[Home page](/) [Latest blog](../all.html)
# slef-reflections on FSF
* The Fellowship Raffle
* Copycrime
* Skype
* Software Patents
* [FSFE home page](http://www.fsfeurope.org/)
* * *
## Skype
2007-08-10 (Permalink): [Matt Lee](http://www.gnu.org/) commented:
> "MJ,
>
> I'm disappointed that you'd think the FSF would use Skype. Further, to post
it, without a retraction that I can see, helps neither the FSF nor yourself.
>
> A clarification above the post would be nice. I just found this post via a
search for something else, and so it has now reached the search engines.
>
> Hope you're well,
>
> matt"
Thanks for the comment. Hope you're well, too.
Just to be clear, right at the top, I didn't think FSF would use Skype. That's
why I was so bloody surprised when the radio interview made it sound like they
did! I almost spluttered breakfast across the room...
It was worth posting, because it got the interview clarified, which wouldn't
have happened otherwise. I found out later that FSF's systems apparently
deleted my email unread, without delivering it to Peter Brown, or anyone else
who could answer the questions.
[The FSF guest's reply and my apology are on the same page as my original
here](http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2007/fsf#replyskype) along with a call for
help summarising the need for free-software-friendly VoIP. I've also changed
the "preface" post to try to make it absolutely clear. If anyone is mirroring
my page and hasn't copied the retraction, please let them know.
By the way, I was called over Skype today, for the first time that I'm aware
of. The caller told me they used Skype and the VoIP artefacts were pretty
noticeable. Is that usual? I guess that could be how Peter Brown knew it was
an interview over a Skype call.
* Comment on this
2007-07-24 (Permalink): Preface: I'm aware that my surprise at FSF using Skype
(Update: actually, they don't directly, see the explanation below) does raise
the old question "where do you draw the line?" - For example, do you refuse to
use the fixed-line telephone system if your exchanges are not running free
software?
Me, I use the telephone system because it's effectively a monopoly and we
don't have an alternative that works for me. I sometimes try to nibble at the
system with [the Phone Co-op](http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2007/phone) and
[more VoIP use,](http://www.voipuser.org) but it's no fun banging my head
against a wall. However, I
[boycott](http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/boycotts) Skype because I can't
tell what it's doing, there have been enough bad reports that I don't trust it
and the alternatives of SIP and IAX work for me, but I expected FSF not to use
Skype for idealistic reasons.
FSF leaders like RMS have promoted things like [Why schools should exclusively
use free software [by Richard
Stallman],](http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/schools.html) carefully corrected
inaccurate claims about free software and refused to mention some proprietary
software products. They were often [criticised for
it,](http://www.jonobacon.org/?p=100) but they continued to do it (for good
reasons IMO, even when I disagreed with them).
So, FSF's Controller giving an interview over Skype seemed a rather surprising
about-face. Then the interviewer claimed "Skype is free" and it went
unchallenged. After the show, I sent the email...
2007-07-24 (Permalink): I just sent this: Dear FSF,
On the [Radio New Internationalist](http://www.newint.org/radio/) show "Up in
Smoke", during an interview with Peter Brown of [FSF](http://www.fsf.org/)
(about 43 minutes in), I was surprised to hear the following revelation that
FSF uses Skype and the failure to challenge the claim that Skype is free
software:
> "Peter Brown: ... This interview today is being transmitted through
[Skype.](http://snapvoip.blogspot.com/search/label/skype) We're talking
through Skype. Now, that obviously is a direct threat to the entrenched
telecoms and they would like to restrict that, to lower the quality of the
voice connection and they want to do that with lots of other types of
transmission.
>
> Rachel Maher: And can they do that? Because Skype of course is free and
there's a really direct benefit for organisations like ours, which is a non-
profit organisation using Skype technology. Will they be able to do that?
>
> Peter Brown: Yes, so what they can do is easily identify types of
information being passed, so what they can typically do is downgrade the
service that you're using, so that - for instance, voice communication - those
packets of data can be slowed down, effectively making voice communciation
more difficult. Now this can only really be achieved if they're able to
manipulate legislation. Unfortunately, they have a long history of being very
successful at this. I mentioned earlier on that [Digital Restrictions
Management](http://drm.info/) are a threat to our freedoms because it's
allowing them to erect gateways and to control what it is that we can view and
do with our computers. ..."
I was disappointed not to find much on [the FSF web site](http://www.fsf.org/)
about the need for free VoIP software, building on [GNU
oSIP](http://www.gnu.org/software/osip/) and other free software, instead of
Skype's proprietary software, which has contained
[spyware](http://www.pagetable.com/?p=27) and
[worms](http://snapvoip.blogspot.com/2007/05/new-worm-in-skype-chat.html)
already. Will you be adding such information soon? What is the official FSF
view of Skype and similar proprietary VoIP systems?
Nevertheless, well done for covering DRM, net neutrality and the privacy
problems of [Google,](http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/google) Yahoo! and
Microsoft in a relatively short interview.
