Search Results: "bradley"

20 December 2023

Russell Coker: Abuse and Free Software

People in positions of power can get away with mistreating other people. For any organisation to operate effectively there have to be mechanisms to address bad behaviour, both to help the organisation to achieve it s goals and to protect people who work for it. When an organisation operates in the public interest there is a greater reason to try to prevent bad behaviour as hurting people is not in the public interest. There are many forms of power, in the free software community a reputation for doing good technical work or work related to supporting software development gives some power and influence. We have seen examples of technical contributions used to excuse mistreatment of other people. The latest example of using a professional reputation to cover for abuse is Eben Moglen who has done some good legal work in the past while also treating members of the community badly (as documented by Matthew Garrett) [1]. Matthew has also documented how since 2016 Eben has not been doing good work for the free software community [2]. When news comes out about people who did good work while abusing other people they are usually defended with claims such as we can t lose the great contributions of this one person so it s worth losing the contributions of everyone who can t work with them , but in such situations it s very common to discover that they haven t been doing great work. This might be partly due to abusive people being better at self-promoting than actually doing good work and might be partly due to the fact that people who are afraid to speak out when they are doing good work might suddenly feel ready to go public if the person s work (defence) is decreasing. Bradley Kuhn s article about this situation is worth reading [3]. I don t have as much knowledge of the people involved in these disputes as Matthew, but I know enough about what is happening to be confident that Matthew s summary is accurate.

23 March 2021

Sean Whitton: rmsopenletter

I was shocked to learn today that Richard Stallman has been reinstated as a member of the board of the Free Software Foundation. I think this is plain inappropriate, but I cannot see how anyone who doesn t think that could fail to see the reinstatement as counterproductive. As Bradley M. Kuhn put it,
The question is whether an organization should have a designated leader who is on a sustained, public campaign advocating about an unrelated issue that many consider controversial. It really doesn t matter what your view about the controversial issue is; a leader who refuses to stop talking loudly about unrelated issues eventually creates an untenable distraction from the radical activism you re actively trying to advance. The message of universal software freedom is a radical cause; it s basically impossible for one individual to effectively push forward two unrelated controversial agendas at once. In short, the radical message of software freedom became overshadowed by RMS radical views about sexual morality.
There is an open letter calling for the removal of the entire Board of the Free Software Foundation in response. I haven t signed the letter because the Free Software Foundation Board s vote to reinstate Stallman was not unanimous, so the call to remove all of them does not make sense to me. I agree with the open letter s call to remove Stallman from other positions of leadership. I hope that this whole situation can be resolved quickly.

6 March 2020

Reproducible Builds: Reproducible Builds in February 2020

Welcome to the February 2020 report from the Reproducible Builds project. One of the original promises of open source software is that distributed peer review and transparency of process results in enhanced end-user security. However, whilst anyone may inspect the source code of free and open source software for malicious flaws, almost all software today is distributed as pre-compiled binaries. This allows nefarious third-parties to compromise systems by injecting malicious code into ostensibly secure software during the various compilation and distribution processes. The motivation behind the reproducible builds effort is to provide the ability to demonstrate these binaries originated from a particular, trusted, source release: if identical results are generated from a given source in all circumstances, reproducible builds provides the means for multiple third-parties to reach a consensus on whether a build was compromised via distributed checksum validation or some other scheme. In this month s report, we cover:

If you are interested in contributing to the project, please visit our Contribute page on our website.

Media coverage & upstream news Omar Navarro Leija, a PhD student at the University Of Pennsylvania, published a paper entitled Reproducible Containers that describes in detail the workings of a new user-space container tool called DetTrace:
All computation that occurs inside a DetTrace container is a pure function of the initial filesystem state of the container. Reproducible containers can be used for a variety of purposes, including replication for fault-tolerance, reproducible software builds and reproducible data analytics. We use DetTrace to achieve, in an automatic fashion, reproducibility for 12,130 Debian package builds, containing over 800 million lines of code, as well as bioinformatics and machine learning workflows.
There was also considerable discussion on our mailing list regarding this research and a presentation based on the paper will occur at the ASPLOS 2020 conference between March 16th 20th in Lausanne, Switzerland. The many virtues of Reproducible Builds were touted as benefits for software compliance in a talk at FOSDEM 2020, debating whether the Careful Inventory of Licensing Bill of Materials Have Impact of FOSS License Compliance which pitted Jeff McAffer and Carol Smith against Bradley Kuhn and Max Sills. (~47 minutes in). Nobuyoshi Nakada updated the canonical implementation of the Ruby programming language a change such that filesystem globs (ie. calls to list the contents of filesystem directories) will henceforth be sorted in ascending order. Without this change, the underlying nondeterministic ordering of the filesystem is exposed to the language which often results in an unreproducible build. Vagrant Cascadian reported on our mailing list regarding a quick reproducible test for the GNU Guix distribution, which resulted in 81.9% of packages registering as reproducible in his installation:
$ guix challenge --verbose --diff=diffoscope ...
2,463 store items were analyzed:
  - 2,016 (81.9%) were identical
  - 37 (1.5%) differed
  - 410 (16.6%) were inconclusive
Jeremiah Orians announced on our mailing list the release of a number of tools related to cross-compilation such as M2-Planet and mescc-tools-seed. This project attemps a full bootstrap of a cross-platform compiler for the C programming language (written in C itself) from hex, the ultimate goal being able to demonstrate fully-bootstrapped compiler from hex to the GCC GNU Compiler Collection. This has many implications in and around Ken Thompson s Trusting Trust attack outlined in Thompson s 1983 Turing Award Lecture. Twitter user @TheYoctoJester posted an executive summary of reproducible builds in the Yocto Project: Finally, Reddit user tofflos posted to the /r/Java subreddit asking about how to achieve reproducible builds with Maven and Chris Lamb noticed that the Linux kernel documentation about reproducible builds of it is available on the kernel.org homepages in an attractive HTML format.

Distribution work

Debian Chris Lamb created a merge request for the core debian-installer package to allow all arguments and options from sources.list files (such as [check-valid-until=no] , etc.) in order that we can test the reproducibility of the installer images on the Reproducible Builds own testing infrastructure. (#13) Thorsten Glaser followed-up to a bug filed against the dpkg-source component that was originally filed in late 2015 that claims that the build tool does not respect permissions when unpacking tarballs if the umask is set to 0002. Matthew Garrett posted to the debian-devel mailing list on the topic of Producing verifiable initramfs images as part of a wider conversation on being able to trust the entire software stack on our computers. 59 reviews of Debian packages were added, 30 were updated and 42 were removed this month adding to our knowledge about identified issues. Many issue types were noticed and categorised by Chris Lamb, including:

openSUSE In openSUSE, Bernhard M. Wiedemann published his monthly Reproducible Builds status update as well as provided the following patches:

Software development

diffoscope diffoscope is our in-depth and content-aware diff-like utility that can locate and diagnose reproducibility issues. It is run countless times a day on our testing infrastructure and is essential for identifying fixes and causes of nondeterministic behaviour. Chris Lamb made the following changes this month, including uploading version 137 to Debian:
  • The sng image utility appears to return with an exit code of 1 if there are even minor errors in the file. (#950806)
  • Also extract classes2.dex, classes3.dex from .apk files extracted by apktool. (#88)
  • No need to use str.format if we are just returning the string. [ ]
  • Add generalised support for ignoring returncodes [ ] and move special-casing of returncodes in zip to use Command.VALID_RETURNCODES. [ ]

Other tools disorderfs is our FUSE-based filesystem that deliberately introduces non-determinism into directory system calls in order to flush out reproducibility issues. This month, Vagrant Cascadian updated the Vcs-Git to specify the debian packaging branch. [ ] reprotest is our end-user tool to build same source code twice in widely differing environments and then checks the binaries produced by each build for any differences. This month, versions 0.7.13 and 0.7.14 were uploaded to Debian unstable by Holger Levsen after Vagrant Cascadian added support for GNU Guix [ ].

