Re: [OS:N:] Another multiple response (Basic rights warmed up in the microwave again)

> How many times do I need to say : 
> 
> 1. It is absurd that the education program from red hat is not usable
> using free software becuase the contracts preclude the usage of them.

How many times do I need to say the courseware is on facet of our
training offering, including to schools.

> 
> 2. The amount of schools and institutions that have similar policies is
> scary, and I think it is a valid issue to bring up on the
> open-source-now list.

Then we should be talking in the context of the larger issue. If Red Hat
is part of the problem, we're a small part. We are also a big part of
the solution in most cases.

> 
> 3. The right to free software is a basic right, under copyright law
> that is open to students who use normal copyrighted materials covered
> upder copyrigth law and without any additional agreements that are
> designed to take away these rights, the student will have that basic
> right. Only the additional EULA and other mechanisms remove these
> rights. Redhat and its exclusive providers employee such tactics of
> removing the basic freedoms  granted by copyright law with much more
> stronger binding clauses that I find deplorable.  A student that is
> bound by these extra clauses that are spawned out of deep mistrust of
> the student and will to control the students behaviour is unable to use
> the basic free software and "open source" software to take part in the
> training for "open source" software. 

They have the same rights to fair use of the material as copyright law
allows. However opening the code to the deliver/presentation mechanism
would appear to grant them rights they do not have even without the
EULA, specifically to modify the material and/or reprint it in a way
that represents it as their own.

> 
> 4. It is very fair to make public and critism proponents of "open
> source" and free software who aim to remove the students rights to use
> "open source" and free software exclusivly.

Sure, criticize Flash for being closed in a Flash forum. Your wording is
still what bothers me, because you refuse to stop making it sound like
the purpose of our training, 99% of which is freely usable in any way a
student *should* want to use it, is to remove these rights. Since you
will ask me for proof so you can "clarify" I mean specifically stating
our "aim is to remove the students rights to..."

They have a right to get the training the school is paying for, they
have the right to use the information for learning purposes. They do not
have the right to re-distribute commercial training, therefore granting
them the right to inspect the means to do so, is extraneous.

> 
> 5. Futhermore the lack of any mention of the issue of students rights
> and freedom is a omission of the open-source-now project that I feel
> has to be addressed. 
> 

I guess you're hung up on the wording since the site drips with
references as to access to information and the "right" to a good
education. We are revamping the OS:N: site, I would love all of the
feedback on how you think that site can be improved (including wording
on our commitment to student rights and freedoms. Please send me the
OS:N: site comments off-list and I will take them to the rest of the
team.

--jeremy


_______________________________________________
Subscription and Archive: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/open-source-now-list/
-
For K12OS technical help join K12OSN:
<https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn>