Discussion:
playogg/faq: unclear phrase
Ineiev
2010-04-30 06:58:07 UTC
Permalink
Hello,

When translating the campaign pages into Russian, I noticed a sentence
at http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/playogg/faq that confused me:
"RealPlayer, Windows Media Player, iTunes, and other popular
formats require people to use non-free software: controlled
by companies, not by the users."

As I understand RealPlayer, iTunes and Windows Media Player are players
rather than formats. do I miss something?
ineiev
2010-05-01 08:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Hi, Jeff!
Yes, you are correct. All of these players 1) have their own format,
and 2) play multiple formats,
Thank you, it helps a lot; that is, it was probably something like
"RealPlayer, Windows Media Player, iTunes own formats,
and other popular formats require people to use non-free software:
controlled by companies, not by the users."
however, I don't think any of them play open source formats without
hacking.
Not quite sure what "open source formats" are. propably it is not
the same as "formats decently supported by some open source
software," since VLC officially declares full MP3 support,
and all those unethical things play that format, too.
(also, there is partial support of Real Audio and full support
of WMA 1/2 and WMA 3 in VLC.)

As of Ogg,

* Windows Media Player can play Ogg Vorbis
with a codec (www.vorbis.com/setup_windows/)

* RealPlayer has a plugin for Ogg Vorbis/Theora provided
by https://helixcommunity.org/projects/xiph/news/116
(very old news: 2004-06-18 13:45; it is likely that
the plugin is out-of-date)

* http://xiph.org/quicktime/ suggests there is a way to play
Ogg Vorbis with iTunes.

On the one hand, I can't check how seamless those plugins are,
on the other hand, I don't think searching for and
installing a plugin really counts as "hacking".

It can be said that I almost never listen to any formats,
so I know little about these matters, but my first pass suggests
that the statement tends to oversimplify the situation.
Jeff
2010-05-01 13:29:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by ineiev
Hi, Jeff!
Yes, you are correct. All of these players 1) have their own
format, and 2) play multiple formats,
Thank you, it helps a lot; that is, it was probably something like
"RealPlayer, Windows Media Player, iTunes own formats,
controlled by companies, not by the users."
I'm sure it's something close to this.
Post by ineiev
however, I don't think any of them play open source formats
without hacking.
Not quite sure what "open source formats" are. propably it is not
the same as "formats decently supported by some open source
software,"
Correct again. Open source formats / file types means that the code
and codec needed is freely available for any software to use. The
software company does not need to pay any sort of fee to use ogg, an
open source music and video format.
Post by ineiev
since VLC officially declares full MP3 support,
and all those unethical things play that format, too.
(also, there is partial support of Real Audio and full support
of WMA 1/2 and WMA 3 in VLC.)
As of Ogg,
* Windows Media Player can play Ogg Vorbis
with a codec (www.vorbis.com/setup_windows/)
* RealPlayer has a plugin for Ogg Vorbis/Theora provided
by https://helixcommunity.org/projects/xiph/news/116
(very old news: 2004-06-18 13:45; it is likely that
the plugin is out-of-date)
* http://xiph.org/quicktime/ suggests there is a way to play
Ogg Vorbis with iTunes.
These "plug-ins" are developed and maintained by 3rd parties, not
maintained by the company itself. These software companies do not
offically offer a way to install plug-in, so that's why I called it
hacking.
iTunes can only play with the "plug in". If you want to rip CDs to
ogg, burn audio CDs from ogg, and listen to ogg on your iPod, some
other software is needed, separate from iTunes. My experience with
installing the plugin (year 2006 and 2009) was simple, place a file
inside a directory (create directory if it doesn't exist), restart
comp. Simple for a guy like me and most people, however, people
less confident in their computer skills will have a hard time doing
this and worry that if they mess up they'll ruin the computer.
Others see ogg as inferior if it is not supported by default, and
some just expect their mac to work without extra hassle.
Windows Media player, I believe is the same story, forget about
ripping CDs to ogg and burning ogg to audio cd. My experience here
is that the plugin is incomplete (well I tried it in 2006). Here's
what happened, I had to open WMP choose File, Open, and select the
ogg. One file at a time. If you set WMP as default player so you
can double click oggfiles, WMP gives you some error message, saying
ogg is an unsupported file type. This message can be cleared out by
changing something in the registry, however, this goes back to users
computing confidence level, and seriously, I believe most of us find
it unjustifiable touching the registry. I believe that can be made
automated in the installer package. Things may have changed since
2006, but I was unsuccessful at remotely helping others install this.
Post by ineiev
On the one hand, I can't check how seamless those plugins are,
on the other hand, I don't think searching for and
installing a plugin really counts as "hacking".
No, what I call hacking is the developers of these so called
plugins, getting around limitations of these sofware. And don't get
me wrong, in this case, hacking is a good thing. Are you familiar
with Winamp? Winamp truely has plugin feature, and also comes with
the full free version. The problem is that many people know and
prefer WMP, and because ogg is so scarce, they don't bother.
Actually, I've seen people more willing to do the work to find a
program to convert ogg to mp3.
Post by ineiev
It can be said that I almost never listen to any formats,
so I know little about these matters, but my first pass suggests
that the statement tends to oversimplify the situation.
Good questions you have. If I still leave you uncertain, please ask
more.
ineiev
2010-05-01 19:49:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by ineiev
"RealPlayer, Windows Media Player, iTunes own formats,
controlled by companies, not by the users."
I'm sure it's something close to this.
Ok, I'll stick to this interpretation in my translation.

