[p2p-research] Fwd: Building a Worldwide Social Reputation System
Michel Bauwens
michelsub2004 at gmail.com
Thu Oct 14 17:09:03 CEST 2010
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sergio Lub <sergio.lub at gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Sep 25, 2010 at 7:21 AM
Subject: Building a Worldwide Social Reputation System
To: Franco Iacomella <yaco at gnu.org>
Cc: Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>
Gracias Franco,
I suspected that there were differences from the different people each camp
attracts.
I would like to see a worldwide social reputation system as a way to reward
those who contribute to their communities and to discourage opportunists and
parasites.
Our group at Favors.org is enjoying a working prototype since the 1990's.
Perhaps you may have some suggestions on how to implement it more widely.
Below is a brief explaining the basic idea.
Can this be a worthy project for GNU?
Un abrazo, Sergio
*
*Building a Worldwide Social Reputation System *
Presented at ISDE5.org – UC Berkeley, June 7, 2007
By Sergio Lub – sergio at favors.org - www.favors.org/profile/24
“A Community is a group of people doing favors for each other”
Bernard Lietaer - Author of The Future of Money and architect of the Euro.
Summary
It is proposed in this paper to expand the existing social online reputation
systems to create a worldwide Social Reputation System (SRS) to measure the
amount of social capital a person has built by positively interacting with
others - as our present Financial Credit System indicates the credit
worthiness a person has built by meeting financial obligations.
With SRS in place a good person will be recognizable anywhere as such and
will have more opportunities since people will more easily trust them. In a
similar way, widely available credit reports allow lending institutions to
recognize good borrowers and to treat them accordingly.
Furthermore, this system is to be freely available online to every person
who wishes to use it and who may contribute information to it as they build
their online database. The vision is to make the system non-commercial, with
an open source free software application and a non-centralized architecture.
This collaborative database is to double as a living directory that can be
used by each participant to find and connect with any other, searching by
name, location, organization, skill or interest within a web of trust.
Model
A prototype model of an online Social Reputation System has been designed
has been in use since 1998, it presently interconnects over 50,000 people in
over 100 countries, the name of the network is Friendly Favors -
www.favors.org
To explore FF you will need to first register online and then login to
explore it. As an Applicant you will have limited access to others in the
network. To enjoy higher features you will need to be accepted into the web
of trust. For this to happen you need to locate within the network an active
participant that will recognize you and is willing to post a good referral
in your online profile, thus vouching for you Identity if you are an
Acquaintance (referral level 1), or also vouching for your Integrity if you
are selected as a Friend (referral level 2). The accumulations of those
referral points are used as votes to build each participant’s social
reputation.
Having an online community with real names and verifiable trusted
relationships serves as a solid base for other social innovations; for
example Favors.org has since 1999 its own mutual credit complementary social
currency called Thankyous – which has already saved its participants over
US$2 million and has strengthened relationships by encouraging participants
to do more favors for each other. For each referral point a participant
receives the person can issue 100Ts on credit – so the overdraft protection
is proportional to my social capital. You can learn more about Thankyous by
visiting FAQs after login in at Favors.org and trough the following article:
http://tinyurl.com/zcm8j
Body
Our economic system uses financial credit rating services to determine the
credit risk of each individual and organization. These databases are the
most important tools used by economic institutions to determine who has
access to credit and to what degree.
We all recognize the value of having a good credit rating and have allowed
corporations to develop such a system. People also recognize the value of
being a good human being but so far we do not have a good way to measure
good will. Integrity, honesty, generosity, friendship are human qualities
that are valuable mostly to humans, not necessarily to businesses, therefore
we should not expect corporations to invest in accounting for these soft
assets. A true Social Reputation System – SRS – must then be done by people
as a self-serving service.
Countless times we encounter situations in which our financial credit rating
is not enough. A potential employer wants personal references and so is a
landlord before renting us. Or there are emergencies, like when one of your
children ends hospitalized overseas and it will take you 3 days to get there
– who can you call in that area that you can trust and ask to please help
your child until you can get there? Certainly credit reports do not work
well in these situations, actually in many developing countries criminals
are the ones with the best credit
Friendly Favors is being collaboratively developed since 1995, under the
early guidance of the late futurist Willis Harman, as a free social
networking tool and is being improved by its users as a free global utility.
