How to prevent users from editing my wiki pages
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti
I am working on some documentation for Trisquel, where (on selected ones) I do not want to see other users editing their contents. Until now, I had no problems with this since the users respected my request (it is stated on the top of each page), and contacted me first, whether they had some suggestions, or wanted to make some changes. But then yesterday I was contacted with a Trisquel user called lembas who (after removing a part from this documentation) asked me to remove some other part from my profile (to which he obviously does not have access to), all this without any "clear" explanation why[1].
I replied him complaining that he's wrong and that I would not like to see him editing the page, then I restored the wiki page to its original state. I tried to resolve to situation calmly, but he was being rude, ignorant, blaming my work, and does not respected my request not to edit the page directly, but rather contacting me if he have some suggestion, or if there is some problem. After that he contacted me again today, again with an arrogant tone in his message, but being a little bit more accurate on what he doesn't liked, so I went ahead to investigate the problem, and ultimately fixed the issue some hours later by replacing the application with a fully-free counterpart, but before I done that, he removed the same part from the documentation again, ignoring all my previous attempts to solve this situation in the good way.
Such an approach severely harm my effort to help spread free software across other users, since instead of focusing on my work, I need to argue with this entity who is playing a "which-ones-change-lasts-longer" game with my work, by deliberately making changes to it.
There are actually two possible outcomes from this situation:
- Either I remove all the wiki pages that I created (eleven without my profile page), and move them to some other web server, where there will be a permanent lock-down on every page I create, without the ability for others to edit them[2], or
- I will get sole control over who can, and who will cannot edit my pages. I really want to stay on this website, since all the information I provide deals with Trisquel, and free software stuff, and I would like to continue helping shape the project to the right direction with as much as I can.
Now my question is, if it is possible from the web-admin or anybody else with the right status here to empower me with the ability to withhold the editing function for myself on (some selected) pages I created?
Thanks for any suggestion.
P.S.: Here is the last message that I got today (in order to get a better idea what kind of person this is)[3]
- Peter
I'm not asking you to license review every piece of software you recommend, I'm telling you flux is proprietary.
>"This page is a part of my personal profile page and was not meant for contribution (at least not now)."
is hodgepodge and doesn't mean anything at all. Don't put your precious wisdom on a public wiki page if you don't want people to edit it.
>On a side note, being rude, and vandalizing others work (taking matters into your own hands, making changes to personal pages, while ignoring multiple statement asking not to do that, without even such a simple gesture to contact the author first) is "the" problem, that you have (actually, this is not the first time).
Comedy gold. Dude, get a grip. 1. I'm not vandalizing but removing your recommendation for proprietary software on the wiki of a distro that's sole purpose is to offer a fully free environment. 2. There was not a single intelligible statement in place asking me not to do what I did. 3. Keep your lovely ad hominems to yourself
You're welcome to ignore any messages from me, just don't push proprietary software, thank you very much.
love
Mikko
References
- He does wrote that the application (which is called "f.lux") listed on the page is non-free, but without any background/evidence to it, since the particular software is released under a MIT/Expat free software license, and there is no mention about any non-free parts (either on the website, source code, or in the debian package).
- Note that disabling the editing functionality is just temporary, that will last until I decide that the page is finished, and in good shape to open it for a wider audience.
- Note that at the beginning of this message is a reply to my previous statement, in which I explain him that if the author of the program state that his/her program its free software, I cannot do anything but to trust him, since reviewing all the code is a time-consuming process, and I am not able to do it alone (also including 50+ other applications I included on the wiki). He also ignored what I previously wrote, that I DO review license for every single application that I recommend. See http://trisquel.info/wiki/software, and http://trisquel.info/wiki/software-more for further information.
On Screenlets, the footnote says "Not free (data files does not need to be free)", referring to the CC BY-NC-SA license.
The NC clause on the artwork effectively forbids selling the software.
Yes, that's true. Free software is all about the code. The Non-commercial (NC) clause of Creative Commons only affects distributions, such as Trisquel, where the ability to sell CDs is important. Screenlets is also readily available from Trisquel repositories, which is contradictory, and effectively forbids selling the distribution.
Also see:
http://libreplanet.org/wiki/List_of_software_that_does_not_respect_the_Free_System_Distribution_Guidelines#screenlets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creative_Commons_licenses#Types_of_licenses
Screenets data licensing was changed to be freedom friendly see http://trisquel.info/en/issues/5984 As of Trisquel 6.0 the program is GFSD compatible.
GFSD violations are bugs, if you find one please open an issue.
/edit/ s/problems/violations/
Isn't the wiki supposed to be a collaborative effort, not something where one person claims some type of exclusive control?
