Dave Crossland wrote:
> On 16/04/2008, Stanislas Breton <stanislas_breton@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> >> This seems to have no sense to me.
>> >
>> > Please consider the difference between preventing a user from doing
>> > something, inviting them to do something, acting as if it is
>> > acceptable to do it, and doing it for them.
>> > ...
>> > Gobuntu contains proprietary software in its source code.
>> > ...
>> > If a distribution of free software invites users to install
>> > proprietary software (such as Ubuntu's "Commercial Software" option in
>> > the "Add/Remove Programs" tool, or Firefox's default "proprietary
>> > plugin installer" feature) that indirectly recommends proprietary
>> > software which is also not an okay thing to do.
>> >
>> > If a distribution of free software includes references to proprietary
>> > software, such as in its manual (as many "community edition" GPL
>> > programs do) or such as OpenBSD's ports recipies for downloading say
>> > the Opera browser, that also assumes proprietary software is
>> > acceptable to use.
>>
>> Does the same logic apply to the official builds of gcc and GNU Emacs
>> for Windows?
>>
>
> Let's repeat the logic and find out:
>
> Please consider the difference between preventing a user from doing
> something, inviting them to do something, acting as if it is
> acceptable to do it, and doing it for them.
>
> Win32 GCC/Emacs contains no proprietary software in its source code.
>
> If a distribution of free software invites users to install
> proprietary software, that indirectly recommends proprietary
> software which is also not an okay thing to do. Emacs and GCC do
> not invite users to install proprietary software.

The FSF/GNU Project tacitly encourage people to *continue* using it,
however, by actively encouraging a course of action (installing the
Win32 builds of gcc and Emacs) that materially presupposes the use of
irremediably unfree software.

If, by contrast, the suggestion is that FLOSS (and thus gcc and Emacs)
on Windows is a justified manoeuvre because it morally educates Windows
users into making the switch, Stallman's surprisingly dismissive: "The
practical effects are mixed. Making free apps run on non-free systems
paves the way for some users to migrate to free systems, and for some
users eliminates a motivation to migrate. ... Most users are reluctant
to change operating systems at all."

> If a distribution of free software includes references to proprietary
> software, such as in its manual (as many "community edition" GPL
> programs do) or such as OpenBSD's ports recipies for downloading say
> the Opera browser, that also assumes proprietary software is
> acceptable to use. GCC and Emacs do not have crippled "community
> editions" under the GPL with proprietary upgrades; there is no
> package system for downloading proprietary modes or extensions.
>
> Emacs and GCC manuals do mention Windows though, and are built
> to run on Windows. Does this invite people to use proprietary software?
>
> Including references to Windows in manuals is not recommending it,
> because it is well known by anyone who uses computers,
> and typically they are already using it. Opera is different to this; it
> is not well known and mentioning it advertises it.
>
> Making free software available for Windows enables people to try
> free software applications, understand directly what it means to
> have software freedom, and thus motivate them to switch to a
> fully free OS. It is true that some may stick with Windows,
> thinking "Well, I have these great programs now, and I can keep
> my existing Windows programs without too much bother." and so
> invites them to _continue_ using the proprietary software they
> already use. But over the long term, if they are using free
> software and their data is buliding up in free software formats,
> they will find it easier to switch. And they are not being invited
> to install any _new_ proprietary software than they used yesterday.
>
> Thus, making free software available for Windows, or accomodating
> Windows, is helping us to use less proprietary software each day, and
> eventually use none. I still use proprietary software (mobile phone,
> a laptop with Fedora has firmware, my desktop motherboard can run
> LinuxBIOS but I didn't get to soldering on a new PRAM chip for it...),
> and I'm writing this from GMail. But I am taking steps each month
> to reduce the amount of proprietary software I use.
>
> Is it hypocritical for me to strongly advocate software freedom? Yes,
> a little. I'm okay with that, because taking small steps _continually_
> is what counts. The only person on the planet I know who doesn't use
> _any_ and is thus not a hypocrit is RMS.
>
> The first small step for a Windows user is to install Firefox,
> OpenOffice, Inkscape etc. Then try WUBI install of Ubuntu. Then
> dualboot Ubuntu. Then remove Windows. Then upgrade Ubuntu to Gobuntu
> and then gNewSense. Then buy a motherboard that support a free BIOS.
> Then a free phone and portable music player and camera and set top
> box.
>
>






--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel

On 19/04/2008, Stanislas Breton <stanislas_breton@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Dave Crossland wrote:
> > It is true that some may stick with Windows,
> > thinking "Well, I have these great programs now, and I can keep
> > my existing Windows programs without too much bother." and so
> > invites them to _continue_ using the proprietary software they
> > already use. But over the long term, if they are using free
> > software and their data is buliding up in free software formats,
> > they will find it easier to switch. And they are not being invited
> > to install any _new_ proprietary software than they used yesterday.
>
> The FSF/GNU Project tacitly encourage people to *continue* using it,
> however, by actively encouraging a course of action (installing the
> Win32 builds of gcc and Emacs) that materially presupposes the use of
> irremediably unfree software.

GNU Emacs has only ever depended on Windows and never any other
proprietary software, eg a port of GTK to Windows. Compare that with
Scribus' Windows edition a few years ago, that depended on a
proprietary port of QT to Windows.

Presupposing the use of Windows, Mac OS X or any other OS is not
unreasonable, because they come preinstalled on most computers.
Presupposing the use of proprietary software that does not come
preinstalled is different.

> If, by contrast, the suggestion is that FLOSS (and thus gcc and Emacs)
> on Windows is a justified manoeuvre because it morally educates Windows
> users into making the switch,

There is that, but making it practically convenient is important too -
as I said, I believe over the long term that the bias is towards
migrating to free systems because it puts data into free formats and
habituates people to the UI of free programs.

> Stallman's surprisingly dismissive: "The
> practical effects are mixed. Making free apps run on non-free systems
> paves the way for some users to migrate to free systems, and for some
> users eliminates a motivation to migrate. ... Most users are reluctant
> to change operating systems at all."

Richard is 100% correct [1] that the practical effects are mixed, and
people are reluctant to switch at all. But Richard is not known for
elliptical thinking, so that is all he says; to go from that to
dismissing making free apps run on non-free OS exaggerates his
position to the point of misrepresentation.

Indeed, if you actually read the email you quote in full -
http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/openbsd-misc/2008/1/6/541484 - then
his support for making free programs work with non-free OS is clear.

[1]: "Is RMS ever wrong?" "Not in living memory." goes the joke :-)

--
Regards,
Dave

--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel

Dave Crossland wrote:
> On 19/04/2008, Stanislas Breton <stanislas_breton@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Dave Crossland wrote:
>> > It is true that some may stick with Windows,
>> > thinking "Well, I have these great programs now, and I can keep
>> > my existing Windows programs without too much bother." and so
>> > invites them to _continue_ using the proprietary software they
>> > already use. But over the long term, if they are using free
>> > software and their data is buliding up in free software formats,
>> > they will find it easier to switch. And they are not being invited
>> > to install any _new_ proprietary software than they used yesterday.
>>
>> The FSF/GNU Project tacitly encourage people to *continue* using it,
>> however, by actively encouraging a course of action (installing the
>> Win32 builds of gcc and Emacs) that materially presupposes the use of
>> irremediably unfree software.
>>
>
> GNU Emacs has only ever depended on Windows and never any other
> proprietary software, eg a port of GTK to Windows. Compare that with
> Scribus' Windows edition a few years ago, that depended on a
> proprietary port of QT to Windows.
>
> Presupposing the use of Windows, Mac OS X or any other OS is not
> unreasonable, because they come preinstalled on most computers.
> Presupposing the use of proprietary software that does not come
> preinstalled is different.
>

Perhaps ten years ago, when installing and maintaining Linux or *BSD was
prohibitively difficult for anyone without the technical wherewithal,
but hardly today. As we're forever being reminded, systems comprised
almost exclusively of free software are only a 700MB download away.

>> If, by contrast, the suggestion is that FLOSS (and thus gcc and Emacs)
>> on Windows is a justified manoeuvre because it morally educates Windows
>> users into making the switch,
>>
>
> There is that, but making it practically convenient is important too -
> as I said, I believe over the long term that the bias is towards
> migrating to free systems because it puts data into free formats and
> habituates people to the UI of free programs.
>
>
>> Stallman's surprisingly dismissive: "The
>> practical effects are mixed. Making free apps run on non-free systems
>> paves the way for some users to migrate to free systems, and for some
>> users eliminates a motivation to migrate. ... Most users are reluctant
>> to change operating systems at all."
>>
>
> Richard is 100% correct [1] that the practical effects are mixed, and
> people are reluctant to switch at all. But Richard is not known for
> elliptical thinking, so that is all he says; to go from that to
> dismissing making free apps run on non-free OS exaggerates his
> position to the point of misrepresentation.