In the year 2000, it was officially launched in New York City at the State
of the World Forum to interconnect this 4,000 strong think-tank -
www.favors.org/SWF
This inter-relational database assigns one profile to each player –
accidental multiple profiles are merged as soon they are found so there is
only one reputation being built. Participants have the ability to edit and
write in their own profiles and can read the profiles of others in their
group and those that choose to be visible in other groups as well (an option
chosen by about half of the participants).
People are encouraged to post comments on the profiles of the people they
know, similarly as eBay does it with its popular trade references or
Amazon.com does it with book reader’s reviews. These voluntarily and freely
posted references are called Referrals and together they fuel SRS.
Those people I have chosen as Friends have access to the Personal page of my
profile (my home address, home numbers, email addresses and personal notes).
Friends (+2) have also access to my online contacts and they have the
ability to write in my profile. Their additions are automatically signed and
they can make their notes public or private (visible only to them, me and
volunteer group coordinators). Acquaintances (+1) can see the Professional
page of my profile which has the information normally found in a business
card plus my picture and bio.
Others in the network have access to the Public page of my profile (name,
occupation, city, state, country, website, picture, bio, interests and a way
to send a blind email). Unavailable status is used for those I do not wish
to contact me, it has the same information as the Public profile but it does
not have a link to send me a blind email. The number of how many people have
chosen to disconnect me is visible in my profile statistics.
An early decision was to make this social reputation system transparent,
versus the secrecy involved with credit and finances. This allowed us to
design the software using open system architecture and accepting the help of
volunteer programmers. All its equipment is donated and is 100% run by
volunteers, in turn group coordinators benefit in-kind by becoming some of
the most connected individuals in their group.
Examples of groups using this technology
Conscious Community Network – www.favors.org/CCBN
Global Women's Forum (386) - www.favors.org/GWF
Institute of Noetic Sciences – www.favors.org/IONS
World Business Academy – www.favors.org/ACAD
Gaia University - www.favors.org/GAIA
Global Ecovillage Network – www.favors.org/GEN
Auroville Network – www.favors.org/AURO
Testing the Favors.org model
1. Please go to www.favors.org
2. Click on Apply, fill the online form and submit.
3. Your Login and user instructions will arrive via email.
4. Login and find instructions on Help.
How to see someone’s Online Reputation:
1. Login at www.favors.org/FF - Use “I Forgot My Password” if you need to,
or Register if you are new to the network.
2. Use People Find to locate the profile of the person you wish to view and
click on Statistics.
3. Under Goodwill Reserve click on Referral Points.
How to give a Referral:
1. Login and Find the profile of the person you wish to give a referral.
2. Click on the Check Mark icon below the person’s picture.
3. Choose a Referral level, write what you would like others to know about
this person and click on Save Changes.
Conclusion
Work should continue to build a solid system that may eventually connect and
held the social reputation of most people.
I believe this system will serve us better by being non-commercial,
independent from government and corporations and run democratically by the
people it serves.
The service should be available for free and by invitation, thus the web of
trust can be followed and maintained.
It should be ever easier to use so more people would be able to benefit from
it.
Only one profile per person, to prevent having a good and a bad reputation.
It should allow easy transfer of information from other platforms and vice
versa.
No advertising banners and no pop-ups. Respect the time and intelligence of
the user.
Simple access from mobile phones. Voice activated when we can.
Multilingual, I can have different information pages in each of the
languages I can communicate with.
Allow my friends and coordinators to write and edit information in my
profile, which I can edit if I wish. Keep an audit trail of each entry, like
Wikipedia.org does it.
Once we learn how to use a Social Reputation System it is easy to imagine
the day when a good SRS is all financial institutions may require to extend
financial credit to people without yet a financial credit history. Doing
this will humanize a system now run by machines and it will give priority to
people’s social dimensions, just like it should be.
*
On Thu, Sep 23, 2010 at 10:41 PM, Franco Iacomella <yaco at gnu.org> wrote:
> El 23/09/10 04:48, Sergio Lub escribió:
>
> Thanks Michel and Hi Franco.
