Linux Voice
The majority of Linux Format staff have walked out and are trying to start their own magazine through funding:
If only they renamed it to GNU/Linux Voice.
I am a member!
Other that the naming issue, it seems to be better that Linux Format. They say they will give 50% of their profits back to the community and that the community chooses where the money goes. So the community can direct at least some of the money to supporting free software.
They also promise to TRY to release their code and other content under CC license after 9 months. If they do that, it's far better that the subscription based access to the content which Linux Format had.
I am a member!
Produced using non-free software (Adobe InDesign), articles about non-free games (Minecraft), likes Ubuntu, calls self "Linux Voice" not "GNU Voice" or "GNU/Linux Voice".
This has potential, but there are big weaknesses.
I agree. I don't know why they will use InDesign (probably with OS X). Scribus is amazing and easy.
Any community centered around "Linux" is destined to go astray. Not because of using the name "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux", but because it only loosely ties the community to what actually matters: free software. Inevitably, not only systems like Ubuntu and Mint, but even systems like SteamOS will get praised, because that's how religious followings like the common religious following of "Linux" work.
A magazine focused on free software, or even open source, would be much better than a magazine focused on "Linux" or even "GNU/Linux". And it wouldn't gratuitously exclude the BSD projects, to boot.
BSD is not free.
The BSD projects are no less free than most operating system projects that use GNU as the core and Linux as the kernel, so what's your point?
I am a member!
Shan't speak for the other *BSD's, but at least in OpenBSD everything that runs on an actual CPU as opposed to some microcontroller is perfectly free.
And suppose if anyone really think there's a practical difference between loading firmware and having it burned on a ROM chip, which most people 'round here at least do, recompiling the kernel without them shouldn't be too big a deal.
As for the licenses, hey, least I can actually read and understand the BSD licenses without a friggin' law degree. And permissive always have had a somewhat nicer ring in my ears than restrictive.
Almost forgot. OT: Might be interesting, although frankly can't remember last time I read a paper magazine about anything.. xD
It is true that the actual wording of the GPL is rather difficult to understand (as a matter of fact, I've skimmed through it in the past, but never actually read it properly), but the general premise is simple enough: code licensed under the GPL cannot be used in proprietary software.
"And permissive always have had a somewhat nicer ring in my ears than restrictive."
Perhaps 'restrictive' isn't the right word to use, then. The focus should be on the freedoms guaranteed to end-users, not the restrictions placed on the use of the code.
I am a member!
Sure, the premise sounds simple enough, but really, when you have a long document riddled with lawyer speak, at times with questionable interpretation, I think it's at least a little troublesome. But so far it's seemed to work just fine, so I'm probably just paranoid. =x
Restrictive is the right word to use, the GPL is highly restrictive, as is all copyleft me-or-nothing licenses. In v3 it goes even further, trying to prevent the so-called tivoization for instance.
Not really sure what else one could call it when contrasting to the permissive, anything-goes BSD or MIT style licenes.
The issue is that 'restrictive' is such a negative word. For that reason, I think we should avoid using it when referring to the GPL. From a marketing perspective, the word 'restrictive' probably isn't going to sway developers to use the GPL.
>From a marketing perspective, the word 'restrictive' probably isn't going to sway developers to use the GPL.
Which is exactly why its opponents use the term. Copyleft would be a better way to describe it.
The only additional freedom the permissive licenses give one is the freedom to make proprietary software.
"GPL is highly restrictive"
Indeed but only the context of public safety, like laws which take away your ability to drive on any road you want, in any direction you want, at any speed you want, at any time you want. While those may be "restrictions" we've decided that society is generally better off with such rules than without them.
Yes. Free software is better. With focus in GNU and Linux we forgot Mozilla and many others good projects.
I used to be a fan of such an another magazine when I used to think
GNU/Linux was only Linux,
I have realised how these magazines try to a hide the social movement
beneath the "open-source and save money" methodology.
They don't even try to tell the readers about free software.
While in India the free software community was against the unique
identification of people, that magazine was writing articles likes
"Open-source wins, government uses open-source software on the most
costly project."
Sachin, the magazine that these guys used to write for did a 6 page spread on Trisquel and the free software foundation. It was that article which encouraged me to use Trisquel. More people need to wake up to true free software.
I am a member!
smiley same here, thanks to them I learnt a great deal about free software. and thanks to a previous news on trisquel 5 I heard of trisquel.
also previous magazine donates to fsf and all their tutorial code is gpl. their podcast is creative commons.
they have looked into scribus.
in the previous magazine they said they where sorry but that due to wordcount and other issues they could not use gnu/linux.
their interviews with karen sanders (gnome foundation president) and stallman arer eally good.
their tutorials on using free software like gramps and others did help me not only to use them but also to discover it.
ok, there are problably some shortfalls. but credit where credit is due.
we can always join and request changes as they are still in the beginning.
I am a member!
plus they use the term 'free software' and not 'open source'.
i feel they post it as it is and then readers such as smiley and myself take an informed decision. we chose trisquel others might want mint, but they will be aware they are not running a purely free software.