Project documentation & website There was more work performed on our documentation and website this month. Bernhard M. Wiedemann added a Java Gradle Build Tool snippet to the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH documentation [ ] and normalised various terms to unreproducible [ ]. Chris Lamb added a Meson.build example [ ] and improved the documentation for the CMake [ ] to the SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH documentation, replaced anyone can with anyone may as, well, not everyone has the resources, skills, time or funding to actually do what it refers to [ ] and improved the pre-processing for our report generation [ ][ ][ ][ ] etc. In addition, Holger Levsen updated our news page to improve the list of reports [ ], added an explicit mention of the weekly news time span [ ] and reverted sorting of news entries to have latest on top [ ] and Mattia Rizzolo added Codethink as a non-fiscal sponsor [ ] and lastly Tianon Gravi added a Docker Images link underneath the Debian project on our Projects page [ ].

Upstream patches The Reproducible Builds project detects, dissects and attempts to fix as many currently-unreproducible packages as possible. We endeavour to send all of our patches upstream where appropriate. This month, we wrote a large number of such patches, including: Vagrant Cascadian submitted patches via the Debian bug tracking system targeting the packages the Civil Infrastructure Platform has identified via the CIP and CIP build depends package sets:

Testing framework We operate a fully-featured and comprehensive Jenkins-based testing framework that powers tests.reproducible-builds.org. This month, the following changes were made by Holger Levsen: In addition, Mattia Rizzolo added an Apache web server redirect for buildinfos.debian.net [ ] and reverted the reshuffling of arm64 architecture builders [ ]. The usual build node maintenance was performed by Holger Levsen, Mattia Rizzolo [ ][ ] and Vagrant Cascadian.

Getting in touch If you are interested in contributing to the Reproducible Builds project, please visit our Contribute page on our website. However, you can get in touch with us via:

This month s report was written by Bernhard M. Wiedemann, Chris Lamb and Holger Levsen. It was subsequently reviewed by a bunch of Reproducible Builds folks on IRC and the mailing list.

10 November 2017

Thadeu Lima de Souza Cascardo: Software Freedom Strategy with Community Projects

It's been some time since I last wrote. Life and work have been busy. At the same time, the world has been busy, and as I would love to write a larger post, I will try to be short here. I would love to touch on the Librem 5 and postmarketOS. In fact, I had, in a podcast in Portuguese, Papo Livre. Maybe, I'll touch a little on the latter. Some of the inspiration for this post include: All of those led me to understand how software freedom is under attack, in particular how copyleft in under attack. And, as I talked during FISL, though many might say that "Open Source has won", end users software freedom has not. Lots of companies have co-opted "free software" but give no software freedom to their users. They seem friends with free software, and they are. Because they want software to be free. But freedom should not be a value for software itself, it needs to be a value for people, not only companies or people who are labeled software developers, but all people. That's why I want to stop talking about free software, and talk more about software freedom. Because I believe the latter is more clear about what we are talking about. I don't mind that we use whatever label, as long as we stablish its meaning during conversations, and set the tone to distinguish them. The thing is: free software does not software freedom make. Not by itself. As Bradley Kuhn puts it: it's not magic pixie dust. Those who have known me for years might remember me as a person who studied free software licenses and how I valued copyleft, the GPL specifically, and how I concerned myself with topics like license compatibility and other licensing matters. Others might remember me as a person who valued a lot about upstreaming code. Not carrying changes to software openly developed that you had not made an effort to put upstream. I can't say I was wrong on both accounts. I still believe in those things. I still believe in the importance of copyleft and the GPL. I still value sharing your code in the commons by going upstream. But I was certaily wrong in valuing them too much. Or not giving as much or even more value to distribution efforts of getting software freedom to the users. And it took me a while in seeing how many people also saw the GPL as a tool to get code upstream. You see that a lot in Linus' discourse about the GPL. And that is on the minds of a lot of people, who I have seen argue that copyleft is not necessary for companies to contribute code back. But that's the problem. The point is not about getting code upstream. But about assuring people have the freedom to run a modified version of the software they received on their computers. It turns out that many examples of companies who had contributed code upstream, have not delivered that freedom to their end-users, who had received a modified version of that same software, which is not free. Bradley Kuhn also alerts us that many companies have been replacing copyleft software with non-copyleft software. And I completely agree with him that we should be writing more copyleft software that we hold copyright for, so we can enforce it. But looking at what has been happening recently in the Linux community about enforcement, even thought I still believe in enforcement as an strategy, I think we need much more than that. And one of those strategies is delivering more free software that users may be able to install on their own computers. It's building those replacements for software that people have been using for any reason. Be it the OS they get when they buy a device, or the application they use for communication. It's not like the community is not doing it, it's just that we need to acknowledge that this is a necessary strategy to guarantee software freedom. That distribution of software that users may easily install on their computers is as much or even more valuable than developing software closer to the hacker/developer community. That doing downstream changes to free software in the effort of getting them to users is worth it. That maintaining that software stable and secure for users is a very important task. I may be biased when talking about that, as I have been shifting from doing upstream work to downstream work and both on the recent years. But maybe that's what I needed to realize that upstreaming does not necessarily guarantees that users will get software freedom. I believe we need to talk more about that. I have seen many people dear to me disregard that difference between the freedom of the user and the freedom of software. There is much more to talk about that, go into detail about some of those points, and I think we need to debate more. I am subscribed to the libreplanet-discuss mailing list. Come join us in discussing about software freedom there, if you want to comment on anything I brought up here. As I promised I would, I would like to mention about postmarketOS, which is an option users have now to get some software freedom on some mobile devices. It's an effort I wanted to build myself, and I applaud the community that has developed around it and has been moving forward so quickly. And it's a good example of a balance between upstream and dowstream code that gets to deliver a better level of software freedom to users than the vendor ever would. I wanted to write about much of the topics I brought up today, but postponed that for some time. I was motivated by recent events in the community, and I am really disappointed at some the free software players and some of the events that happened in the last few years. That got me into thinking in how we need to manifest ourselves about those issues, so people know how we feel. So here it is: I am disappointed at how the Linux Foundation handled the situation about Software Freedom Conversancy taking a case against VMWare; I am disappointed about how Software Freedom Law Center handled a trademark issue against the Software Freedom Conservancy; and I really appreciate all the work the Software Freedom Conservancy has been doing. I have supported them for the last two years, and I urge you to become a supporter too.

8 March 2017

Antoine Beaupr : An update to GitHub's terms of service

On February 28th, GitHub published a brand new version of its Terms of Service (ToS). While the first draft announced earlier in February didn't generate much reaction, the new ToS raised concerns that they may break at least the spirit, if not the letter, of certain free-software licenses. Digging in further reveals that the situation is probably not as dire as some had feared. The first person to raise the alarm was probably Thorsten Glaser, a Debian developer, who stated that the "new GitHub Terms of Service require removing many Open Source works from it". His concerns are mainly about section D of the document, in particular section D.4 which states:
You grant us and our legal successors the right to store and display your Content and make incidental copies as necessary to render the Website and provide the Service.
Section D.5 then goes on to say:
[...] You grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to access your Content through the GitHub Service, and to use, display and perform your Content, and to reproduce your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality

ToS versus GPL The concern here is that the ToS bypass the normal provisions of licenses like the GPL. Indeed, copyleft licenses are based on copyright law which forbid users from doing anything with the content unless they comply with the license, which forces, among other things, "share alike" properties. By granting GitHub and its users rights to reproduce content without explicitly respecting the original license, the ToS may allow users to bypass the copyleft nature of the license. Indeed, as Joey Hess, author of git-annex, explained :
The new TOS is potentially very bad for copylefted Free Software. It potentially neuters it entirely, so GPL licensed software hosted on Github has an implicit BSD-like license
Hess has since removed all his content (mostly mirrors) from GitHub. Others disagree. In a well-reasoned blog post, Debian developer Jonathan McDowell explained the rationale behind the changes:
My reading of the GitHub changes is that they are driven by a desire to ensure that GitHub are legally covered for the things they need to do with your code in order to run their service.
This seems like a fair point to make: GitHub needs to protect its own rights to operate the service. McDowell then goes on to do a detailed rebuttal of the arguments made by Glaser, arguing specifically that section D.5 "does not grant [...] additional rights to reproduce outside of GitHub". However, specific problems arise when we consider that GitHub is a private corporation that users have no control over. The "Services" defined in the ToS explicitly "refers to the applications, software, products, and services provided by GitHub". The term "Services" is therefore not limited to the current set of services. This loophole may actually give GitHub the right to bypass certain provisions of licenses used on GitHub. As Hess detailed in a later blog post:
If Github tomorrow starts providing say, an App Store service, that necessarily involves distribution of software to others, and they put my software in it, would that be allowed by this or not? If that hypothetical Github App Store doesn't sell apps, but licenses access to them for money, would that be allowed under this license that they want to my software?
However, when asked on IRC, Bradley M. Kuhn of the Software Freedom Conservancy explained that "ultimately, failure to comply with a copyleft license is a copyright infringement" and that the ToS do outline a process to deal with such infringement. Some lawyers have also publicly expressed their disagreement with Glaser's assessment, with Richard Fontana from Red Hat saying that the analysis is "basically wrong". It all comes down to the intent of the ToS, as Kuhn (who is not a lawyer) explained:
any license can be abused or misused for an intent other than its original intent. It's why it matters to get every little detail right, and I hope Github will do that.
He went even further and said that "we should assume the ambiguity in their ToS as it stands is favorable to Free Software". The ToS are in effect since February 28th; users "can accept them by clicking the broadcast announcement on your dashboard or by continuing to use GitHub". The immediacy of the change is one of the reasons why certain people are rushing to remove content from GitHub: there are concerns that continuing to use the service may be interpreted as consent to bypass those licenses. Hess even hosted a separate copy of the ToS [PDF] for people to be able to read the document without implicitly consenting. It is, however, unclear how a user should remove their content from the GitHub servers without actually agreeing to the new ToS.

CLAs When I read the first draft, I initially thought there would be concerns about the mandatory Contributor License Agreement (CLA) in section D.5 of the draft:
[...] unless there is a Contributor License Agreement to the contrary, whenever you make a contribution to a repository containing notice of a license, you license your contribution under the same terms, and agree that you have the right to license your contribution under those terms.
I was concerned this would establish the controversial practice of forcing CLAs on every GitHub user. I managed to find a post from a lawyer, Kyle E. Mitchell, who commented on the draft and, specifically, on the CLA. He outlined issues with wording and definition problems in that section of the draft. In particular, he noted that "contributor license agreement is not a legal term of art, but an industry term" and "is a bit fuzzy". This was clarified in the final draft, in section D.6, by removing the use of the CLA term and by explicitly mentioning the widely accepted norm for licenses: "inbound=outbound". So it seems that section D.6 is not really a problem: contributors do not need to necessarily delegate copyright ownership (as some CLAs require) when they make a contribution, unless otherwise noted by a repository-specific CLA. An interesting concern he raised, however, was with how GitHub conducted the drafting process. A blog post announced the change on February 7th with a link to a form to provide feedback until the 21st, with a publishing deadline of February 28th. This gave little time for lawyers and developers to review the document and comment on it. Users then had to basically accept whatever came out of the process as-is. Unlike every software project hosted on GitHub, the ToS document is not part of a Git repository people can propose changes to or even collaboratively discuss. While Mitchell acknowledges that "GitHub are within their rights to update their terms, within very broad limits, more or less however they like, whenever they like", he sets higher standards for GitHub than for other corporations, considering the community it serves and the spirit it represents. He described the process as:
[...] consistent with the value of CYA, which is real, but not with the output-improving virtues of open process, which is also real, and a great deal more pleasant.
Mitchell also explained that, because of its position, GitHub can have a major impact on the free-software world.
And as the current forum of preference for a great many developers, the knock-on effects of their decisions throw big weight. While GitHub have the wheel and they ve certainly earned it for now they can do real damage.
In particular, there have been some concerns that the ToS change may be an attempt to further the already diminishing adoption of the GPL for free-software projects; on GitHub, the GPL has been surpassed by the MIT license. But Kuhn believes that attitudes at GitHub have begun changing:
GitHub historically had an anti-copyleft culture, which was created in large part by their former and now ousted CEO, Preston-Warner. However, recently, I've seen people at GitHub truly reach out to me and others in the copyleft community to learn more and open their minds. I thus have a hard time believing that there was some anti-copyleft conspiracy in this ToS change.

GitHub response However, it seems that GitHub has actually been proactive in reaching out to the free software community. Kuhn noted that GitHub contacted the Conservancy to get its advice on the ToS changes. While he still thinks GitHub should fix the ambiguities quickly, he also noted that those issues "impact pretty much any non-trivial Open Source and Free Software license", not just copylefted material. When reached for comments, a GitHub spokesperson said:
While we are confident that these Terms serve the best needs of the community, we take our users' feedback very seriously and we are looking closely at ways to address their concerns.
Regardless, free-software enthusiasts have other concerns than the new ToS if they wish to use GitHub. First and foremost, most of the software running GitHub is proprietary, including the JavaScript served to your web browser. GitHub also created a centralized service out of a decentralized tool (Git). It has become the largest code hosting service in the world after only a few years and may well have become a single point of failure for free software collaboration in a way we have never seen before. Outages and policy changes at GitHub can have a major impact on not only the free-software world, but also the larger computing world that relies on its services for daily operation. There are now free-software alternatives to GitHub. GitLab.com, for example, does not seem to have similar licensing issues in its ToS and GitLab itself is free software, although based on the controversial open core business model. The GitLab hosting service still needs to get better than its grade of "C" in the GNU Ethical Repository Criteria Evaluations (and it is being worked on); other services like GitHub and SourceForge score an "F". In the end, all this controversy might have been avoided if GitHub was generally more open about the ToS development process and gave more time for feedback and reviews by the community. Terms of service are notorious for being confusing and something of a legal gray area, especially for end users who generally click through without reading them. We should probably applaud the efforts made by GitHub to make its own ToS document more readable and hope that, with time, it will address the community's concerns.
Note: this article first appeared in the Linux Weekly News.

28 January 2017

Bits from Debian: Debian at FOSDEM 2017

On February 4th and 5th, Debian will be attending FOSDEM 2017 in Brussels, Belgium; a yearly gratis event (no registration needed) run by volunteers from the Open Source and Free Software community. It's free, and it's big: more than 600 speakers, over 600 events, in 29 rooms. This year more than 45 current or past Debian contributors will speak at FOSDEM: Alexandre Viau, Bradley M. Kuhn, Daniel Pocock, Guus Sliepen, Johan Van de Wauw, John Sullivan, Josh Triplett, Julien Danjou, Keith Packard, Martin Pitt, Peter Van Eynde, Richard Hartmann, Sebastian Dr ge, Stefano Zacchiroli and Wouter Verhelst, among others. Similar to previous years, the event will be hosted at Universit libre de Bruxelles. Debian contributors and enthusiasts will be taking shifts at the Debian stand with gadgets, T-Shirts and swag. You can find us at stand number 4 in building K, 1 B; CoreOS Linux and PostgreSQL will be our neighbours. See https://wiki.debian.org/DebianEvents/be/2017/FOSDEM for more details. We are looking forward to meeting you all!