Generally, yes. But as with software, documentation can be a one-person effort who has a clear vision on how the development should proceed, and what path should it take. Now some of my pages takes longer to finish due to various circumstances, like time demands, and real-life issues.
The problem is that some of the bigger pages are work-in-progress, and I would like to finish the pages first before I let other users modify/improve them (that's one of the reasons they're on Trisquel wiki), and by someone editing these pages only slows me down. There are two reasons for that:
- Editing/improving the content until it's not finished can duplicate the work, if the other person does the same task I plan to do (bear in mind that some of these tasks needs additional time before they can get published)
- I am not improving the page directly, i.e. I do the work offline, then when I'm finished, I merge the improvements back to the page. Other third-party modifications are therefore automatically deleted/replaced. Checking the pages for modifications, then merging those back to my code needs additional time + I need to acknowledge the authors of these improvements on the page.
As I said before, this is only temporary, which will last until I get the job done. Until then, anyone can fork the (HTML) code and make improvements themselves, even get inclusion of their work by previous agreement. All I want is to do it somewhere else, outside my work.
"But as with software, documentation can be a one-person effort who has a clear vision on how the development should proceed"
This is what I was addressing. This statement makes it seem as if "This page needs to go the way that *I* want it to." That is a problem. If you don't want people editing them until they're done, don't post them until they are. It's as simple as that. The Trisquel wiki is not the exclusive playground of a single person or even of a selected elite few. You don't exclusive control over it. Please stop thinking that you do.
Why it's a problem not to interfere with my work, and leave it as is? I understand that posting it on the wiki means the ability for anyone to edit the pages, but since there is no other place on this website where I can put them (and have more control over it), I'm forced to use the wiki. Moreover, not all pages on this website allows modification (e.g. Compose tips, F.A.Q., etc.), that's why I'm hoping the web-admin can gain me rights to temporarily hold the editing function only for myself.
>The Trisquel wiki is not the exclusive playground of a single person or even of a selected elite few
This isn't completely true. There is at least the web-admin that can do changes that others can't. I doesn't know about others though, but there can be more.
"Why it's a problem not to interfere with my work, and leave it as is?"
It goes against the philosophy of a wiki - collaborative editing. You're wanting exclusive editing. "It's mine. Don't touch it."
"I understand that posting it on the wiki means the ability for anyone to edit the pages, but since there is no other place on this website where I can put them (and have more control over it), I'm forced to use the wiki"
This is a logical fallacy. You're not forced to put them on the wiki at all. You can do the development elsewhere and put them on the website when you're done. But, once they do go into the project wiki, they're freely editable by other community members. You don't get exclusive control over it.
"This isn't completely true. There is at least the web-admin that can do changes that others can't. I doesn't know about others though, but there can be more."
No misdirection please. I think the areas you refer to as specifically the home and download pages. The Documentation area is a wiki and editable by all. Either way, it's not *your* exclusive playground is what I was trying say.
This is what I feared. So, either I accept that when I post something on the wiki, I automatically give the right to modify it to every average Joe (in a same manner like Wikipedia works), that stumbled upon the site, registered, and want to do some mischief on the page, or I doesn't post it on this website at all. Isn't there at least some way to ban users that does not respect the Trisquel Community Guidelines, verbally attacking other users, and purposely harm their work? I'm not against collaborative work, but users that like to do the aforementioned things.
If what you're wanting to do is prepare the pages for later release as publicly editable wiki pages then the easiest solution is to edit them on your PC using a plain text editor such as gedit then copy and paste it into the wiki when you're ready. There'll just be fixing up wiki markup typos and uploading the photos to do online. Our admins are overworked and overcommited volunteers and it is much friendlier to the Trisquel project to do this than take up their time when you can easily avoid it.
I'm afraid it isn't enough that the program source code be free software for a listing of it to be allowed. Trisquel is an FSF approved distro which means all content, including the website has to comply with the FSF Guidelines for Free System Distributions. Lack of resources means it isn't much policed on this forums, but it does apply. The GFSD is here:
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html
The most pertinent paragraph with additional limits is:
A free system distribution must not steer users towards obtaining any nonfree information for practical use, or encourage them to do so. The system should have no repositories for nonfree software and no specific recipes for installation of particular nonfree programs. Nor should the distribution refer to third-party repositories that are not committed to only including free software; even if they only have free software today, that may not be true tomorrow. Programs in the system should not suggest installing nonfree plugins, documentation, and so on.
So from a quick look at your page whose url ends /software I find.
Your references to third party repos on the page behind the S3TC link are not allowed unless they have a published GFSD commitment as Trisquel does. Nor is the listing of The Dark Mod because the data is CC BY-NC-SA and the NC in a CC license makes it nonfree. Ortho Robot the same.
Similarly Katawa Shoujo has a CC license with NC. Further being able to reverse compile the binary is not having the source which is required for the executable to be free. The license is permissive, and so the program can become non-free in this fashion.
