Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/02/01/copyright-not-all-equal.html

In
an interview
with IT Wire, Mark Shuttleworth argues that all
copyright assignment systems are equal, saying further that what Intel,
Canonical and other for-profit companies ask for in the process are the
same things asked for by Free Software non-profit organizations like the
Free Software Foundation.

I’ve written
about this before, and
recently quit
using Ubuntu in part because of Canonical’s assignment policies
(which are, as Mark correctly points out, not that different from
other for-profit company’s assignment forms.)

However, it’s quite disingenuous for companies to point to the long
standing tradition of copyright assignment to the FSF as a justification
for their own practices. There are two key differences that people like
Shuttleworth constantly gloss over or outright ignore:

• FSF promises to never make their software
  proprietary. Shuttleworth claims that All copyright
  assignment agreements empower dual licensing, and relicensing, but
  that is simply a false statement if you include FSF in the
  “All”. FSF promises to never proprietarize its versions of
  the software assigned to it and always release its versions of the
  software under Free Software licenses.
• Non-profits have a different duty to the public.
  For-profit companies have one duty: to make money for their owners
  and/or shareholders. Non-profit organizations, by contrast, are
  chartered to carry out the public good. Therefore, they cannot
  liberally ignore what’s in the public good just because it makes some
  money. An organization like FSF, which has a public charter that
  explicitly says that it seeks to advance software freedom, would fail to
  carry out its public mission if it engaged in proprietary
  relicensing.

It seems that Mark Shuttleworth wants to confuse us about copyright
assignment so we just start signing away our software. In essence,
companies try to bank on the goodwill created by the FSF copyright
assignment process over the years to convince developers to give up their
rights under GPL and hand over their hard work for virtually nothing in
return. We shouldn’t give in.

I am not opposed to copyright assignment in the least, in fact, I
support it in many cases. However, without assurances that otherwise
copylefted software won’t be relicensed as proprietary software,
developers should treat a copyright assignment process with maximum
skepticism. Furthermore, we should simply not tolerate attempts by
for-profit companies to confuse the developer community by comparing as
equals copyright assignment systems that are radically different in
their intent, execution, and consequences.

(Some useful additional
reading: my
“Open Core” Is the New Shareware,
Michael
Meeks’ Thoughts on Copyright Assignment, Dave
Neary’s Copyright assignment and other barriers to
entry,
and this LWN article.)

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/02/01/copyright-not-all-equal.html

In
an interview
with IT Wire, Mark Shuttleworth argues that all
copyright assignment systems are equal, saying further that what Intel,
Canonical and other for-profit companies ask for in the process are the
same things asked for by Free Software non-profit organizations like the
Free Software Foundation.

I’ve written
about this before, and
recently quit
using Ubuntu in part because of Canonical’s assignment policies
(which are, as Mark correctly points out, not that different from
other for-profit company’s assignment forms.)

However, it’s quite disingenuous for companies to point to the long
standing tradition of copyright assignment to the FSF as a justification
for their own practices. There are two key differences that people like
Shuttleworth constantly gloss over or outright ignore:

• FSF promises to never make their software
  proprietary. Shuttleworth claims that All copyright
  assignment agreements empower dual licensing, and relicensing, but
  that is simply a false statement if you include FSF in the
  “All”. FSF promises to never proprietarize its versions of
  the software assigned to it and always release its versions of the
  software under Free Software licenses.
• Non-profits have a different duty to the public.
  For-profit companies have one duty: to make money for their owners
  and/or shareholders. Non-profit organizations, by contrast, are
  chartered to carry out the public good. Therefore, they cannot
  liberally ignore what’s in the public good just because it makes some
  money. An organization like FSF, which has a public charter that
  explicitly says that it seeks to advance software freedom, would fail to
  carry out its public mission if it engaged in proprietary
  relicensing.

It seems that Mark Shuttleworth wants to confuse us about copyright
assignment so we just start signing away our software. In essence,
companies try to bank on the goodwill created by the FSF copyright
assignment process over the years to convince developers to give up their
rights under GPL and hand over their hard work for virtually nothing in
return. We shouldn’t give in.

I am not opposed to copyright assignment in the least, in fact, I
support it in many cases. However, without assurances that otherwise
copylefted software won’t be relicensed as proprietary software,
developers should treat a copyright assignment process with maximum
skepticism. Furthermore, we should simply not tolerate attempts by
for-profit companies to confuse the developer community by comparing as
equals copyright assignment systems that are radically different in
their intent, execution, and consequences.

(Some useful additional
reading: my
“Open Core” Is the New Shareware,
Michael
Meeks’ Thoughts on Copyright Assignment, Dave
Neary’s Copyright assignment and other barriers to
entry,
and this LWN article.)