9 August 2016

Shirish Agarwal: Doha and the Supreme Court of DFSG Free

Hi, I am in two minds of what to write about Doha. My job has been vastly simplified by a friend when he shared with me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdrAd-44LW0 . That video is more relevant and more closer to the truth than whatever I can share. As can be seen it is funny but more sad the way Qatarians are trying to figure out how things will be and as can be seen it seems to heading towards a real estate bubble . They would have to let go of the Sharia if they are thinking of wealthy westerners coming to stay put. I am just sad to know that many of my country-men are stuck there and although I hope the best for them, I dread it may turn out the way it has turned out for many people of Indians, and especially from Kerala in Saudi Arabia. I would touch about the Kerala situation probably in another blog post as this time is exclusively for legal aspects which were discussed in Debconf. A bit of backgrounder here, one part of my family is lawyers which means I have somewhat notion of law as practiced in our land. As probably everybody knows, India was ruled by the British for around 150 odd years. One of the things that they gave while leaving was/is the IPC (Indian Penal Code) and is practiced with the common law concept. The concept means precedence of any judgement goes quite some way in framing rulings and law of the land as time goes on besides the lobbying and the politics which happens in any democracy. Free software would not have been there without the GPL The General Public License. And the license is as much a legal document as it s something that the developers can work without becoming deranged, as it is one of the more simpler licenses to work with. My own understanding of the legal, ethical and moral issues around me were framed by two-three different TV shows, books (fiction and non-fiction alike) apart from what little news I heard in family. One was M*A*S*H* (with Alan Alda and his frailness, anarchism, humanism, civil rights), the Practise and Boston Legal which does lay bare the many grey areas that lawyers have to deal with ( The Practice also influenced a lot of civil rights understanding and First amendment, but as it is a TV show, how much of it is actually practiced for lawyers and how much moral dilemma they are can only be guessed at.) . In books it is artists like John Grisham, Michael Connelly as well as Perry Mason Agatha Christie. In non-fiction look at the treasures under bombayhighcourt e-books corner and series of Hamlyn Lectures. I would have to warn that all of the above are major time-sinks but rewarding in their own way. Also haven t read all of them as time and interests are constrained but do know they are good for understanding bit of our history. I do crave for a meetup kind of scenario when non-lawyers can read and discuss about facets of law . All that understanding was vastly amplified by Groklaw.net which made non-lawyers at the very least be able to decipher and understand what is going on in the free software world. After PJ (Pamela Jones) closed it in 2013 due to total surveillance by the Free World (i.e. the United States of America, NSA) we have been thirsty. We do get occasionally somewhat mildly interesting articles in lwn.net or arstechnica.net but nowhere the sheer brilliance of groklaw. So, it was a sheer stroke of luck that I met Mr. Bradley M. Kuhn who works with Karen Sandler on Software Conservancy. While I wanted to be there for his presentation, it was just one of those days which doesn t go as planned. However, as we met socially and over e-mail there were two basic questions which I asked him which also imbibes why we need to fight for software freedom in the court of law. Below is a re-wording of what he shared . Q1. why do people think that GPL still needs to be challenged in the court of law while there are gpl-violations which has been more or less successfully defended in the court of law ? Bradley Kuhn the GPL violations is basically a violation of one or more clauses of the GPL license and not the GPL license as a whole and my effort during my lifetime would be to make/have such precedents that the GPL is held as a valid license in the court of law. Q2. Let s say IF GPL is held to be valid in the court of law, would FSF benefit monetarily, at least to my mind it might be so, as more people and comapnies could be convinced to use strong copyleft licenses such as GPLv3 or AGPLv3 . Bradley Kuhn It may or may not. It is possible that even after winning, that people and especially companies may go for weak copyleft licenses if it suits them. The only benefit would probably would be to those people who are already using GPLv3 as the law could be used to protect them as well. Although we would want and welcome companies who would use strong copyleft license such as the GPL, the future is in future and hence uncertain. Both possibilities co-exist. While Bradley didn t say it, I would add further here it probably would mean also moving from being a more offensive mode (which GPL-violations is based upon where a violation occurs and somebody either from the victim s side or a by-stander notices the violation, brings it to the notice of the victim and the GPL-volations team.) to perhaps it being defended by the DMCA people themselves, once GPL is held as a valid license in the eyes of law. Although should you use the DMCA or not is a matter of choice, personal belief system as well as your legal recourses. I have to share that the FSF and the GPL-violations team are probably very discerning when they take up the fight as most of the work done by them is pro-bono (i.e. they don t make a single penny/paisa from the work done therein.) and hence in view of scarce resources, it makes sense to go only for the biggest violators in the hopes that you can either make them agree to compensate and agree to the terms of license of any software/hardware combination or sue them and take a bigger share of the reward/compensation awarded by the Court to help the defendant and maybe some of the proceeds donated by the defendant and people like you and me to make sure that Conservancy and the GPL-violations team is still around to help the next time something similar happens.
Bradley Kuhn presenting at #Debconf 16

Bradley Kuhn presenting at #Debconf 16

Now, as far as his presentation is concerned, whose video can be seen at http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2016/debconf16/The_Supreme_Court_of_DFSGFree.webm , I thought it was tame. While he talked about gaming the system in some sense, he was sharing that the system debian-legal works (most-of-the-time). The list actually works because many far more brilliant people than me take time to understand the intricacies of various licenses and how they should be interpreted through the excellently written Debian Free Software Guidelines and whether the license under discussion contravenes the DFSG or is part of it. I do agree with his point though that the ftp-master/s and the team may not be the right person to judge the license in adherence to the DFSG, or her/is not giving a reason for rejecting a package to not entering into the package archive. I actually asked the same question on debian-legal and while I had guessed, it seems there is enough review of the licenses per-se as answer from Paul Wise shows. Charles Pessley also shared an idea he has documented which probably didn t get much traction as involves more work on DD s without any benefit to show for it. All in all I hope it sheds some light on why there is need to be more aware of law in software freedom. Two Organizations which work on software freedom from legal standpoint are SFLC (Delhi) headed by the charming Mr. Eben Moglen and ALF (Bangalore). I do hope more people, especially developers take a bit more interest in some of the resources mentioned above.
Filed under: Miscellenous Tagged: #Alternative Law Forum, #bombayhighcourt e-library, #Common Law, #Debconf16, #Fiction, #Hewlyn lectures, #India, #Jurispudence, #legal fiction, #real estate bubble, #SFLC.in, #Software Freedom, #timesink, Doha, Law

15 June 2016

Andrew Shadura: Migrate to systemd without a reboot

Yesterday I was fixing an issue with one of the servers behind kallithea-scm.org: the hook intended to propagage pushes from Our Own Kallithea to Bitbucket stopped working. Until yesterday, that server was using Debian s flavour of System V init and djb s d montools to keep things running. To make the hook asynchronous, I wrote a service to be managed to d montools, so that concurrency issued would be solved by it. However, I didn t implement any timeouts, so when last week wget froze while pulling Weblate s hook, there was nothing to interrupt it, so the hook stopped working since d montools thought it s already running and wouldn t re-trigger it. Killing wget helped, but I decided I need to do something with it to prevent the situation from happening in the future. I ve been using systemd at work for the last year, so I am now confident I m happier with systemd than with d montools, so I decided to switch the server to systemd. Not surprisingly, I prepared unit files in about 5 minutes without having to look into the manuals again, while with d montools I had to check things every time I needed to change something. The tricky thing was the switch itself. It is a virtual server, presumably running in Xen, and I don t have access to the console, so if I bork break something, I need to summon Bradley Kuhn or someone from Conservancy, who s kindly donated the server to the project. In any case, I decided to attempt to upgrade without a reboot, so that I have more options to roll back my changes in the case things go wrong. After studying the manpages of both systemd s init and sysvinit s init, I realised I can install systemd as /sbin/init and ask already running System V init to re-exec. However, systemd s init can t talk to System V init, so before installing systemd I made a backup on it. It s also important to stop all running services (except probably ssh) to make sure systemd doesn t start second instances of each. And then: /tmp/init u and we re running systemd! A couple of additional checks, and it s safe to reboot. Only when I did all that I realised that in the case of systemd not working I d probably not be able to undo my changes if my connection interrupted. So, even though at the end it worked, probably it s not a good idea to perform such manipulations when you don t have an alternative way to connect to the server :)