The rest is not concerned with that passage directly, but
I'd like to discuss it in more details -- for general understanding.
Post by ineiev
Not quite sure what "open source formats" are. propably it is not
the same as "formats decently supported by some open source
software,"
Correct again. Open source formats / file types means that the code
and codec needed is freely available for any software to use.
The code? that is, the specification of the format?
or the source code of an implementation?
These "plug-ins" are developed and maintained by 3rd parties, not
maintained by the company itself.
...
Things may have changed since
2006, but I was unsuccessful at remotely helping others install this.
I think I see the point: the user can't comfortably play Ogg
with those players. which means that my example was invalid.
what I call hacking is the developers of these so called plugins,
getting around limitations of these sofware. And don't get me wrong,
in this case, hacking is a good thing.
In this case it is questionable, because that code empowers
proprietary software, and this is a bad thing.
Winamp truely has plugin feature, and also comes with the full free
version.
Isn't Winamp a proprietary program? the campaign is about
advertising VLC rather than Winamp.

Generally, Ogg is not the goal. the goal is free software, that is,
users' freedom. Ogg is an unencumbered format, and without
such a format no free multimedia software is possible.
The problem is that many people know and prefer WMP, and
because ogg is so scarce, they don't bother.
Now the question is which we should convince them first:
to migrate from WMP or to migrate to Ogg.

Thank you for information; it is very valuable for me
since I have no experience in that area.
Jeff
2010-05-01 23:52:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by ineiev
Post by ineiev
"RealPlayer, Windows Media Player, iTunes own formats,
controlled by companies, not by the users."
I'm sure it's something close to this.
Ok, I'll stick to this interpretation in my translation.
The rest is not concerned with that passage directly, but
I'd like to discuss it in more details -- for general understanding.
Post by ineiev
Not quite sure what "open source formats" are. propably it is not
the same as "formats decently supported by some open source
software,"
Correct again. Open source formats / file types means that the code
and codec needed is freely available for any software to use.
The code? that is, the specification of the format?
or the source code of an implementation?
Well, the specification of the format. I'm sure there is a little
work involved in making a player support another format.
Post by ineiev
These "plug-ins" are developed and maintained by 3rd parties, not
maintained by the company itself.
...
Things may have changed since 2006, but I was unsuccessful at
remotely helping others install this.
I think I see the point: the user can't comfortably play Ogg
with those players. which means that my example was invalid.
To sum it up, I would say so.
Post by ineiev
what I call hacking is the developers of these so called plugins,
getting around limitations of these sofware. And don't get me
wrong, in this case, hacking is a good thing.
In this case it is questionable, because that code empowers
proprietary software, and this is a bad thing.
Heh, that is true too, a different way to view it.
Post by ineiev
Winamp truely has plugin feature, and also comes with the full free
version.
Isn't Winamp a proprietary program? the campaign is about
advertising VLC rather than Winamp.
Yes, winamp is proprietary.
Post by ineiev
Generally, Ogg is not the goal. the goal is free software, that is,
users' freedom. Ogg is an unencumbered format, and without
such a format no free multimedia software is possible.
True true. In this case, if it using a proprietary application to
listen to ogg, so that ogg can be more mainstream, it's a compromise I
would support at least short term.
Post by ineiev
The problem is that many people know and prefer WMP, and because
ogg is so scarce, they don't bother.
to migrate from WMP or to migrate to Ogg.
That is a good question. Personally, I think migrating to ogg first
would be ideal for most. I think all we need is an increase demand
for compatibility of the ogg format in both software and hardware. If
we migrate to ogg, that will increase the demand. Migrating to ogg
also means it's free for anybody to access, regardless if it's easy to
use or not.
Post by ineiev
Thank you for information; it is very valuable for me
since I have no experience in that area.
ineiev
2010-05-02 14:06:11 UTC
Permalink
Hi, Jeff
Post by ineiev
The code? that is, the specification of the format?
or the source code of an implementation?
Well, the specification of the format. I'm sure there is a little work
involved in making a player support another format.
Typically, yes; there might be corner cases like OOXML: as
I understand, free software developers wouldn't support it
because the format is unreasonably complicated
to independently implement (though it fits very well
to it's designer code base) -- but most likely
there is no similar multimedia format.
Post by ineiev
Isn't Winamp a proprietary program? the campaign is about
advertising VLC rather than Winamp.
Yes, winamp is proprietary.
...
True true. In this case, if it using a proprietary application to
listen to ogg, so that ogg can be more mainstream, it's a compromise I
would support at least short term.
So, we may recommend adding "send your (proprietary) player
developers a request to support Ogg formats better"
to the action list at http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/playogg/en (?)

Regards,
Ineiev
Jeff
2010-05-02 14:54:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by ineiev
Hi, Jeff
Post by Jeff
Post by ineiev
The code? that is, the specification of the format?
or the source code of an implementation?
Well, the specification of the format. I'm sure there is a little
work involved in making a player support another format.
Typically, yes; there might be corner cases like OOXML: as
I understand, free software developers wouldn't support it
because the format is unreasonably complicated
to independently implement (though it fits very well
to it's designer code base) -- but most likely
there is no similar multimedia format.
I'm not familiar with this format by name, so I can't really respond.
Post by ineiev
Post by Jeff
Post by ineiev
Isn't Winamp a proprietary program? the campaign is about
advertising VLC rather than Winamp.
Yes, winamp is proprietary.
...
Post by Jeff
True true. In this case, if it using a proprietary application to
listen to ogg, so that ogg can be more mainstream, it's a
compromise I would support at least short term.
So, we may recommend adding "send your (proprietary) player
developers a request to support Ogg formats better"
to the action list at http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/playogg/en (?)
I am not running the campaign, but I think that woul be a great
inclusion.

Ineiev,

It's been good talking with you, but later today I will be traveling
and not accessing my e-mail. I will return in a week.

Many Thanks for your support and contribution.
Jeff
Kahlil Moonwalker
2010-05-01 20:47:19 UTC
Permalink
Why recommend Winamp when Songbird is free software? In my opinion it's a
bit bloated, but it does offer a familiar user interface and will play free
formats.
Winamp truely has plugin feature, and also comes with the full free
version.
Isn't Winamp a proprietary program? the campaign is about
advertising VLC rather than Winamp.
Generally, Ogg is not the goal. the goal is free software, that is,
users' freedom. Ogg is an unencumbered format, and without
such a format no free multimedia software is possible.
The problem is that many people know and prefer WMP, and because ogg is so
scarce, they don't bother.
ineiev
2010-05-03 19:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Hello, Kahlil!
Post by Kahlil Moonwalker
Why recommend Winamp when Songbird is free software? In my opinion it's a
bit bloated, but it does offer a familiar user interface and will play free
formats.
To be precise, there was no recommendation. the point was that
though all proprietary programs are bad, some of them are worse
than others (from the point of view of the campaign).

Regards,
Ineiev
Oleg Koptev
2010-05-04 05:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Hello, list!

I have some questions if you're not against.

Isn't campaign sentence 'bout *WMP, RP and and other popular players *too
strong? Especially in part '*companies ... restrict the users and spy on
them'*? Yep I know FSF style of compaigns carrying frequently uses loud
words, but eh? There must be logic also.

Don't know about WMP or Real Player inner, possible *spy* things, but I'm
quite sure there are many free (and non-open-source in the same time)
audioplayers that are not spy on the users.

What means in general word 'spy' in that context?

Also paragraph named 'Nothing to lose!' have too strong declaration. '*You
don't lose any technical quality with Ogg Vorbis*'. If I want to save all
quality and compress audio in the same time then I'll go for FLAC. OGG
Vorbis non lossless as well-known here at list, so it is destructive by it's
nature. Please note - I'm not compare mp3 and ogg here.

There're my morning thoughts. Please forgive me for my poor English.

Best wishes, Oleg
Ineiev
2010-05-04 06:24:40 UTC
Permalink
Hi, Oleg!
Isn't campaign sentence 'bout WMP, RP and and other popular players too strong?
Especially in part 'companies ... restrict the users and spy on them'?
With proprietary software, it is extremely hard to tell
they don't spy on you. if you learn about the effects of their spying,
you can tell they do; when you are unaware of such effects, you can't
tell they don't.

It is, indeed, probably too strong to say "the companies that control
the software design it to restrict the users and spy on them"; this may
imply all companies always do it, which is not proved.

Perhaps Matt will reword the passage once more.
(by the way, the current revision "RealPlayer, Windows Media Player,
iTunes, and other popular players require people
to use non-free software" sounds like a tautology).
but I'm quite sure there are many free (and non-open-source in the same time)
The recommended expressions are 'gratis' or 'zero price'.
audioplayers that are not spy on the users.
Can you explain why are you sure?
What means in general word 'spy' in that context?
I believe it means they (at least) "report what each
user watches or listens to".
Also paragraph named 'Nothing to lose!' have too strong declaration. 'You
don't lose any technical quality with Ogg Vorbis'. If I want to save all
quality and compress audio in the same time then I'll go for FLAC. OGG Vorbis
non lossless as well-known here at list, so it is destructive by it's nature.
Please note - I'm not compare mp3 and ogg here.
But the paragraph does compare MP3 and Ogg Vorbis.