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/02/01/copyright-not-all-equal.html

In
an interview
with IT Wire, Mark Shuttleworth argues that all
copyright assignment systems are equal, saying further that what Intel,
Canonical and other for-profit companies ask for in the process are the
same things asked for by Free Software non-profit organizations like the
Free Software Foundation.

I’ve written
about this before, and
recently quit
using Ubuntu in part because of Canonical’s assignment policies
(which are, as Mark correctly points out, not that different from
other for-profit company’s assignment forms.)

However, it’s quite disingenuous for companies to point to the long
standing tradition of copyright assignment to the FSF as a justification
for their own practices. There are two key differences that people like
Shuttleworth constantly gloss over or outright ignore:

• FSF promises to never make their software
  proprietary. Shuttleworth claims that All copyright
  assignment agreements empower dual licensing, and relicensing, but
  that is simply a false statement if you include FSF in the
  “All”. FSF promises to never proprietarize its versions of
  the software assigned to it and always release its versions of the
  software under Free Software licenses.
• Non-profits have a different duty to the public.
  For-profit companies have one duty: to make money for their owners
  and/or shareholders. Non-profit organizations, by contrast, are
  chartered to carry out the public good. Therefore, they cannot
  liberally ignore what’s in the public good just because it makes some
  money. An organization like FSF, which has a public charter that
  explicitly says that it seeks to advance software freedom, would fail to
  carry out its public mission if it engaged in proprietary
  relicensing.

It seems that Mark Shuttleworth wants to confuse us about copyright
assignment so we just start signing away our software. In essence,
companies try to bank on the goodwill created by the FSF copyright
assignment process over the years to convince developers to give up their
rights under GPL and hand over their hard work for virtually nothing in
return. We shouldn’t give in.

I am not opposed to copyright assignment in the least, in fact, I
support it in many cases. However, without assurances that otherwise
copylefted software won’t be relicensed as proprietary software,
developers should treat a copyright assignment process with maximum
skepticism. Furthermore, we should simply not tolerate attempts by
for-profit companies to confuse the developer community by comparing as
equals copyright assignment systems that are radically different in
their intent, execution, and consequences.

(Some useful additional
reading: my
“Open Core” Is the New Shareware,
Michael
Meeks’ Thoughts on Copyright Assignment, Dave
Neary’s Copyright assignment and other barriers to
entry,
and this LWN article.)

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/02/01/copyright-not-all-equal.html

In
an interview
with IT Wire, Mark Shuttleworth argues that all
copyright assignment systems are equal, saying further that what Intel,
Canonical and other for-profit companies ask for in the process are the
same things asked for by Free Software non-profit organizations like the
Free Software Foundation.

I’ve written
about this before, and
recently quit
using Ubuntu in part because of Canonical’s assignment policies
(which are, as Mark correctly points out, not that different from
other for-profit company’s assignment forms.)

However, it’s quite disingenuous for companies to point to the long
standing tradition of copyright assignment to the FSF as a justification
for their own practices. There are two key differences that people like
Shuttleworth constantly gloss over or outright ignore:

• FSF promises to never make their software
  proprietary. Shuttleworth claims that All copyright
  assignment agreements empower dual licensing, and relicensing, but
  that is simply a false statement if you include FSF in the
  “All”. FSF promises to never proprietarize its versions of
  the software assigned to it and always release its versions of the
  software under Free Software licenses.
• Non-profits have a different duty to the public.
  For-profit companies have one duty: to make money for their owners
  and/or shareholders. Non-profit organizations, by contrast, are
  chartered to carry out the public good. Therefore, they cannot
  liberally ignore what’s in the public good just because it makes some
  money. An organization like FSF, which has a public charter that
  explicitly says that it seeks to advance software freedom, would fail to
  carry out its public mission if it engaged in proprietary
  relicensing.

It seems that Mark Shuttleworth wants to confuse us about copyright
assignment so we just start signing away our software. In essence,
companies try to bank on the goodwill created by the FSF copyright
assignment process over the years to convince developers to give up their
rights under GPL and hand over their hard work for virtually nothing in
return. We shouldn’t give in.

I am not opposed to copyright assignment in the least, in fact, I
support it in many cases. However, without assurances that otherwise
copylefted software won’t be relicensed as proprietary software,
developers should treat a copyright assignment process with maximum
skepticism. Furthermore, we should simply not tolerate attempts by
for-profit companies to confuse the developer community by comparing as
equals copyright assignment systems that are radically different in
their intent, execution, and consequences.

(Some useful additional
reading: my
“Open Core” Is the New Shareware,
Michael
Meeks’ Thoughts on Copyright Assignment, Dave
Neary’s Copyright assignment and other barriers to
entry,
and this LWN article.)