All the code executed must be free, so jDownloader has non-free code parts and is therefore unlistable. Similarly, Doom 3 BFG Edition requires non-free code to install it, and the install process is included in all code. And lastly PCSX2's PS2 BIOS is non-free code, the fact it is executed by the emulator is irrelevant it is still executed, so that has to go too.
A suggestion would be to change your license links to use the gnu.org free software license summary page hash link for the license in question. The page is THE authorititive source on licenses that are known to be free. Linking it will save your readers a lot of reading. The actual license text is linked from the entry name. Here's the hash link for Expat.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Expat
Lastly the statement about it being a part of your personal profile at the top of the page doesn't communicate what you have said in your post. Given the public editing nature of wikis it would be better to just have a notice saying it is work in progress and please message you with an explanation of why something was edited because if you don't know why you might well just revert it.
If, on the other hand, that is the correct version of what you intend then Trisquel only provides one profile page per user. There's no rule stopping you using the wiki for additional pages even though it is unusual to say the least, but equally there's no rule stopping someone disregarding your wishes and editing it. As the Trisquel Community Guidelines point out, social norms differ. Bad manners and arrogance are common misunderstandings of someone from another culture, region or country so we can't legislate against the real thing.
That said Trisquel Community Guidelines also say no personal attacks, regretably Lembas isn't the only one who disregards this.
/edit/ removed erroneous assertion that ND in a CC license made it non-GFSD compatible
>If what you're wanting to do is prepare the pages for later release as publicly editable wiki pages then the easiest solution is to edit them on your PC using a plain text editor such as gedit then copy and paste it into the wiki when you're ready.
I does exactly as you described except that developing a page is not that simple as you might think, there are additional work besides the page design, text, etc. like additional pages for application compilation, installation, and setup instructions, and it can take weeks to months to finish them. Also, publishing them in WIP fashion encourages me to constantly work on them, and there's practically no barrier where it can be considered as finished, and no more work is needed because the page reached their goal.
Applications are constantly evolving, switching from one control system to other, abandoning the work on maintaining one repository, while someone volunteering to maintain other, new applications coming out, new ideas popping up on what can be done better, etc.. As you can see, there is no something like "when its finished", only "when it's in good shape for a release".
There is one other reason I want to continue to work in this fashion, and that's because I would like in case I abandon the work on this, not having to discard all my work just like that. Having my work published is the best way to avoid these situations.
> Our admins are overworked and overcommited volunteers and it is much friendlier to the Trisquel project to do this than take up their time when you can easily avoid it.
I would not ask, if it were not important, and there will be a simple solution for this.
> I'm afraid it isn't enough that the program source code be free software for a listing of it to be allowed. Trisquel is an FSF approved distro which means all content, including the website has to comply with the FSF Guidelines for Free System Distributions. Lack of resources means it isn't much policed on this forums, but it does apply. The GFSD is here:
This applies only for the distribution itself, and it doesn't have anything to do with my documentation, which by the way, isn't a part of the Trisquel documentation. As previously stated, including non-free content is ok, even in Trisquel, if it allows selling copies, that the distribution as a whole require. Examples of such parts are some ScummVM games, like Beneath a Steel Sky Flight of the Amazon Queen. I really am taking care not to publish anything violating software freedom.
>Your references to third party repos on the page behind the S3TC link are not allowed unless they have a published GFSD commitment as Trisquel does. Nor is the listing of The Dark Mod because the data is CC BY-NC-SA and the NC in a CC license makes it nonfree. Ortho Robot the same.
Similarly Katawa Shoujo has a CC license with NC. Further being able to reverse compile the binary is not having the source which is required for the executable to be free. The license is permissive, and so the program can become non-free in this fashion.
All the code executed must be free, so jDownloader has non-free code parts and is therefore unlistable. Similarly, Doom 3 BFG Edition requires non-free code to install it, and the install process is included in all code. And lastly PCSX2's PS2 BIOS is non-free code, the fact it is executed by the emulator is irrelevant it is still executed, so that has to go too.
All of them are perfectly fine free software applications, again, what you state only matters if someone want to include them in the official repositories, which is not the case.
In case of JDownloader, I provide a way to use it without that non-free code part (UnRAR) so it's ok. There might be some other parts that I'm not aware about, so if you, or someone other have something to add, I would be happy to talk about it.
Doom 3 BFG Edition is free software, released under the GNU General Public License, version 3.0 (GPLv3), which is a free software license, released by the Free Software Foundation, and is a part of the GNU project. I doesn't provide a download link for the contents, which are needed to be bought in order to play the game, nor does encourage users to use non-free software, but using non-free software to extract the data files, which can then be used in a fully-free environment is acceptable.
