software - dong won on Diigo

30 Nov 09

The Freenet Project - /index

27 Nov 09

ZaraStudio :: Radio automation software :: Automatizaci�n de radio

"ZaraStudio"

www.zarastudio.es/index.php - Preview

라디오방송 foss미디어 foss미디어생산시스템 zarastudio automation software radio foss

18 Oct 09

autonomo.us · Chrome OS and Autonomy

autonomo.us/...chrome-os-and-autonomy - Preview

구글 크롬os 웹기반서비스 자율성 foss fs 이용자권리 이용자자유 구글크롬 브라우저 google chrome autonomo.us cloudcomputing autonomous software

it is not at all clear that this will represent a victory of any meaningful sort for software freedom and for users’ autonomy.
A Chrome OS user’s computer doesn’t need to be powerful — Google claims that Chrome OS will be ideally suited to low power netbooks — because the user’s computation is happening on Google’s servers instead of the netbook itself.
15 more annotations...
- If switching to Chrome OS means giving up Thunderbird to use GMail, or giving up Openoffice.org to use Google Docs, or giving up Pidgin to use a web-based Google Talk, or giving up Evolution to use Google Calendar, we have reduced the influence and success of the free software desktop, not sealed its victory as Mobily suggests.
- In a SaaS world, there will be less free software being used and, much more importantly, users will be less free.
- users’ of “traditional” free software have access to source and have control over the system on which the computer runs
- Google offers no source for the applications that run their web services and, even if they did, they do not offer users the ability to change the software that runs on Google servers.
- Chrome OS, or any OS designed around pushing users computation off their computers and onto servers outside of their control is regressive for software freedom
- The main advantage is clearly the fact that a user can access that calendar (or spreadsheet, or IM client) from multiple locations or devices. The main disadvantage is that when you don’t have Internet access you don’t have your application.
- Whoops! Last.fm handed over your listening data to the RIAA, why not try a SAAS that respects your freedom?
- True, but just imagine if Chrome OS would embrace AGPL as the standard license. Also providing tools to easily move your data to a different instance of the same web app hosted on a different web server (maybe your own).
- I feel this should be put in a numbers-context: the percentage of desktop users that run a free OS is currently well below 5%.
  
  I would think then, that most of the market share that Chrome OS will be grabbing will come from non-free OSes – which would cause no “net loss of freedom”.
- at users that made a conscious choice for a free desktop-OS are less likely to give up their freedom than users who didn’t have that freedom anyway. In other words: Chrome OS is not so much a threat to us as it is to MS and Apple.
- On the other hand, we will benefit from Chrome OS’ success: it’s GNU/Linux base means we too will enjoy more extensive hardware support from vendors, and the success of Google Docs will help the push towards actually using those open document standards (I still find many peers annoyed when I send them ISO-compliant ODFs ).
- I guess I’d even go as far as saying that anything that helps break the monopoly-situation on the desktop market will improve the situation for free software, too, simply because having multiple big players results in faster adoption of open standards.
- some of these arguments confuse free-as-in-licensing with free-as-in-freedom.
- freedom to change your private information is nowhere near as democratic as freedom to change everyone’s publicly shared data. And maybe you are more free locally (no reverts), but it’s only because no one cares. Impotence will garner you a great deal of freedom.
- And for the record, with Appengine you actually can change the software on Google’s servers.

17 Oct 09

Open Journal Systems | Public Knowledge Project

pkp.sfu.ca/?q=ojs - Preview

저널 열린저널 foss저널 저널sw 오픈소스프로젝트 openaccess open_access publishing journal software opensource journals research

08 Oct 09

Papers : mekentosj.com : Software for Research

mekentosj.com/papers - Preview

연구2.0 foss연구 연구도구 research software mac papers pdf reference osx

06 Oct 09

In the Jungle – 29 Music-making Apps for Linux

blog.audiojungle.net/...29-music-making-apps-for-linux - Preview

응용프로그램 app foss음악 미디어제작 리눅스 음악편집 소프트웨어 목록 리스트 opensource audio musicmaking music linux software

11 Sep 09

해킹문화 - Lifehacker, tips and downloads for getting things done

lifehacker.com - Preview

해킹문화 해커 해킹 blog lifehacks productivity technology tech software hacks gtd 기술문화 풀뿌리기술

07 Sep 09

Mobile Media Converter

www.miksoft.net/mobileMediaConverter.htm - Preview

파일변환 모바일미디어 웹웨어 webware converter software audio mobile amr media mp3 freeware

01 Sep 09

LimeSurvey.org - THE Survey software - free and open source!

www.limesurvey.org - Preview

foss설문 온라인조사 온라인설문 foss survey opensource tools software php surveys research mysql

25 Aug 09

Alice.org

www.alice.org - Preview

foss교육 프로그래밍 프로그래밍sw 프로그래밍배우기 교육sw education programming 3d software animation alice graphics virtual-reality

