Re: [Menai-LUG] Meeting/event - notes from the meeting

(portmanteau reply)

On Wednesday 04 April 2007 20:56, Eion MacDonald wrote:
> Will you cover this in your applications point.
> (VAT accounting, it is major reason I still dual boot to Windows!)

Yes, this certainly needs to be addressed before we offer solutions.  GnuCa=
sh,=20
however,=20
does seem to handle VAT, eg
https://lists.gnucash.org/pipermail/gnucash-user/2005-April/013417.html
https://lists.gnucash.org/pipermail/gnucash-user/2005-November/015074.html
https://lists.gnucash.org/pipermail/gnucash-user/2005-March/013233.html
These are quite old, so it may even have improved since then - I haven't=20
looked at the app for some time.  We might have to do a briefing note on th=
e=20
website walking people through using GnuCash for VAT to make it a more viab=
le=20
alternative.

On Wednesday 04 April 2007 18:33, Oli wrote:
>  I would be interested to speak to
> someone about Thyme and GnuCash - I always find its the apps that make
> people want the OS - not the other way around!

Gnucash - http://www.gnucash.org
Thyme - http://www.clocksoft.co.uk

> Anyway, best of luck, and I would be happy to help out with putting
> you in touch with people who can help with publicity in Flintshire.

Thanks - can you send me the details off-list?

On Thursday 05 April 2007 16:23, Carwyn Edwards wrote:
> I'll ask around at work (University of Wales, Bangor) to see if we can
> help in any way with this. Technium Cast (techniumcast.com) and Intec
> also have some people that might be interested. IT Wales (itwales.com)
> is another group that will likely have interested parties.

Much appreciated - please keep us informed of developments.  If you have an=
y=20
specific entrees to Cast or ITWales, perhaps we could use them when the=20
planning is a bit farther forward?

> I'd be concerned about two words in this sentence: "free" and "GPL". "Fre=
e"
> is a double edged sword from what I've seen in businesses perception.
> People like free things, but tend to associate low value to things that a=
re
> given away free. I've also had people argue that free is also often
> associated with poor customer support. I think I'd suggest Open Source
> instead of "free". It isn't free, there is value and cost to it.=20

Yes, this is a valid concern.  In fact, it is exactly the argument made by=
=20
ESR, Bruce Perens, etc when they generated the term "open-source".  The bas=
ic=20
problem is that English uses the same word for two entirely separate things=
,=20
unlike French (libre/gratuit) or Welsh (rhydd/am ddim) - as Richard noted -=
 =20
and there's not much that can be done about this.  "FLOSS" is confusing=20
unless you already know what it stands for, "open-source" may evoke the=20
response "I wouldn't understand a program's code, so why should I value=20
that?" (and is also subject to term creep from people using "open" to mean=
=20
"industry-standard", ie proprietary, or "shared source"), "libre software"=
=20
sounds slightly posey, "liberated software" sounds a bit agitprop, and so o=
n.

So I think we have to bite the bullet and use "free software", but with=20
something to suggest that it's not your usual "free".  "Free as in freedom,=
=20
not free as in beer" is a bit long, and in most cases the cosftware is free=
=20
as in beer as well, so what I've taken to doing is just "free (GPL)".  Othe=
rs=20
may disagree, but to me this subsets "free" and also draws attention to the=
=20
license, which is as it should be.

Whether this is the right thing to use for the event, I don't know.  I'm a=
=20
little wary of the term "open-source" (though I wasn't 3-4 years ago), beca=
use=20
it's becoming a bit of a moveable feast - "as open as we, the producers, wa=
nt=20
to make it" - instead of, as the GPL does, emphasising the consumers (who,=
=20
after all, outnumber software producers by many times to one, and whose=20
businesses are in aggregate far more important to the economy).  I also dou=
bt=20
whether it's that much more comprehensible/appealing to likely participants=
=20
at the event, as Richard also noted.