I didn't suggest that Stallman "dismisses" FLOSS for Windows. I'm simply
pointing out that his observation undermines the purported ethical
rationale for developing Windows versions of FLOSS applications, namely
that it somehow plants the moral seed for the widespread adoption of
free operating systems. If, as Stallman seems to suggest, most people
are by nature reluctant to handle the perceived rigmarole involved in
transferring over to another operating system (and who can blame them?),
or are otherwise satisfied with the existing Win32 builds, then why kid
ourselves?

> Indeed, if you actually read the email you quote in full -
>

Oh, I've been subscribing to openbsd-misc since 2003, guv'nor

> http://kerneltrap.org/mailarchive/openbsd-misc/2008/1/6/541484 - then
> his support for making free programs work with non-free OS is clear.
>
> [1]: "Is RMS ever wrong?" "Not in living memory." goes the joke :-)
>
>





--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel

Stanislas Breton wrote:
> I'm simply
> pointing out that his observation undermines the purported ethical
> rationale for developing Windows versions of FLOSS applications,
> namely that it somehow plants the moral seed for the widespread
> adoption of free operating systems.

Have you ever worked for a company with Windows-centric infrastructure?

As an employee there, you can't undo the decisions of your IT department
(at least not all at once). But you can try to use as much free software
as possible, to minimize the harm that proprietary software does.

Whenever I use free software at work (and I use a lot, despite the fact
that it runs on Windows), I have more freedom, not less. I wonder what
your ethical justification could be for denying users freedom?

Kind Regards,
M.F.

--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel

Michael Fötsch wrote:
> Stanislas Breton wrote:
> > I'm simply
> > pointing out that his observation undermines the purported ethical
> > rationale for developing Windows versions of FLOSS applications,
> > namely that it somehow plants the moral seed for the widespread
> > adoption of free operating systems.
>
> Have you ever worked for a company with Windows-centric infrastructure?
>
> As an employee there, you can't undo the decisions of your IT department
> (at least not all at once). But you can try to use as much free software
> as possible, to minimize the harm that proprietary software does.
>
> Whenever I use free software at work (and I use a lot, despite the fact
> that it runs on Windows), I have more freedom, not less. I wonder what
> your ethical justification could be for denying users freedom?
>
> Kind Regards,
> M.F.


With respect, I haven't sought to deny anyone's right to install FLOSS
on Windows.




--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel

On 19/04/2008, Stanislas Breton <stanislas_breton@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Dave Crossland wrote:
> > On 19/04/2008, Stanislas Breton <stanislas_breton@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Dave Crossland wrote:
> >> > It is true that some may stick with Windows,
> >> > But over the long term, if they are using free
> >> > software and their data is buliding up in free software formats,
> >> > they will find it easier to switch.
> >>
> >> The FSF/GNU Project tacitly encourage people to *continue* using it,
> >> presupposes the use of irremediably unfree software.
> >
> > Presupposing the use of Windows, Mac OS X or any other OS is not
> > unreasonable, because they come preinstalled on most computers.
>
> Perhaps ten years ago, when installing and maintaining Linux or *BSD was
> prohibitively difficult for anyone without the technical wherewithal,
> but hardly today. As we're forever being reminded, systems comprised
> almost exclusively of free software are only a 700MB download away.

20 years ago the main barrier to adoption of a free OS was that none existed.

10 years ago the main barrier to adoption of a free OS was installing
and maintaining it.

Today the main barrier to adoption is access to existing data in
proprietary formats.

That is what the ODF/OOXML fight is about.

That is what installing free software applications on Windows solves.

Therefore that the Ubuntu CD no longer includes free software for
Windows is a mistake, IMO.

> >> Stallman's surprisingly dismissive: "Making free apps run on
> >> non-free systems ... for some users eliminates a motivation to
> >> migrate. ... Most users are reluctant to change operating systems
> >> at all."
> >
> > [this] exaggerates his position to the point of misrepresentation.
>
> I didn't suggest that Stallman "dismisses" FLOSS for Windows.

Okay, sorry if I misread you, but you still say:

> Stallman seems to suggest, most people
> are by nature reluctant to handle the perceived rigmarole involved in
> transferring over to another operating system

He does not suggest that; that he seems to you to suggest this,
suggests to me that you are projecting your own ideas on to him.

He actually says the effects are mixed, and that is one effect, the
other is that people are encouraged to overcome that natural
reluctance.