>>
>
> Hello, nice to meet you.
>
>
> Is Free Software another name for Open Source?
>>
>
> Not exactly. They describe almost the same kind of software, but Free
> Software is a social movement that is centered on "freedom". It was
> initiated in 1984 and the Open Source in 1998.
>
> Open Source is centered on development metholody and practical issues. Free
> Software is centered in freedom, social change and ethics.
>
> I personally support Free Software movement. Take a read about this into:
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> --
> Franco Iacomella
>
*
Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source”
“Open Source” misses the point of Free
Software<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html>is
an updated version of this article.
While free software by any other name would give you the same freedom, it
makes a big difference which name we use: different words *convey different
ideas*.
In 1998, some of the people in the free software community began using the
term “open source software” <http://www.opensource.org/> instead of “free
software” <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html> to describe what they
do. The term “open source” quickly became associated with a different
approach, a different philosophy, different values, and even a different
criterion for which licenses are acceptable. The Free Software movement and
the Open Source movement are today separate
movements<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html#relationship>with
different views and goals, although we can and do work together on
some
practical projects.
The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values,
their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue
of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an
ethical one. As one person put it, “Open source is a development
methodology; free software is a social movement.” For the Open Source
movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software
movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the
solution.
Relationship between the Free Software movement and Open Source movement
The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are like two
political camps within the free software community.
Radical groups in the 1960s developed a reputation for factionalism:
organizations split because of disagreements on details of strategy, and
then treated each other as enemies. Or at least, such is the image people
have of them, whether or not it was true.
The relationship between the Free Software movement and the Open Source
movement is just the opposite of that picture. We disagree on the basic
principles, but agree more or less on the practical recommendations. So we
can and do work together on many specific projects. We don't think of the
Open Source movement as an enemy. The enemy is proprietary
software<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware>
.
We are not against the Open Source movement, but we don't want to be lumped
in with them. We acknowledge that they have contributed to our community,
but we created this community, and we want people to know this. We want
people to associate our achievements with our values and our philosophy, not
with theirs. We want to be heard, not obscured behind a group with different
views. To prevent people from thinking we are part of them, we take pains to
avoid using the word “open” to describe free software, or its contrary,
“closed”, in talking about non-free software.
So please mention the Free Software movement when you talk about the work we
have done, and the software we have developed—such as the
GNU/Linux<http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html>operating system.
Comparing the two terms
This rest of this article compares the two terms “free software” and “open
source”. It shows why the term “open source” does not solve any problems,
and in fact creates some.
Ambiguity
The term “free software” has an ambiguity problem: an unintended meaning,
“Software you can get for zero price,” fits the term just as well as the
intended meaning, “software which gives the user certain freedoms.” We
address this problem by publishing a more precise definition of free
software <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>, but this is not a
perfect solution; it cannot completely eliminate the problem. An
unambiguously correct term would be better, if it didn't have other
problems.
Unfortunately, all the alternatives in English have problems of their own.
We've looked at many alternatives that people have suggested, but none is so
clearly “right” that switching to it would be a good idea. Every proposed
replacement for “free software” has a similar kind of semantic problem, or
worse—and this includes “open source software.”
The official definition of “open source software,” as published by the Open
Source Initiative, is very close to our definition of free software;
however, it is a little looser in some respects, and they have accepted a
few licenses that we consider unacceptably restrictive of the users.
However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” is
“You can look at the source code.” This is a much weaker criterion than free
software; it includes free software, but also some
proprietary<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware>programs,
including Xv, and Qt under its original license (before the QPL).
That obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates
intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates
are advocating. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined “open source”:
Linux is “open source” software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies
of its source code files.
I don't think he deliberately sought to reject or dispute the “official”
definition. I think he simply applied the conventions of the English
language to come up with a meaning for the term. The state of Kansas
published a similar definition:
Make use of open-source software (OSS). OSS is software for which the source
code is freely and publicly available, though the specific licensing
agreements vary as to what one is allowed to do with that code.
