Recently, Jurij Smakov resigned from maintenance of the Debian torrus packages. This leaves me as the sole maintainer, and I need help. torrus is an extremely powerful framework to collect and display round-robin data. It can do much more than mrtg, is cricket “done right”, but is not configurable via the web as cacti is. Its upstream is busy with their work, but active. It is written in perl and uses XML as configuration file format. It is mainly used to collect operational data from SNMP hosts and network components. It would be great if any co-maintainers offering to help would have knowledge in perl, XML and SNMP. I am currently in the process of fixing the RC bugs and, in a next upload round, other bugs that are pending. torrus is team maintained (but I am the only active team member at the moment). Its maintainer address will be set to a mailing list with the next upload. If you want to help, just subscribe to pkg-torrus-general and/or pkg-torrus-maintainers and say hello. Your help is appreciated.

According to Jurij Smakov's announcement, the Debian port for 32bit SPARC machines is about to be retired. This is really sad in my opinion, as we should rather support more architectures instead of less architectures. After all, Debian is "The Universal Operating System" [1]. Now, I know that my opinion doesn't matter much in this case, but many other people who own sparc32 boxes seem to feel the same, judging from the thread which was started by the announcement. Also, I do realize that nobody wants to retire the port just for fun. To my understanding there is one major problem which needs to be sorted out in order to "save" the sparc32 support in Debian (and also in Linux!): There is no Linux kernel maintainer for the sparc32 Linux code at the moment! This seems to be the root of the whole problem. It makes maintaining a Debian port for sparc32 really hard, as you can surely imagine. Also, there seem to be too few people who actively work on the surrounding toolchain stuff (gcc, binutils, etc) which is also very important. My suggestion would be to not drop the Debian support for now, but rather set the status to "needs help" or something and actively search for contributors and/or maintainers. Heck, list it on Unmaintained Free Software, or write a "call for help" Slashdot article, post the issue on all Linux-/Debian-/SPARC-related mailing lists etc. etc. (or write funny blog posts, heh). I guess if two or three experienced SPARC developers would step up and take care of the kernel and toolchain maintenance for sparc32, there would be no reason to drop it anytime soon. Anyone?

Seeing Yellow seems to have encouraged hundreds of people to contact their printer manufacturers and complain about tracking dots. Lots of reports (like this one) are popping up on blogs and being sent to me in email. There are reports in upcoming magazines. And as far as I know, nobody has been visited by the US Secret Service yet. I spent half an hour on the phone with HP. I filed a technical support request about the yellow dots and had to speak with the engineer for a while before I was able to convince him that this was definitely not a malfunctioning printer. He checked out seeingyellow.com while on the phone with me and seemed to be genuinely shocked and concerned. He said he would talk to the other technical support people in the color laser group and would write up a report to send up the chain of command. I even had him promise not to turn me into the Secret Service. Please, lets keep the calls coming! We really are making a difference. Another thing people might do is call laser printer manufacturers before they buy a printer and talk to sales representatives. Demand an assurance that the printer they sell you will not surreptitiously print intentionally identifiable information. Explain that you will buy from the first printer manufacturer who can give you such an assurance. So far, no company has. I was thinking about how it was slightly funny that Brother prints tracking dots in their color laser printers. One might say that tracking dots are courtesy of Big Brother, and Big HP, and Big Toshiba, and Big Xerox, and all the other big printer color laser printer manufacturers.

Ahaha, no sorry, no 2.0 features for rebuildd yet. I'm a bit lazy about implementing the Web interface, The problem is that everything is quite ready for it as you can see on demo server, but I can't convince myself to do HTML. I'm bad and even using mako templates and looking on different Python Web frameworks can't help me. I can't bear doing HTML pages, I don't know how to do clean things with CSS. And I don't want to learn. A friend pointed me to Paste which should do a lot of things for me, but I'm too lazy to try to read this. Actually, everything on the job-management side is quite ok. I'm just lacking of a Web interface to have a nicer overview of what's going on. Anyway, I still like to do useless coding on client eye candy: By the way, any help would be welcome.

At the risk of seeming a self-aggrandizing, I wanted to point folks to a nice biographical profile that Linux.com is running about me upon my election my to the FSF board. I'm pretty honored, and excited, by the whole thing. The article talks a little bit about my road to free software and the FSF board in particular and about some of my ideas about the foundation and its work. There are three little footnotes I thought I would add to what I think is a great article:

• The phrase "rebel with rather too many causes" was a phrase originally directed at protest.net -- a event calendaring system for activists that I was briefly involved in over a summer during college. I like the phrase and use it frequently but I didn't want to take credit for it. Google indicates that it originates in NTK #53 I'm not at all surprised.