1 February 2016

Russ Allbery: Review: Oathblood

Review: Oathblood, by Mercedes Lackey
Series: Vows and Honor #3
Publisher: DAW
Copyright: April 1998
ISBN: 0-88677-773-9
Format: Mass market
Pages: 394
I have this story collection listed as the third book in the Vows and Honor series, but as mentioned in the review of The Oathbound, it's more complicated than that. This book has the first Tarma and Kethry story, which is not found in The Oathbound, and two of the better stories from that volume. This is probably the place to start for the series; you're not missing that much from the rest of that book. However, the last three stories ("Wings of Fire," "Spring Plowing at Forst Reach," and "Oathblood") have significant spoilers for Oathbreakers. Therefore, if you care about both avoiding spoilers and reading this series, my recommended reading order is to ignore The Oathbound entirely, read Oathblood up to but not including "Wings of Fire," read Oathbreakers, and then come back here for the last two stories. "Sword-sworn": This is the very first Tarma and Kethry story and hence where this series actually begins. As Lackey notes in her introduction, it's a pretty stock "rape and revenge" story, which is not something I particularly enjoy. Marion Zimmer Bradley liked it well enough to accept it anyway, and I can sort of see why: the dynamic between the two characters sparkles in a few places, and the Shin'a'in world-building isn't bad. The plot, though, is very predictable and not very notable. There isn't much here that you'd be surprised by if you'd read references to these events in later stories. And there's no explanation of a few things one might be curious about, such as where Need came from. (6) "Turnabout": This is one of the two stories also found in The Oathbound. Merchants are plagued by bandits who manage to see through ruses and always catch their guards by surprise (with a particularly nasty bit of rape and murder in one case Tarma and Kethry stories have quite a lot of that). That's enough to get the duo to take the job of luring out the bandits and dealing with them, using a nice bit of magical disguise. This story is also a song on one of the Vows and Honor albums from Firebird (which I also have). It was one of my favorites of Lackey's songs, so I want to like the story (and used to like it a great deal). Unfortunately, the very nasty bit of revenge that the supposed heroes take at the end of the story completely destroyed my enjoyment of it on re-reading. It's essentially a glorification of prison rape, which is a trope that I no longer have any patience for. (4) "The Making of a Legend": In order to explain the differences between the song based on "Turnabout" and the actual story, Lackey invented a bard, Leslac, who loves writing songs about Tarma and Kethry and regularly gets the details wrong, mostly by advertising them as moral crusaders for women instead of mercenaries who want to get paid, much to their deep annoyance. This is his debut in an actual story, featuring an incident that's delightfully contrary to Leslac's expectations. It's a slight story, but I thought it was fun. (6) "Keys": Another story from The Oathbound, this is a locked-room mystery with a bit of magical sleuthing. Kethry attempts to prove that a woman did not murder her husband while Tarma serves as her champion in a (rather broken) version of trial by combat. I think the version here is better than the edited version in The Oathbound, and it's a fairly enjoyable bit of sleuthing. (7) "A Woman's Weapon": I would call this the typical Tarma and Kethry story (except that, for a change, it's missing the rape): they stumble across some sort of serious injustice and put things to right with some hard thinking and a bit of poetic justice. In this case, it's a tannery that's poisoning the land, and a master tanner who can't put a stop to his rival. Competent although not particularly memorable. (6) "The Talisman": A rather depressing little story about a mage who wants shortcuts and a magic talisman that isn't what it appears to be. Not one of my favorites, in part because it has some common Tarma and Kethry problems: unnecessary death, a feeling that the world is very dangerous and that mistakes are fatal, and narrative presentation of the people who die from their stupidity as deserving it. I couldn't shake the feeling that there was probably some better way of resolving this if people had just communicated a bit better. (5) "A Tale of Heroes": Back to the rape, unfortunately, plus a bit of very convenient match-making that I found extremely dubious. For all that Lackey's introduction paints this as a story of empowering people to follow their own paths, the chambermaid of this story didn't seem to have many more choices in her life after meeting Tarma and Kethry than before, even if her physical situation was better. I did like the touch of Tarma and Kethry not being the heroes and victors in the significant magical problem they stumble across, though, and it's a warm-hearted story if you ignore the effects of trauma as much as the story ignores them. (6) "Friendly Fire": An amusing short story about the power of bad luck and Murphy's Law. It hit one of my pet peeves at one point, where Lackey tries to distort the words of someone with a cold and just makes the dialogue irritating to read, but otherwise a lot of fun. (7) "Wings of Fire": I love the Hawkbrothers, so it's always fun when they show up. The villain of this piece is way over the top and leaves much to be desired, but the guest-starring Hawkbrother mostly makes up for it. Once again, Tarma and Kethry get out of a tight spot by thinking harder instead of by having more power, although the villain makes that rather easy via overconfidence. Once again, though, the poetic justice that Lackey's protagonists enjoy leaves a bad taste in my mouth, although it's not quite as bad here as some other stories. (6) "Spring Planting at Forst Reach": On one level, this is a rather prosaic story about training horses (based on Lackey's experience and reading, so a bit better than typical fantasy horse stories). But it's set at Forst Reach, Vanyel's home, some years after Vanyel. I like those people and their gruff approach to life, and it meshes well with Tarma and Kethry's approach. If you enjoy the two showing off their skills and wowing people with new ideas, you'll have fun with this. (7) "Oathblood": As you might guess from the matching title, this novella is the heart of the book and about a quarter of its length. We get to see Kethry's kids, see more of their life in their second (post-Oathbreakers) career, and then get a rather good adventure story of resourceful and thoughtful youngsters, with a nice touch of immature but deeply-meant loyalty. I didn't enjoy it as much as I would have without one of the tactics the kids use to get out of trouble, but my dislike for reading about other people's bowel troubles is partly a personal quirk. This is a pretty typical Lackey story of resourcefulness and courage; if you like this series in general, you'll probably enjoy this one. (7) Rating: 7 out of 10

23 January 2016

Dirk Eddelbuettel: RcppCCTZ 0.0.3

Bradley White from the upstream CCTZ team prepared some more changes in CCTZ itself -- so a new RcppCCTZ version got to CRAN the other day catching up with these changes. CCTZ is a C++ library for translating between absolute and civil times using the rules of a time zone. It requires only a proper C++11 compiler and the standard IANA time zone data base which standard Unix, Linux, OS X, ... computers tend to have in /usr/share/zoneinfo. RcppCCTZ connects this library to R by relying on Rcpp. Changes in this version are summarized here:
Changes in version 0.0.3 (2016-01-17)
  • Synchronized with CCTZ upstream.
We also have a diff to the previous version thanks to CRANberries. More details, issue tickets etc at the GitHub repository.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. Please report excessive re-aggregation in third-party for-profit settings.

