trap system of free software’s freedom neutralization

Hi there,

on this post to be opened

Here I want to gather all questions remained stubbornly open, issues, investigation of mine in a clearly laid way. The structure should be that in the first chapter each such question topic is listed, indexed. So the following investigation works on each are to be found in the following chapter each one.

Table of Contents

Index 1

Topic 1: problematic promotion situation design: newcomer structurally set out to be denounced as sneaker 1

Topic 1.1 Where to find study material: case studies on free software compliance 1

Topic 1.2 Case: Google mailing list not accessible through tor 2

Topic 2: Case: In how far is Beuth’s both obligatory and chargeable standards practice uncompliant with with free software legal texts, aims, practices? 2

Topic 2.1:  What would be the quickest way to obtain fsfe-style questionnaire format for exactly this text? 2

Topic 3: Promotionidea: All modems in the world are non free hardware/non free software. Why is the explaination of it unconvincing? 2

Topic 4: Would such a bug-sponsorship not a nice first step idea (promotion) in a upcoming free software world of real existing 99% unemployment, the expectable economic expendability of human beings? 2

Index

Topic 1: problematic promotion situation design: newcomer structurally set out to be denounced as sneaker

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subrepti
16:04 wsirc_3406 Anybody interest (in support) fs, in the nitty gritty of it, pritty soon gets seen as another “fee betrayer”. Maybe this is a problematic promotion situation design, – with, however, a solution in reach.
” namely the induced inability of recognition of freedom, which is the supposed adequate weapon again freedom’s challenges.”

Topic 1.1 Where to find study material: case studies on free software compliance

12:54 wsirc_3406 is there any material posed for self study such things, e.g. in order to prepare for such discussions? I mean as in any other legal areas?
12:55 wsirc_3406 How could one check/prove/study if case abc is compliant to free license xyz?
12:57 ersi I’d say that’s probably a good question to formulate and send to the community mailing list, as the whole community is not active on IRC.

13:11 wsirc_3406 “Rules-of-thumb for laypersons” or some “schematic checklist as usually provided for any-laws’-students” that is I searched for
13:13 wsirc_3406 If nothing like that is available, I wonder that and furthermore what speaks against that to provide it in the future.
13:13 wsirc_3406 somehow confused though
13:18 wsirc_3406 someone gets scared to be denounced of sneaking, I bet. Given that, Is that a pleasing fs-promotion strategy then, I ask?

 

First answers:

-The license texts themselves (Where, What, Which) and the ‘spirit of the license(Where, What, Which) are worth studying.
-checking out the previous press releases (What for) as well as studying the mailing list archives (What for) as well.
-hands on some court proceedings  (Where, What, Which) in cases that are of particular interest to you

Update 150513

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Freie_Software/Literatur#deutschsprachig_4 is a fine list.

http://www.oreilly.de/german/freebooks/gplger/ Die GPL kommentiert und erklärt.

http://digbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de/volltexte/1000006715 Der virale Effekt. Entwicklungsrisiken im Umfeld von Open Source Software

These are two already available helps on the licenses, is it enough? So according to the insight that the licensing text needs to be read once, which would be btw. a first step in studying, one can do so accompanied be the first book, can not one? Reading the license text was advised, was not it?

Topic 1.2 Case: Google mailing list not accessible through tor

16:03 wsirc_3406 just for exercising free software cases, I ask if there is a right granted to access community resources, as a mailing participation in this case. I suspect that right violated, when google as the mailing list service provider hinders/prevents tor users from registering. Do not know if such a right exists, but can not it be read out of the right to access the documentation resources somewhere do not know where in the gpl codices? Would be glad for a feedback.?

Topic 2: Case: In how far is Beuth’s both obligatory and chargeable standards practice uncompliant with with free software legal texts, aims, practices?

Beuth Germany out! I found in the internet from another nobody, who pointed out obviously to clearly this terrible state of affairs.

https://detailsfsfe.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/beuth5/ See article 1-5. for status quo

Topic 2.1:  What would be the quickest way to obtain fsfe-style questionnaire format for exactly this text?

https://detailsfsfe.wordpress.com/2015/03/31/contents-of-the-beuth4-umfrage-to-the-enquete-kommission-group/ obviously he left the scene

Topic 3: Promotionidea: All modems in the world are non free hardware/non free software. Why is the explaination of it unconvincing?

Got from this nobody too:

https://detailsfsfe.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/question-what-is-modem-not-legal/

Topic 4: Would such a bug-sponsorship not a nice first step idea (promotion) in a upcoming free software world of real existing 99% unemployment, the expectable economic expendability of human beings?

Got from this nobody too:

https://detailsfsfe.wordpress.com/2015/04/01/sponsorship-justifying-public-instruction-for-bug-reporting-programme/

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s