I take the point about the negative connotations of "free".  But people oft=
en=20
want to have it both ways - "Great, this software is free!  But I'll probab=
ly=20
need support?  What, you mean I have to pay for that?  Why isn't it free as=
=20
well?"  I'm not sure how many proprietary apps come with free support now -=
=20
there were quite a few in the 80s (when your word-processor might cost you=
=20
=C2=A3800), but not many now, I suspect.  Most FLOSS providers (eg RedHat, =
SUSE,=20
Canonical, Sun, MySQL AB, Sugar, etc etc) offer full support - at a price. =
=20
So the issue is really one of whether you pay (up front, in buying the app)=
,=20
or only as you need it (in time or money) - free software at least offers y=
ou=20
one more degree of freedom than the traditional software model.  I think th=
at=20
setting out this slightly different way of looking at or evaluating softwar=
e=20
costs might actually be one of the benefits of the event.

> GPL on the=20
> other hand is too specific, much of the software that non technical people
> will associate with Open Source isn't GPL.

Most FLOSS is in fact under the GPL rather than an OSS license - Perl, PHP,=
=20
MySQL, Linux, etc.  The outstanding contrary case is Apache.  I read=20
somewhere that of all the FLOSS software in existence, something like 75% o=
f=20
it is under the GPL.  Granted, a large amount of that will be sleepware, bu=
t=20
virtually all the big FLOSS software projects are GPL, and many individual=
=20
developers (particularly in Europe) will in fact refuse to contribute to=20
software that is *not* under the GPL (because software under OSS licenses=20
like the BSD one can be "kidnapped" and taken proprietary, whereupon their=
=20
code is used by someone else for that individual's/company's personal gain,=
=20
instead of for the public good, as the coder intended).

> My suggestions:
> "Solve your business computing needs affordably and sustainably using Open
> Source Software"
> "How Open Source and Open Standards can help your Business"

I agree the "open standards" point might be a good one, although that is=20
already subject to term creep (eg Microsoft's Office Open XML, which uses t=
he=20
word "open", but is really nothing of the sort, since it allows you to use=
=20
OOXML as a wrapper for proprietary blobs).

On Thursday 05 April 2007 17:18, Richard Smedley wrote:
> I'm afraid talking about ``open source'' is far more baffling for
> non-technical people than talking about freedom. Besides, a lot
> of software sold as ``open source'' is not free at all :-(

Indeed.  Just to take an example relevant to business (since Huw wasn't qui=
te=20
convinced :-)), Sugar CRM sourcecode is available, but the Professional=20
version's license agreement says:
=3D=3D=3D
Company shall not, directly or indirectly: (i) sublicense, resell, rent,=20
lease, distribute, market, commercialize or otherwise transfer rights or=20
usage to: (a) the Software, (b) any modified version or derivative work of=
=20
the Software created by the Company or for the Company, or (c) any software=
,=20
either modified or not, licensed under a SugarCRM Public License, for any=20
purpose including timesharing or service bureau purposes; (ii) remove or=20
alter any copyright, trademark or proprietary notice in the Software; (iii)=
=20
transfer, use or export the Software in violation of any laws or regulation=
s=20
of any government or governmental agency; (iv) use or run on any of Company=
's=20
hardware, or have deployed for use, any copy or version of the SugarCRM ope=
n=20
source version of the Software; (v) reverse engineer, decompile or modify a=
ny=20
encrypted or encoded portion of the Software; (vi) bifurcate the source cod=
e=20
for any SugarCRM open source licensed products into a separately maintained=
=20
source code repository so that development done on the original code requir=
es=20
manual work to be transferred to the forked software or so that the forked=
=20
software starts to have features not present in the original software.
=3D=3D=3D

Not much you can do with that version of the software except use it!  I=20
actually think that negotiating your way around the thickets of various OSS=
=20
licenses is more difficult than having a straight proprietary license :-) =
=20
GPL is easiest of all .....

