On 26/08/16 19:28, Christopher Havel wrote:

I'd say you should. If Wiki's people decide that there's too much information from a primary source, they'll quite likely delete the article altogether. That, needless to say, would probably be kind of bad.

Exactly.

--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Sam Pablo Kuper sampablokuper@posteo.net wrote:

On 26/08/16 19:58, Sam Pablo Kuper wrote:

...

On 26/08/16 19:28, Christopher Havel wrote:

...

I'd say you should. If Wiki's people decide that there's too much information from a primary source, they'll quite likely delete the article altogether. That, needless to say, would probably be kind of bad.

Exactly.

Also, "wikifascists" isn't exactly constructive language. Without a decent, impartially applied conflict of interest policy, Wikipedia would undoubtedly suffer:

having regularly encountered blatant violation of wikipedia policy by long-term wikipedia editors when i've endeavoured to provide accurate technical information where highly-technical articles were clearly wrong or completely lacking, i feel i'm entitled to use the term accurately.... despite it not being very nice.

i won't provide evidence of what happened because one of the incidents was down to accidental anonymity (on my part - i simply forgot to log in). the attacks on that "anonymous IP address" were so violent that i have absolutely no intention of letting the wikifascists who attacked the "anonymous" technical contributions know who i am.

btw just to be *absolutely clear* i'm using "Definition 2" as outlined here: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fascist certainly not Definitions 1 or 3!

l.

--- crowd-funded eco-conscious hardware: https://www.crowdsupply.com/eoma68

On Sat, Aug 27, 2016 at 5:00 AM, Muhammed Adel Afzal adel@ncf.ca wrote:

Is "libre" better defined, and a better match, for EOMA-68? Better than "open" standard, I mean. Genuine question .. I have no idea.

Wiki says "open" right now.

i know... it doesn't say "open source" though :)

honestly, i don't know. "libre" has a specific connotation that requires that the "four freedoms" be applied to it. i honestly haven't evaluated that yet.

l.

On Saturday 27. August 2016 06.00.24 Muhammed Adel Afzal wrote:

Is "libre" better defined, and a better match, for EOMA-68? Better than "open" standard, I mean. Genuine question .. I have no idea.

Wiki says "open" right now.

Back in the thread about OSHWA ("need help! getting a bit overwhelmed on lists.oshwa.org"), I wrote that "terms like "open standards" have tried to retain their credibility, but there are still controversies about "RAND", "FRAND" and other nasty traps that give claims of openness little face value".

"RAND" means "reasonable and non-discriminatory"; "FRAND" means "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing

Both terms are often used by organisations wishing to portray standards they support (or have proposed) as being inclusive, with the "non-discriminatory" aspect supposedly prohibiting the kind of shady practice of charging one licencee one fee and another a higher fee, often to coerce licencees into a pattern of desired behaviour (which is what Microsoft was apparently doing with its product licencees, making hardware manufacturers drop competing software products or pay higher licensing fees).

And the "reasonable" aspect may actually exclude Free Software projects and organisations because any licensing of the standard may involve a fee that then prevents the normal distribution of Free Software. By insisting on any fee, even a small one and even a one-off fee, smaller organisations and individuals may not be able to carry the burden, particularly if there are other "FRAND" standards that they also have to licence. And of course, any licensing fees payable upon distribution are just incompatible with Free Software, anyway: people can share Free Software after having received it; are they supposed to collect patent licensing fees from their friends to send to the standards cartel?

Still, I don't know of any terms that are currently better than "open standard", although I don't follow discussions about that kind of thing, either.

Paul

2016-08-26 21:59 Paul Boddie:

P.S. Congratulations from me, too!

+1 metoo \o/

I thought the campaign wouldn't make it, but then everybody seemed to think it was either now or never. (I guess people can still pledge after the deadline, though, because manufacturing surely doesn't happen until between the new years. Right?)

Judging by Novena and other campaings, looks like people can do pre-orders / orders after the campaign ends successfully (so Luke could get to 650+ instead of 250 MOQ for the cards).

-- Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo manuel.montezelo@gmail.com