[fsf-community-team] Re: Welcome to the "fsf-community-team" (jkp)

[James Phillips]

On Tue, Dec 08, 2009 at 08:14:50PM -0500, address@hidden wrote:
It almost looks like an automated response, but it appears to be 
tailored 
to my initial introduction message.

> So, what we need you to do is pretty simple, just reply to the list at
> address@hidden with the following:
> 1) Send us a quick introduction. What blogs, news sites, or
> communities do you follow? Are there particular news topics that you
> would like to focus on?
As I said already, I don't have much of a "web presence." That said, I 
have left tracks on the Internet over the years:
When I was attending the UofA for 2 years (1999-2001) I was assigned 
the jkp(at)ualberta.ca address. With it I posted on Usenet groups such 
as edm.forsale and edm.general. I think most of the time I actually 
used my (still current) address@hidden address to facillitate 
automatic deletion from spam-bot lists.
After leaving the UofA I went to the Edmonton Freenet (later renamed 
Edmonton Community Network) for Internet access. I still posted on some 
usenet groups (addresses included nephill(at)ecn.ca and 
nephill(at)freenet.edmonton.ab.ca (no sure about the last one). ECN went 
Bankrupt in 2004. I miss Usenet access, and may work to restablish it.

I think the forum I am most active in is forums.xkcd.com. They (like 
many forums I am involved in) frown on blatent advertising. I'm not sure 
how they would react to a "FSF-Community-Team" account. I am user 
phillipsjk.

I am currently on the Freebsd-questions and freebsd-current mailing 
lists. I think I would have to tread carefully If I wanted to push FSF 
ideals.

I also have a Slashdot account that I hardly ever use: phillipsjk256

For a while I played the surprisingly addictive ogame. I quit when they 
changed the game dynamics to encourage more paying players. My account 
on the ogame forums may still be active (but I have not recieved 
advertising from them for a while). 

I have a myspace account I never use. I used it to contact a low-budget 
radio show that had *only* myspace for contact information. May or may 
not still be active.

I created an account on the daily Show forums to complain that John 
Stewart over-simplified net neutrality. I found I went into far more 
detail than was expected of me.

I now have ~ 50 posts on the Freesco  support forum (Linux 2.0 based 
router on a floppy). No, I am not sure if GNU/linux applies: busybox and 
shell scripts are used instead of the "standard" GNU tools.

I recently registered with the economist website to explain that the 
"soft approach" to music "piracy" (sueing ISPs instead of users) isn't. 
Apparently, I got a trial membership, so don't know if I will still be 
able to post comments now that it expired.
> 
> 2) Let us know that you've read these five articles about the FSF's
> basic philosophy and common mistakes that people make. Please ask any
> questions you have about them (questions are good!).
>     * Did You Say Intellectual Property? It's a Seductive Mirage
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

I have never liked the term. As you say, it implies "virtual goods" have 
the same limitations as "physical goods." The existance of an 
international organization responsible for "Intellectual Property" lends 
cerdence to the term. I hope efforts to change WIPO's name succeed.

That said, I don't find the use of the term "Intellectual Property" so 
egregeous, so long as the writer quickly gets more specific. I gather 
the FSF argument is that if you need to use the more specific terms 
anyway, why use them at all? One argument could be that "Intellectual 
Property" may be a key phrase that people search on. If the term 
"Intellectual Property" is never used without qualification, people may 
begin to realize how superfluos the term actually is.

>     * What's in a Name? http://www.gnu.org/gnu/why-gnu-linux.html

I have always used "Linux" as an informal abbreviation or short-hand. 
After carefully reading that document and most the related FAQ, I now 
understand that the term GNU helps introduce the concept of software 
freedom: something Linus Trovalds does not advocate for in the same way 
the FSF does. As I said in my first letter, "Open source" people care 
more about developer freedom than user freedom. They don't understand 
why borrowing free source code should also include borrowing a free 
software license.

Related to the "Intellectual Property" term above, I have encountered 
people suspicious of anything free (as in beer). They realize there must 
be some kind of agenda at work. Unfortunately, I have rarely taken the 
opportunity to point out the agenda is to promote freedom. I have also 
encountered somebody who heard Linux was trademarked (possibly 
confusing that with copyright) and was concerned  that it could be 
revoked at any time. The use of the term GNU would have been something 
easy to point to to show that a GNU/Linux system is not 
reliant on the Linux trademark.