• My parents worked as doctors in Kenya, Papa New Guinea, and elsewhere before they had children. This probably doesn't matter to anyone else but they worked with an organization that was like MSF in that it was a humanitarian organization that sent physicians around the world but it was not actually MSF as the article states. I don't think MSF had grown beyond French doctors when my parents were practicing overseas.

• When LWN pointed to the article, and in the original was well, there a focus on some comments I make about non-profit organizations. Since in a context of talk about my political work I just want to clarify my comments in a little more depth here. I think that one problem that has stemmed form Open Source's emphasis on businesses and efficiency is that free/open source software people end up making arguments in business terms: you should use application X because it is more efficient and faster. For many of the folks who have built this whole movement though, and for most in the free software camp, it's about freedom, not efficiency. By targeting businesses, we encounter a skeptical audience. More importantly though, we end up making arguments that, while true, are not the ones that motivate us. I think that low-hanging fruit for free software activists might include groups that already support free software ideas of sharing and user empowerment and that are looking for ways to use free software already. Groups we don't need to be afraid about saying "freedom" around. Not so coincidentally, these are sometimes organizations that I have a lot in common with politically. But that's far from always the case. There's a big group of philosophically aligned organizations in the NGO/non-profit community and the problems keeping them away are often technical. This is good news, of course, since solving technical problems is the free software movement's core competency. This is something I've been thinking about for a long time: Debian-NP was one project I helped start that tried to address this issue. Now, many people involved in the FSF, including myself, have political convictions that go beyond software. I do not want these convictions, and my statements about philosophically aligned organization, to be interpreted as call for a political shift in the organization in mainstream political terms. I deeply respect the way that RMS has kept his political opinions separate from the Foundation's. Biella and I have ever written about the importance of this political demarcation to free software's success. It's certainly not something I would want to change.

You may have heard some of the noise that EFF was making a year so ago about the tracking dots hidden in documents by color laser printers. A number of people contacted their printer manufacturers to ask how to turn the "feature" off. At least one person (who has, understandably I think, expressed interest in remaining anonymous) was subsequently visited by the United States Secret Service who asked him questions about why he wanted to turn off the tracking dots in his printer. I've put up a little website with some others in my research group at MIT that tries to organize individuals to call into their printer manufacturers and demand that the feature is turned off. If many people call, the government won't be able to visit us all. We've made a long list of technical support contacts to help with the process. Please call your printer manufacturer today and spread the word about the site so that more people call in. The site is called Seeing Yellow -- a reference to tiny yellow dots that make up the tracking code -- and its online at seeingyellow.com.

I announced the Official Ubuntu Book roughly a year ago. Several months ago, I wrote this in the preface of the second edition:

As we write this, it is one year since we penned the first edition of The Official Ubuntu Book. The last year has seen Ubuntu continue its explosive growth, and we feel blessed by the fact that The Official Ubuntu Book has been able to benefit from, and perhaps in a small even contribute to, that success.

It's an honor indeed. The first edition received almost universally good reviews and sold very well. Due to the book's success, most of the group that brought out the first edition (plus a few others) reunited to update the text for Ubuntu 7.04 (Feisty Fawn). After months of hard word and waiting, printed copies of the Official Ubuntu Book Second Edition arrived in my office today! They should be shipping out of the online stores very soon. The new version is updated throughout to reflect changes in Ubuntu over the last two releases and to document new features and improvements. Trying to keep a book like this up to date is a great way to learn about just how fast moving Ubuntu is (answer: very). Meanwhile, Edubuntu has blossomed over the last year. Through the work of Peter Savage, we've included a new chapter that deals with Edubuntu in depth. The book is bigger (almost 450 pages!), better, and more up-to-date. It provides a great introduction for those that are uninitiated to Ubuntu or to GNU/Linux and free software in general. We've tried to keep the price down (it is available for $27 plus shipping from most online stores) and should ship almost immediately. Best of all (at least to me), the whole book is released under a free culture license (CC BY-SA). The book is a major improvement on what was already a very solid piece of documentation. Everyone who contributed to the book (the list is too long to put up here) should feel proud. It was a lot of work but it shows. The opportunity to represent the Ubuntu community in this way, and to try to live up the distribution's high technical standard with the "official" branding, is a challenge and a reward that is worth the effort. You can order the book from Amazon or find it in any of many other sources.