Of course, the open source people have tried to deal with this by publishing
a precise definition for the term, just as we have done for “free software.”
But the explanation for “free software” is simple—a person who has grasped
the idea of “free speech, not free beer” will not get it wrong again. There
is no such succinct way to explain the official meaning of “open source” and
show clearly why the natural definition is the wrong one.
Fear of Freedom
The main argument for the term “open source software” is that “free
software” makes some people uneasy. That's true: talking about freedom,
about ethical issues, about responsibilities as well as convenience, is
asking people to think about things they might rather ignore. This can
trigger discomfort, and some people may reject the idea for that. It does
not follow that society would be better off if we stop talking about these
things.
Years ago, free software developers noticed this discomfort reaction, and
some started exploring an approach for avoiding it. They figured that by
keeping quiet about ethics and freedom, and talking only about the immediate
practical benefits of certain free software, they might be able to “sell”
the software more effectively to certain users, especially business. The
term “open source” is offered as a way of doing more of this—a way to be
“more acceptable to business.” The views and values of the Open Source
movement stem from this decision.
This approach has proved effective, in its own terms. Today many people are
switching to free software for purely practical reasons. That is good, as
far as it goes, but that isn't all we need to do! Attracting users to free
software is not the whole job, just the first step.
Sooner or later these users will be invited to switch back to proprietary
software for some practical advantage. Countless companies seek to offer
such temptation, and why would users decline? Only if they have
learned to *value
the freedom* free software gives them, for its own sake. It is up to us to
spread this idea—and in order to do that, we have to talk about freedom. A
certain amount of the “keep quiet” approach to business can be useful for
the community, but we must have plenty of freedom talk too.
At present, we have plenty of “keep quiet”, but not enough freedom talk.
Most people involved with free software say little about freedom—usually
because they seek to be “more acceptable to business.” Software distributors
especially show this pattern. Some
GNU/Linux<http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html>operating system
distributions add proprietary packages to the basic free
system, and they invite users to consider this an advantage, rather than a
step backwards from freedom.
We are failing to keep up with the influx of free software users, failing to
teach people about freedom and our community as fast as they enter it. This
is why non-free software (which Qt was when it first became popular), and
partially non-free operating system distributions, find such fertile ground.
To stop using the word “free” now would be a mistake; we need more, not
less, talk about freedom.
If those using the term “open source” draw more users into our community,
that is a contribution, but the rest of us will have to work even harder to
bring the issue of freedom to those users' attention. We have to say, “It's
free software and it gives you freedom!”—more and louder than ever before.
Would a Trademark Help?
The advocates of “open source software” tried to make it a trademark, saying
this would enable them to prevent misuse. This initiative was later dropped,
the term being too descriptive to qualify as a trademark; thus, the legal
status of “open source” is the same as that of “free software”: there is no
*legal* constraint on using it. I have heard reports of a number of
companies' calling software packages “open source” even though they did not
fit the official definition; I have observed some instances myself.
But would it have made a big difference to use a term that is a trademark?
Not necessarily.
Companies also made announcements that give the impression that a program is
“open source software” without explicitly saying so. For example, one IBM
announcement, about a program that did not fit the official definition, said
this:
As is common in the open source community, users of the ... technology will
also be able to collaborate with IBM ...
This did not actually say that the program *was* “open source”, but many
readers did not notice that detail. (I should note that IBM was sincerely
trying to make this program free software, and later adopted a new license
which does make it free software and “open source”; but when that
announcement was made, the program did not qualify as either one.)
And here is how Cygnus Solutions, which was formed to be a free software
company and subsequently branched out (so to speak) into proprietary
software, advertised some proprietary software products:
Cygnus Solutions is a leader in the open source market and has just launched
two products into the [GNU/]Linux marketplace.
Unlike IBM, Cygnus was not trying to make these packages free software, and
the packages did not come close to qualifying. But Cygnus didn't actually
say that these are “open source software”, they just made use of the term to
give careless readers that impression.
These observations suggest that a trademark would not have truly prevented
the confusion that comes with the term “open source”.