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/02/01/copyright-not-all-equal.html

In
an interview
with IT Wire, Mark Shuttleworth argues that all
copyright assignment systems are equal, saying further that what Intel,
Canonical and other for-profit companies ask for in the process are the
same things asked for by Free Software non-profit organizations like the
Free Software Foundation.

I’ve written
about this before, and
recently quit
using Ubuntu in part because of Canonical’s assignment policies
(which are, as Mark correctly points out, not that different from
other for-profit company’s assignment forms.)

However, it’s quite disingenuous for companies to point to the long
standing tradition of copyright assignment to the FSF as a justification
for their own practices. There are two key differences that people like
Shuttleworth constantly gloss over or outright ignore:

• FSF promises to never make their software
  proprietary. Shuttleworth claims that All copyright
  assignment agreements empower dual licensing, and relicensing, but
  that is simply a false statement if you include FSF in the
  “All”. FSF promises to never proprietarize its versions of
  the software assigned to it and always release its versions of the
  software under Free Software licenses.
• Non-profits have a different duty to the public.
  For-profit companies have one duty: to make money for their owners
  and/or shareholders. Non-profit organizations, by contrast, are
  chartered to carry out the public good. Therefore, they cannot
  liberally ignore what’s in the public good just because it makes some
  money. An organization like FSF, which has a public charter that
  explicitly says that it seeks to advance software freedom, would fail to
  carry out its public mission if it engaged in proprietary
  relicensing.

It seems that Mark Shuttleworth wants to confuse us about copyright
assignment so we just start signing away our software. In essence,
companies try to bank on the goodwill created by the FSF copyright
assignment process over the years to convince developers to give up their
rights under GPL and hand over their hard work for virtually nothing in
return. We shouldn’t give in.

I am not opposed to copyright assignment in the least, in fact, I
support it in many cases. However, without assurances that otherwise
copylefted software won’t be relicensed as proprietary software,
developers should treat a copyright assignment process with maximum
skepticism. Furthermore, we should simply not tolerate attempts by
for-profit companies to confuse the developer community by comparing as
equals copyright assignment systems that are radically different in
their intent, execution, and consequences.

(Some useful additional
reading: my
“Open Core” Is the New Shareware,
Michael
Meeks’ Thoughts on Copyright Assignment, Dave
Neary’s Copyright assignment and other barriers to
entry,
and this LWN article.)

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/02/01/copyright-not-all-equal.html

In
an interview
with IT Wire, Mark Shuttleworth argues that all
copyright assignment systems are equal, saying further that what Intel,
Canonical and other for-profit companies ask for in the process are the
same things asked for by Free Software non-profit organizations like the
Free Software Foundation.

I’ve written
about this before, and
recently quit
using Ubuntu in part because of Canonical’s assignment policies
(which are, as Mark correctly points out, not that different from
other for-profit company’s assignment forms.)

However, it’s quite disingenuous for companies to point to the long
standing tradition of copyright assignment to the FSF as a justification
for their own practices. There are two key differences that people like
Shuttleworth constantly gloss over or outright ignore:

• FSF promises to never make their software
  proprietary. Shuttleworth claims that All copyright
  assignment agreements empower dual licensing, and relicensing, but
  that is simply a false statement if you include FSF in the
  “All”. FSF promises to never proprietarize its versions of
  the software assigned to it and always release its versions of the
  software under Free Software licenses.
• Non-profits have a different duty to the public.
  For-profit companies have one duty: to make money for their owners
  and/or shareholders. Non-profit organizations, by contrast, are
  chartered to carry out the public good. Therefore, they cannot
  liberally ignore what’s in the public good just because it makes some
  money. An organization like FSF, which has a public charter that
  explicitly says that it seeks to advance software freedom, would fail to
  carry out its public mission if it engaged in proprietary
  relicensing.

It seems that Mark Shuttleworth wants to confuse us about copyright
assignment so we just start signing away our software. In essence,
companies try to bank on the goodwill created by the FSF copyright
assignment process over the years to convince developers to give up their
rights under GPL and hand over their hard work for virtually nothing in
return. We shouldn’t give in.

I am not opposed to copyright assignment in the least, in fact, I
support it in many cases. However, without assurances that otherwise
copylefted software won’t be relicensed as proprietary software,
developers should treat a copyright assignment process with maximum
skepticism. Furthermore, we should simply not tolerate attempts by
for-profit companies to confuse the developer community by comparing as
equals copyright assignment systems that are radically different in
their intent, execution, and consequences.

(Some useful additional
reading: my
“Open Core” Is the New Shareware,
Michael
Meeks’ Thoughts on Copyright Assignment, Dave
Neary’s Copyright assignment and other barriers to
entry,
and this LWN article.)