PCSX2 does really need a BIOS blob for operation, but this is a temporary issue that may be one day resolved (as was in the previous generation PCSX emulator). Also, using the application does require to have a PS2 console, since the BIOS is copyrighted, and as stated, it's only legally obtainable if the user own the device, and extract the required blob with some software tools, like the ones readily available on the PCSX2 website. I also warned users that emulators and compatibility layers are pretty much only useful to execute non-free software on hardware that they was not designed for. It's a reason for recommending these type of applications though, and that's to help users to migrate from proprietary to free software, where the main complain is the lack of advanced applications, and games. I does not encourage anyone to use these programs, but they can be used as a temporary solution, until the person finds adequate FLOSS replacement for them, whether it's just a game, or an application.
>A suggestion would be to change your license links to use the gnu.org free software license summary page hash link for the license in question. The page is THE authorititive source on licenses that are known to be free.
I doesn't like the license pages (the main license page is nice though) on gnu.org, that's why I does link them else (I'm not violating the terms of use with this, do I?)
>Linking it will save your readers a lot of reading.
What do you mean by this? The licenses are still free whether I link to the official license pages, or the ones at gnu.org. I don't think this will affect users in any way unless they does not trust the information provided on the page. If that's the case, they should not read the page at all.
>Lastly the statement about it being a part of your personal profile at the top of the page doesn't communicate what you have said in your post.
Being a part of my personal profile does not strictly prohibit modification, it just indirectly says that I'm the author, and if stated, modification by third-parties should be consulted first with me.
>Given the public editing nature of wikis it would be better to just have a notice saying it is work in progress and please message you with an explanation of why something was edited because if you don't know why you might well just revert it.
I already done that, the selected pages clearly states (on the top), that they're a work-in-progress. For the second part of your sentence, it's irrelevant if someone added some information to the page, because it will be automatically removed the next time I make an update to the page. It's just a matter of how I work (see my previous comment for an explanation), and not because I would like to be spiteful.
> If, on the other hand, that is the correct version of what you intend then Trisquel only provides one profile page per user. There's no rule stopping you using the wiki for additional pages even though it is unusual to say the least, but equally there's no rule stopping someone disregarding your wishes and editing it. As the Trisquel Community Guidelines point out, social norms differ. Bad manners and arrogance are common misunderstandings of someone from another culture, region or country so we can't legislate against the real thing.
I understand, and I doesn't want to withhold the right to edit the pages only for myself. Many pages I created (e.g. the Acer C7 Chromebook dedicated page, or the Guides from my profile page) doesn't bear a clause not to edit/improve them. I just want to be able to work without the need to deal with other stuff, and to focus solely on my work to finish the pages.
Thank you leny2010 for taking the time to write a lengthy reply, trying to help me. I really appreciate it.
Firstly, my disability means I don't always have good control over the tone of my writing. Despite several edits I can't get the stridency out of this. This is the best I can do. Please understand it's intended in good faith.
> I does exactly as you described except that developing a page is not that simple as you might think, there are additional work besides the page design, text, etc. like additional pages for application compilation, installation, and setup instructions, and it can take weeks to months to finish them. Also, publishing them in WIP fashion encourages me to constantly work on them, and there's practically no barrier where it can be considered as finished, and no more work is needed because the page reached their goal.
I am fully aware of the activities involved in constructing a web site. I have had a long involvement with hypertext systems and was one of the [presumably many] small fry involved in hypertext research who corresponded with CERN at the time Berners-Lee was doing his work on HTML. Obviously that doesn't mean I'm fluent in every web technology, much less every wiki markup dialect.
>Applications are constantly evolving, switching from one control system to other, abandoning the work on maintaining one repository, while someone volunteering to maintain other, new applications coming out, new ideas popping up on what can be done better, etc.. As you can see, there is no something like "when its finished", only "when it's in good shape for a release".
This is entirely the normal case and was assumed in my point. Artwork and books are famously said never to be finished, only abandonned. The recommended course of action in the free software community is to establish the equivalent of a 0.1 release plan, complete and publish the 0.1 release then work in collaboration with whoever is attracted to contribute.
So in your case you might decide that just the software pages need to be fleshed out with the software you know of literally today and the rest can take the form of a stepped outline for others to contribute to if they want. If you have sections or chapters, then publishing a fuller release plan at the same time as 0.1 that says 0.2 - Section BBB complete with... would focus contributions constructively and give you a todo list to work to and measure your own progress by.
>There is one other reason I want to continue to work in this fashion, and that's because I would like in case I abandon the work on this, not having to discard all my work just like that. Having my work published is the best way to avoid these situations.