2 January 2016

Daniel Pocock: The great life of Ian Murdock and police brutality in context

Tributes: (You can Follow or Tweet about this blog on Twitter) Over the last week, people have been saying a lot about the wonderful life of Ian Murdock and his contributions to Debian and the world of free software. According to one news site, a San Francisco police officer, Grace Gatpandan, has been doing the opposite, starting a PR spin operation, leaking snippets of information about what may have happened during Ian's final 24 hours. Sadly, these things are now starting to be regurgitated without proper scrutiny by the mainstream press (note the erroneous reference to SFGate with link to SFBay.ca, this is British tabloid media at its best). The report talks about somebody (no suggestion that it was even Ian) "trying to break into a residence". Let's translate that from the spin-doctor-speak back to English: it is the silly season, when many people have a couple of extra drinks and do silly things like losing their keys. "a residence", or just their own home perhaps? Maybe some AirBNB guest arriving late to the irritation of annoyed neighbours? Doesn't the choice of words make the motive sound so much more sinister? Nobody knows the full story and nobody knows if this was Ian, so snippets of information like this are inappropriate, especially when somebody is deceased. Did they really mean to leave people with the impression that one of the greatest visionaries of the Linux world was also a cat burglar? That somebody who spent his life giving selflessly and generously for the benefit of the whole world (his legacy is far greater than Steve Jobs, as Debian comes with no strings attached) spends the Christmas weekend taking things from other people's houses in the dark of the night? The report doesn't mention any evidence of a break-in or any charges for breaking-in. If having a few drinks and losing your keys in December is such a sorry state to be in, many of us could potentially be framed in the same terms at some point in our lives. That is one of the reasons I feel so compelled to write this: somebody else could be going through exactly the same experience at the moment you are reading this. Any of us could end up facing an assault as unpleasant as the tweets imply at some point in the future. At least I can console myself that as a privileged white male, the risk to myself is much lower than for those with mental illness, the homeless, transgender, Muslim or black people but as the tweets suggest, it could be any of us. The story reports that officers didn't actually come across Ian breaking in to anything, they encountered him at a nearby street corner. If he had weapons or drugs or he was known to police that would have almost certainly been emphasized. Is it right to rush in and deprive somebody of their liberties without first giving them an opportunity to identify themselves and possibly confirm if they had a reason to be there? The report goes on, "he was belligerent", "he became violent", "banging his head" all by himself. How often do you see intelligent and successful people like Ian Murdock spontaneously harming themselves in that way? Can you find anything like that in any of the 4,390 Ian Murdock videos on YouTube? How much more frequently do you see reports that somebody "banged their head", all by themselves of course, during some encounter with law enforcement? Do police never make mistakes like other human beings? If any person was genuinely trying to spontaneously inflict a head injury on himself, as the police have suggested, why wouldn't the police leave them in the hospital or other suitable care? Do they really think that when people are displaying signs of self-harm, rounding them up and taking them to jail will be in their best interests? Now, I'm not suggesting this started out with some sort of conspiracy. Police may have been at the end of a long shift (and it is a disgrace that many US police are not paid for their overtime) or just had a rough experience with somebody far more sinister. On the other hand, there may have been a mistake, gaps in police training or an inappropriate use of a procedure that is not always justified, like a strip search, that causes profound suffering for many victims. A select number of US police forces have been shamed around the world for a series of incidents of extreme violence in recent times, including the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, shooting Walter Scott in the back, death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore and the attempts of Chicago's police to run an on-shore version of Guantanamo Bay. Beyond those highly violent incidents, the world has also seen the abuse of Ahmed Mohamed, the Muslim schoolboy arrested for his interest in electronics and in 2013, the suicide of Aaron Swartz which appears to be a direct consequence of the "Justice" department's obsession with him. What have the police learned from all this bad publicity? Are they changing their methods, or just hiring more spin doctors? If that is their response, then doesn't it leave them with a cruel advantage over those people who were deceased? Isn't it standard practice for some police to simply round up anybody who is a bit lost and write up a charge sheet for resisting arrest or assaulting an officer as insurance against questions about their own excessive use of force? When British police executed Jean Charles de Menezes on a crowded tube train and realized they had just done something incredibly outrageous, their PR office went to great lengths to try and protect their image, even photoshopping images of Menezes to make him look more like some other suspect in a wanted poster. To this day, they continue to refer to Menezes as a victim of the terrorists, could they be any more arrogant? While nobody believes the police woke up that morning thinking "let's kill some random guy on the tube", it is clear they made a mistake and like many people (not just police), they immediately prioritized protecting their reputation over protecting the truth. Nobody else knows exactly what Ian was doing and exactly what the police did to him. We may never know. However, any disparaging or irrelevant comments from the police should be viewed with some caution. The horrors of incarceration It would be hard for any of us to understand everything that an innocent person goes through when detained by the police. The recently released movie about The Stanford Prison Experiment may be an interesting place to start, a German version produced in 2001, Das Experiment, is also very highly respected. The United States has the largest prison population in the world and the second-highest per-capita incarceration rate. Many, including some on death row, are actually innocent, in the wrong place at the wrong time, without the funds to hire an attorney. The system, and the police and prison officers who operate it, treat these people as packages on a conveyor belt, without even the most basic human dignity. Whether their encounter lasts for just a few hours or decades, is it any surprise that something dies inside them when they discover this cruel side of American society? Worldwide, there is an increasing trend to make incarceration as degrading as possible. People may be innocent until proven guilty, but this hasn't stopped police in the UK from locking up and strip-searching over 4,500 children in a five year period, would these children go away feeling any different than if they had an encounter with Jimmy Saville or Rolf Harris? One can only wonder what they do to adults. What all this boils down to is that people shouldn't really be incarcerated unless it is clear the danger they pose to society is greater than the danger they may face in a prison. What can people do for Ian and for justice? Now that these unfortunate smears have appeared, it would be great to try and fill the Internet with stories of the great things Ian has done for the world. Write whatever you feel about Ian's work and your own experience of Debian. While the circumstances of the final tweets from his Twitter account are confusing, the tweets appear to be consistent with many other complaints about US law enforcement. Are there positive things that people can do in their community to help reduce the harm? Sending books to prisoners (the UK tried to ban this) can make a difference. Treat them like humans, even if the system doesn't. Recording incidents of police activities can also make a huge difference, such as the video of the shooting of Walter Scott or the UK police making a brutal unprovoked attack on a newspaper vendor. Don't just walk past a situation and assume everything is under control. People making recordings may find themselves in danger, it is recommended to use software that automatically duplicates each recording, preferably to the cloud, so that if the police ask you to delete such evidence, you can let them watch you delete it and still have a copy. Can anybody think of awards that Ian Murdock should be nominated for, either in free software, computing or engineering in general? Some, like the prestigious Queen Elizabeth Prize for Engineering can't be awarded posthumously but others may be within reach. Come and share your ideas on the debian-project mailing list, there are already some here. Best of all, Ian didn't just build software, he built an organization, Debian. Debian's principles have helped to unite many people from otherwise different backgrounds and carry on those principles even when Ian is no longer among us. Find out more, install it on your computer or even look for ways to participate in the project.

3 December 2015

Dirk Eddelbuettel: RcppCCTZ 0.0.2 -- now with Solaris support

Following on yesterday's announcement of RcppCCTZ, what is the only thing better than another date, time, or timezones library package? One that works on Solaris too :) Bradley White from CCTZ upstream spotted the failed compilation on the machine in Oxford and suggested a quick fix. Jeroen quickly tested what I had put into a branch, and there we have it: version 0.0.2 which now builds everywhere. Changes (for both releases) are summarized here:
Changes in version 0.0.2 (2015-12-02)
  • Additional #ifdef statements suggested by Bradley White in CCTZ ticket #5 permitting compilation on Solaris with thanks to Jeroen for testing our branch.
Changes in version 0.0.1 (2015-12-01)
  • Initial CRAN upload.
  • Package is functional and provides examples.
We now also have a diff to the previous version thanks to CRANberries. More details, issue tickets etc at the GitHub repository.

This post by Dirk Eddelbuettel originated on his Thinking inside the box blog. Please report excessive re-aggregation in third-party for-profit settings.