Misunderstandings(?) of “Open Source”
The Open Source Definition is clear enough, and it is quite clear that the
typical non-free program does not qualify. So you would think that “Open
Source company” would mean one whose products are free software (or close to
it), right? Alas, many companies are trying to give it a different meaning.
At the “Open Source Developers Day” meeting in August 1998, several of the
commercial developers invited said they intend to make only a part of their
work free software (or “open source”). The focus of their business is on
developing proprietary add-ons (software or
manuals<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html>)
to sell to the users of this free software. They ask us to regard this as
legitimate, as part of our community, because some of the money is donated
to free software development.
In effect, these companies seek to gain the favorable cachet of “open
source” for their proprietary software products—even though those are not
“open source software”—because they have some relationship to free software
or because the same company also maintains some free software. (One company
founder said quite explicitly that they would put, into the free package
they support, as little of their work as the community would stand for.)
Over the years, many companies have contributed to free software
development. Some of these companies primarily developed non-free software,
but the two activities were separate; thus, we could ignore their non-free
products, and work with them on free software projects. Then we could
honestly thank them afterward for their free software contributions, without
talking about the rest of what they did.
We cannot do the same with these new companies, because they won't let us.
These companies actively invite the public to lump all their activities
together; they want us to regard their non-free software as favorably as we
would regard a real contribution, although it is not one. They present
themselves as “open source companies,” hoping that we will get a warm fuzzy
feeling about them, and that we will be fuzzy-minded in applying it.
This manipulative practice would be no less harmful if it were done using
the term “free software.” But companies do not seem to use the term “free
software” that way; perhaps its association with idealism makes it seem
unsuitable. The term “open source” opened the door for this.
At a trade show in late 1998, dedicated to the operating system often
referred to as “Linux” <http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html>, the
featured speaker was an executive from a prominent software company. He was
probably invited on account of his company's decision to “support” that
system. Unfortunately, their form of “support” consists of releasing
non-free software that works with the system—in other words, using our
community as a market but not contributing to it.
He said, “There is no way we will make our product open source, but perhaps
we will make it ‘internal’ open source. If we allow our customer support
staff to have access to the source code, they could fix bugs for the
customers, and we could provide a better product and better service.” (This
is not an exact quote, as I did not write his words down, but it gets the
gist.)
People in the audience afterward told me, “He just doesn't get the point.”
But is that so? Which point did he not get?
He did not miss the point of the Open Source movement. That movement does
not say users should have freedom, only that allowing more people to look at
the source code and help improve it makes for faster and better development.
The executive grasped that point completely; unwilling to carry out that
approach in full, users included, he was considering implementing it
partially, within the company.
The point that he missed is the point that “open source” was designed not to
raise: the point that users *deserve* freedom.
Spreading the idea of freedom is a big job—it needs your help. That's why we
stick to the term “free software” in the GNU Project, so we can help do that
job. If you feel that freedom and community are important for their own
sake—not just for the convenience they bring—please join us in using the
term “free software”.
------------------------------
Joe Barr wrote an article called Live and let
license<http://www.itworld.com/AppDev/350/LWD010523vcontrol4/>that
gives his perspective on this issue.
Lakhani and Wolf's paper on the motivation of free software
developers<http://freesoftware.mit.edu/papers/lakhaniwolf.pdf>says
that a considerable fraction are motivated by the view that software
should be free. This was despite the fact that they surveyed the developers
on SourceForge, a site that does not support the view that this is an
ethical issue.
------------------------------
This essay is published in Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays
of Richard M. Stallman<http://shop.fsf.org/product/free-software-free-society/>
.
