Description

src="https://faif.us/static/img/cast/audio_mp3_button.png"/>

Karen and Bradley discuss recent debates about the value of
non-profit organizations for Free Software.

Show Notes:

Segment 0 (00:34)

• href="http://identi.ca/conversation/86021752#notice-86121871">Fontana
  (and other Red Hat employees) pointed out some imprecision in what
  Bradley said in Episode
  0x1D about Debian non-free. (01:07)
• A href="http://info9.net/wiki/fosdem/LegalIssuesDevRoom/CFP/">call for
  participation has href="https://lists.fosdem.org/pipermail/fosdem/2011-November/001356.html">been
  announced for href="http://info9.net/wiki/fosdem/LegalIssuesDevRoom/">the Legal
  and Policy Issues DevRoom at href="http://fosdem.org/2012/">FOSDEM 2012. Please submit a
  proposal by 30 December 2011 (04:30)
• A recent debate about non-profits started, initiated by a blog post
  called href="http://www.mikealrogers.com/posts/apache-considered-harmful.html">Apache
  Considered Harmful. (12:55)
• Karen and Bradley briefly mentioned that href="http://meyerweb.com/eric/comment/chech.html">some now believe
  that Considered Harmful Considered Harmful
  (13:16)
• A long thread on this issue occurred on the href="http://flossfoundations.org/">FLOSS Foundations href="http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/foundations">mailing
  list (13:45)
• Bradley made an official Conservancy Blog post about the value of
  non-profits for Free Software (14:17)
• href="http://slashdot.org/story/01/08/24/128216/va-linux-to-sell-proprietary-version-of-sourceforge">Sourceforge
  became proprietary software in 2001, as is well-described in this
  by The Sourceforge
  proprietarization debacle is well described in an article by Loïc
  Dachary. (19:19)
• Bradley mentioned href="http://faif.us/cast/2011/jun/07/0x11/">FaiFCast Episode 0x11,
  which discussed the OpenOffice.org/Apache/LibreOffice
  situation. (44:35)
• Bradley pointed out that this debate conflates a lot of different
  issues, and tried to list all the conflated questions here:
  • Should a non-profit home decide what technical infrastructure is
    used for a software freedom project? And if so, what should it be?
  • If the projects doesn't provide technological services, should
    non-profits allow their projects to rely on for-profits for
    technological or other services?
  • Should a non-profit home set political and social positions that
    must be followed by the projects? If so, how strictly should they be
    enforced?
  • Should copyrights be held by the non-profit home of the project, or
    with the developers, or a mix of the two?
  • Should the non-profit dictate licensing requirements on the
    project? If so, how many licenses are ok?
  • Should a non-profit dictate strict copyright provenance
    requirements on their projects? If not, should the non-profit at least
    provide guidelines and recommendations?

Send feedback and comments on the cast
to <oggcast@faif.us>.
You can keep in touch with Free as in Freedom on our IRC channel, #faif on irc.freenode.net, and
by following Conservancy on
identi.ca and and Twitter.

Free as in Freedom is produced by Dan Lynch
of danlynch.org.
Theme
music written and performed
by Mike Tarantino
with Charlie Paxson on drums.

href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"> src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-sa/4.0/88x31.png" hspace=10 />
The content
of this
audcast, and the accompanying show notes and music are licensed
under the href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">Creative
Commons Attribution-Share-Alike 4.0 license (CC BY-SA 4.0).