[00:23] <doctormon> pleia2: Good feedback, merging now
[00:24] <doctormon> pleia2: Page 6 is to show that not all content is open and available to use in the ways described, but where they are, these are the kinds of things that you should be able to do.]
[00:28] <pleia2> ok
[00:30] <doctormon> pleia2: that makes sense with it's current text?
[00:32] <pleia2> it sort of sounds like you're trying to say "not everything on the internet is commons, but it should be!"
[00:32] <JanC> I suppose this is meant as a "marketing instrument" for open source, but of course the characteristics between open source & proprietary aren't always as black and white as described in e.g. slides 12-13...
[00:33] <pleia2> JanC: they are slides, black and white is to be expected ;)
[00:34] <JanC> well, depends on what you expect people to do with them  ☺
[00:35] <pleia2> doctormon: for the second sentence starting with ALL I'd say "But the following permissions should be available for things which are real commons resources:"
[00:36] <pleia2> or something
[00:38] <doctormon> JanC: The document is already overflowing with complexity and gray space. Trying to pretend proprietary software has good points would just be silly.
[00:38] <nigelb> cjohnston: DOn't worry, we won't be able to upgrade to python3 any time soon ^_^
[00:40] <nigelb> doctormon: I like it :)
[00:41] <nigelb> <3 page 15
[01:14] <JanC> doctormon: I disagree with saying that all proprietary software has all of the bad properties you list, but its your presentation, and of course slides don't represent 100% what you say during a presentation
[01:15] <JanC> oh, and is it intentional that you use 2 different sans-serif fonts on the front page?
[01:15] <JanC> ("by Martin Owens" uses a different font, it seems)
[01:31] <doctormon> JanC: That's right, it doesn't say that all does. If it does, let me know and I'll correct it. Also, some examples of non-corforming corner cases :-)
[02:08] <JanC> doctormon: I was thinking about e.g. the Wing IDE Pro license, which (after signing an NDA) gives you about 3½ of the 4 freedoms that free software requires according to your slides: 1. you can use it however you want, 2. you can study its source code, 3. you can change it however you want, and 4. you can redistribute the changes you made to the software (but not the software itself)
[02:09] <JanC> even though that's not as perfect as free software, you can't really say it has no good points  ;)
[02:09] <doctormon> JanC: That's a private product, explict contract and NDA, hence it's not even covered in this which is about on-the-market software.
[02:10] <JanC> it's available on the market, the NDA is just about not releasing the source code
[02:11] <doctormon> It's certainly not open source, because it's not developed in the open and gets no benefits. but it's more along the lines of the private government agreements with contractors to develop millitary tech. so long as the govt have all four freedoms, it's Free Software but not open source ;-P
[02:11] <doctormon> JanC: No, the market doesn't work like that. What you have there is something different.
[02:12] <JanC> it certainly is not open source, but like I said, it has 3½ of the freedoms that define open source or free software  ;)
[02:12] <doctormon> JanC: The four freedoms define Free Software, not open source.
[02:14] <JanC> and this is open to everybody, not just governments
[02:14] <JanC> (and if you are an open source developer, it is free as in gratis)
[02:15] <JanC> so, it's not open source of free software, but you get most but not all of its advantages
[02:17] <doctormon> JanC: Not really, hardly any of them.
[02:18] <doctormon> There's a lot of self serving and I'll give it credit for being better than the trap that was BitKeeper.
[02:19] <doctormon> A lot of what credits the FOSS world is the commons itself, having software which is basically a science which anyone can build on for any reason.
[02:19] <doctormon> And everyone can learn from.
[02:20] <JanC> right, but when looking at the "4 freedoms", you get most of these  ;)
[02:20] <doctormon> But again, the NDA means the software is a private agreement rather than general licensing.
[02:20] <doctormon> (I think there is some RMS post about almost not being good enough) ;-)
[02:21] <JanC> I'm sure RMS doesn't think it's good enough
[02:21] <doctormon> What are you up to these days JanC? On Ubuntu I mean
[02:23] <JanC> most of what I do on Ubuntu these days is related to ubuntu-be (locoteam)
[09:25] <bilal> I know it's Sunday, but for something urgent: Any UDW guy around?
[09:30] <bilal> Or any CC member, for that matter
[16:18] <pleia2> bilal: did you find what you were looking for?
[17:50] <vibhav> mhall119: ping
[17:55] <vibhav> Oops, wrong ping, sorry mhall119