[Sussex] Freedoms [Was: Canadian "Open Source" licence for creative works completed]

[Steve Dobson]

Hi

On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 11:59:50PM +0100, Gavin Stevens wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 15:00:27 +0100
> Steve Dobson <steve at dobson.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 01:58:45PM +0100, Mark Harrison wrote:
> > > Many of you may be aware of this:
> > > 
> > > > In harmony with the GNU/Linux philosophy of making software free
> > > > and sharable, the USA Creative Commons project came up with
> > > > licenses for allowing artistic works to be copied, shared, and
> > > > modified. Unfortunately, the wording of those licenses is
> > > > necessarily specific to USA law, and they don't quite work in
> > > > Canada (or other countries).
> > > 
> > > Well, the "Canadian port" of the legal work is now complete, and
> > > there is therefore a "free" (as in beer) licence for creative works
> > > valid in Canadian law. The "launch party" is happening in a couple
> > > of weeks time.
> > > 
> > > http://www.cippic.ca/en/projects-cases/icommons-canada/
> > > 
> > > Would anyone have any objection to my sending an "official note of
> > > congratulations from the Sussex Linux Users Group" on our behalf?
> > > 
> > > If so, I'll post a draft here first.
> > > 
> > > I think it's important that we recognise this kind of initiative "as
> > > a group" as well as as individuals...
> > 
> > I think it would be a good idea to send an "official" congratulations.
> > 
> > However I would be unhappy for such a message to sent using "Microsoft
> > Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1437" (Mark's MUA).  Microsoft is currently
> > using "Open Standards" and their "Royalty Free Sender ID Patent
> > License" as a weapon against the GPL [1].
> > 
> > This I think gives the wrong message as it shows support (or at least
> > acceptance) of Microsoft's current FUD that "Royalty Free" is
> > compatible with FOSS.  
> > 
> Couldn't agree more - any message of congratulations should be sent
> using Open Source software (I won't dare to suggest a client to use,
> knowing how passionate people can get about their favorites).

Gavin, I'm glad I'm not the only zealot on the list.  :-)

But I have a problem here.  I believe in Mark's right to use the MUA of
his choice.  I also believe that any supporter of FOSS should not use
products from companies that are (or look like they will in the future)
try to subvert the FOSS movements.  So which is stronger -- Mark's right
to free choice.

But that doesn't prevent me from getting on my soap box and trying to
convince him to change.

So, Mark,  why do you use a Microsoft MTA?  Is it to be compatible with
your clients', because they all use Microsoft?  Or is it because you are
lazy?  You can't be bothered to change.  Are you forced into using
Outlook because it is the only MUA available to you?  Can't you have your
laptop/desktop system duel boot (or better yet exclusively FOSS based)?

I singled out Mark here because he started this thread, and it is about
rights of freedom, and I found his actions (in using a proprietary MUA
which is likely to have restrictive IPR "standards" embedded in it) to be
counter productive to said freedoms.  But I know that he is not the only
culprit out there.

I'm not, at this point in time, interested in you if your parter uses M$
while you only use FOSS.  That is a battle for another day.  I'm targeting
duel uses in this thread (I'll assume there are no pure-M$ users on this
list).  What applications/reasons/needs do you have that requires that
you use both?

I realise that dropping M$ for FOSS is a political statement of sorts, and
I would like to point out that not dropping M$ is too (in a way).  By
using M$ products you give power to M$.  The more power (users) M$ has 
the more it can use the power to force the standards that govern the
Internet to suit it's own business models and practices.  Is that the 
world you want you and your children to live in?

Steve D