%% LyX 2.2.0 created this file.  For more info, see http://www.lyx.org/.
%% Do not edit unless you really know what you are doing.
\documentclass[twocolumn,english]{article}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage[latin9]{luainputenc}
\usepackage[paperwidth=8.5in,paperheight=11in]{geometry}
\geometry{verbose,tmargin=1.7in,bmargin=1.7in,lmargin=1.9in,rmargin=1.9in}
\usepackage{color}
\definecolor{shadecolor}{rgb}{1, 0.648438, 0}
\usepackage{framed}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{setspace}

\makeatletter

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LyX specific LaTeX commands.
%% A simple dot to overcome graphicx limitations
\newcommand{\lyxdot}{.}


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% User specified LaTeX commands.
\usepackage{epsf}
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage{wrapfig}
%noprint does portrait orientation and pagination appropriate for reading as a
%PDF. print does landscape orientation and pagination appropriate for printing.
\usepackage[noprint,1to1]{booklet}
%\usepackage[print,1to1]{booklet}
\usepackage{colortbl}

% Margins and such
% Switch back and forth between these two sets of margins for print versus on-screen.
\setlength{\paperheight}{18in}
\setlength{\paperwidth}{6in}
%\setlength{\paperheight}{11in}
%\setlength{\paperwidth}{8.5in}
\setlength{\voffset}{-0.10in}
\setlength{\fboxsep}{12pt} % Puts ``padding'' around the text in all the boxes

\setdvipstargetpages % this has to change if printing to pdf
%\pagespersignature{12}
\special{!TeXDict begin /landplus90{true}store end} % craziness to work with ghostview
%\special{!TeXDict begin <</Duplex true>> setpagedevice end} % duplex
%\special{!TeXDict begin <</Tumble true>> setpagedevice end} % short binding


\hyphenation{Snowden LibrePlanet IceCat November Public Algeria
  Dribbble English Software ser-ver wide-ly wor-ld ker-nel need-ed Law-rence
  Open-Office an-nounced proj-ects proj-ect ac-a-de-mia art-ists
  coun-ted glob-al Dan-iel Open-Document Mi-cro-soft sup-port-ed
  anon-y-miz-er page-views de-fec-tive-by-de-sign stopp-ed
  co-op-er-at-ing re-stric-tions}

\widowpenalty=300
\clubpenalty=300
% Was 1500
\tolerance=8000

\setcounter{secnumdepth}{-1} % no numbering on sections in the TOC

% LaTeX redefinitions (removes ``Table:'' and ``Figure:'' from captions)

\makeatletter
\long\def\@makecaption#1#2{%
  \vskip\abovecaptionskip
  \sbox\@tempboxa{#2}%
  \ifdim \wd\@tempboxa >\hsize
    #2\par
  \else
    \global \@minipagefalse
    \hb@xt@\hsize{\hfil\box\@tempboxa\hfil}%
  \fi
  \vskip\belowcaptionskip}
\makeatother

% colors

\definecolor{Myblue}{cmyk}{0.0,0.35,1.00,0.0}

% fonts

\font\mhfont = cmss17 scaled 3000 % masthead
\font\issfont = cmss10 % issue number and month/year

% masthead
% #1 = filename for eps logo graphic
% #2 = Name for big Bulletin title
% #3 = Issue number (include the word Issue)
% #4 = Month and year

\newcommand{\masthead}[4]{
\begin{center}
\includegraphics*{#1}
\vspace*{0.12in}

\mhfont #2
\issfont
\vbox{
  \hbox{#3}
  \hbox{#4}}
\end{center}
\hrule
\vspace*{0.12in}}


\newenvironment{article}[2]
{
%\addvspace{24pt}
\addvspace{8pt}
\vbox{
\begin{center}
{\usefont{OT1}{cmss}{bx}{n}\huge#1}\\
\smallskip
{\usefont{OT1}{cmss}{m}{n}\Large#2}
\end{center}
}\nobreak\vskip 0pt plus 10pt \nobreak
}{}

% big caps for first letter of article

\font\capfont = cmr17 scaled 1600
\def\cap#1{%
\setbox0=\hbox{\capfont #1}
\noindent\hangindent=\wd0\hangafter=-2
\dimen0=\ht0
\advance\dimen0 by -\baselineskip
\vbox to 0pt{\vskip-\dimen0\hbox to0pt{\hskip-\wd0\box0}}%
}

% for some letters it may be desirable to back up the first line:
% \cap{A}\hskip-4pt{}pple

% Little gnu head article ender

\def\ender{~\hskip-4pt\lower1pt\hbox{\includegraphics*{gerwinski-gnu-head.eps}}}

% for scaling graphics

\def\epspic#1#2{
  \def\epsfsize##1##2{#1##1}
  \epsfbox{#2}
}

% Interview 


\newenvironment{interview}
{
\def\item##1{{\sffamily\bfseries ##1 }}
}
{
}

\font\capfont = cmr17 scaled 1600
\def\cap#1{%
\setbox0=\hbox{\capfont #1}
\noindent\hangindent=\wd0\hangafter=-2
\dimen0=\ht0
\advance\dimen0 by -\baselineskip
\vbox to 0pt{\vskip-\dimen0\hbox to0pt{\hskip-\wd0\box0}}%
}

% Callout boxes
% First argument is title, second argument is text

\newcommand{\callout}[2]%
{\begin{center}
    \begin{figure}[htb!]
      \colorbox{Myblue}%
      {\parbox[t]{2in}{%
          \textbf{\Large{#1}}
          \vspace{6pt}
          \hrule
          \vspace{4pt}
          \large{#2}}}
    \end{figure}
  \end{center}}

% Donation box
% Insert the box listing the options for how to donate 
% The argument is the description of the current new member gift.