30 November 2015

Petter Reinholdtsen: The GNU General Public License is not magic pixie dust

A blog post from my fellow Debian developer Paul Wise titled "The GPL is not magic pixie dust" explain the importance of making sure the GPL is enforced. I quote the blog post from Paul in full here with his permission:
Become a Software Freedom Conservancy Supporter!
The GPL is not magic pixie dust. It does not work by itself.
The first step is to choose a copyleft license for your code.
The next step is, when someone fails to follow that copyleft license, it must be enforced
and its a simple fact of our modern society that such type of work
is incredibly expensive to do and incredibly difficult to do.
-- Bradley Kuhn, in FaiF episode 0x57 As the Debian Website used to imply, public domain and permissively licensed software can lead to the production of more proprietary software as people discover useful software, extend it and or incorporate it into their hardware or software products. Copyleft licenses such as the GNU GPL were created to close off this avenue to the production of proprietary software but such licenses are not enough. With the ongoing adoption of Free Software by individuals and groups, inevitably the community's expectations of license compliance are violated, usually out of ignorance of the way Free Software works, but not always. As Karen and Bradley explained in FaiF episode 0x57, copyleft is nothing if no-one is willing and able to stand up in court to protect it. The reality of today's world is that legal representation is expensive, difficult and time consuming. With gpl-violations.org in hiatus until some time in 2016, the Software Freedom Conservancy (a tax-exempt charity) is the major defender of the Linux project, Debian and other groups against GPL violations. In March the SFC supported a lawsuit by Christoph Hellwig against VMware for refusing to comply with the GPL in relation to their use of parts of the Linux kernel. Since then two of their sponsors pulled corporate funding and conferences blocked or cancelled their talks. As a result they have decided to rely less on corporate funding and more on the broad community of individuals who support Free Software and copyleft. So the SFC has launched a campaign to create a community of folks who stand up for copyleft and the GPL by supporting their work on promoting and supporting copyleft and Free Software. If you support Free Software, like what the SFC do, agree with their compliance principles, are happy about their successes in 2015, work on a project that is an SFC member and or just want to stand up for copyleft, please join Christopher Allan Webber, Carol Smith, Jono Bacon, myself and others in becoming a supporter. For the next week your donation will be matched by an anonymous donor. Please also consider asking your employer to match your donation or become a sponsor of SFC. Don't forget to spread the word about your support for SFC via email, your blog and or social media accounts.
I agree with Paul on this topic and just signed up as a Supporter of Software Freedom Conservancy myself. Perhaps you should be a supporter too?

27 November 2015

Paul Wise: The GPL is not magic pixie dust

Become a Software Freedom Conservancy Supporter!
The GPL is not magic pixie dust. It does not work by itself.
The first step is to choose a copyleft license for your code.
The next step is, when someone fails to follow that copyleft license, it must be enforced
and its a simple fact of our modern society that such type of work
is incredibly expensive to do and incredibly difficult to do.
-- Bradley Kuhn, in FaiF episode 0x57 As the Debian Website used to imply, public domain and permissively licensed software can lead to the production of more proprietary software as people discover useful software, extend it and or incorporate it into their hardware or software products. Copyleft licenses such as the GNU GPL were created to close off this avenue to the production of proprietary software but such licenses are not enough. With the ongoing adoption of Free Software by individuals and groups, inevitably the community's expectations of license compliance are violated, usually out of ignorance of the way Free Software works, but not always. As Karen and Bradley explained in FaiF episode 0x57, copyleft is nothing if no-one is willing and able to stand up in court to protect it. The reality of today's world is that legal representation is expensive, difficult and time consuming. With gpl-violations.org in hiatus until some time in 2016, the Software Freedom Conservancy (a tax-exempt charity) is the major defender of the Linux project, Debian and other groups against GPL violations. In March the SFC supported a lawsuit by Christoph Hellwig against VMware for refusing to comply with the GPL in relation to their use of parts of the Linux kernel. Since then two of their sponsors pulled corporate funding and conferences blocked or cancelled their talks. As a result they have decided to rely less on corporate funding and more on the broad community of individuals who support Free Software and copyleft. So the SFC has launched a campaign to create a community of folks who stand up for copyleft and the GPL by supporting their work on promoting and supporting copyleft and Free Software. If you support Free Software, like what the SFC do, agree with their compliance principles, are happy about their successes in 2015, work on a project that is an SFC member and or just want to stand up for copyleft, please join Christopher Allan Webber, Carol Smith, Jono Bacon, myself and others in becoming a supporter. For the next week your donation will be matched by an anonymous donor. Please also consider asking your employer to match your donation or become a sponsor of SFC. Don't forget to spread the word about your support for SFC via email, your blog and or social media accounts.

20 October 2015

Russ Allbery: Review: The Oathbound

Review: The Oathbound, by Mercedes Lackey
Series: Vows and Honor #1
Publisher: DAW
Copyright: July 1988
ISBN: 0-88677-414-4
Format: Mass market
Pages: 302
This book warrants a bit of explanation. Before Arrows of the Queen, before Valdemar (at least in terms of publication dates), came Tarma and Kethry short stories. I don't know if they were always intended to be set in the same world as Valdemar; if not, they were quickly included. But they came from another part of the world and a slightly different sub-genre. While the first two Valdemar trilogies were largely coming-of-age fantasy, Tarma and Kethry are itinerant sword-and-sorcery adventures featuring two women with a soul bond: the conventionally attractive, aristocratic mage Kethry, and the celibate, goddess-sworn swordswoman Tarma. Their first story was published, appropriately, in Marion Zimmer Bradley's Swords and Sorceress III. This is the first book about Tarma and Kethry. It's a fix-up novel: shorter stories, bridged and re-edited, and glued together with some additional material. And it does not contain the first Tarma and Kethry story. As mentioned in my earlier Valdemar reviews, this is a re-read, but it's been something like twenty years since I previously read the whole Valdemar corpus (as it was at the time; I'll probably re-read everything I have on hand, but it's grown considerably, and I may not chase down the rest of it). One of the things I'd forgotten is how oddly, from a novel reader's perspective, the Tarma and Kethry stories were collected. Knowing what I know now about publishing, I assume Swords and Sorceress III was still in print at the time The Oathbound was published, or the rights weren't available for some other reason, so their first story had to be omitted. Whatever the reason, The Oathbound starts with a jarring gap that's no less irritating in this re-read than it was originally. Also as is becoming typical for this series, I remembered a lot more world-building and character development than is actually present in at least this first book. In this case, I strongly suspect most of that characterization is in Oathbreakers, which I remember as being more of a coherent single story and less of a fix-up of puzzle and adventure stories with scant time for character growth. I'll be able to test my memory shortly. What we do get is Kethry's reconciliation of her past, a brief look at the Shin'a'in and the depth of Tarma and Kethry's mutual oath (unfortunately told more than shown), the introduction of Warrl (again, a relationship that will grow a great deal more depth later), and then some typical sword and sorcery episodes: a locked room mystery, a caravan guard adventure about which I'll have more to say later, and two rather unpleasant encounters with a demon. The material is bridged enough that it has a vague novel-like shape, but the bones of the underlying short stories are pretty obvious. One can tell this isn't really a novel even without the tell of a narrative recap in later chapters of events that you'd just read earlier in the same book. What we also get is rather a lot of rape, and one episode of seriously unpleasant "justice." A drawback of early Lackey is that her villains are pure evil. My not entirely trustworthy memory tells me that this moderates over time, but early stories tend to feature villains completely devoid of redeeming qualities. In this book alone one gets to choose between the rapist pedophile, the rapist lord, the rapist bandit, and the rapist demon who had been doing extensive research in Jack Chalker novels. You'll notice a theme. Most of the rape happens off camera, but I was still thoroughly sick of it by the end of the book. This was already a cliched motivation tactic when these stories were written. Worse, as with the end of Arrow's Flight, the protagonists don't seem to be above a bit of "turnabout is fair play." When you're dealing with rape as a primary plot motivation, that goes about as badly as you might expect. The final episode here involves a confrontation that Tarma and Kethry brought entirely on themselves through some rather despicable actions, and from which they should have taken a lesson about why civilized societies have criminal justice systems. Unfortunately, despite an ethical priest who is mostly played for mild amusement, no one in the book seems to have drawn that rather obvious conclusion. This, too, I recall as getting better as the series goes along and Lackey matures as a writer, but that only helps marginally with the early books. Some time after the publication of The Oathbound and Oathbreakers, something (presumably the rights situation) changed. Oathblood was published in 1998 and includes not only the first Tarma and Kethry story but also several of the short stories that make up this book, in (I assume) something closer to their original form. That makes The Oathbound somewhat pointless and entirely skippable. I re-read it first because that's how I first approached the series many years ago, and (to be honest) because I'd forgotten how much was reprinted in Oathblood. I'd advise a new reader to skip it entirely, start with the short stories in Oathblood, and then read Oathbreakers before reading the final novella. You'd miss the demon stories, but that's probably for the best. I'm complaining a lot about this book, but that's partly from familiarity. If you can stomach the rape and one stunningly unethical protagonist decision, the stories that make it up are solid and enjoyable, and the dynamic between Tarma and Kethry is always a lot of fun (and gets even better when Warrl is added to the mix). I think my favorite was the locked room mystery. It's significantly spoiled by knowing the ending, and it has little deeper significance, but it's a classic sort unembellished, unapologetic sword-and-sorcery tale that's hard to come by in books. But since it too is reprinted (in a better form) in Oathblood, there's no point in reading it here. Followed by Oathbreakers. Rating: 6 out of 10