Thanks,
Ineiev
Oleg Koptev
2010-05-04 06:49:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ineiev
Hi, Oleg!
It is, indeed, probably too strong to say "the companies that control
the software design it to restrict the users and spy on them"; this may
imply all companies always do it, which is not proved.
Exactly so. NB. Not always 'companies' are behind the software. It could be
'one man army' project, like...for example Apollo player. So while it is not
proved it shouldn't be said. Presumption of innocence.
Post by Ineiev
Perhaps Matt will reword the passage once more.
(by the way, the current revision "RealPlayer, Windows Media Player,
iTunes, and other popular players require people
to use non-free software" sounds like a tautology).
Hope it will be done.
Post by Ineiev
but I'm quite sure there are many free (and non-open-source in the same
time)
The recommended expressions are 'gratis' or 'zero price'.
Yup.
Post by Ineiev
audioplayers that are not spy on the users.
Can you explain why are you sure?
Well, *many* is too strong word maybe. I'm sure about few :) Why? Just
because I know there're no reason to *spy* for them (people coding that
software). Just because.
Post by Ineiev
What means in general word 'spy' in that context?
I believe it means they (at least) "report what each
user watches or listens to".
So it must be declared in EULA. If user agreed with EULA than it is not
spying. It is free-will assignation of data to company. If it is not in EULA
it must be punished by law.
Post by Ineiev
Also paragraph named 'Nothing to lose!' have too strong declaration. 'You
don't lose any technical quality with Ogg Vorbis'. If I want to save all
quality and compress audio in the same time then I'll go for FLAC. OGG
Vorbis
non lossless as well-known here at list, so it is destructive by it's
nature.
Please note - I'm not compare mp3 and ogg here.
But the paragraph does compare MP3 and Ogg Vorbis.
Really? Where exactly? I see only comparison about relative size.
Post by Ineiev
Thanks,
Ineiev
Thanks 2u2! Best regards, Oleg
Ineiev
2010-05-04 10:30:21 UTC
Permalink
NB. Not always 'companies' are behind the software. It could be 'one man
army' project, like...for example Apollo player.
If a man can be an army, a man can easily be a company; generally, all companies
are run by some people.
So while it is not proved it shouldn't be said. Presumption of innocence.
True. we can't state, even though we may suspect.
I'm sure about few :) Why? Just because I know there're no reason to spy for
them (people coding that software). Just because.
That is, you don't know any reason to spy (?)

However, I think you are right, there must be some proprietary players
which are not spyware.
Post by Ineiev
I believe it means they (at least) "report what each
user watches or listens to".
So it must be declared in EULA.
If user agreed with EULA than it is not spying.
Yes, it is.
It is free-will assignation of data to company.
* Would the end user actually add those EULA clauses
if the EULA were written by the end user?

* Is the end user typically aware of those clauses?
If it is not in EULA it must be punished by law.
* There are a lot of ethical issues the law does not cover.

* What we want is to stop the companies mistreat the users
rather than to punish anybody.
Post by Ineiev
But the paragraph does compare MP3 and Ogg Vorbis.
Really? Where exactly? I see only comparison about relative size.
Probably the wording is careless, indeed. I thought it implied MP3 because
the page did not mention other proprietary formats (even in form
"other formats").

Do you think it can be reworded like
"You don't lose any technical quality with Ogg."
(with no particular codec format specified)?