Regards, MJR
2007-07-25 (Permalink): Peter Brown replied:
> "Thanks for the message. Here are some comments on the issues you raise:
>
>> "> \- On the Radio New Internationalist show "Up in Smoke", during an
interview with Peter Brown of FSF (about 43 minutes in), I was surprised to
hear the following revelation that FSF uses Skype and the failure to challenge
the claim that Skype is free software:"
>
> The FSF doesn't use Skype. I would appreciate if you would clarify that on
your blog post. The interviewer used Skype to telephone me on an FSF
telephone. I agree that from what I said, it would be easy to infer that FSF
uses Skype, but it doesn't. The interview lasted about an hour and we covered
a lot of ground. Also, in this exchange I didn't clarify for the listener that
when the interviewer remarked that "Skype was free", they meant as in price,
but not as in freedom.
>
>> "> \- I was disappointed not to find much on the FSF web site about the
need for free VoIP software, building on GNU oSIP and other free software,
instead of Skype's proprietary software, which has contained spyware and worms
already. Will you be adding such information soon? What is the official FSF
view of Skype and similar proprietary VoIP systems?"
>
> Skype is proprietary and we don't use it. In that section of the interview
we were discussing telecoms monopoly and net neutrality, and I lost the focus
on the free software issue - my bad. As far as adding an article about VOIP on
fsf.org I think that's a great idea. Unfortunately, I don't think we can cover
that immediately, as we have some campaigns we have other campaign activities
to focus on. We would be glad to take a contribution though, if you would like
to write such an article - we might also want to think about using such an
article as a basis for a campaign.
>
>> "> \- Nevertheless, well done for covering DRM, net neutrality and the
privacy problems of Google, Yahoo! and Microsoft in a relatively short
interview."
>
> Thanks. I actually used to work at the New Internationalist in Oxford, and
they are a great coop. I have been working with them now for a couple of
years, tying to encourage them to cover free software related issues for their
audience. Have you seen [the article Bruce Byfield (Newsforge) wrote that I
got placed in the November issue of the
magazine?](http://www.newint.org/columns/essays/2006/11/01/software/)
>
> all the best
>
> peter"
Thanks for the reply! To my shame, I'd completely forgotten that Skype can
also call ordinary telephones and the interview didn't remind me. Sorry about
that. I guess that might be because my main awareness of Skype is when it's a
problem, when someone gives a skype: address instead of a sip: one or a real
phone number.
However, I'm not sure a called person would usually say that they were being
called over Skype, rather than being telephoned. FSF people are smarties,
though, so can hear the artefacts, or maybe the interviewer had mentioned it
beforehand.
Anyone else want to summarise the benefits of free software VoIP compared to
Skype systems? I won't get time before next month.
kris commented:
> "There's [openwengo,](http://www.openwengo.org/) it has more features than
skype (i.e. video), is encrypted, open and free. Enjoy."
I keep meaning to try openwengo, but each time I look at it, I fail to find
the source tarball for the latest release. It also seems to be Qt-only, which
I also try to avoid installing (as it'd be a fourth set of desktop widgets).
At the moment, I'm using [linphone](http://www.linphone.org/) from the
command-line. I sometimes consider replacing it with a stand-alone telephone
adapter. I wonder: are any running free software?
2007-07-26 (Permalink): chithanh wrote:
> "For OpenWengo source, you may have a look here:
(link at the bottom) or at
[the OpenWengo community site](http://dev.openwengo.com/) "
I'd forgotten about the debian source tarballs. D'oh! The OpenWengo community
site doesn't seem to have source tarballs.
[blix](http://parsix.org) asked:
> "Did ever test [Gizmo?](http://gizmoproject.com/) Gizmo Project is the baby
of the team who built the SIPphone VoIP platform."
No, I didn't. Where's the source download?
[Damien Merenne](http://blog.cosinux.org/) commented:
> "I opted for a
[fritzbox](http://www.avm.de/en/news/artikel/new_fritzbox_models.html?linkident=grafik)
which allows you to use your analog phone to make calls over SIP. No need to
mess with software and firewall problems. Just create a SIP account, plug your
phone in the box and it works."
Interesting. Looks like it might have [source code on the FTP
site](ftp://ftp.avm.de/develper/opensrc) but I've not checked further yet.
[Allard Hoeve](http://byte.nl) commented:
> "I decided to look at WengoPhone as a result of your post. The source is
indeed well hidden, but a bit of poking around in the FAQ lead me to:
>
> Regards, Allard
>
> PS: [Doh!](http://packages.qa.debian.org/w/wengophone.html) "
I've seen the d'oh, but there's no source tarball on GetTheSourceWengoPhoneNg,
only a subversion URL. I don't have subversion installed, I don't want it
installed and I think releases should have a corresponding source tarball,
else it's a snapshot, not a proper release. I just want to build it, not
become a core committer.