Then publicly editable wiki pages are exactly the correct form for this work. The Trisquel BDFL has already turned down individual website translation volunteers because they have not yet demonstrated the commitment which would assure the continued maintenance of the translation. Therefore the fact that you are now asking Trisquel to host work when you are waivering in your commitment guarantees that the admins will not provide special resources.
> I would not ask, if it were not important, and there will be a simple solution for this.
You have to demonstrate its importance to the Trisquel project not merely assert your own assessment. The pages you linked while an interesting beginning to what could be a worthwhile guide to free software games IMO do not yet demonstrate significant additional value to the Trisquel project. However, there might be other things you have written or intend that would have that property - that's the benefit of getting to 0.1 first, it should be self evident from the work.
> This applies only for the distribution itself, and it doesn't have anything to do with my documentation, which by the way, isn't a part of the Trisquel documentation.
As I have said the whole of the trisquel.info website is part of the distribution as far as the GFSD is concerned. I have quoted the relevant part of the GFSD from which this logically follows. Trisquel is committed to the GFSD. In the two years I have been a member not only have the experienced forum members consistently applied the GFSD in this way in their advice but the admins have deleted some material that doesn't comply. So if you want to host these documents on trisquel.info you must apply it to them. It is not optional. If you do not want to apply it to your document then you will have to find another site to host it.
If you differ on how the GFSD applies then argue your case quoting authoritative sources. People will listen.
> As previously stated, including non-free content is ok, even in Trisquel, if it allows selling copies, that the distribution as a whole require. Examples of such parts are some ScummVM games, like Beneath a Steel Sky Flight of the Amazon Queen. I really am taking care not to publish anything violating software freedom.
Read the GFSD, non-free content is only allowed if it is not functional, has no practical use and can be copied for both commercial and non-commercial purposes.
>Your references to third party repos on the page behind the S3TC link are not allowed unless they have a published GFSD commitment as Trisquel does. Nor is the listing of The Dark Mod because the data is CC BY-NC-SA and the NC in a CC license makes it nonfree. Ortho Robot the same.
> All of them are perfectly fine free software applications, again, what you state only matters if someone want to include them in the official repositories, which is not the case.
Unless you have new information on the interpretation of the GFSD then it also applies to website content. It is illogical not to apply the GFSD to the website because it dilutes the purpose of the GFSD which is that the distro guarantees the users four freedoms in all meaningful respects. Having a distro website that tells you how to make its own free distro system non-free is contrary.
>In case of JDownloader, I provide a way to use it without that non-free code part (UnRAR) so it's ok. There might be some other parts that I'm not aware about, so if you, or someone other have something to add, I would be happy to talk about it.
Then delete your text where you say it requires non-free software. That was where I got it from. :-)
> Doom 3 BFG Edition is free software, released under the GNU General Public License, version 3.0 (GPLv3), which is a free software license, released by the Free Software Foundation, and is a part of the GNU project. I doesn't provide a download link for the contents, which are needed to be bought in order to play the game, nor does encourage users to use non-free software, but using non-free software to extract the data files, which can then be used in a fully-free environment is acceptable.
Why is it acceptable? To me your argument is patently an 'I'm almost a virgin' argument. It is quite plain that all executed software including installation procedures must be free or you are using non-free software. Which by definition is not acceptable.
> PCSX2 does really need a BIOS blob for operation, but this is a temporary issue that may be one day resolved (as was in the previous generation PCSX emulator). Also, using the application does require to have a PS2 console, since the BIOS is copyrighted, and as stated, it's only legally obtainable if the user own the device, and extract the required blob with some software tools, like the ones readily available on the PCSX2 website. I also warned users that emulators and compatibility layers are pretty much only useful to execute non-free software on hardware that they was not designed for. It's a reason for recommending these type of applications though, and that's to help users to migrate from proprietary to free software, where the main complain is the lack of advanced applications, and games. I does not encourage anyone to use these programs, but they can be used as a temporary solution, until the person finds adequate FLOSS replacement for them, whether it's just a game, or an application.
It must be free now. Potentially free in the future applies to every piece of software currently in existence and is therefore patent nonsense.
If an emulator is only usable with non-free software then it may not be included (GFSD again). However, there are a number of emulators for which there are free software ROM replacements and games or software. hatari for instance can use EmuTOS (a free ROM) and boot FreeMiNT a complete free GNU operating system.
Because I volunteer for The National Museum of Computing at Bletchley Park (Station X, Enigma and home of Colossus the world's first electronic computer of which there is a reconstruction) I have read much of the FSF/GNU canon on the subject and thought about it. This is not an official take on the matter. However, the position of the FSF in the RYF, on BIOSes, on CPU microprograms etc. has the consistency that any softcopy material that is executed by any sort of electronic device must be free software. Boot ROMs are explicitly allowed, therefore, vintage computers and old consoles can be used with their built in ROMs. However, softcopies of those same ROMs are not acceptable. Thus I develop demonstration free software for the Atari ST (using free software tools) in hatari. However, for a BBC B there is no free ROM, so I cross develop free software using free software tools on my PC. The first of which is underway and unsurprisingly is a serial port loader / debugger bank ROM image for the BBC so it can be linked to PC during development.