So yesterday evening I went through all my posts on the xkcd forum and 
changed instances of "Linux" to "GNU/Linux" when it was clear I was 
talking about the whole system. The trickiest one to change was an 
instance of BSD/Linux when referring the Desktop environments that run 
under both. I went with "BSD/GNU-Linux." 

> 
> 3) Write some short responses to these excerpts below, as if you were
> responding with a short comment to somebody's blog post. These are
> representative of the sort of things we often find ourselves
> responding to. Be polite, concise, and -- most of all -- make sure you
> hit the most important points.
> 
> This will give us an idea of your writing style, and it gives FSF
> staff and other volunteers on the list a chance to offer feedback and
> show you the ropes.
> 
>     * Excerpt: Richard Stallman started the FSF in order to promote
> open source software like the Linux operating system, as an
> alternative to expensive software like Windows.
Meta: was not able to find context.

When RMS wrote the GNU manifesto in 1983, open source, proprietary 
software was common. For RMS, "open source" is a means to an end: he 
wants users to have the freedom to study, modify and distribute the 
software they use. Cost is a secondary concern too: writing a complete 
OS from scratch for philisophical reasons is not cheap.


>     * Excerpt: Now with cloud computing and web-based applications,
> even Linux users can use the same software as everyone else, through
> their browsers. With other popular programs like Skype and Adobe Flash
> producing Linux versions, the Linux desktop may finally be catching
> on!
Meta: could not find context.

I think that "web-based" applications will be buggy and bloated for a 
long time. They take an old idea: having many clients running an 
application on a central server and add extra layers of complexity. In 
the old days, your computer acted as a "dumb terminal," acting as little 
more than an I/O device.

Now, with "web-based" applications they take that old idea and add 
layers of complexity like the HTTP and SOAP protocols. Clients are now 
expected to use buggy browsers or proprietary interpreters to run 
client-side scripting. Because the clients are untrusted, all data sent 
back to the server should be validated server-side. Because validation 
also occurs client-side, such checks do not always happen: leading to 
security problems.

Another problem with "web-based" applications is that because there are 
so many layers of misdirection, it is not always clear what is need for 
them to run properly. Some "web-based" applications require ActiveX: a 
bad idea from Microsoft, implemented only by Internet Explorer, that 
allows arbitrary signed code to run on your computer: sometimes as the 
administrative user. Internet Explorer is only available for Microsoft 
Windows. As a result, any "web applications" using Active X still 
require Windows.

You mention proprietary software available for GNU/Linux. Such software 
often only runs on the most common architecture: i386 (32 bit x86). 
Many GNU/Linux users are also reluctant to run proprietary software on 
thier systems because they don't have the freedom to study and modify 
the code.

>     * Excerpt: When combined with the other chapters that include
> statutory damages, search and seizure powers for border guards,
> anti-camcording rules, and mandatory disclosure of personal
> information requirements, it is clear that there is no bigger
> intellectual property issue today than the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade
> Agreement being negotiated behind closed doors this week in Korea.
> 
> (From http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4510/125/)
Meta: Initially, I saw no problems. But, now I realize you are probably 
objecting to the term "intellectual property."
>

The term "Intellectual Property" does does not really apply to 
discussions of copyright or even patent and trademark reform. The term 
implies that ideas are scarce, just like physical property.

Perhaps a better phrase to use would be "Human Rights" since the 
proposed reforms directy effect freedom of assembly, freedom of 
expression, the right to life liberty and security of the person, the 
right to fair and public hearing (when facing criminal charges), the 
right to privacy, the right to property, the right to freedom of 
thought, the right to education, and the right freely to participate in the 
cultural life of the community.
   Linkname: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
        URL: http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/

Therefore, the passage in question should read:

. . .it is clear that there is no bigger human rights issue today than 
the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement being negotiated behind closed 
doors this week in Korea.



> Thank you so much for volunteering,
> 
> -Holmes
> 
Regards,

James Phillips

PS: need to configure the spell-checker.

----- End forwarded message -----