Post Syndicated from Oglaf! -- Comics. Often dirty. original https://www.oglaf.com/northerner/

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/01/26/gnome-foundation.html

I suppose that I should have applied years ago to be
a member of
the GNOME Foundation. I have served since 2001 as
the Free Software Foundation‘s
representative on
the GNOME
Advisory Board, and have worked hard the last nine years to maintain
a good relationship between the FSF and the GNOME Foundation. Indeed, I
was very glad and willing when FSF asked me to continue to serve in this
role as a volunteer after I left employment of the FSF in 2005.

Regarding actual GNOME Foundation membership, though, I suppose that I
previously felt under-qualified to apply since (a) my personal avoidance
of all things GUI is widely known, and (b) obviously I haven’t
contributed any code or even documentation to GNOME. The most I’ve done
on the development side is the occasional bug report over the years.
Yet, ever since I was finally able to switch the non-technical users in
my life over to GNU/Linux, I’ve been very grateful and supportive for
GNOME and its mission to create a Free Software desktop that everyone
— not just computer geeks — can use effectively.

Meanwhile, Leslie
Hawthorn reminded me recently to stop perpetuating the false
belief that the only useful FLOSS contribution is code and
documentation. I think that it was her point that encouraged me to
apply for GNOME Foundation membership. I was excited to receive my
acceptance this morning.

Many people in the GNOME community already know that I’m a good contact
person if you have any issues that relate to the relationship between
GNOME and GNU or between FSF and GNOME Foundation (these are, BTW, two
clear and distinct sets of relationships). I’ll take this opportunity to
remind everyone that if you ever have a concern related to these
relationships, I am always glad to assist in my diplomatic role between
the two organizations (and projects).

And, of course, as I have for years, I remain available to the GNOME
community for the occasional licensing policy questions and/or GPL
enforcement assistance.

I very much hope to go
to GUADEC this
year, as I have not been in six years! However, I’m a bit worried
about the tight scheduling between it and OSCON (which would mean at
least two and a half weeks away in a row!), but I’ll strive to be
there.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/01/26/gnome-foundation.html

I suppose that I should have applied years ago to be
a member of
the GNOME Foundation. I have served since 2001 as
the Free Software Foundation‘s
representative on
the GNOME
Advisory Board, and have worked hard the last nine years to maintain
a good relationship between the FSF and the GNOME Foundation. Indeed, I
was very glad and willing when FSF asked me to continue to serve in this
role as a volunteer after I left employment of the FSF in 2005.

Regarding actual GNOME Foundation membership, though, I suppose that I
previously felt under-qualified to apply since (a) my personal avoidance
of all things GUI is widely known, and (b) obviously I haven’t
contributed any code or even documentation to GNOME. The most I’ve done
on the development side is the occasional bug report over the years.
Yet, ever since I was finally able to switch the non-technical users in
my life over to GNU/Linux, I’ve been very grateful and supportive for
GNOME and its mission to create a Free Software desktop that everyone
— not just computer geeks — can use effectively.

Meanwhile, Leslie
Hawthorn reminded me recently to stop perpetuating the false
belief that the only useful FLOSS contribution is code and
documentation. I think that it was her point that encouraged me to
apply for GNOME Foundation membership. I was excited to receive my
acceptance this morning.

Many people in the GNOME community already know that I’m a good contact
person if you have any issues that relate to the relationship between
GNOME and GNU or between FSF and GNOME Foundation (these are, BTW, two
clear and distinct sets of relationships). I’ll take this opportunity to
remind everyone that if you ever have a concern related to these
relationships, I am always glad to assist in my diplomatic role between
the two organizations (and projects).

And, of course, as I have for years, I remain available to the GNOME
community for the occasional licensing policy questions and/or GPL
enforcement assistance.

I very much hope to go
to GUADEC this
year, as I have not been in six years! However, I’m a bit worried
about the tight scheduling between it and OSCON (which would mean at
least two and a half weeks away in a row!), but I’ll strive to be
there.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/01/26/gnome-foundation.html

I suppose that I should have applied years ago to be
a member of
the GNOME Foundation. I have served since 2001 as
the Free Software Foundation‘s
representative on
the GNOME
Advisory Board, and have worked hard the last nine years to maintain
a good relationship between the FSF and the GNOME Foundation. Indeed, I
was very glad and willing when FSF asked me to continue to serve in this
role as a volunteer after I left employment of the FSF in 2005.