Just a couple years ago, music and technology companies would advertise their DRM schemes. While these technologies only served to prevent users of computers and consumer electronics devices from doing things, the media and technologies companies tried to spin it positively. Think of all the wonderful media that the music, film, and publishing industries will be willing to distribute to you at the click of a button, they said. All they asked for in return is the keys to your computer and the legal right to attack and sue you if you try to take control. As everyone who purchased iTunes music and made the mistake of buying a non-Apple DAP incapable of reading Apple DRMed music knows, DRM is a bad deal for consumers. Users are always better off with an unencumbered media file. In all the excitement over major label content, some consumers didn't see this immediately. With time though, the inconvenience of a computer that does the Apple and the RIAA wants over what you want hit home. This, combined with activist projects like the FSF's Defective By Design, have turned the tide. The DRM label that used to be a badge of honor is now a stigma that smart companies are going out of their way to avoid. This past weekend, I saw this flier from Calabash Music in the crepe store across the street: The store served a general, non-technical audience. DRM-FREE, it turns out, is a good way to sell music. Not just to geeks but to any consumer who has been stymied unfairly by DRM or knows someone who has. That, it turns out, is a whole lot people. Consumers know what DRM is and they know don't like it. As consumers learn more about DRM, they want to avoid it. Seeing this, the companies that produce DRM are looking for ways to escape. The Apple/EMI deal seems to be an attempt to protect market share that the use of DRM is threatening. Others, like HBO's Bob Zitter, are disingenuously attempting to escape the stigma of DRM by simply rebranding the technology. Of course, DRM suffers from a much more fundemental problem than bad branding. The problem with DRM is that consumers don't like what it does and are only sometimes willing to suffer through it when not given the choice. Increasingly often, as with in the example of the flier I found, consumers have a choice. Things don't look good for DRM. For DRM opponents, the self-defeating nature of the technology is our greatest ally.

I once saw a vending machine in Japan with a 200ml Coca-Cola, a 300ml Coca-Cola, a 500ml Coca-Cola and a 800ml Coca-Cola. Each one cost 120. I was perplexed. I couldn't imagine paying 120 for 200ml of something when they could get more (four times more!) of the same stuff for the same price from the same place. Just then, I looked over at Mika at the next vending machine. She was buying a 200ml Coke. "Why are you buying the 200ml one " I inquired, shocked. "You could have 800ml for the same price!" Mika thought for a second and replied, "I only want 200ml of Coke." I just posted a short review of a slightly related study on the Science That Matters blog.

I am finally catching up with the remarkably thick goulash of email and blogs entries that comes from traveling for well over a month and today I read one in particular When is Open Source not Open Source? that captivated my interest for it compellingly addresses the dangers that follow from diluting, or one might say hijacking, the term open source. When people learn that I study “free software” one of the most common questions I get asked is: why did I chose free software over open source? The answer is quite simple: given that the bread and butter of my research covers ethics, freedom, and liberalism, free software is the obvious path to follow, yet I also feel like a lot of my work is still relevant to the open source camp because of the affinities between the two. I have long maintained that the ideological gulf between open source and free software is not so great nor impassable, but more modest. As most know, both share a certain strong commitment to access and in a strict technical sense they refer to the same set of licenses. Philosophically there is agreement that openness and, especially, non-discrimination are essential for the quality of software and often by close extension, the vibrancy of community responsible for the software. Of course, when pontificating the ramifications and implications of openness, they do part company and enter into different territories. Free software tends to flag rights and freedoms, while open source meanders into a discussion of markets, business, and competition and in this regard they do craft different visions of the social world and human behavior, etc. But the case that Karl Fogel writes about, where OSI is strongly opposing the use of the term open source for licenses that don’t adhere to the definition demonstrates where the two positions join. As Michael Tiemann from the OSI succinctly put it:

The FSF may have got the orthodoxy wrong, and the OSI may have got the interpretation wrong, but we both agree that prohibition of commercial use without special permission is antithetical to both positions.

There is a unmistakable kernel of agreement and it is great to see the OSI taking such a strong stance in this regard. Now, David Richard’s response, who seeks, I think, to essentially dilute the term open source, is as (or perhaps even more) fascinating for in a nut shell, and using a lot of florid religious imagery, it accuses the OSI of being too rigid! In his own words:

I believe the OSI has a wonderful opportunity to continue being relevant and helping to lead the movement forward. If, however, y’all choose to define your denomination of this religion in a way that we don’t fit in, that’s fine. No hard feelings. It’s your choice. You’ll ultimately be excluding a large congregation and we for one will continue trying to build a church made up of others like ourselves.

