[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

echarp — 2006-10-11 15:08:21+0200

> > And yes, copyrights can be a limitation to such a freedom, the copyleft > > concept is really great to fight against it! What about simply using it > > then? > > Because it’s not 100% compatible to political projects.

Isn’t copyleft just a concept? What else but copyrights would you want to protect against?

> > > I agree, but why do you think that OpenSource is not democratic? > > > > Where do you see any relationship between the two??? I don’t! > > I do.

Please elaborate. Me I’m mostly relying on this kind of definition of democracy

Read more… / Lire plus…

> We have a nice saying in Croatia, “Pametniji popušta” :-D

???

> > echarp – proud wearer of a great angina, yeah… :( > > Sorry to hear that, hopes you’ll get better soon ;-)

Already feeling better. And sucking sweeties all day long :(

echarp – http://leparlement.org

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

Markus Schatten — 2006-10-11 12:30:44+0200

Dear Emmanuel

On Tuesday 10 October 2006 18:41, echarp wrote:

> > > What are the results? Decisions? Are they copyrighted or protected from > > > reuse in any manner? (if they are, yes, the right to reuse could be > > > somehow important) > > > > Project documentation, laws, organizational procedures, software etc. > > etc. etc. etc. They are protected under a GPL-like licence (e.g. TOP > > licence) which assures that the result of such reuse is TOP again > > (“closing inside openness”). > > OK then, it’s not just the right to speak, you want freedom of > expression! > > And yes, copyrights can be a limitation to such a freedom, the copyleft > concept is really great to fight against it! What about simply using it > then?

Because it’s not 100% compatible to political projects.

Read more… / Lire plus…

> > > > > > (Free Software and Open Source I’m very knowledgeable about, but > > > > > these are not democratic things!!!) > > > > > > > > Why do you thing so sadly? > > > > > > I don’t think that I do. I try to be realist, and democracy is merely a > > > tool and a point of view, it is not synonymous with everything good in > > > this world! > > > > I agree, but why do you think that OpenSource is not democratic? > > Where do you see any relationship between the two??? I don’t!

I do.

> > Any reference to democracy in the GPL or the OSI?

No, I didn’t say OpenSource is democracy but OpenSource is democratic.

> > Free Software is in parts a reaction to lengthy copyrights and the > property-risation of code which previously was contributed by a > community of sharing users.

> > > > A democratic decision can have very bad consequences. A democratic > > > country could behave very badly. Democracy is no panacea. It’s just one > > > of the least infringing ethically. > > > > This has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you. > > I’m sure you agree with me expressing my opinions ;) >

Of course.

> Your question could lead to an interpretation which associates democracy > to everything that is good.

Well sorry if you got me wrong.

> > “Are wiki democratic? Of course! Is ecology? Yes necessarily! What about > fashion? Great! And astronomy? Hey, raise your eyes it’s everybody’s, > thus it must be democratic!!!” > > The internet is not democratic! :) > > Democracy is a concept generally used when there are matters of > decision making, and most of the time of votes and equality. > > Free Softwares are not democratic. Linus Thorvald himself agrees to > being a benevolent dictator. Herding cats but none the less the ultimate > decider!

We have a nice saying in Croatia, “Pametniji popušta” :-D

> > echarp – proud wearer of a great angina, yeah… :(

Sorry to hear that, hopes you’ll get better soon ;-)

Best regards

— Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

echarp — 2006-10-10 18:41:08+0200

> > What are the results? Decisions? Are they copyrighted or protected from > > reuse in any manner? (if they are, yes, the right to reuse could be > > somehow important) > > Project documentation, laws, organizational procedures, software etc. etc. > etc. etc. They are protected under a GPL-like licence (e.g. TOP licence) > which assures that the result of such reuse is TOP again (“closing inside > openness”).

OK then, it’s not just the right to speak, you want freedom of expression!

And yes, copyrights can be a limitation to such a freedom, the copyleft concept is really great to fight against it! What about simply using it then?