Regarding actual GNOME Foundation membership, though, I suppose that I
previously felt under-qualified to apply since (a) my personal avoidance
of all things GUI is widely known, and (b) obviously I haven’t
contributed any code or even documentation to GNOME. The most I’ve done
on the development side is the occasional bug report over the years.
Yet, ever since I was finally able to switch the non-technical users in
my life over to GNU/Linux, I’ve been very grateful and supportive for
GNOME and its mission to create a Free Software desktop that everyone
— not just computer geeks — can use effectively.

Meanwhile, Leslie
Hawthorn reminded me recently to stop perpetuating the false
belief that the only useful FLOSS contribution is code and
documentation. I think that it was her point that encouraged me to
apply for GNOME Foundation membership. I was excited to receive my
acceptance this morning.

Many people in the GNOME community already know that I’m a good contact
person if you have any issues that relate to the relationship between
GNOME and GNU or between FSF and GNOME Foundation (these are, BTW, two
clear and distinct sets of relationships). I’ll take this opportunity to
remind everyone that if you ever have a concern related to these
relationships, I am always glad to assist in my diplomatic role between
the two organizations (and projects).

And, of course, as I have for years, I remain available to the GNOME
community for the occasional licensing policy questions and/or GPL
enforcement assistance.

I very much hope to go
to GUADEC this
year, as I have not been in six years! However, I’m a bit worried
about the tight scheduling between it and OSCON (which would mean at
least two and a half weeks away in a row!), but I’ll strive to be
there.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/01/26/gnome-foundation.html

I suppose that I should have applied years ago to be
a member of
the GNOME Foundation. I have served since 2001 as
the Free Software Foundation‘s
representative on
the GNOME
Advisory Board, and have worked hard the last nine years to maintain
a good relationship between the FSF and the GNOME Foundation. Indeed, I
was very glad and willing when FSF asked me to continue to serve in this
role as a volunteer after I left employment of the FSF in 2005.

Regarding actual GNOME Foundation membership, though, I suppose that I
previously felt under-qualified to apply since (a) my personal avoidance
of all things GUI is widely known, and (b) obviously I haven’t
contributed any code or even documentation to GNOME. The most I’ve done
on the development side is the occasional bug report over the years.
Yet, ever since I was finally able to switch the non-technical users in
my life over to GNU/Linux, I’ve been very grateful and supportive for
GNOME and its mission to create a Free Software desktop that everyone
— not just computer geeks — can use effectively.

Meanwhile, Leslie
Hawthorn reminded me recently to stop perpetuating the false
belief that the only useful FLOSS contribution is code and
documentation. I think that it was her point that encouraged me to
apply for GNOME Foundation membership. I was excited to receive my
acceptance this morning.

Many people in the GNOME community already know that I’m a good contact
person if you have any issues that relate to the relationship between
GNOME and GNU or between FSF and GNOME Foundation (these are, BTW, two
clear and distinct sets of relationships). I’ll take this opportunity to
remind everyone that if you ever have a concern related to these
relationships, I am always glad to assist in my diplomatic role between
the two organizations (and projects).

And, of course, as I have for years, I remain available to the GNOME
community for the occasional licensing policy questions and/or GPL
enforcement assistance.

I very much hope to go
to GUADEC this
year, as I have not been in six years! However, I’m a bit worried
about the tight scheduling between it and OSCON (which would mean at
least two and a half weeks away in a row!), but I’ll strive to be
there.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/01/26/gnome-foundation.html

I suppose that I should have applied years ago to be
a member of
the GNOME Foundation. I have served since 2001 as
the Free Software Foundation‘s
representative on
the GNOME
Advisory Board, and have worked hard the last nine years to maintain
a good relationship between the FSF and the GNOME Foundation. Indeed, I
was very glad and willing when FSF asked me to continue to serve in this
role as a volunteer after I left employment of the FSF in 2005.

Regarding actual GNOME Foundation membership, though, I suppose that I
previously felt under-qualified to apply since (a) my personal avoidance
of all things GUI is widely known, and (b) obviously I haven’t
contributed any code or even documentation to GNOME. The most I’ve done
on the development side is the occasional bug report over the years.
Yet, ever since I was finally able to switch the non-technical users in
my life over to GNU/Linux, I’ve been very grateful and supportive for
GNOME and its mission to create a Free Software desktop that everyone
— not just computer geeks — can use effectively.

Meanwhile, Leslie
Hawthorn reminded me recently to stop perpetuating the false
belief that the only useful FLOSS contribution is code and
documentation. I think that it was her point that encouraged me to
apply for GNOME Foundation membership. I was excited to receive my
acceptance this morning.

Many people in the GNOME community already know that I’m a good contact
person if you have any issues that relate to the relationship between
GNOME and GNU or between FSF and GNOME Foundation (these are, BTW, two
clear and distinct sets of relationships). I’ll take this opportunity to
remind everyone that if you ever have a concern related to these
relationships, I am always glad to assist in my diplomatic role between
the two organizations (and projects).