Kindest regards,
Ineiev
Oleg Koptev
2010-05-04 11:11:58 UTC
Permalink
Our discussion seems to overfloat topic seamlessly :) In any case we're
reveal some other 'unclear phrases' as I think.
Post by Ineiev
If a man can be an army, a man can easily be a company; generally, all companies
are run by some people.
Absolutely right. I mean man without company status, unemployed for that and
don't receiving any fee from coding that piece of software, except maybe
donations or other form of free-will encouragement.
Post by Ineiev
I'm sure about few :) Why? Just because I know there're no reason to spy for
them (people coding that software). Just because.
That is, you don't know any reason to spy (?)
However, I think you are right, there must be some proprietary players
which are not spyware.
True. I clearly understand possible reason for spying. But I meant my sure
about few people, which project are not open-source and in the same time not
contain any spyware code. Just because it is meaningless for them.
Post by Ineiev
It is free-will assignation of data to company.
* Would the end user actually add those EULA clauses
if the EULA were written by the end user?
Sorry, I can't catch your words. EULA written by the end user? I always
think that EULA's are written by the companies...
Post by Ineiev
* Is the end user typically aware of those clauses?
If those clauses included in EULA, it is problems of end-user if he's not
give full attention to what he 'Agree, Continue' :) That's legal education
issue I think.
Post by Ineiev
If it is not in EULA it must be punished by law.
* There are a lot of ethical issues the law does not cover.
* What we want is to stop the companies mistreat the users
rather than to punish anybody.
Agree. But don't you think that in worst case, when some company include
some spyware in code and DON'T aware about it end-user in any clear form -
that need to be punished? I think almost all countries have laws about
privacy, like said in UN Human Rights.
Post by Ineiev
But the paragraph does compare MP3 and Ogg Vorbis.
Really? Where exactly? I see only comparison about relative size.
Probably the wording is careless, indeed. I thought it implied MP3 because
the page did not mention other proprietary formats (even in form
"other formats").
Do you think it can be reworded like
"You don't lose any technical quality with Ogg."
(with no particular codec format specified)?
Technically speaking 'You lose some quality', but generally speaking phrase
could exist as 'You don't lose any sensible quality with Ogg. Practically.'
But I must repeat my words about my skills in English - they're not good.
Post by Ineiev
Kindest regards,
Ineiev
From me too again, Oleg
ineiev
2010-05-04 17:54:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Oleg Koptev
Our discussion seems to overfloat topic seamlessly :) In any case we're
reveal some other 'unclear phrases' as I think.
They are still unclear and concerned with the playogg.org pages,
so I think it's OK.
Post by Oleg Koptev
Absolutely right. I mean man without company status,
unemployed for that and
don't receiving any fee from coding that piece of software,
except maybe donations or other form of free-will encouragement.
Now we can discuss the motives of that man if you wish: why may he
want to keep the software proprietary?
(which is slightly off-topic).
Post by Oleg Koptev
True. I clearly understand possible reason for spying. But I meant my sure
about few people, which project are not open-source and in the same time not
contain any spyware code. Just because it is meaningless for them.
Again (out of curiosity), because you can't imagine any reason
they might have or because you have some other proof?
Post by Oleg Koptev
Post by Oleg Koptev
It is free-will assignation of data to company.
* Would the end user actually add those EULA clauses
if the EULA were written by the end user?
Sorry, I can't catch your words. EULA written by the end user? I always
think that EULA's are written by the companies...
Sure. and the end user have no say there. no free-will.
Post by Oleg Koptev
Post by Oleg Koptev
* Is the end user typically aware of those clauses?
If those clauses included in EULA, it is problems of end-user if he's not
give full attention to what he 'Agree, Continue' :) That's legal education
issue I think.
Nonetheless, an unconscious free-will assignment is nonsense.
Post by Oleg Koptev
Post by Oleg Koptev
If it is not in EULA it must be punished by law.
* There are a lot of ethical issues the law does not cover.
* What we want is to stop the companies mistreat the users
rather than to punish anybody.
Agree. But don't you think that in worst case, when some company include
some spyware in code and DON'T aware about it end-user in any clear form -
that need to be punished? I think almost all countries have laws about
privacy, like said in UN Human Rights.
I don't think the punishment is a strong guarantee.
just my personal point of view.
Post by Oleg Koptev
Post by Oleg Koptev
Do you think it can be reworded like
"You don't lose any technical quality with Ogg."
(with no particular codec format specified)?
Technically speaking 'You lose some quality', but generally speaking phrase
could exist as 'You don't lose any sensible quality with Ogg. Practically.'
But I must repeat my words about my skills in English - they're not good.
Never mind. the person who runs the campaign is a native speaker,
he'll fix the linguistic issues easily.
Oleg Koptev
2010-05-05 04:56:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by ineiev
Now we can discuss the motives of that man if you wish: why may he
want to keep the software proprietary?
(which is slightly off-topic).
Completely off-topic, but anyway:
#1 he/she may have strong POV on development and style of project.
#2 he/she may have plans to sell that piece of software in future.
#3 he/she may have eccentric mind and don't want to share. Oddish, but have
chance to be.
i can continue.

Again (out of curiosity), because you can't imagine any reason
Post by ineiev
they might have or because you have some other proof?
For example - I know them personally.
Post by ineiev
Sorry, I can't catch your words. EULA written by the end user? I always
Post by Oleg Koptev
think that EULA's are written by the companies...
Sure. and the end user have no say there. no free-will.
Free-will is will to choose. You have will to not agree with EULA and press
'No' 'Quit' in anytime.
Post by ineiev
If those clauses included in EULA, it is problems of end-user if he's
Post by Oleg Koptev
not
give full attention to what he 'Agree, Continue' :) That's legal education
issue I think.
Nonetheless, an unconscious free-will assignment is nonsense.
Unconscious acts often leads to no good.

I don't think the punishment is a strong guarantee.
Post by ineiev
just my personal point of view.
:) Strong guarantee may give only god. Do you remember '640 kb will be
enough for all'?

Never mind. the person who runs the campaign is a native speaker, he'll fix
Post by ineiev
the linguistic issues easily.
Sure. If he will that'll be great.