> Access to source code is only part of freedom - being able to run
> the software wherever you like, for whatever purpose you like, is
> very important when it comes to the crippling pain of keeping
> track of licences across a large organisation. And in schools,
> being able to give OOo discs to the kids would put an end to
> teachers' tacit encouragement to the pupils obtaining illegal
> copies of MS Office (and actually passing out discs of illegally-
> copied proprietary software in a couple of cases I know of at a
> local school).

This is a very good point - "free software encourages ethical behaviour=20
shock!" - and of course there have been instances (Birmingham rings a bell)=
=20
where LEAs have been fined for running unlicensed software.

> How about:
> ``What is software freedom? Find out how...'' and then something
> about sustainability, GNU/Linux, growing your business, etc.

Yes, attractive.  "Flourish - choose freedom!  Find out how GNU software an=
d=20
Linux can offer you bottom-line savings and help you grow your business=20
sustainably."  That would meet Carwyn's point about avoiding the word "free=
".

On Thursday 05 April 2007 20:30, [email protected] wrote:
> There are a lot of definitions of Free and Open Source.

Open-source, yes - that's part of the problem.  Free, no - if it's under th=
e=20
GPL, it's free, if not, it's not.

> Debian decided that the FSF's GFDL can be non-free.

Well, what *some* Debian people objected to was that the documentation writ=
er=20
could include conditions about particular changes, retaining his/her name,=
=20
etc.  The GPL allows you to change anything (apart from the copyright) in t=
he=20
source-code, and they felt that the same should apply to documentation. =20
Since the GFDL allowed for something else, they concluded it was not "free"=
=20
under the terms of the GPL.  I suppose this is logical, if you happen to=20
agree with their "purist" stance. :-)

On Thursday 05 April 2007 18:14, Huw Wyn Jones wrote:
> Just been talking to my work colleague about this thread and it looks
> like that I can source finance for a OSS event in rural (read objective
> one) Wales.

These North Wales FLOSS events are like buses - you wait ages for one, and=
=20
then three show up at once (c.f. Oli's)!

Do you mean that you have money in hand, or can get it fairly certainly, or=
=20
that you would still need to bid for it?

> What we (www.cefngwlad.org) would like to see if an event demonstrating
> how OSS can benefit rural businesses and organisations. That is of
> course a very 'open' brief as far as the technology goes !! :-)

I agree.  But do you have any info on the size/number of rural businesses, =
and=20
what sort of software they might find useful?    Most agribusinesses (ie a=
=20
farmer with a sideline) might be covered by info on a router, and OpenOffic=
e,=20
=46irefox and GnuCash.  Given your audience, it might also be relevant that=
=20
"non-core" apps like GnuCash can easily be translated to Welsh.  Do you hav=
e=20
anything specific in mind?  And of course, could rural stuff be a track in =
a=20
more comprehensive event?  Getting a critical mass might be better than=20
having smaller events.

> Would there be any objections to holding such an event in CAST in
> Bangor? Convenient enough for most list members and many of the 'target
> audience'.

Will Cast do a good deal on the hire, and would they do the same good deal =
for=20
a larger event? :-)  If so, worth considering.  Although Oli's point about=
=20
moving farther down the coast is a valid one.

On Wednesday 04 April 2007 18:33, Oli wrote:
> As I was mentioning earlier, I have been given the go ahead to find
> content for an IT event to be held in Flintshire in October.=20

Assuming your content is just one strand of a wider thing, I suppose there'=
s=20
not much you can do under the "critical mass -> combine resources" heading.=
 =20
What I'm interested in is timing - do you know what date you are looking at=
=20
in October (your earlier posts referred only to "autumn")?  It would be=20
ludicrous to have two FLOSS events on the same day - do any of the dates I=
=20
suggested in my earlier post clash with yours?

=2D-=20
Pob hwyl / Best wishes

Kevin Donnelly

www.kyfieithu.co.uk - KDE yn Gymraeg
www.klebran.org.uk - Gwirydd gramadeg rhydd i'r Gymraeg
www.eurfa.org.uk - Geiriadur rhydd i'r Gymraeg
www.rhedadur.org.uk - Rhedeg berfau Cymraeg