And, of course, as I have for years, I remain available to the GNOME
community for the occasional licensing policy questions and/or GPL
enforcement assistance.

I very much hope to go
to GUADEC this
year, as I have not been in six years! However, I’m a bit worried
about the tight scheduling between it and OSCON (which would mean at
least two and a half weeks away in a row!), but I’ll strive to be
there.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/01/26/gnome-foundation.html

I suppose that I should have applied years ago to be
a member of
the GNOME Foundation. I have served since 2001 as
the Free Software Foundation‘s
representative on
the GNOME
Advisory Board, and have worked hard the last nine years to maintain
a good relationship between the FSF and the GNOME Foundation. Indeed, I
was very glad and willing when FSF asked me to continue to serve in this
role as a volunteer after I left employment of the FSF in 2005.

Regarding actual GNOME Foundation membership, though, I suppose that I
previously felt under-qualified to apply since (a) my personal avoidance
of all things GUI is widely known, and (b) obviously I haven’t
contributed any code or even documentation to GNOME. The most I’ve done
on the development side is the occasional bug report over the years.
Yet, ever since I was finally able to switch the non-technical users in
my life over to GNU/Linux, I’ve been very grateful and supportive for
GNOME and its mission to create a Free Software desktop that everyone
— not just computer geeks — can use effectively.

Meanwhile, Leslie
Hawthorn reminded me recently to stop perpetuating the false
belief that the only useful FLOSS contribution is code and
documentation. I think that it was her point that encouraged me to
apply for GNOME Foundation membership. I was excited to receive my
acceptance this morning.

Many people in the GNOME community already know that I’m a good contact
person if you have any issues that relate to the relationship between
GNOME and GNU or between FSF and GNOME Foundation (these are, BTW, two
clear and distinct sets of relationships). I’ll take this opportunity to
remind everyone that if you ever have a concern related to these
relationships, I am always glad to assist in my diplomatic role between
the two organizations (and projects).

And, of course, as I have for years, I remain available to the GNOME
community for the occasional licensing policy questions and/or GPL
enforcement assistance.

I very much hope to go
to GUADEC this
year, as I have not been in six years! However, I’m a bit worried
about the tight scheduling between it and OSCON (which would mean at
least two and a half weeks away in a row!), but I’ll strive to be
there.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/01/26/gnome-foundation.html

I suppose that I should have applied years ago to be
a member of
the GNOME Foundation. I have served since 2001 as
the Free Software Foundation‘s
representative on
the GNOME
Advisory Board, and have worked hard the last nine years to maintain
a good relationship between the FSF and the GNOME Foundation. Indeed, I
was very glad and willing when FSF asked me to continue to serve in this
role as a volunteer after I left employment of the FSF in 2005.

Regarding actual GNOME Foundation membership, though, I suppose that I
previously felt under-qualified to apply since (a) my personal avoidance
of all things GUI is widely known, and (b) obviously I haven’t
contributed any code or even documentation to GNOME. The most I’ve done
on the development side is the occasional bug report over the years.
Yet, ever since I was finally able to switch the non-technical users in
my life over to GNU/Linux, I’ve been very grateful and supportive for
GNOME and its mission to create a Free Software desktop that everyone
— not just computer geeks — can use effectively.

Meanwhile, Leslie
Hawthorn reminded me recently to stop perpetuating the false
belief that the only useful FLOSS contribution is code and
documentation. I think that it was her point that encouraged me to
apply for GNOME Foundation membership. I was excited to receive my
acceptance this morning.

Many people in the GNOME community already know that I’m a good contact
person if you have any issues that relate to the relationship between
GNOME and GNU or between FSF and GNOME Foundation (these are, BTW, two
clear and distinct sets of relationships). I’ll take this opportunity to
remind everyone that if you ever have a concern related to these
relationships, I am always glad to assist in my diplomatic role between
the two organizations (and projects).

And, of course, as I have for years, I remain available to the GNOME
community for the occasional licensing policy questions and/or GPL
enforcement assistance.

I very much hope to go
to GUADEC this
year, as I have not been in six years! However, I’m a bit worried
about the tight scheduling between it and OSCON (which would mean at
least two and a half weeks away in a row!), but I’ll strive to be
there.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/01/26/gnome-foundation.html

I suppose that I should have applied years ago to be
a member of
the GNOME Foundation. I have served since 2001 as
the Free Software Foundation‘s
representative on
the GNOME
Advisory Board, and have worked hard the last nine years to maintain
a good relationship between the FSF and the GNOME Foundation. Indeed, I
was very glad and willing when FSF asked me to continue to serve in this
role as a volunteer after I left employment of the FSF in 2005.

