Re: SPI resolution 2017-10-12.mzh.1: Supporting FSFE's "Public Money, Public Code" campaign

Hi,

i consider to submit this to the agenda of Novembers board meeting and
seek for comments on this resolution:

Resolution 2017-10-12.mzh.1: Supporting FSFE's "Public Money, Public
Code" campaign

WHEREAS

1. The FSFE has established a "Public Money, Public Code" campaign that
advocates that all software developed for the public sector using public
funds be made available under a Free and Open Source Software licence.

2. The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) shares many of the
principles underpinning Software in the Public Interest.

THE BOARD RESOLVES THAT

1. SPI agrees to be listed as a Supporting Organization of the "Public
Money, Public Code" compaign.

2. SPI encourages members to support this compain by signing the Open
Letter on https://publiccode.eu/

Cheers,
Martin
--
Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel(at)spi-inc(dot)org>
Board of Directors - Software in the Public Interest, Inc.
GPG: 6B18 5642 8E41 EC89 3D5D BDBB 53B1 AC6D B11B 627B

Martin Zobel-Helas <zobel(at)spi-inc(dot)org> wrote:

> i consider to submit this to the agenda of Novembers board meeting and
> seek for comments on this resolution:

Please don't submit the resolution as is.

> Resolution 2017-10-12.mzh.1: Supporting FSFE's "Public Money, Public
> Code" campaign
>
> WHEREAS
>
> 1. The FSFE has established a "Public Money, Public Code" campaign that
> advocates that all software developed for the public sector using public
> funds be made available under a Free and Open Source Software licence.

So far so tolerable.

> 2. The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) shares many of the
> principles underpinning Software in the Public Interest.

Pledging allegiance to principles that aren't explicitly named is likely
to alienate the various people who stopped supporting the FSFE in recent
years (or never supported the FSFE in the first place) as they can't easily
tell which of the "FSFE principles" SPI supposedly shares now.

I'm obviously biased because I supported the FSFE in the past
and recently came to the conclusion that I no longer even
understand which principles are still considered relevant
by the current FSFE leadership.

While I have my suspicions, I already wasted a lot of time discussing
FSFE issues that could have been spent on improving free software.
Therefore I'd prefer to keep FSFE issues on FSFE lists. They are
mostly archived and accessible to subscribers, many FSFE lists are
in German or invite-only, though.

> THE BOARD RESOLVES THAT
>
> 1. SPI agrees to be listed as a Supporting Organization of the "Public
> Money, Public Code" compaign.

How does SPI or SPI member projects or free software in general
benefit from this?

> 2. SPI encourages members to support this compain by signing the Open
> Letter on https://publiccode.eu/

While I obviously agree that software developed with public money
should be free software, I did not sign "the Open Letter" and don't
intend to sign it in the future.

I still occasionally refer people to https://publiccode.eu/, but I
usually add a disclaimer that isn't relevant for this list and also
mention https://freie-software.org/ which is run by the German FSF
which mostly consists of other people who used to be supporters of
the FSFE in the past. I'm not a member the German FSF and never was
a member ("Vereinsmitglied") of the FSFE e.V. either.

Most of my concerns about the current FSFE aren't relevant for
Privoxy and this is just my personal opinion.

While I suspect that accepting the proposed resolution is likely
to negatively impact the time it will take to deal with invoices
in the future and this would negatively impact Privoxy, my suspicion
may be overly pessimistic due to my bias mentioned above.

Fabian

On 10/13/2017 03:09 AM, Fabian Keil wrote:
>> THE BOARD RESOLVES THAT
>>
>> 1. SPI agrees to be listed as a Supporting Organization of the "Public
>> Money, Public Code" compaign.
> How does SPI or SPI member projects or free software in general
> benefit from this?
>

I wanted to address this one point. The benefit is that governments
which adopt a "public code" policy will be contributing to the free
software commons and thus benefitting the FOSS ecosystem. Some
governments might be contributing directly to some of our member
projects. For example, I know quite a few government agencies use
either Debian, PostgreSQL, or both.

For that matter, a few of our member projects *originated* as
government-funded code.

I have no opinions on the FSFE.

--Josh

Revising based on feedback.

Resolution 2017-10-12.mzh.1: Supporting FSFE's "Public Money, Public
Code" campaign

WHEREAS

1. The FSFE has established a "Public Money, Public Code" campaign that
advocates that all software developed for the public sector using public
funds be made available under a Free and Open Source Software licence.

2. By adopting a "public code" policy, public bodies contribute
materially to the free and open software commons.

THE BOARD RESOLVES THAT

1. SPI agrees to be listed as a Supporting Organization of the "Public
Money, Public Code" campaign.

2. SPI encourages members to support this compaign by signing the Open
Letter on https://publiccode.eu/

--
Luca Filipozzi

Revising based on feedback.

Resolution 2017-10-12.mzh.1: Supporting FSFE's "Public Money, Public
Code" campaign

WHEREAS

1. The FSFE has established a "Public Money, Public Code" campaign that
advocates that all software developed for the public sector using public
funds be made available under a Free and Open Source Software licence.

2. By adopting a "public code" policy, public bodies contribute
materially to the free and open software commons.

THE BOARD RESOLVES THAT

1. SPI agrees to be listed as a Supporting Organization of the "Public
Money, Public Code" campaign.

2. SPI encourages members to support this compaign by signing the Open
Letter on https://publiccode.eu/

--
Luca Filipozzi

* Fabian Keil <fk(at)fabiankeil(dot)de> [2017-10-13 12:09]:
> Please don't submit the resolution as is.
...

I believe Luca's new proposal addresses your concerns.

> While I suspect that accepting the proposed resolution is likely
> to negatively impact the time it will take to deal with invoices
> in the future and this would negatively impact Privoxy, my suspicion
> may be overly pessimistic due to my bias mentioned above.

I don't see how the two are related at all. This resolution is just
about indicating support for an external initiative. We're not
commiting to putting manpower in. So this should have no negative
impact on reimbursements and other bookkeeping work.

--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/