Regards and long live to Ogg, open-source and open-mind. Oleg
Ineiev
2010-05-05 14:30:07 UTC
Permalink
CCing to the list, sorry

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ineiev <ineiev-***@public.gmane.org>
Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 14:22:30 +0000
Subject: Re: [playogg-discuss] playogg/faq: unclear phrase
To: Oleg Koptev <koptev.oleg-***@public.gmane.org>

Hi, Oleg!
Actually, not quite: we discuss the attitude of the campaign
to those who keep publicly available software proprietary (which
attitude results in certain "unclear phrases").
Post by Oleg Koptev
#1 he/she may have strong POV on development and style of project.
#2 he/she may have plans to sell that piece of software in future.
#3 he/she may have eccentric mind and don't want to share. Oddish, but have
chance to be.
Thanks. all these reasons sound realistic in my opinion.
and undoubtly the developers are free to follow any of them.
Post by Oleg Koptev
i can continue.
I'd appreciate it.
Post by Oleg Koptev
Again (out of curiosity), because you can't imagine any reason
Post by ineiev
they might have or because you have some other proof?
For example - I know them personally.
Is this the logic you wanted from FSF?

To be of any relevance, the statement has to imply either
* no people can spy if you know them personally (why?)
or
* you know about the developers something that excludes
that behaviour (however you don't tell directly about it)

I know you implied something reasonable, but I failed
to get any hint on what it is.
Post by Oleg Koptev
Post by ineiev
Sorry, I can't catch your words. EULA written by the end user? I always
Post by Oleg Koptev
think that EULA's are written by the companies...
Sure. and the end user have no say there. no free-will.
Free-will is will to choose.
And they are not free to choose whether to include the clauses.
they are not free to choose whether to switch the feature off.
they are not free to choose whether they may know what data
are sent to the owner and when. they can't choose.

(I shan't mention the fact that freedom is something more than
freedom of choice from a set of options
somebody else offers to you.)
Post by Oleg Koptev
You have will to not agree with EULA and press
'No' 'Quit' in anytime.
True. but this does not mean I want the feature. and if I don't,
if I find it desirable for me to remove the feature,
then I may speak of spying.
Post by Oleg Koptev
Post by ineiev
If those clauses included in EULA, it is problems of end-user if he's
Post by Oleg Koptev
not
give full attention to what he 'Agree, Continue' :) That's legal education
issue I think.
Nonetheless, an unconscious free-will assignment is nonsense.
Unconscious acts often leads to no good.
The question was not whether it was good or bad.
and the point is there were no voluntary consent;
it is to confirm that the campaign may call it spying.
Post by Oleg Koptev
Post by ineiev
I don't think the punishment is a strong guarantee.
just my personal point of view.
:) Strong guarantee may give only god.
There are some guarantees essentially stronger
than the punishment, though (in my humble opinion).

Best regards,
Ineiev
Oleg Koptev
2010-05-06 05:42:42 UTC
Permalink
Hello, Ineiev!
Post by Ineiev
Hi, Oleg!
Actually, not quite: we discuss the attitude of the campaign
to those who keep publicly available software proprietary (which
attitude results in certain "unclear phrases").
Agreed. The question is - have our nice discussion some sense for compaign
:) ?
Post by Ineiev
Again (out of curiosity), because you can't imagine any reason
Post by Oleg Koptev
Post by ineiev
they might have or because you have some other proof?
For example - I know them personally.
Is this the logic you wanted from FSF?
To be of any relevance, the statement has to imply either
* no people can spy if you know them personally (why?)
or
* you know about the developers something that excludes
that behaviour (however you don't tell directly about it)
I know you implied something reasonable, but I failed
to get any hint on what it is.
First decision false. I could know professional spy of course.
Second decision have sense - but with remarks - I can't know about ALL
developers for sure. But yes if I know some of them close enough, I can
claim it.
Post by Ineiev
Post by Oleg Koptev
Post by ineiev
Sorry, I can't catch your words. EULA written by the end user? I always
Post by Oleg Koptev
think that EULA's are written by the companies...
Sure. and the end user have no say there. no free-will.
Free-will is will to choose.
And they are not free to choose whether to include the clauses.
they are not free to choose whether to switch the feature off.
they are not free to choose whether they may know what data
are sent to the owner and when. they can't choose.
(I shan't mention the fact that freedom is something more than
freedom of choice from a set of options
somebody else offers to you.)
In that particular case I mean *freedom* as freedom to choose not from set
of options. But freedom to choose for agreing with some kind of EULA or
license or not. Ab ovo.
Post by Ineiev
You have will to not agree with EULA and press
Post by Oleg Koptev
'No' 'Quit' in anytime.
True. but this does not mean I want the feature. and if I don't,
if I find it desirable for me to remove the feature,
then I may speak of spying.
Sorry, can't catch you! Could you repeat it in Russian?