Regarding actual GNOME Foundation membership, though, I suppose that I
previously felt under-qualified to apply since (a) my personal avoidance
of all things GUI is widely known, and (b) obviously I haven’t
contributed any code or even documentation to GNOME. The most I’ve done
on the development side is the occasional bug report over the years.
Yet, ever since I was finally able to switch the non-technical users in
my life over to GNU/Linux, I’ve been very grateful and supportive for
GNOME and its mission to create a Free Software desktop that everyone
— not just computer geeks — can use effectively.

Meanwhile, Leslie
Hawthorn reminded me recently to stop perpetuating the false
belief that the only useful FLOSS contribution is code and
documentation. I think that it was her point that encouraged me to
apply for GNOME Foundation membership. I was excited to receive my
acceptance this morning.

Many people in the GNOME community already know that I’m a good contact
person if you have any issues that relate to the relationship between
GNOME and GNU or between FSF and GNOME Foundation (these are, BTW, two
clear and distinct sets of relationships). I’ll take this opportunity to
remind everyone that if you ever have a concern related to these
relationships, I am always glad to assist in my diplomatic role between
the two organizations (and projects).

And, of course, as I have for years, I remain available to the GNOME
community for the occasional licensing policy questions and/or GPL
enforcement assistance.

I very much hope to go
to GUADEC this
year, as I have not been in six years! However, I’m a bit worried
about the tight scheduling between it and OSCON (which would mean at
least two and a half weeks away in a row!), but I’ll strive to be
there.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/01/26/gnome-foundation.html

I suppose that I should have applied years ago to be
a member of
the GNOME Foundation. I have served since 2001 as
the Free Software Foundation‘s
representative on
the GNOME
Advisory Board, and have worked hard the last nine years to maintain
a good relationship between the FSF and the GNOME Foundation. Indeed, I
was very glad and willing when FSF asked me to continue to serve in this
role as a volunteer after I left employment of the FSF in 2005.

Regarding actual GNOME Foundation membership, though, I suppose that I
previously felt under-qualified to apply since (a) my personal avoidance
of all things GUI is widely known, and (b) obviously I haven’t
contributed any code or even documentation to GNOME. The most I’ve done
on the development side is the occasional bug report over the years.
Yet, ever since I was finally able to switch the non-technical users in
my life over to GNU/Linux, I’ve been very grateful and supportive for
GNOME and its mission to create a Free Software desktop that everyone
— not just computer geeks — can use effectively.

Meanwhile, Leslie
Hawthorn reminded me recently to stop perpetuating the false
belief that the only useful FLOSS contribution is code and
documentation. I think that it was her point that encouraged me to
apply for GNOME Foundation membership. I was excited to receive my
acceptance this morning.

Many people in the GNOME community already know that I’m a good contact
person if you have any issues that relate to the relationship between
GNOME and GNU or between FSF and GNOME Foundation (these are, BTW, two
clear and distinct sets of relationships). I’ll take this opportunity to
remind everyone that if you ever have a concern related to these
relationships, I am always glad to assist in my diplomatic role between
the two organizations (and projects).

And, of course, as I have for years, I remain available to the GNOME
community for the occasional licensing policy questions and/or GPL
enforcement assistance.

I very much hope to go
to GUADEC this
year, as I have not been in six years! However, I’m a bit worried
about the tight scheduling between it and OSCON (which would mean at
least two and a half weeks away in a row!), but I’ll strive to be
there.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/01/26/gnome-foundation.html

I suppose that I should have applied years ago to be
a member of
the GNOME Foundation. I have served since 2001 as
the Free Software Foundation‘s
representative on
the GNOME
Advisory Board, and have worked hard the last nine years to maintain
a good relationship between the FSF and the GNOME Foundation. Indeed, I
was very glad and willing when FSF asked me to continue to serve in this
role as a volunteer after I left employment of the FSF in 2005.

Regarding actual GNOME Foundation membership, though, I suppose that I
previously felt under-qualified to apply since (a) my personal avoidance
of all things GUI is widely known, and (b) obviously I haven’t
contributed any code or even documentation to GNOME. The most I’ve done
on the development side is the occasional bug report over the years.
Yet, ever since I was finally able to switch the non-technical users in
my life over to GNU/Linux, I’ve been very grateful and supportive for
GNOME and its mission to create a Free Software desktop that everyone
— not just computer geeks — can use effectively.

Meanwhile, Leslie
Hawthorn reminded me recently to stop perpetuating the false
belief that the only useful FLOSS contribution is code and
documentation. I think that it was her point that encouraged me to
apply for GNOME Foundation membership. I was excited to receive my
acceptance this morning.