> I doesn't like the license pages (the main license page is nice though) on gnu.org, that's why I does link them else (I'm not violating the terms of use with this, do I?)
No it's not a violation - as I said, it was a suggestion.
> What do you mean by this? The licenses are still free whether I link to the official license pages, or the ones at gnu.org. I don't think this will affect users in any way unless they does not trust the information provided on the page. If that's the case, they should not read the page at all.
The suggestion was made because the brief summary of a license's properties on the page with all the licenses listed provides the most important information and it's presence on gnu.org means your reader will automatically know it is FSF definition free (not OSI, which you linked for one license, whose definition of an acceptable license is different). So the user quickly knows it is their kind of free, if it is GPL compatible, if it is permissive or lax etc. without having to read the license to know. Something which is more convenient for them. YMMV.
> Being a part of my personal profile does not strictly prohibit modification, it just indirectly says that I'm the author, and if stated, modification by third-parties should be consulted first with me.
Sorry, what I was trying to communicate is you're saying things here which contradict the implications of the text at the top of the wiki page. However, from reading what you say elsewhere in this thread you hadn't understood all the implications of a wiki page. Now you know more of those the matter is irrelevant.
> I already done that, the selected pages clearly states (on the top), that they're a work-in-progress. For the second part of your sentence, it's irrelevant if someone added some information to the page, because it will be automatically removed the next time I make an update to the page. It's just a matter of how I work (see my previous comment for an explanation), and not because I would like to be spiteful.
I urge you to accept and work with the normal collaborative nature of a wiki page. It will make the pages better than you can achieve alone and perhaps give them a life beyond your own interest it the project.
> Thank you leny2010 for taking the time to write a lengthy reply, trying to help me. I really appreciate it.
Thanks for the thanks. Good manners are always appreciated.
I would like to apologize first for my absence from the forums (I had to deal with some real life stuff), but now I am here to finally solve this unpleasant situation.
> Firstly, my disability means I don't always have good control over the tone of my writing. Despite several edits I can't get the stridency out of this. This is the best I can do. Please understand it's intended in good faith.
I does not noticed anything insulting in the content of your writing, so no problem with me. And yes, sometimes is hard to describe things in a way one would like to, especially in cases of long comments.
> I am fully aware of the activities involved in constructing a web site. I have had a long involvement with hypertext systems and was one of the [presumably many] small fry involved in hypertext research who corresponded with CERN at the time Berners-Lee was doing his work on HTML.
Good to know :)
> Obviously that doesn't mean I'm fluent in every web technology, much less every wiki markup dialect.
Like everything with Trisquel, the wiki markup is buggy, and very limited in functions, so one of the first tasks was to learn how to use them efficiently, in order to design the pages in a way to match the default website layout, while keeping the HTML code short and simple.
> So in your case you might decide that just the software pages need to be fleshed out with the software you know of literally today and the rest can take the form of a stepped outline for others to contribute to if they want.
In order to consider the pages finished (or at least in a good shape to allow others to contribute), they must be complete in a sense, that anyone should be able to use them to compile, install, setup, and use the applications without any issue, on a bare Trisquel system. It was not intended to present my work in this way, but s*** happened, if you
know what I mean.
> If you have sections or chapters, then publishing a fuller release plan at the same time as 0.1 that says 0.2 - Section BBB complete with... would focus contributions constructively and give you a todo list to work to and measure your own progress by.
The to-do list forms as the pages are created, and besides what I already wrote about, there is nothing important to mention (in the case of the affected pages). I simply would not like to create pages filled with a lot of TODO notes, but I want to contribute informations as the time being, making them usable during the development process.
> Therefore the fact that you are now asking Trisquel to host work when you are waivering in your commitment guarantees that the admins will not provide special resources.
This line does not make any sense.
> You have to demonstrate its importance to the Trisquel project not merely assert your own assessment. The pages you linked while an interesting beginning to what could be a worthwhile guide to free software games IMO do not yet demonstrate significant additional value to the Trisquel project.
It's just my personal recommendation and stuff, and it's rather user focused, than to the distribution. See the main page for better understanding.
> However, there might be other things you have written or intend that would have that property.
I really am planning to make it a part of something bigger, but it's yet questionable if I will reach that goal, since I need to finish the major part of the documentation first. I just hate to make announcements before I have something usable in my hand.
> that's the benefit of getting to 0.1 first, it should be self evident from the work
There are strong reasons why I chosen that path for the development process, and I does not intend to change it.