The question was not whether it was good or bad.
Post by Ineiev
and the point is there were no voluntary consent;
it is to confirm that the campaign may call it spying.
The same here.
Post by Ineiev
There are some guarantees essentially stronger
than the punishment, though (in my humble opinion).
Yep, I've adduce one. Could you add some another?
Post by Ineiev
Best regards,
Ineiev
Cheers, Oleg
ineiev
2010-05-06 16:47:09 UTC
Permalink
Hi, Oleg;
Post by Oleg Koptev
Post by Ineiev
Actually, not quite: we discuss the attitude of the campaign
to those who keep publicly available software proprietary (which
attitude results in certain "unclear phrases").
Agreed. The question is - have our nice discussion some sense for compaign
:) ?
If our position is well-argued, the campaign pages will probably
take it into account.

Besides that, your humble servant is personally interested
in the information, and after all the campaign is about
educating the people, isn't it?
Post by Oleg Koptev
First decision false. I could know professional spy of course.
Second decision have sense - but with remarks - I can't know about ALL
developers for sure. But yes if I know some of them close enough, I can
claim it.
Generally, you can't: you can know they are spies.

You can claim it if you know about some of them anything that
makes the behaviour unlikely. if this is the case you'd better
enumerate directly their properties incompatible with spying
rather than say that you know them very closely.
Post by Oleg Koptev
Post by Ineiev
You have will to not agree with EULA and press
Post by Oleg Koptev
'No' 'Quit' in anytime.
True. but this does not mean I want the feature. and if I don't,
if I find it desirable for me to remove the feature,
then I may speak of spying.
Sorry, can't catch you! Could you repeat it in Russian?
I'm sorry I could not be clear. in Russian it would be
"Если я соглашаюсь с лицензией в целом, это не значит, что мне
нравится этот пункт. а если он мне не нравится, и я хотел бы
его исключить, я могу говорить о том, что за мной шпионят."
Post by Oleg Koptev
The question was not whether it was good or bad.
Post by Ineiev
and the point is there were no voluntary consent;
it is to confirm that the campaign may call it spying.
The same here.
"Обсуждается не то, хорошо это или нет. дело в том, что
добровольного согласия фактически не было. это подтверждает,
что это можно называть шпионажем."

I wouldn't speak Russian any more here, though. my experience
shows I'm way more polite when speaking English.
Post by Oleg Koptev
Post by Ineiev
There are some guarantees essentially stronger
than the punishment, though (in my humble opinion).
Yep, I've adduce one. Could you add some another?
Besides the punishment? I've not seen.

The way I meant is of course not to give them power
they'll be able to abuse: use free software.

Vale,
Ineiev
Oleg Koptev
2010-05-07 04:55:42 UTC
Permalink
Hola, Ineiev
Post by ineiev
Hi, Oleg;
If our position is well-argued, the campaign pages will probably
take it into account.
Besides that, your humble servant is personally interested
in the information, and after all the campaign is about
educating the people, isn't it?
Sure. I've said that 'cause noone else said nothing here before.
Post by ineiev
You can claim it if you know about some of them anything that
makes the behaviour unlikely. if this is the case you'd better
enumerate directly their properties incompatible with spying
rather than say that you know them very closely.
Sorry for Your misunderstanding. Of course under 'i know them closely, so i
claim they're can't spy' i mean they have so properties. Enumeration is too
enough.
Post by ineiev
You have will to not agree with EULA and press
Post by Oleg Koptev
Post by Ineiev
Post by Oleg Koptev
'No' 'Quit' in anytime.
True. but this does not mean I want the feature. and if I don't,
if I find it desirable for me to remove the feature,
then I may speak of spying.
Sorry, can't catch you! Could you repeat it in Russian?
I'm sorry I could not be clear. in Russian it would be
"ЕслО я сПглашаюсь с лОцеМзОей в целПЌ, этП Ме зМачОт, чтП ЌМе
МравОтся этПт пуМкт. а еслО ПМ ЌМе Ме МравОтся, О я хПтел бы
егП ОсключОть, я ЌПгу гПвПрОть П тПЌ, чтП за ЌМПй шпОПМят."
Thanks. I've think there something sensible i miss from Your speach. But no.

That's absurd. Just for example - i'm honour Law of crimes in case of
robbery, raping and larceny. But 'cmon, what if i want to kill some people i
really dislike? Please, remove penalty for kill. Just for me. Just for one
day. Okay?