Many people in the GNOME community already know that I’m a good contact
person if you have any issues that relate to the relationship between
GNOME and GNU or between FSF and GNOME Foundation (these are, BTW, two
clear and distinct sets of relationships). I’ll take this opportunity to
remind everyone that if you ever have a concern related to these
relationships, I am always glad to assist in my diplomatic role between
the two organizations (and projects).

And, of course, as I have for years, I remain available to the GNOME
community for the occasional licensing policy questions and/or GPL
enforcement assistance.

I very much hope to go
to GUADEC this
year, as I have not been in six years! However, I’m a bit worried
about the tight scheduling between it and OSCON (which would mean at
least two and a half weeks away in a row!), but I’ll strive to be
there.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/01/26/gnome-foundation.html

I suppose that I should have applied years ago to be
a member of
the GNOME Foundation. I have served since 2001 as
the Free Software Foundation‘s
representative on
the GNOME
Advisory Board, and have worked hard the last nine years to maintain
a good relationship between the FSF and the GNOME Foundation. Indeed, I
was very glad and willing when FSF asked me to continue to serve in this
role as a volunteer after I left employment of the FSF in 2005.

Regarding actual GNOME Foundation membership, though, I suppose that I
previously felt under-qualified to apply since (a) my personal avoidance
of all things GUI is widely known, and (b) obviously I haven’t
contributed any code or even documentation to GNOME. The most I’ve done
on the development side is the occasional bug report over the years.
Yet, ever since I was finally able to switch the non-technical users in
my life over to GNU/Linux, I’ve been very grateful and supportive for
GNOME and its mission to create a Free Software desktop that everyone
— not just computer geeks — can use effectively.

Meanwhile, Leslie
Hawthorn reminded me recently to stop perpetuating the false
belief that the only useful FLOSS contribution is code and
documentation. I think that it was her point that encouraged me to
apply for GNOME Foundation membership. I was excited to receive my
acceptance this morning.

Many people in the GNOME community already know that I’m a good contact
person if you have any issues that relate to the relationship between
GNOME and GNU or between FSF and GNOME Foundation (these are, BTW, two
clear and distinct sets of relationships). I’ll take this opportunity to
remind everyone that if you ever have a concern related to these
relationships, I am always glad to assist in my diplomatic role between
the two organizations (and projects).

And, of course, as I have for years, I remain available to the GNOME
community for the occasional licensing policy questions and/or GPL
enforcement assistance.

I very much hope to go
to GUADEC this
year, as I have not been in six years! However, I’m a bit worried
about the tight scheduling between it and OSCON (which would mean at
least two and a half weeks away in a row!), but I’ll strive to be
there.

Post Syndicated from Bradley M. Kuhn original http://ebb.org/bkuhn/blog/2010/01/26/gnome-foundation.html

I suppose that I should have applied years ago to be
a member of
the GNOME Foundation. I have served since 2001 as
the Free Software Foundation‘s
representative on
the GNOME
Advisory Board, and have worked hard the last nine years to maintain
a good relationship between the FSF and the GNOME Foundation. Indeed, I
was very glad and willing when FSF asked me to continue to serve in this
role as a volunteer after I left employment of the FSF in 2005.

Regarding actual GNOME Foundation membership, though, I suppose that I
previously felt under-qualified to apply since (a) my personal avoidance
of all things GUI is widely known, and (b) obviously I haven’t
contributed any code or even documentation to GNOME. The most I’ve done
on the development side is the occasional bug report over the years.
Yet, ever since I was finally able to switch the non-technical users in
my life over to GNU/Linux, I’ve been very grateful and supportive for
GNOME and its mission to create a Free Software desktop that everyone
— not just computer geeks — can use effectively.

Meanwhile, Leslie
Hawthorn reminded me recently to stop perpetuating the false
belief that the only useful FLOSS contribution is code and
documentation. I think that it was her point that encouraged me to
apply for GNOME Foundation membership. I was excited to receive my
acceptance this morning.

Many people in the GNOME community already know that I’m a good contact
person if you have any issues that relate to the relationship between
GNOME and GNU or between FSF and GNOME Foundation (these are, BTW, two
clear and distinct sets of relationships). I’ll take this opportunity to
remind everyone that if you ever have a concern related to these
relationships, I am always glad to assist in my diplomatic role between
the two organizations (and projects).

And, of course, as I have for years, I remain available to the GNOME
community for the occasional licensing policy questions and/or GPL
enforcement assistance.

I very much hope to go
to GUADEC this
year, as I have not been in six years! However, I’m a bit worried
about the tight scheduling between it and OSCON (which would mean at
least two and a half weeks away in a row!), but I’ll strive to be
there.