The rigmarole is not installing a new OS, it is carrying on with your
data on that new OS, is it not?

> (and who can blame them?),
> or are otherwise satisfied with the existing Win32 builds, then why kid
> ourselves?

If they are satisfied with Windos, they are kidding themselves, hmm? :-)

--
Regards,
Dave

--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel

On 19/04/2008, Zeth <theology@gmail.com> wrote:
> Fascinating stuff, slightly tangential, but fascinating none the less.

I'm glad to hear this discussion is useful for you :-)

The FSF recently held a small private summit to discuss software
freedom in the context of web apps, and I hoped that the event would
be recorded/video'd and posted online, but am not sure if that
did/will happen. Perhaps Mako can comment? :-)

> On 19/04/2008, Dave Crossland <dave@lab6.com> wrote:
> > For the clientside (Javascript) programs, it is straightforward that
> > this part runs on our computers, so a webapp with Javascript that is
> > not free software is not a free web app.
>
> Most web sites that do too much in Javascript are annoying anyway. The
> web should be usable without Javascript.

Perhaps we can think about things mapped onto a x-y cartesian graph.
One axis is how much the site is a program, and how much it is a
publication. The other is how much is serverside and how much is
clientside.

We can then place various sites in that space: "simple static DOM
document, served statically" to "static DOM, CGI network program" to
"simply scripted DOM, CGI network program" to "complex scripted DOM,
AJAX network program." And of course "complex scripted DOM, served
statically."

> if your site is only in Flash then you suck.

Isn't that because you are, typically, strongly supporting proprietary
DRM software environments and distributing your own proprietary
software?

When you build your SWF with free software, SWF runtimes like Gnash
can play it, and your SWF itself is free software, you suck less.

IMO the reason the Web took off was not that it was SGML, it was that
in stark contrast to the plethora of other hypertext developers of the
day, TBL didn't want royalty payments for himself (Larson's hypertext)
or his employer (Gopher was doomed by a patent scare -
http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/diagrams/econ/NSFnet-packets.png ) or
anyone (Xanadu transcopyright - http://www.xanadu.com/tco - bonkers
:-)

Its easy enough to imagine someone with an Apple Mac instead of a NeXT
Cube and a bit more computer science skill (TBL was a physicist...)
and writing something like FutureSpash and also not requiring royalty
payments for anything. And then what is now the HTML-CSS-SVG-JS stack
would have been SWF, without the warping effects of proprietisation -
making it fast running, portable, accessible, etc, sooner rather than
later.

Indeed, the GNU project's "texinfo" hypertext system could have been a
contender, but wasn't network transparent (and still isn't afaik).
I'll leave speculation about why that didn't happen to you :-)

> > illuminating to ask, "Who controls the server?" and "Who owns the
> > data?"
>
> Well, with my gmail account, I try to use it for mailing lists, rather
> than for personal email which is hosted on my own machine and my own
> domain name, etc. Things overlap, but the main reason to use gmail is
> that it is easier to have lots of (essentially disposable) mailing
> list data on Google's servers rather than on my own machine.

It may be easier but is it freer?

That you feel the data is disposable suggests you don't mind the loss
of freedom. The point here is that you should mind the loss of
freedom; personally I like to keep my own archives of mailing lists
and usenet, since my archives doesn't respect x-no-archive headers :-)

> However, the answer to owning data is encryption, if email is
> encrypted then it does not matter whose server it is stored on. To
> everyone else without the passphrase and private key it is just a load
> of random junk.

Privacy of the data is a different issue. Where the data is stored and
who controls the server that stores it, and what processing is done
with it, still matters, even if some of the data is encrypted.

> > Because Google's public web search engine will index your public site,
> > you might be tempted to use it to provide search functionality for
> > your site;
>
> I do this myself. You can set it up also so that Google will cut you
> in on any advertising shown on the results page.

There is no difference for me as I browse your site, but your freedom
is being trampled.

> Why? Because Google could in theory fix the results? Censor posts it
> didn't like? I'm not sure I understand the problem.

Sure, both of those, and more - all are symptoms of a basic issue,
which is this:

"If you use a work to do a job in your life, and you don't have
control over what's in that work, then you don't control your life. So
you must be free to adapt that work to your needs today."
- http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Free_Software_and_Beyond:_Human_Rights_in_the_Use_ of_Software_and_Other_Published_Works
http://www.fsfe.org/it/content/download/33405/206298/file/rms-speech-gbg-sweden-2007-video.ogg.torrent

> > Google Blogger is just the same as Docs, and I wouldn't recommend
> > using it because it tramples your freedom in the same way.
>
> Well I currently use my own blog software based on pyblosxom, but I
> have made a Django version also that I am testing.

