Re: Fwd: Software Freedom Day
- From: Sandy Armstrong <sanfordarmstrong gmail com>
- To: Paul Cutler <pcutler gnome org>
- Cc: marketing-list <marketing-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Fwd: Software Freedom Day
- Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:44:17 -0700
On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 2:35 PM, Paul Cutler <pcutler gnome org> wrote:
> I think we adhere to the Franklin Street statement. Adding Sandy
> Armstrong, one of Snowy's lead developers to the CC. Comments below:
Agree.
> On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 14:48 -0600, Stormy Peters wrote:
>> * Develop software that can replace centralized services and
>> data storage with distributed software and data deployment,
>> giving control back to users.
>
> Check. Users can install their own Snowy instance if they don't want to
> use Tomboy Online, which is GNOME's centralized service.
As Snowy isn't really a social networking site, and the main point is
to put your existing local data on the web, decentralization is less
applicable (compared to online services where your data is locked into
their servers).
>> * Make data and works of authorship available to their service’s
>> users under legal terms and in formats that enable the users
>> to move and use their data outside of the service. This means:
>> * Users should control their private data.
>> * Data available to all users of the service should be
>> available under terms approved for Free Cultural
>> Works or Open Knowledge.
>>
>
> Yes and No. The user controls their private data - they are his or her
> notes. The user can set if they're public or not. However, the second
> bullet - just because a note is public doesn't mean that it's
> automatically under a CC license, for example. Maybe we can add a
> feature to add a copyright / copyleft assignment to notes similar to
> Flickr. I don't know - not sure if I'm reading this right or if it's
> applicable.
Again, since we're not a social networking site, we don't have much
"data available to all users". Forcing users to license their public
notes as CC probably wouldn't go over well, but giving the option is a
good idea. We should file a bug for that.
Sandy
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]