I will comment on the other part of your answer later, it's just too much to do it all in one reply. In the meantime, I would like to kindly ask of you, not to ask more questions unrelated to the topic (i.e. about page contents). If you'd like to discuss more about the contents of my wiki, you can contact me through my profile contact form. Thank you for your understanding.
For the time being, I decided to hold on the development, and focus on switching to some third-party web-hosting server, where I can permanently move the documentation* (I would like to use a MediaWiki instance, or such). The possible choices I know about are 000webhost.com, or wordpress.com. If you, or anybody else reading this know about a free (as in beer) web-hosting service that will fit my needs (few megabytes for the contents is sufficient), don't hesitate to share it here.
* linking breakage should be expected on threads where the pages are referred to
Since all my points were predicated on you putting your pages on
trisquel.info I think our discussion is at a close.
I'm forced to remove it because of the unfriendliness, and uncooperativeness of some people on this site. Most people here have different opinions about what can be considered free, and what cannot (I'm trying to comply with the FSF's definition of free software), so rather than spending my time, arguing with them, it's better to move it onto some better-suited website.
I do not think it has much to do with the definition of "free". Trisquel's documentation aims to be written in community. The community as a whole rules the documentation and, by the current rules, nobody can prevent anyone to contribute to a documentation page. Those rules may change in the future in the same way that the Wikipedia community decided at some point to settle edit wars by granting some users more rights (including that of locking pages).
You certainly are welcome to publish your documentation in static pages served by a computer you control. If you publish it under a license such as the CC BY-SA, I believe anyone would agree it is "free" documentation. In particular, anyone would be free to copy (for instance to Trisquel's documentation) and improve (or not) your work. And yes, the BY clause would force them to give you credit (while the optional SA clause would forbid any proprietary derivative).
By a quick search, I was able to find this list of free MediaWiki providers:
f.lux is proprietary, mYself provided instructions to install it, I removed those.
The frontend applet might be free but f.lux isn't. The package mYself's instructions suggested to install (e.g. https://launchpad.net/~kilian/+archive/f.lux/+files/fluxgui_1.1.8.tar.gz) contain a non-free binary. Check Debian/copyright. Yes it's not very well made and clear. If you're not convinced, go to f.lux's home page and try to find a license or source. You won't.
If anybody wants to partake in this useless navel gazing, feel welcome to do so, it's all visible here https://trisquel.info/en/node/10216/revisions
Since mYself replaced f.lux with redshift per my original advice, I consider this case closed.
And mYself, stop being such a cry baby.
Before I start in this conversation, I want you all to know that I'm not defending any of the sides.
It sounds strange, but f.lux is absent in the Free Software Directory, both as a normal entry and as a review entry.
There are two possibilities for this: Either no reviewer of the Free Software Directory received it or reviewed it; or it was denied and considered as a non-free software.
I don't know if a software needs to be firstly evaluated and put in the Free Software Directory in order to be accepted as a free software. But I'm pretty sure that it would be nice to have a confirmation there.
As for the emulators and stuff... Well, I suggest you to avoid it whenever possible as it tends to create long discussions, the best practice is to let the user find about such emulators by their own means (package managers like Synaptic were created to be friendly and also to serve this purpose, right? :D).
Another suggestion is to recommend the readers to have the desired console in question. My parents bought a jailbroken Sony PlayStation 2, we know that the motherboard inside it has a non-free firmware, but at least it's not running in our personal computer. I was planning to be able to play Sony PlayStation games in this console, but a piece of it hasn't been soldered correctly, so I've decided to run an emulator, but I gave up after discovering that it wouldn't run the classics from my childhood.
Due to the fact that I'm not the owner of the console, and the owners (my parents) don't want to ask for the service of a technician to solder the pieces, I must stay with the Sony PlayStation 2 games. I found some interesting games, but I won't tell their names here since they're obviously non-free software.
Best regards, ADFENO.
Have a nice day.
f.lux, the main program, is proprietary (the xflux executable, which is a command-line tool, doesn't have the source code released). The f.lux GUI tool is on the other hand released under the MIT/Expat license, which is a FSF-approved free software license. Now the confusion is that the author of the GUI (Kilian Valkhof) does not state in the license that the xflux binary, which is bundled within the GUI, isn't free (take look at this bug report). Therefore I was fooled that the application is free software. After I discovered this, I removed f.lux from all related pages, and replaced it with a FLOSS alternative (Redshift). But this isn't the issue I'm trying to solve here.