16 August 2015

Ana Beatriz Guerrero Lopez: Debconf15 and happy birthday Debian!

Debconf15 started yesterday and as expected, talk rooms are always fully crowded! I had to stand up in a couple of talks and I watched another couple of them from outside thanks to the real time streaming. Thanks to the fantastic work of the video team, video recordings of the talks from yesterday have started to be available at http://meetings-archive.debian.net/pub/debian-meetings/2015/debconf15/.
I would heartily recommend you to watch Debian s Central Role in the Future of Software Freedom by Bradley M. Kuhn (video available).
I was expecting a good talk and Bradley exceeded my expectations. I also got to meet again Simon Kainz and to get my DUCK branded lighter from the duck challenge :) After dinner, we celebrated Debian s 22 birthday, that s exactly today. We had a wonderful cake made by DebConf attendees made by small pieces of pastry with fruits drawing a mosaic with a Debian swirl.
While the cake was a very nice detail, the best part of it was watching the people making the cake. Everybody had a great time and this kind of things are what make Debian (and DebConf) great. When people work together to make something wonderful.

10 June 2015

DebConf team: DebConf15 Invited speakers (Posted by DebConf Team)

This year, on top of the many excellent contributed talks, BoFs, and other events always part of DebConf (some of which have already been announced) we are excited to have confirmed the following keynote speakers. During the Open Weekend (Saturday, August 15th and Sunday, August 16th), we will have keynotes delivered by: On the last day of DebConf, we look forward to the closing keynote by: For more information about our invited speakers, please see http://debconf15.debconf.org/invited_speakers.xhtml Citizenfour Screening Additionally, there will be a screening of the Citizenfour movie, winner of the Best Documentary Feature Academy Award on the evening of Friday, August 21st. You still have time to submit your talk There are only a few days left before the end of the Call for Proposals on June 15th. Events submitted after that date might not be part of the official DebConf schedule. So, please, hurry, check out the proposal submission guide and submit your event. Regards from the DebConf Team

13 September 2014

Laura Arjona: Disabling comments in the blog

I m getting more spam than the amount that I can stand in this blog. Comments are moderated, so the public is not suffering that, only me. From time to time I go to my dashboard and clean the spam. I m afraid that I delete some legit comment in these spam-cleaning-fevers, or, more probably, that a legit comment waits in the queue for several days (weeks?), just because I m lazy to deal with spam and let days pass by (until the fever comes). I think I m going to follow the wisdom of Bradley M. Kuhn and link to a pump.io note for comments on my blog posts (disabling them here in WordPress.com). I usually post a notice when I write something in my blog, so the only task is to update the blog post with the pump.io URL of the thread for comments. While WordPress.com allows to write comments quickly, without need of an account (you write just a name and an email, and the comment), in pump you need to have an account and sign in to comment. That looks as a bad thing, a barrier for people to participate. But of course, it stops spam :) After thinking about it a bit, pump.io it s a federated network, you can choose the pump server that they want, you can create a fake account, you don t need to provide personal information and it s another way to promote one of the social networks where I live. Other systems link to facebook, twitter, or other places, and nobody complains! Even when those services don t have any of the advantages of being in a federated free-software powered social network :) If anybody don t want to use pump.io but wants to comment, other ways to reach me or the related blog post are: So now it s decided, and this is the first post of this new experiment. This text is posted in pump.io too, and you can comment there :)
Filed under: My experiences and opinion, Tools Tagged: Blog, English, federation, pump.io, social networks, Wordpress

9 June 2013

Ingo Juergensmann: Edward Snowden whistleblowed PRISM

Sometimes there are true heros. Even today. Like Edward Snowden who made PRISM publically known. There's an interview by The Guardian with Edward Snowden:
In a note accompanying the first set of documents he provided, he wrote: "I understand that I will be made to suffer for my actions," but "I will be satisfied if the federation of secret law, unequal pardon and irresistible executive powers that rule the world that I love are revealed even for an instant." [...] He has had "a very comfortable life" that included a salary of roughly $200,000, a girlfriend with whom he shared a home in Hawaii, a stable career, and a family he loves. "I'm willing to sacrifice all of that because I can't in good conscience allow the US government to destroy privacy, internet freedom and basic liberties for people around the world with this massive surveillance machine they're secretly building."
Neither Bradley Manning nor Edward Snowden should be sentenced, but the Government that is responsible for such surveilance programs like PRISM should.
Kategorie:
Tags:

7 June 2013

Daniel Pocock: "Do as we say, not as we do"

When I was preparing my blog entry about the Gold Standard in Free communications, I had absolutely no idea that The Guardian (another Ganglia user) would be hot on my heels with dramatic revelations about US Government surveillance of dangerous terrorists and maybe sucking up a little bit of data about a few hundred million of their own citizens and another 90% of the world's population for good measure. Some people even thought I've been a bit paranoid with my concerns about excessive surveillance. However, it is just remarkable to see that in the same week that the trial of Bradley Manning is getting under way for inappropriate use of his employer's computer, the US has been exposed plotting cyber attacks and setting a very bad example for all those little script kiddies out there. Practical questions for every one of us Is it time to start blocking email to and from sites like gmail and hotmail? What about the reports that the US Government was engineering back doors in the OpenBSD operating system? Have any open source projects actually been comprised in this way? Will spammers and other criminals take this as a cue that there is nothing morally wrong with hacking? Have certificate authorities been infiltrated too? They may well be the elephant in the room - while everybody was joking about the NSA key hidden in the depths of Microsoft Windows, maybe one or more of the well known trusted root certificates, right under our noses, is also a back door? The danger is real Anybody wondering about the practical implications of all this data gathering doesn't have to look very far to find out what can go wrong. In the same week as all these things were exposed, there have been more dramatic revelations about law enforcement officers selling private data for their own commercial gain. While the vast majority of police are surely good citizens, every organisation has it's bad apples and as Bradley Manning demonstrated so well, it only takes one person to breach security and enormous volumes of data can end up escaping.

Next.