If you agree with some law you should agree with all law. *Dura lex sed lex*,
isn't it? In case of licensing the same. But you always free not to agree
with license. But in whole, unlike only part of it.
Post by ineiev
The question was not whether it was good or bad.
Post by Oleg Koptev
Post by Ineiev
and the point is there were no voluntary consent;
it is to confirm that the campaign may call it spying.
The same here.
"ОбсужЎается Ме тП, хПрПшП этП ОлО Мет. ЎелП в тПЌ, чтП
ЎПбрПвПльМПгП сПгласОя фактОческО Ме былП. этП пПЎтвержЎает,
чтП этП ЌПжМП Мазывать шпОПМажеЌ."
heh. when you press Agree you confirm your voluntary agreement. If you feel
no comfort with license - just quit the installer and/or delete the
programm.
Post by ineiev
I wouldn't speak Russian any more here, though.
Thanks. Me too. I found i understand all your words correctly.
Post by ineiev
my experience
shows I'm way more polite when speaking English.
I'm not easily frightening one :) jk
Post by ineiev
The way I meant is of course not to give them power
they'll be able to abuse: use free software.
Absolutely agree.
Post by ineiev
Vale,
Ineiev
vale? ok. was glad to talk with ya!
ineiev
2010-05-07 19:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Hi, Oleg;
Post by Oleg Koptev
Post by Ineiev
Post by Ineiev
True. but this does not mean I want the feature. and if I don't,
if I find it desirable for me to remove the feature,
then I may speak of spying.
...
Post by Oleg Koptev
That's absurd. Just for example - i'm honour Law of crimes in case of
robbery, raping and larceny. But 'cmon, what if i want to kill some people i
really dislike? Please, remove penalty for kill. Just for me. Just for one
day. Okay?
As I mentioned, I don't believe in punishment. if you want to kill
somebody, you need a doctor (provided that the society is sane).

And on the topic, it is not absurd. if I don't want to be tracked,
it is spying, it does not matter whether I get some "compensation".

Your argument would make sense if the program could only
send reports to the owner---then, indeed, it would be absurd
to want to run the program without being reported;
but that is not the case. the feature is minor
and switching it off would not harm main functions.
Post by Oleg Koptev
If you agree with some law you should agree with all law.
How the law is modified, then? the legislators have to agree with
some parts and not to agree with other. and if I'm not a legislator,
nobody cares whether I don't agree with all or
just with a part---I must obey.
Post by Oleg Koptev
Post by Ineiev
The question was not whether it was good or bad.
Post by Ineiev
and the point is there were no voluntary consent;
it is to confirm that the campaign may call it spying.
...
Post by Oleg Koptev
heh. when you press Agree you confirm your voluntary agreement.
There was no agreement. whether I was deceived to confirm it
is irrelevant.

Cheers,
Ineiev

Oleg Koptev
2010-05-06 05:24:24 UTC
Permalink
Thanks for reply, Volodya!
sorry for being pedantic, but i believe there is a big misunderstanding
on the nature of free software licences. None of them in any way restrict
the original author of the code.
well, all the words about it was my theoretical answer on the theoretical
question about 'why some man don't want to share sources?!'. it haven't deal
with licensing at all. At least he/she have right and freedom for that,
isn't it?

Best regards, Oleg
VolodyA! V Anarhist
2010-05-05 16:28:36 UTC
Permalink
sorry for being pedantic, but i believe there is a big misunderstanding on the
nature of free software licences. None of them in any way restrict the original
author of the code.
Post by Oleg Koptev
#1 he/she may have strong POV on development and style of project.
So do many large free software projects. Some of them will not even consider
additions which have minor issues with brackets in the different places, etc.
some may not accept patches at all.
Post by Oleg Koptev
#2 he/she may have plans to sell that piece of software in future.
Free software licenses do not restrict the original author in any way, since the
author never had to agree to any license. Only the users are limited in some way
(and in case of GPL, for example, only in the event when they wish to
redistribute the work based on the downloaded code). So i can write some code
under GPL and then turn around and sell the rights to it to Microsoft...

A lot of people dual licence stuff.

- Volodya
--
http://freedom.libsyn.com/ Echo of Freedom, Radical Podcast

"None of us are free until all of us are free." ~ Mihail Bakunin
Niklas Cholmkvist
2010-05-04 20:42:37 UTC
Permalink
Hello all,

Indeed, just as you note Oleg, at
http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/playogg/faq it says:
<snip>
controlled by companies, not by the users. The companies that control
the software design it to restrict the users and spy on them.
They are referring partly to Microsoft Windows XP. Examples and
references are helpful always, without they seem like empty words, so
here are two references:
http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000178.html is about an individual's
discovery of that the software 'Windows XP validation tool' sends
information to Microsoft during the boot-up procedure of Windows. Now
from my point of view how can this individual know this? Short
explanation: By using for example a widely available program called
Wireshark,with which anyone can sniff a network nowadays. Connect it to
the network and it will sniff any traffic that goes from and to computer
devices.

http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/000179.html is about how Microsoft
responds to this and says in a style 'this software communicates with us
so we can disable it if it malfunctions'. Now this is one opinion by one
person. I also want examples (and real examples that say, use that
version of that OS, check 'those' packages in Wireshark. Proved),
otherwise they will seem like empty words. Examples always help.

By the way I don't give links to things I've not personally read, so
researching this took its time.

Kind regards,

Niklas
--
Loading...