As for emulators, leny2010 asked questions related to them, and I kindly answered them. This is not meant as a discussion about the contents of the affected page(s), but when asked... you understand, right? I agree that using emulators isn't a good thing, and I doesn't recommend to do that by anybody. I have them installed on my computer but doesn't really use them, since I doesn't play games. Trisquel contains various emulators (for NES/SNES, Atari 2600, GameBoy, etc.) which are practically only useful for playing non-free games, yet it doesn't recommend to use them. I think using some non-free program/game on Trisquel do less harm for the user (that require to use them), than doing that on a fully-proprietary system. Although I would like to see all people rejecting any proprietary software, I cannot force them not to use them, so I rather provide a way for them to do it in a free environment.
>Another suggestion is to recommend the readers to have the desired console in question
Just for curiosity, can you recommend one that doesn't depend on firmware blobs in any way? I think buying some cheap Haswell-based chromebook (like the HP Pavilion 14), then installing Trisquel, updating Mesa/Intel graphic stack through PPA, buying a gamepad, connecting it to the computer, then the display output to television, is the closest thing that can be called a free console.
"I think using some non-free program/game on Trisquel do less harm for the user (that require to use them), than doing that on a fully-proprietary system. I think using some non-free program/game on Trisquel do less harm for the user (that require to use them), than doing that on a fully-proprietary system. "
Please don't create the impression that running a rom with an emulator is technically the same thing like executing any non-free code on the system. It is not.
For instance, the developer of an snes game back in 1995 was not able to implement malicous code which could affect your trisquel system today.
You're running the code on a virtual snes which is - given we use a free emulator - more or less the same like playing the game on a real snes.
We had some discussions about this issue, but it is much more controversal than running proprietary in general. We should not mix them up.
There are good arguments why one _can_ play games on snes and hence use an emulator.
You misunderstood me. I talked about software freedom, not technical stuff. Executing video game ROMs in a virtualized environment is practically running non-free software, since the source code isn't available under a permissive free software license (this isn't generally applicable to software, since it depends solely on the author of the work, and there can be exceptions though).
Moreover, what you stated doesn't affect only cartridge ROMs, but also all other applications that runs in an isolated environment (e.g. PlayOnLinux), and doesn't use internet connection, since the program can collect and send sensitive information from the host computer to the author of the malicious software (e.g. Skype).
Sorry, you're just rationalising what you do with a security argument. If it were true then the FSF would accept running non-free Java 1.4 applets providing the security manager was configured to disallow network etc access. There are no differences in the theoretical abstractions of the two propositions.
Of course rationalising things away and even having cognitive dissonances is something everybody does including myself. If acting on sound rational information and advice was natural for humans then there'd be no obesity epidemic in the West, most would take enough exercise, the tobacco companies wouldn't make much money etc. etc.
So I'll just urge you to maximise your software freedom and consider what the next small step in doing that is.
Ok, again for everyone:
I was talking about freedom, too, and using an snes is not the same as running proprietary software on my computer.
Why?
The Snes is a console which
1) I don't use as a computer; I don't do any practical job with it
2) doesn't have any malicious functionality
Both together make the use of an snes pretty much the same as the use of a dvd player.
You put it in, you play it, you take it out. The possibility to change the running picture with my controller is the only difference to a dvd player, and I don't get how this should harm my freedom at all.
Please don't claim that I'm ignoring any rational arguments - they weren't provided until now.
You can destroy every discussion by just accusing the opposite position of this.
I mistook your id for one in an earlier discussion. Further I had
mentally carried over the discussion of emulators and misread your
earlier post.
The two exceptions to all free software I'm aware of are:
The FSF documents on BIOSes say when they were fixed in ROM and
realitively simple the FSF had no interest. RYF Certification
Guidelines[1] also say:
"However, there is an exception for secondary embedded processors.
The exception applies to software delivered inside auxiliary and
low-level processors and FPGAs, within which software installation is
not intended after the user obtains the product. This can include,
for instance, microcode inside a processor, firmware built into an
I/O device, or the gate pattern of an FPGA. The software in such
secondary processors does not count as product software."
There is at least one probably free software game for the SNES
http://secret-maryo-chronicles.en.softonic.com/ . So arguing a game
is not software when there is software would be a bit strange.
In short The SNES has a microprocessor (6502 IIRC), is therefore a
computer and the games are software.
You can quote who ever you want in order to prove your point; I don't swallow something because this and that organisation has this and that definition.
Again, it's not sensible to judge devices by their technical properties alone. If you think this way, you somehow forget the initial goales of the free software movement.
Which were 'to be able to get along without any software that is not
free.' (RMS, The GNU Manifesto)
You're quite right that the SNES is no worse than a DVD player, or
the digital radio playing here in the room I'm in now. But that
doesn't stop the software in it violating our software freedoms (for
a start off I'd fix the bug where it forgets all its settings every
blue moon). So please don't pretend it is a solution, non-free
software is never a solution.
- Login o registrati per inviare commenti