There is no difference for me as I browse your site, but your freedom
is being maintained :-)

> > The software running on WordPress.com may not be the same as that
> > available from WordPress.org, and I would still have no idea what
> > processing is being done with my data.
>
> Or if wordpress.com will pull the plug on your blog and censor you
> because they don't like your speech.

Same as Google's index of your site, yes?

> > If you develop a webapp and make it available under the GPLv3, you
> > face a copyleft-like problem:
>
> While a GPL fan, I have found recently that using the GPL for programs
> in dynamic interpreted languages is fraught with problems, the GPL is
> only general if your programs are in C, but that is another discussion
> entirely.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but I expect you are mistaken
about these problems, because the GPL just had massive amounts of
worldwide scrutiny, and no one else feels it is a problem for dynamic
interpreted languages.

> > So. Launchpad. Who owns the data? Right now, Canonical does, and there
> > is no way to run your own Launchpad.
>
> But you could approximate it more or less.

Debian does, and Debian Developers are able to set up their own sites
with the software Debian uses to manage itself. But there is still a
problem with Launchpad, because the users of Launchpad can't do this.

> However, the question is why would you want to? What does anyone gain
> by having two? At least while Canonical is under your evil threshold,
> i.e. Canonical's interests are sufficiently aligned with your own.

You seem to have answered your own question; Canonical is _above_ some
people's evil threshold, its interests are not aligned with theirs
(popularity < including proprietary software) and they want to
maintain control over their lives.

> Unless "Having your own launchpad" in this context just means having
> your own bzr repository on your own server, you can do this now. You
> can provide a webfront end (loggerhead), and you can get Launchpad,
> and any one else you want, to sync with it.

Sure, but we are obviously talking about more than that.

> The aim would not be for you to run your own launchpads, because that
> does not make any sense. The key feature of Launchpad is not the
> software, it is that it is a fixed point from which you can
> collaborate across projects. It is the hub of the wheel. If you create
> your own fixed point then you are replacing not complementing
> Launchpad.
>
> If you really don't like the idea that Launchpad is this fixed point,
> the answer is not to create another Launchpad, but to create a
> protocol that does the same job without the requirement of a fixed
> point in the middle.

I really don't like the idea that Launchpad is this fixed point, so my
answer would be to start creating another Launchpad webapp that is
Affero, ask Canonical to Affero it, _and_ to create a protocol that
links many launchpads without the requirement of a central hub, which
is bolstered by Affero.

Historically when there is a problem for the free software movement,
the FSF would lobby the people who are part of the problem to start
being part of the solution, and to start treating them as damage and
routing around them with new software (eg, Unix and GNU, GTK and QT,
Java and ClassPath) Sadly the lobbing only seems to work once the
alternative has teeth, so making them as compatible as possible seems
to be a good play, so that they can be integrated once the original
problematic stuff is freed up. This happened for Unix and Java, but
the project like it for QT, GNU Harmony, attracted less developers
than GTK and we now have the FreeDesktop.org project attempting to
bridge the gap.

In this case, Canonical has a business advantage when it can maintain
Debian derived GNU/Linux distributions and free software projects
better than anyone else, so the motivation to help others maintain
GNU/Linux distributions and projects independently might seem
contradictory to a hardcore capitalist economist. As Mark said, no one
was stepping up to made an alternative with Launchpad with teeth, and
I am sad to have not yet seen anyone working on this practical
software engineering side of things now that Affero v3 is in place.

But Canonical is not, as far as I know, a NeoCon front, haha, and I
believe maintaining GNU/Linux distributions and projects independently
helps Canonical's business plan which is quite subtle and unusually
long term. Richard and Eben Moglen often describe Free Culture as "The
Free World of Cyberspace," for example,

"it's the Free Republic – what I call the Free World. And doesn't it
really have a Ministry of Culture called Creative Commons? And doesn't
it really have a Ministry of Information called the Wikipedia? ... I
think all these pieces work together functionally, I don't think they
converge to a point, I don't think they merge to make an entity. I
don't think that their diversity represents a problem that we need to
solve."
- http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Freeing_the_Mind:_Free_Software_and_the_end_of_pro prietary_culture

To stretch this metaphor too far:

There is a self-described benevolent dictator commanding his island
state within the free republic. This is reclaiming sea into land at a
fast pace. Rather than attempting to annex neighbouring lands by
reclaiming the gulf between them and him and hoping the population
will migrate to his kingdom, this head of state ought to work on
reclaiming enough of the gulf to make travelling between them very
convenient, and to invest in the neighbouring economies so that his
state will get weathlier through trade.

