and now see this.
By reading that there new versions of Firefox OS allow the user to send to TV from other devices, and not reading any mention to Open Flint, I would assume they are not using it.
2016-01-10T15:56:05Z via AndStatus To: Publichttp://cascardo.eti.br/blog/GNU_on_Smartphones_part_II/
2015-12-04T10:55:00Z via AndStatus To: PublicFor now, I will restrict myself to only this: letsencrypt does not support IPv6 only domains.
Claes Wallin (韋嘉誠) shared this.More on letsencrypt: http://cascardo.eti.br/blog/How_I_used_letsencrypt/
2015-11-27T15:53:08Z via AndStatus To: PublicUnwrap our 2015 Ethical Tech Giving Guide. Featuring laptops and a phone for the first time! https://u.fsf.org/1io #givefreely
Support Software Freedom Conservancy
The Software Freedom Conversancy needs our help for their work, including GPL compliance and enforcement. If you cannot afford to be a supporter, donate as little as you can or join friends to support as a group. Or just help spread the word.
Dana likes this.
Dana shared this.
Treat Linkedin as a spammer
I heard recently that Linkedin was going to pay for its users because they sent unrequested messages to their contacts.
I keep receiving those, but since I am not a user, what am I going to get for my troubles?
There is an unsubscribe link, but there are two problems with that.
First, it doesn't work. Even if you use it, you will keep receiving "invites" to the same email address.
Second, there is a design problem here that implies they need to have your data. This needs to be an opt-out list, since any new person who has you on one's contact list might trigger the invite again. So, in order not to send you an invite, Linkedin would need to have your email address stored.
I tried sending a message to Linkedin using their hostmaster address, that didn't work out, no response, I keep receiving invites. Their contact options require you to be a user. I guess spamhaus would not include them.
Besides, I tell them how bad is the network desing of LinkedIn, since it's centralized and so it's users are susceptible to terms of (ab)use, censorship, and also, the risk of being unable to interact with Linkedin from outside (since it's not decentralized, be it either federated or distributed, there's no way to interact fully from outside), that is, either you use LinkedIn, or you won't be able to interact "in the LinkedIn way".
Since I started doing this, the spams are gone. :D
Oh my... And there are speakers who talk good things of this centralized curriculum vitae eater. I have even seen free software supporters talking good things of this crap... Ugh..
2015-11-02T15:48:19Z via AndStatus To: PublicI am a CPAN author now. This starts my work on code to access Internet Banking in Brazil in an automated way.https://metacpan.org/pod/Finance::Bank::BR::Santander::SpreadsheetInteresting...
There is still some work that must be done here in Brazil for Internet banking to be done entirely with free software.
Is there any way to publish a comment to the public by default? It's the second time, using different clients, that I wanted to answer a comment, and wanted that to be public and kept on the same thread, and I had to share my response. That is kind of surprising to me, and sharing breaks the thread. I also couldn't find a way to edit the comment in order to have it shared. And clicking share does not keep the references to the original thread, it seems.
Most of the desktop and mobile clients have the option of posting to public by default.
But I think your problem here is something else. You replied to a comment, instead of replying to the original post. Just reply to the original post. Your comment is totally public, as you can see.
Sharing a comment does not break the thread, by the way. I see you're using the web interface. It gives a very limited view of things. I suggest you try the desktop clients.I can't identify which client I used right now, but I had the same problem with the comment below:
Why is it different replying to a comment instead of the original post? Replying to the comment I want to comment about should be preferred, at least where I come from (e-mail). :-)
Anyway, I recall I had a similar problem using the desktop client. It was either pumpa or dianara.
Well, I said that without any context, because I think it's true in any case. I thought that saying that was important after reading a discussion where someone suggested having all lists in the same central server, where they could be centrally moderated. I thing that's not good for the community. Of course, all lists here was about lists related to Linux. Not all of them are on vger. And I think Linux is so rich when it comes to features (notice the number of filesystems, for example) because people were allowed to experiment outside of central decision points. Merging them later is important. I always criticize those who don't try to push things upstream. But I find it even more important that people are able to fork/branch/experiment without having to ask for any permission. After all, if it wasn't like that, there wouldn't be software freedom.
Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo shared this.
2015-10-10T10:04:54Z via AndStatus To: PublicThe ability to fork and the distributed development model is a strength of our community, not a weakness. Centralizing it would be worse for diversity, not better, in my opinion.
Why I Am Pro-GPLShow all 7 repliesGood post, Chris! The way in which Microsoft took code of the lax/permissively-licensed Atom editor and turned it into the proprietary spyware* of Visual Studio Code made me more keenly aware of the the potential downsides of using non-copyleft license.*This isn't hyperbole. The license terms for Visual Studio Code gives MS permission to send usage data back to Microsoft, and forbids you from blocking transmission of that usage data.No, read the HN thread! ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9923718 ) It has some good comments like:
> the question is "which kind of end user would want to switch a JPEG encoder…
No, that's completely missing the point. It's like "We don't need freedom of speech, because most people have nothing interesting to say".
Congress is trying to ram through the TPP again. Share these images to spread the alarm https://u.fsf.org/1a7