24 Aug 09

Peer to Patent, Community Patent Review

www.peertopatent.org - Preview

특허 지적재산권 peer특허 community patent patents review prior_art software 피어리뷰 또래리뷰 미국 p2p collaboration law legal

02 Aug 09

Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (FSF) Updated: $Date: 2009/06/22

www.gnu.org/...n-source-misses-the-point.html - Preview

opensource fsf software gnu 오픈소스sw 자유소프트웨어운동 foss운동 스톨만

When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects
the users' essential freedoms:
the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute
copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not
price, so think of “free speech,” not “free
beer.”
not just
for the individual users' sake, but because they promote social
solidarity—that is, sharing and cooperation.
33 more annotations...
- In a world of digital sounds, images and words, free
  software comes increasingly to equate with freedom in general.
- the schools of regions of India and Spain now teach all students to
  use the free GNU/Linux operating
  system.
- The free software movement has campaigned for computer users'
  freedom since 1983.
- In 1998, a part
  of the free software community splintered off and began campaigning in
  the name of “open source.”
- The term was originally
  proposed to avoid a possible misunderstanding of the term “free
  software,” but it soon became associated with philosophical
  views quite different from those of the free software movement.
- “marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal
  to business executives by citing practical benefits, while avoiding
  ideas of right and wrong that they might not like to hear.
- Other
  proponents flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and
  social values.
- only practical values, such as making powerful,
  reliable software.
- Nearly all open source software is free software
- Open source is a
  development methodology; free software is a social movement.
- only free software respects the users' freedom. By contrast,
  the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make
  software “better”
- don't think of the open source
  camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (non-free) software.
- Common misunderstandings of “free software” and
  “open source”
- The term “free software” has a problem of
  misinterpretation: an unintended meaning, “software you can get
  for zero price,” fits the term just as well as the intended
  meaning, “software which gives the user certain freedoms.”
- (For instance, in some contexts the
  French/Spanish word "libre" can be used, but people in India do not
  recognize the word at all.)
- The official
  definition of “open source software” (which is
  published by the Open Source Initiative and too long to cite here) was
  derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the
  same; it is a little looser in some respects, so open source
  supporters have accepted a few licenses that we consider unacceptably
  restrictive of the users. Nonetheless, it is fairly close to our
  definition in practice.
- the obvious meaning for the expression “open source
  software” is “You can look at the source code,” and
  most people seem to think that's what it means. That is a much weaker
  criterion than free software, and much weaker than the official
  definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither
  free nor open source
- Linux is “open source” software meaning,
  simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code
  files.
- “open
  source” has only one natural meaning, which is different from
  the meaning its supporters intend. So there is no succinct way to
  explain and justify the official definition of “open
  source.” That makes for worse confusion.
- Another misunderstanding of “open source” is the idea
  that it means “not using the GNU GPL”. It tends to
  accompany a misundertanding of “free software”, equating
  it to “GPL-covered software”.
- equally mistaken,
  since the GNU GPL is considered an open source license, and most of
  the open source licenses are considered free software licenses.
- people from the free software movement and the open
  source camp often work together on practical projects such as software
  development.
- The idea of open source is that allowing users to change and
  redistribute the software will make it more powerful and reliable.
  But this is not guaranteed.
- Powerful, reliable software can be bad
- the supposition that the software is designed to serve its users.
  If it is powerful and reliable, that means it serves them better.
  
  But software can only be said to serve its users if it respects
  their freedom.
- What if the software is designed to put chains on its
  users? Then powerfulness only means the chains are more constricting,
  and reliability that they are harder to remove. Malicious features,
  such as spying on the users, restricting the users, back doors, and
  imposed upgrades are common in proprietary software, and some open
  source supporters want to do likewise.
- This malicious feature is known as DRM, or Digital Restrictions
  Management (see DefectiveByDesign.org), and
  it is the antithesis in spirit of the freedom that free software aims
  to provide. And not just in spirit: since the goal of DRM is to
  trample your freedom, DRM developers try to make it hard, impossible,
  or even illegal for you to change the software that implements the DRM.
- Yet some open source supporters have proposed “open source
  DRM” software.
- If the
  open source development model succeeds in making this software more
  powerful and reliable for restricting you, that will make it even
  worse.
- The main initial motivation for the term “open source
  software” is that the ethical ideas of “free
  software” make some people uneasy. That's true: talking about
  freedom, about ethical issues, about responsibilities as well as
  convenience, is asking people to think about things they might prefer
  to ignore, such as whether their conduct is ethical. This can trigger
  discomfort, and some people may simply close their minds to it. It
  does not follow that we ought to stop talking about these things.
- talking only about the immediate practical benefits of
  certain free software, they might be able to “sell” the
  software more effectively to certain users, especially business.
- Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to
  proprietary software for some practical advantage.
- That dangerous situation is exactly what we have. Most people
  involved with free software say little about freedom—usually
  because they seek to be “more acceptable to business.”