Mark's emails here are a _*VERY*_ promising sign that LP will indeed
be freed up :-) I sympathise with people who are impatient about it,
though.

> > The Ubuntu community doesn't feel this is appropriation of their data,
>
> I don't think it is (mis)appropriation. Launchpad are providing a good
> service, you can get the data out in usable ways. They are not selling
> the data to Microsoft under a patent covenant or anything like that.

This is not about the quality of the service, nor about privacy
policies, nor about patents. It is about who controls the software
that runs on the Ubuntu community's data. The Ubuntu community
controls the way Launchpad works as much as it can to maintain the
highest speed of development of the system. Canonical is very clear
that this is what its values are, and most people agree with this.

It is valid to disagree, though.

--
Regards,
Dave
--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel

On 19/04/2008, Mark Shuttleworth <mark@ubuntu.com> wrote:
>
> In the case of Launchpad, we do view you as a co-owner of the data, so the
> resolution of this problem is important to us.

Great :-)

> Affero GPL is a strong candidate for the front line of thinking on the
> subject, and that's what I am inclined to use when we publish Launchpad's
> source code.
> ...
> I do agree that Affero is a better option than the straightforward GPL.

Also very good :-)

> if you can read it through the web, or
> modify it through the web, you should be able to do so programatically.

Yes!

http://dataportability.org/ is a loose confederation of web developers
worth involving in this effort, IMO.

And, more generally, this is the vision laid out by TBL in his
Semantic Web manifesto, although today all the TLA'd stuff the W3C
does today can obscure that vision as laid out 10 years ago. I'm very
glad that after developing a pretty shoddy hypertext system and by
chance making it royalty free and dominant, TBL took it upon himself
to make "the web done right" :-)

> Separately, we're working with Trac, Bugzilla, Debbugs and other tools to
> get replication in place so that you can in fact run a free software tool to
> manage your bugs for your project, and still collaborate with distributions
> who use Launchpad (Ubuntu, PLD Linux, Nexenta and others) as well as
> upstreams (Zope, AWN and 6,000 others).

AWESOME :-)

The gains for Gobuntu if it can pull the gNewSense bug tracker data
will be a massive boost to both projects and is not to be
underestimated in my opinion :-)

> We're also providing guidance and
> support for the folks integrating Bazaar into Savannah, so that you can use
> an indisputably free platform for project hosting and still be part of an
> efficient code collaboration with other projects that use Launchpad and
> Bazaar.

Collaboration between Canonical and GNU is great :-)

> I am still uncomfortable with the idea of having lots of Launchpad's, though.
> Launchpad was designed as a central platform to link different projects, and
> having multiple centers would decrease the value of it to the current users.

There are already multiple centers for GNU/Linux distribution development.

Currently they are not linked. Supposing it happens, how the structure
of the peering of such supernodes emerges may be good or bad compared
to the situation today where the supernodes are not connected. By
waiting for Ubuntu to really dominate the other distributions in terms
of mindshare, Canonical increases the chances that its supernode will
be closer to the center. That the other supernodes' senior management
include a bunch of clowns help too :-)

But there are more free culture movements than the GNU/Linux
distribution movement. The one I'm trying to bootstrap, the free font
movement, is going to need a range of platforms to manage projects of
a range scales, and the biggest on the scale is the one that
aggregates all the rest, like Launchpad does. When Launchpad and
platforms like it for running successful free culture projects are
available for independent deployment, free cultural development will
accelerate.

Creative Commons is also pushing this with its team of developers
working on ccHost, who are also worth involving in Launchpad's semweb
efforts.

Perhaps this can be looked at during UDS-Intrepid +1...

> That's not usually true of software - having more Gnome users is generally
> positive for the existing ones. This is a subtle point and not one that most
> free software folks will acknowledge. But then they may not use LP enough to
> appreciate what it means.

I think they do perceive the benefits of network effects that come
easily from centralisation, but they are intuitively suspicious of the
social policy that necessarily emerges from the structure of
centralised systems, and they fumble communicating this by bluntly
refusing to acknowledge the benefits exist. Its subtle stuff, as you
say.