In response, I would say that the goal of F/OSS is not to be inclusive of anyone who wants to release bits of source code, but to create the conditions under which software, as it has been defined by the community, can be created. Join the church if you would like to make free/open source software as defined and you can go elsewhere (i.e., create a different term) if you are creating something different, even if it is only slightly different. Integrity matters. And again inclusiveness, if it comes at the expense of the main goal, is not a boon but a danger to F/OSS. The OSI will remain relevant by halting the dilution of the term OSI, not by expanding the definition so that it is left with no substance. And in contradistinction to what David Richard maintains, however, there is a great degree of flexibility within this domain but it does not lie in the strict definition of F/OSS but in the realm of interpretation. You are also free, as Mako and I have argued elsewhere to interpret the significance of F/OSS in multiple ways. And I think this is where the political strength of free software lies. There is interplay between a well-defined goal (in this case for creating free software) and a more flexible realm of interpreting the significance of these technical practice. And we wold lose and I might add, a lot if we became flexible about the strict definition of F/OSS and inflexible about its political significance. I get irked with folks like David Richards who would like to bend open source rules to meet their (often commercial) interests and I find it pretty na ve when folks say the political significance of F/OSS is just x (or worse should be x) for in reality its political significance lies in the fact that it has spawned multiple types of political and economic projects. And there is something almost playfully ironic, (or at least it makes me smile) in this fact. Though there is strict definition contained withing F/OSS, this strictness has, at least to some extent, encouraged by an extreme and very healthy form of political proliferation and promiscuity. More than anyone else I know, Mako has most passionately and thoughtfully argued for the importance of what I would call political clarity and integrity. That is, the importance of having a well articulated definition for social movements, for they act, as he says a rallying point to realize a social movement. Urging the Creative Commons to learn from F/OSS and dare to simultaneously narrow and more clearly define their goals, he states it quite nicely in the following terms:

Free software advocates have been able to use the free software definition as the rallying point for a powerful social movement. Free software, like the concept of freedom in any freedom movement, is something that one can demand, something that one can protest for, and something that one can work toward. Working toward these goals, free and open source software movements have created the GNU/Linux operating system and billions of lines of freely available computer code.

In essence, a definition that people can abide by, respect, and perhaps eventually cherish is the condition of possibility to make working political code. And given how hard it is to make social change happen (at least in comparison to build computer code), we should learn from what F/OSS has to offer. And at the same time there is another lesson embedded in F/OSS. The Free Software Definition is well defined; but it must be emphasized, narrowly so. It does not try to do everything and have everyone pledge allegiance to an inordinately complex set of commitments. Clarity, narrowness, and well-defined goals –> these three attributes have powered it far and wide and I hope it remains so. Now, since the term open source is not trademarked, we are left with the problem of how to challenge the current hijacking of the term. For the solution, I will leave you with Karl Fogel, who I think proposes a good solution:

Note that the OSI s objection is not to the Zimbra license per se. The objection is just to Zimbra s calling that license open source . They can use any license they want, but they shouldn t call it open source unless it actually is. Freedom is freedom, and no amount of spin will change that. So what should we do about this? The term open source isn t trademarked. Years ago, the OSI tried to register it, but it was apparently too generic. …But there is public opinion. What Danese and Michael are proposing doing is organizing a lot of open source developers (and I mean open source according to the traditional definition, the one the OSI and I and most other open source developers I know adhere to) to stand up and, basically, say All of us agree on what the definition of open source is, and we reject as non-open source any license that does not comply with the letter and spirit of the Open Source Definition.

Secret Identity From now on, I'll be (also) known as zack@member.fsf.org, (not so) secret agent #5507. Go Mako, go: I'm really happy to see you there. /me hoping in a better future.

According to the advertisements (and Wikipedia), the film Live Free or Die Hard is being marked as Die Hard 4.0 outside of North America. This is too many significant digits.

When I was 12 years old, I discovered free software. That discovery changed my life and I've never recovered. Over what is now more than half of my life, I have looked to the Free Software Foundation for vision, guidance, and an example of a free world and I have rarely been disappointed. The list of directors of the FSF -- Richard Stallman, Eben Moglen, Lawrence Lessig, Henri Poole, Jerry Sussman, Hal Abelson, and Geoffrey Knauth -- doubles as a list of some of my greatest heroes and role models. As such, I lack the words to describe how it feels that, just yesterday, I was elected to the board of directors of the Free Software Foundation. With Moglen having stepped down I have staggeringly large shoes to fill. I'm more than a little intimidated. At 26 years old, I suspect that I'll be the youngest person on the board by quite a bit. This means I'll have to try and make up with hard work and passion what I lack in experience and wisdom. It's a challenge I look forward to. With free software becoming increasingly successful and widespread, we've already begun to see push back. I suspect that in the next years, we'll see much more. We reaching the dangerous part of the, "first they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" progression. I'll do what I can to defend freedom until we've won. In order to ensure that I have the time necessary, I'm going to be resigning from the board of Software Freedom International and will consider reducing and resigning some of my other commitments as well. If you want to support my work with the foundation, you can become an associate member.