Skip sitemap<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html#footer>or
skip
to licensing items<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html#sitemap-2>
- GNU History <http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-history.html>
- Get involved <http://www.gnu.org/help/>
- Projects that need help <http://savannah.gnu.org/people/?type_id=1>
- Help translate this
website<http://www.gnu.org/server/standards/translations/priorities.html#Languages>
- Take over an unmaintained
package<http://www.gnu.org/server/takeaction.html#unmaint>
- Use GNUstep <http://www.gnu.org/server/takeaction.html#gnustep>
- Download GNU <http://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html>
- GNU packages <http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/>
- Free documentation <http://www.gnu.org/manual/manual.html>
- GNU mailing lists <http://lists.gnu.org/>
- GNU savannah <http://savannah.gnu.org/>
- Connect with free software users <http://libreplanet.org/>
- GNU's Who? <http://www.gnu.org/people/>
- Planet GNU <http://planet.gnu.org/>
- GNU Advisory Committee <http://www.gnu.org/contact/gnu-advisory.html>
Skip to general
items<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html#sitemap-3>
- Software licensing <http://www.fsf.org/licensing>
- Licensing education <http://www.fsf.org/licensing/education>
- Free software licenses <http://www.gnu.org/licenses>
- GNU GPL <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>
- GNU AGPL <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html>
- GNU LGPL <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html>
- GNU FDL <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.html>
- Software licensing FAQ <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html>
- Licensing compliance <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html>
- How to use GNU licenses for your own
software<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html>
- GNU Service Directory <http://www.fsf.org/resources/service/>
- GNU Fun <http://www.gnu.org/fun/fun.html>
- GNU Art <http://www.gnu.org/graphics/graphics.html>
- Music & Songs <http://www.gnu.org/music/music.html>
Skip to philosophical
items<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html#sitemap-4>
- Latest News <http://www.fsf.org/news/>
- Upcoming Events <http://www.fsf.org/events/>
- FSF Blogs <http://www.fsf.org/blogs/>
- Volunteering and internships <http://www.fsf.org/volunteer>
- Hardware Database <http://www.fsf.org/resources/hw>
- Free Software Directory <http://directory.fsf.org/>
- Free Software Resources <http://www.fsf.org/resources/>
- Associate Members <http://www.fsf.org/associate/>
- My FSF Account <http://www.fsf.org/associate/account/>
- Contact the FSF <http://www.fsf.org/about/contact.html>
- GNU Audio/Video <http://audio-video.gnu.org/>
- Accessibility
Statement<http://www.gnu.org/accessibility/accessibility.html>
- GNU FTP Site <http://ftp.gnu.org/gnu/> and
mirrors<http://www.gnu.org/prep/ftp.html>
- GNU Speakers <http://www.gnu.org/people/speakers.html>
- Free software jobs <http://www.fsf.org/jobs>
Skip list <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html#ft>
- Donate to the FSF <http://donate.fsf.org/>
- Join the FSF <http://www.fsf.org/jfb>
- Free software philosophy <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/>
- The Free Software
Definition<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html>
- Copyleft: Pragmatic
Idealism<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html>
- Free Software and Free
Manuals<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html>
- Selling Free Software <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html>
- Motives for Writing Free
Software<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fs-motives.html>
- The Right To Read <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html>
- Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free
Software<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html>
- Free software for Windows<http://www.gnu.org/software/for-windows.html>
- Defective by Design — Fight DRM <http://defectivebydesign.org/>
- Windows 7 Sins <http://windows7sins.org/>
- Support free media formats <http://playogg.org/>
The Free Software Foundation <http://www.fsf.org/> is the principal
organizational sponsor of the GNU Operating System <http://www.gnu.org/>. *Our
mission is to preserve, protect and promote the freedom to use, study, copy,
modify, and redistribute computer software, and to defend the rights of Free
Software users.*
*Support GNU and the FSF by buying manuals and gear
<http://shop.fsf.org/>, joining
the FSF as an associate member <http://www.fsf.org/join> or by making a
donation <http://donate.fsf.org/>.*
back to top<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html#header>
Please send FSF & GNU inquiries to *gnu at gnu.org* <gnu at gnu.org>. There are
also other ways to contact <http://www.gnu.org/contact/> the FSF.
Please send broken links and other corrections (or suggestions) to *
webmasters at gnu.org* <webmasters at gnu.org>.
Please see the Translations
README<http://www.gnu.org/server/standards/README.translations.html>for
information on coordinating and submitting translations of this
article.
Copyright © 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.,
51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110, USA
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted
worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice, and the
copyright notice, are preserved.
Updated: $Date: 2010/07/27 08:56:55 $
--
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20101014/4958a10c/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the p2presearch
mailing list