Read more… / Lire plus…

> > > > (Free Software and Open Source I’m very knowledgeable about, but these > > > > are not democratic things!!!) > > > > > > Why do you thing so sadly? > > > > I don’t think that I do. I try to be realist, and democracy is merely a > > tool and a point of view, it is not synonymous with everything good in > > this world! > > I agree, but why do you think that OpenSource is not democratic?

Where do you see any relationship between the two??? I don’t!

Any reference to democracy in the GPL or the OSI?

Free Software is in parts a reaction to lengthy copyrights and the property-risation of code which previously was contributed by a community of sharing users.

> > A democratic decision can have very bad consequences. A democratic > > country could behave very badly. Democracy is no panacea. It’s just one > > of the least infringing ethically. > > This has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you.

I’m sure you agree with me expressing my opinions ;)

Your question could lead to an interpretation which associates democracy to everything that is good.

“Are wiki democratic? Of course! Is ecology? Yes necessarily! What about fashion? Great! And astronomy? Hey, raise your eyes it’s everybody’s, thus it must be democratic!!!”

The internet is not democratic! :)

Democracy is a concept generally used when there are matters of decision making, and most of the time of votes and equality.

Free Softwares are not democratic. Linus Thorvald himself agrees to being a benevolent dictator. Herding cats but none the less the ultimate decider!

echarp – proud wearer of a great angina, yeah… :(

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

echarp — 2006-10-10 17:47:09+0200

On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 04:22:51PM +0200, Markus Schatten wrote:

> > What is the meaning of “O” then? > > Open ;-)

> > The right to speak? Don’t we have that already? The right to secede? > > Isn’t a fork a secession? > > The right to participate in any TOP political project, use the results, > eventually change them under the condition that the new results are TOP > again.

Read more… / Lire plus…

Participate? What is this participation? A speech? You want the right to speak don’t you? ;)

What are the results? Decisions? Are they copyrighted or protected from reuse in any manner? (if they are, yes, the right to reuse could be somehow important)

> > (Free Software and Open Source I’m very knowledgeable about, but these > > are not democratic things!!!) > > Why do you thing so sadly?

I don’t think that I do. I try to be realist, and democracy is merely a tool and a point of view, it is not synonymous with everything good in this world!

A democratic decision can have very bad consequences. A democratic country could behave very badly. Democracy is no panacea. It’s just one of the least infringing ethically.

echarp – http://leparlement.org/Features_request

[top-politics] Re: Definition of TOP - Systematization

Markus Schatten — 2006-10-06 16:59:31+0200

Dear Emmanuel,

On Tuesday 10 October 2006 17:47, echarp wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 04:22:51PM +0200, Markus Schatten wrote: > > > What is the meaning of “O” then? > > > > Open ;-) > > > :D > : > > > The right to speak? Don’t we have that already? The right to secede? > > > Isn’t a fork a secession? > > > > The right to participate in any TOP political project, use the results, > > eventually change them under the condition that the new results are TOP > > again. > > Participate? What is this participation? A speech? You want the right to > speak don’t you? ;)

Read more… / Lire plus…

Speech, writing articles, documentation, project management, writing software, laws, procedures, statements etc. etc. etc.

> > What are the results? Decisions? Are they copyrighted or protected from > reuse in any manner? (if they are, yes, the right to reuse could be > somehow important)

Project documentation, laws, organizational procedures, software etc. etc. etc. etc. They are protected under a GPL-like licence (e.g. TOP licence) which assures that the result of such reuse is TOP again (“closing inside openness”).

> > > > (Free Software and Open Source I’m very knowledgeable about, but these > > > are not democratic things!!!) > > > > Why do you thing so sadly? > > I don’t think that I do. I try to be realist, and democracy is merely a > tool and a point of view, it is not synonymous with everything good in > this world!

I agree, but why do you think that OpenSource is not democratic?

> > A democratic decision can have very bad consequences. A democratic > country could behave very badly. Democracy is no panacea. It’s just one > of the least infringing ethically.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the question I asked you.

Best regards

— Markus Schatten, dipl. inf.
e-mail: markus.schatten@foi.hr
http://www.tiaktiv.hr