At the Free Culture National Conference a few weeks ago, Kevin Driscoll initiated a project that I feel is hugely important: he's prompted the free culture community to state and share their vision. While I've talked a lot about definitions in the past, I probably should have been talking about goals or vision. Kevin has created an important opportunity for all free culture stakeholders to step back and imagine what the world will look like when we win. By doing so, we end up defining a set of implicit goals for our social movement and can then set to work on the hard part: figuring out how we get there. With thanks to Eben Moglen for much of the inspiration, here's mine:

People remembered that there is no scarcity in information goods except where they have created it. As evidence grew of the positive effects of free culture and the toll of information ownership, our communities decided that we were not well served by limits on the flow and development of knowledge. Accordingly, the gatekeepers and tax collectors for culture have withered away and were dismantled. We -- the consumers, creators, and re-creators -- have offered new, more ethical business models, have engaged in new methods of distribution, and have produced creative goods. Today, access to information is a simple matter of connecting someone to a network and a community: a technical problem that we know how to solve. Nobody pays for the "right" to hear music, read a book, watch a movie, or use a piece of software. Nobody is forced to choose between being a bad neighbor or friend and breaking copyright law. No artist, musician, or author sells a million copies of anything and no artist, musician, or author has a day job.

Now it's your turn. Eben Moglen tell us to not stop until we're free. Let's paint a picture of what that free world looks like. Most importantly, let's challenge ourselves to find ways to make it possible.

I'm off on a short European tour for the next weeks -- in all likelihood my only trip to Europe this summer. I'll be visiting three conferences where I have planned talks. These include:

• The iCommons iSummit (essentially, the Creative Commons conference). I'll be talking about philosophy of free culture movement and continuing my pitch for a set of goals for free culture and the Definition of Free Cultural Works. I'll be in Dubrovnik Croatia between 14-18 June and will be giving a talk 16 June.
• After missing last year -- my first absence since DebConf 1 -- I'll be at DebConf 7, this years instance of the annual Debian Conference. I'll be giving a an overview of academic work on Debian on 21 June and facilitating a round-table discussion among Debian derivatives on 22 June. I'll be in Edinburgh for the shin-dig between 18-23 June.
• For 26-28 June, I'll be a guest of Eric von Hippel in Copenhagen for a small meeting/workshop of people interested in and working on issues around von Hippel's idea of, user innovation -- an area of research I am seriously considering pursuing full time next year.

Between 23-26 June, I'll be traveling through the UK from Edinburgh. I have tentative stops planned for a variety of places along the way including Manchester, Cambridge, and London. I suppose there will be pub nights or something similar in each place. Get in contact if you want to meet up along the way.

When Mika gave me a haircut a couple days ago, I was a little concerned she might give me a bad haircut. I realized I was worried because bad haircuts have become cool and I was afraid of looking hip.

I appreciate the appropriate, if not entirely intuitive, juxtaposition of items in aisle 7F of my local drug store.

Harvard Free Culture is helping to organize this years' National Free Culture Conference -- the meeting for North American Free Culture student groups. The whole shindig is planned for May 26, 2007 at Harvard University here in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The schedule is solidifying and I will presenting and arguing for adoption or support of the Free Cultural Works Definition within the FC student movement and probably also be talking about community building and advocacy in some free software groups I've worked with. Housing is available and the event is open to the public. If you d like to attend, speak, or help out with the conference, please email freeculture@hcs.harvard.edu or check out the Facebook event. If you're on the fence about attending, you can read this glowing endorsement of the conference by high protectionist James DeLong at IP Central.

As I mentioned previously, I was graciously given the opportunity to speak the crowd at the Free Software Foundation's Members Meeting in March about some of my work and activism around Free Culture. In front of what was probably the friendliest audience possible, I compared the free software and free culture movements and explained why I think that free culture movement may be off track -- and, of course, what we as a community might be able to do about it. If you listen to it, please try to forgive my faults as a speaker. The message I tried to convey is what I think is one the most important tactical issues facing free culture. If this talk dwells a little too long on free software and the lessons we might take from that world, please consider my audience. You can listen to the talk here:

• Talk (OGG Vorbis or MP3)
• Q&A (OGG Vorbis or MP3)

When I saw the first mutilated Tickle-Me-Elmo, I thought it was slightly funny and worth a quick picture with the camera -- but I didn't give it much thought. Now that it's becoming a trend, I'm beginning to get a little worried.