> They usually revert to "you got, i want, gimme now" ;-)

Yes, but usually this is accompanied by "...or I'll do it myself, AND
THEN YOU'LL BE SORRY."

:-)

> The roadmap for Launchpad does get it to the point where it will
> more graciously handle that distributed nature, and at that point I will be
> more comfortable distributing it.

I look forward to it! :-)

--
Regards,
Dave

--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel

Sun Apr 20 19:30:01 2008
Return-path: <gentoo-hardened+bounces-2037-tom=linux-archive.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Envelope-to: tom@linux-archive.org
Delivery-date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:58:37 +0300
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([69.77.167.62] helo=lists.gentoo.org)
by s2.java-tips.org with esmtp (Exim 4.68)
(envelope-from <gentoo-hardened+bounces-2037-tom=linux-archive.org@lists.gentoo.org>)
id 1Jnbw5-0007uC-6T
for tom@linux-archive.org; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 18:58:37 +0300
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id CD659E0509;
Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:58:28 +0000 (UTC)
X-Original-To: gentoo-hardened@lists.gentoo.org
Delivered-To: gentoo-hardened@lists.gentoo.org
Received: from agave.telenet-ops.be (agave.telenet-ops.be [195.130.137.77])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89C39E0509
for <gentoo-hardened@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 15:58:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by agave.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with SMTP id 11A8967D29
for <gentoo-hardened@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:58:28 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [192.168.1.2] (user-85-201-69-178.tvcablenet.be [85.201.69.178])
by agave.telenet-ops.be (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2EE267D20
for <gentoo-hardened@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:58:27 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <480B6823.6060208@tvcablenet.be>
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2008 17:58:27 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Fran=E7ois_Valenduc?=
<francois.valenduc@tvcablenet.be>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.12 (X11/20080420)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-hardened@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-hardened+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-hardened+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-hardened+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-hardened.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-hardened@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-hardened@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: gentoo-hardened@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-hardened] hwclock and selinux (and other problems)
References: <480AFE5B.3070602@tvcablenet.be> <14361.193.11.246.158.1208686092.squirrel@webmail. rymdraket.net> <480B16F7.3090908@tvcablenet.be> <1208699870.5307.4.camel@defiant.pebenito.net> <480B5055.6040806@tvcablenet.be>
In-Reply-To: <480B5055.6040806@tvcablenet.be>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Fran=E7ois Valenduc a =E9crit :
> Chris PeBenito a =E9crit :
>> On Sun, 2008-04-20 at 12:12 +0200, Fran=E7ois Valenduc wrote:
>> =20
>>> xake@rymdraket.net a =E9crit :
>>> =20
>>>>> type=3D1400 audit(1208682664.167:223): avc: denied { read write }=
for
>>>>> pid=3D29607 comm=3D"hwclock" path=3D"/var/log/faillog" dev=3Ddm-6 i=
no=3D271083
>>>>> scontext=3Droot:system_r:hwclock_t tcontext=3Dsystem_ubject_r:fai=
llog_t
>>>>> tclass=3Dfile
>>>>> =20
>>>> This is just an error about hwclock being unable to write to=20
>>>> "faillog" so
>>>> there must be something that goes wrong (making hwclock want to=20
>>>> write to
>>>> faillog).
>>>>
>>>> =20
>>>>> I also got this error:
>>>>> type=3D1400 audit(1208679707.497:84): avc: denied { read } for
>>>>> pid=3D18454 comm=3D"hwclock" path=3D"/dev/urandom" dev=3Dtmpfs ino=3D=
2059
>>>>> scontext=3Droot:system_r:hwclock_t
>>>>> tcontext=3Dsystem_ubject_r:urandom_device_t tclass=3Dchr_file
>>>>>
>>>>> However, I think I solved it by issuing the commands "setsebool -P
>>>>> global_ssp 1" and "load_policy"
>>>>> =20
>>>> This is becouse you have the hardened toolchain, compiling=20
>>>> everything with
>>>> PIE/SSP by default. SSP want a random number (picked from=20
>>>> /dev/urandom)
>>>> when the binaries start. SELinux disables access to urandom per=20
>>>> default so
>>>> you have to (as you did with sebool) tell SELinux that your system i=
s
>>>> compiled with SSP and thus the access to urandom should be permitted=
.
>>>>
>>>> =20
>>> Yes, this has been solved with sebool. However, I still got the=20
>>> second error (related to faillog). It also blocks distccd like this:=20
>>> (even if the corresponding selinux policy is loaded):
>>> type=3D1400 audit(1208681304.633:191): avc: denied { read write }=20
>>> for pid=3D27886 comm=3D"distccd" path=3D"/var/log/faillog" dev=3Ddm-=
6=20
>>> ino=3D271083 scontext=3Droot:system_r:distccd_t=20
>>> tcontext=3Dsystem_ubject_r:faillog_t tclass=3Dfile
>>>
>>> Do you know how to solve this second type of errors ?
>>> Thanks for your help.
>>> =20
>>
>> Seems weird that either of these programs would be writing to faillog,
>> since that file is usually for logging login failures. Do you have an=
y
>> idea why this might be happening on your system?
>>
>> =20
>
> I also get other denials related to these two programs:
>
> type=3D1400 audit(1208708112.397:275): avc: denied { read } for =20
> pid=3D1935 comm=3D"distccd" path=3D"pipe:[15699]" dev=3Dpipefs ino=3D15=
699=20
> scontext=3Duser_u:system_r:distccd_t=20
> tcontext=3Dsystem_u:system_r:local_login_t tclass=3Dfifo_file
>
> type=3D1400 audit(1208707984.676:266): avc: denied { read } for =20
> pid=3D16744 comm=3D"hwclock" path=3D"pipe:[15699]" dev=3Dpipefs ino=3D1=
5699=20
> scontext=3Duser_u:system_r:hwclock_t=20
> tcontext=3Dsystem_u:system_r:local_login_t tclass=3Dfifo_file
>
> Maybe this is the real reason for the failure of these two programs.
>
> Fran=E7ois Valenduc
Finally I managed to get hwclock working. I am using LVM and I forgot to=20
install the corresponding policy. I didn't notice that it had not been=20
installed when I ran "emerge --newuse world" (after having switched to=20
the selinux profile). I also managed to get distcc working but only if I=20
use the "listen" options in "/etc/conf.d/distccd'. If I use "allow"=20
instead of "listen" to specify the authorized ip adresses, I get this err=
or:

type=3D1400 audit(1208706789.868:111): avc: denied { read write } for =20
pid=3D9304 comm=3D"distccd" name=3D"3" dev=3Ddevpts ino=3D5=20
scontext=3Droot:system_r:distccd_t tcontext=3Drootbject_r:sshd_devpts_t=
=20
tclass=3Dchr_file
type=3D1400 audit(1208706789.879:112): avc: denied { ioctl } for =20
pid=3D9304 comm=3D"distccd" path=3D"/dev/pts/3" dev=3Ddevpts ino=3D5=20
scontext=3Droot:system_r:distccd_t tcontext=3Drootbject_r:sshd_devpts_t=
=20
tclass=3Dchr_file

Thanks for your help.
Fran=E7ois Valenduc


--=20
gentoo-hardened@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Stanislas Breton wrote:
> With respect, I haven't sought to deny anyone's right to install FLOSS
> on Windows.

Sure, but before anyone can install it, someone must develop it.

I disagree with your earlier statement that the GNU project encourages
the use of proprietary software by offering Windows versions of GNU
software. (Your words: "The FSF/GNU Project tacitly encourage people to
*continue* using [proprietary software]")

Without Emacs for Windows, some people will be using Windows + some
proprietary editor. With Emacs for Windows, they'll be using Windows +
free software. In my opinion, that's a step in the right direction, not
compromising our ideals.

You're not saying that the *lack* of free software Windows ports would
encourage people to switch their OS, or are you? I think that many
people are reluctant to switch OSes because they're afraid they won't be
able to open their files, connect to their web sites, or use their
devices. As soon as these users have replaced their proprietary
applications with free alternatives, making the final switch should be
far easier.

That's why I don't think we should look askance at developers who
develop free software for or port free software to proprietary platforms.

Kind Regards,
M.F.


--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel

On 20/04/2008, Michael Fötsch <foetsch@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think we should look askance at developers who
> develop free software for or port free software to proprietary platforms.

Developing free software only for a proprietary OS is a problem for
the free software movement, and is different to porting free software
from GNU/Linux to a proprietary OS.

Quicksilver, for example, is a famous Mac OS X program that is GPL,
but it took 3 years for someone to start developing a replacement,
Gnome Do.

--
Regards,
Dave
--
Gobuntu-devel mailing list
Gobuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/gobuntu-devel