2007-07-27 (Permalink): chithanh wrote:
> "Of course the OpenWengo community site has the source tarball. It is the
first download on [this
link](http://dev.openwengo.com/trac/openwengo/trac.cgi/wiki) "
Oh! Last time, I clicked "Download" and then "get the source" which takes you
to a different place with no tarball. I didn't scroll down that initial page.
What a confusing site - a typical trac?
kris commented:
> "OpenWengo sources seem to be
[here:](http://download.wengo.com/nightlybuilds/universal/sources/openwengo/2.1.1/)
"
[blix](http://parsix.org) commented:
> "mmm... It seems that Gizmo is another fake Open Source app. it uses
SIPphone but [its source code is proprietary;](http://gizmoproject.com/gizmo-
end-user.html) At least I couldn't find any source code on [the Linux download
page;](http://www.gizmoproject.com/download-linux.html) "
Thanks for the source explanations!
* Comment on this
* Start of this section
* Start of this page
* [All topics](../)
* * *
## The Fellowship Raffle
### Notes on a Scandal
FSFE launched [a raffle](http://fsfe.org/en/fellows/raffle/2007/raffle_2007)
to encourage more people to join. I don't find it particularly attractive,
which is probably partly because of my statistics education. I'll join FSFE
when they stop promoting non-free-software like the notorious FDL.
As it turns out, my reaction was pretty mild compared to some existing
fellows. There was [a
discussion](http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.fsf.europe.discussion/1491) on
the main FSFE international list flaming them for including [the "likeable
mask"-wearing](http://walfield.org/blog/2007/01/29/maemo.html) Nokia N800 and
an [ex-Qt-locked Greenphone](http://linuxdevices.com/news/NS4872069549.html)
among the prizes.
GNU Project Chief Webmaster Matt Lee wrote:
> "I don't think this is appropriate, or wise. Further, it makes me want to
not support FSF Europe."
Pretty early on, FSFE's Jonas Oberg wrote:
> "Actually, this is news to all of us. [...] if there's no way to liberate
the hardware before sending it out, we might well have to withdraw those
prizes from the raffle to avoid sending non-free software to anyone."
but the flamefest continues unabated. As is sadly common on free software-
related lists, the moderators have not stepped in with the fire blankets yet.
(Some also found it worth reposting old lies about debian, which drew me onto
the list to rebut them. **sigh** Way to go FSF fans.)
Aside: [Savannah has suffered a hardware
failure](http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2007-03/msg00766.html)
in case you were wondering where cvs.savannah.* went.
Update: some of the prizes have been withdrawn from the raffle. I think all
the controversial ones have been pulled.
[Jon Atkinson](http://jonatkinson.co.uk) asked about my intro:
> > ""I'll join FSFE when they stop promoting non-free-software like the
notorious FDL."
>
> This is not something which I have heard of before; could you possibly
expand a little on this?"
I think the best thing is to point to [my FDL
page](http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/fdl) rather than repeat the argument
here.
* Start of this section
* Start of this page
* [All topics](../)
* * *
## Don't Let Europe Turn Its Citizens into Copycriminals!
[Sign EFF's Petition Against IPRED2](http://www.copycrime.eu/)
On April 24th, the European Parliament will vote on IPRED2, the Second
Intellectual Property Enforcement Directive. With one stroke, they risk
turning thousands of innocent EU citizens and businesses into copycriminals.
If IPRED2 passes in its current form, "aiding, abetting, or inciting"
copyright infringement on a "commercial scale" in the EU will become a crime.
[(Source)](http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.org.fsf.europe.discussion/1667)
* Start of this section
* Start of this page
* [All topics](../)
* * *
## Software Patents
james wrote:
> "I came across [your page.](http://mjr.towers.org.uk/blog/2006/swpat) I
wanted to suggest adding a link to This is
a free patent searching site with PDF downloading, world patent searching,
alerts, and other account functions -- all free. It is a great resource for
intellectual property professionals, reearchers, students, small businesses,
and anyone else who needs such legal or scientific information."
I thought the idea was that we shouldn't search for invalid patents, because
ignorant infringement is punished less severely than wilful infringement?
Joe Buck replied:
> "Well, yes, there's the matter of triple damages for "willful infringement".
That only kicks in once a court has found you liable, but it's an issue.
>
> There's been a change in the last few days though; a recent US Supreme Court
decision should lead to a very large number of software patents getting tossed
(though unfortunately they would have to be challenged one by one).
>
> My take: free software developers shouldn't go searching for bad patents.
But people like the EFF and the SFLC should, the better to get those bad
patents tossed."
* Start of this section
* Start of this page
* [All topics](../)
[Comment form for non-frame browsers](../../comp/respond.pl).
Comments are moderated (damn spammers) but almost anything sensible gets
approved (albeit eventually). If you give a web address, I'll link it. I won't
publish your email address unless you ask me to, but I'll email you a link
when the comment is posted, or the reason why it's not posted.
This is copyright 2007 MJ Ray. See fuller notice on [front page](/).