\newcommand{\donate}[1]{
  {\begin{center}
      \colorbox{Myblue}{\parbox[l]{2.0in}{%
          {\bf\large How to Contribute}
          \vspace{6pt}
          \hrule
          \vspace{4pt}
          \begin{list}{}{\setlength{\leftmargin}{0pt}}
          \item {\bf Associate Membership}: \newline Become an associate member of the FSF\@.  Members will receive a bootable USB card,  e-mail forwarding, and an account on the FSF's Jabber/XMPP server.  To sign up or get more
            information, visit \url{member.fsf.org} or write to
            \url{membership@fsf.org}.
          \item {\bf Online}: Use your credit card or PayPal account
            to make a donation at \url{donate.fsf.org} or contact \url{donate@fsf.org} for more information on supporting the FSF.
          \item  {\bf Jobs}: List your job offers on our jobs page: \url{fsf.org/jobs}.
          \item {\bf Free Software Directory}: Browse and download from thousands of different free software projects: \url{directory.fsf.org}.
            \item {\bf Volunteer}: To learn more, visit
            \url{fsf.org/volunteer}.
            \item {\bf LibrePlanet}: Find local groups in your area or start your own at \url{libreplanet.org}!
           \item {\bf Free Software Supporter}: Receive our monthly email newsletter: \url{fsf.org/fss}.
             
          \end{list}
          \vspace{2pt}}}
          
    \end{center}}}

% Copyright box
% This inserts the verbatim copying notice

\newcommand{\verbatimcopyright}[1]{
  \begin{center}
    \parbox[t]{2.00in}{%

\noindent\hbox{}{
\center\includegraphics{fallbulletin.eps}

\center\small\noindent Donate to the FSF with Bitcoin.
\break\break
}
      \noindent Copyright \copyright\/#1\\Free Software Foundation, Inc.
        \bigskip         

        \noindent{The articles in this bulletin are individually
          licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution No~Derivative Works 4.0. 
          \url{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/}}
        \bigskip

        \noindent{The photo by Kori Feener is 
          licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International       License. 
          \url{http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/}}
        \bigskip
       
      \noindent{Published twice yearly by the Free Software Foundation, 51 Franklin Street, 5th Floor, Boston, MA 02110-1301, (617) 542-5942. \\ \url{info@fsf.org}, \url{fsf.org}}

         \begin{flushright}
         \end{flushright}}
         

    \end{center}}

% Gear box
    \newcommand{\gnugear}{
      {\begin{center}
          \colorbox{Myblue}{\parbox[l]{2.0in}{%
              {\bf\large Show Your Support with GNU Gear}
              \vspace{6pt}
              \hrule
              \vspace{4pt}
              Order stuff at \url{order.fsf.org}
              \begin{list}{\textbullet}{\setlength{\leftmargin}{0pt}}
              \item  {\bf Happy Hacking T-shirt}
              \item {\bf Free Software Free Society T-shirt}
              \item  {\bf GNU Baseball Caps}
              \item  {\bf Much more}
              \end{list}}}
        \end{center}}}

% TOC
\usepackage{tocloft}
\cftsetindents{section}{0.0in}{0.0in}
\cftsetindents{subsection}{0.0in}{0.0in}
\setlength{\cftbeforesecskip}{0pt}


\renewcommand{\cftsecfont}{}
\renewcommand{\cftsecpagefont}{}


\newcommand{\mytoc}{
  \noindent\colorbox{Myblue}{
    \parbox[l]{1.85in}{
      \setcounter{secnumdepth}{-1} % no numbering on sections in the TOC
      \vspace{-0.5cm}

\raggedright\tableofcontents
    }
  }
}

 % Author
\usepackage{titlesec}
\titlespacing\section{0pt}{10pt}{-18pt}

\newcommand{\myauthor}[2]{
  \textbf{\textit{ \begin{flushleft}By #1\break
#2 \end{flushleft}}}
  \vspace{-8pt}
}

\makeatother

\usepackage{babel}
\begin{document}
\twocolumn[\masthead{bulletin-logo.eps}{Bulletin}{Issue 29}{Fall/Winter 2016}]
\mytoc

\section{Free software takes root in the White House gardens }

\myauthor{John Sullivan}{Executive Director}

\cap{A}really exciting thing happened this year. The FSF had an impact
on government policy at the highest level in the US.

The White House published a Federal Source Code Policy on \textbackslash{}url\{sourcecode.cio.gov\}
on August 8, 2016, after a public comment period. The FSF participated
in the public comment period, and encouraged others to do so, but
we had also been consulted months earlier to get background on free
software licensing and how it works.

This policy:

> ...establishes a pilot program that requires agencies, when > commissioning
new custom software, to release at least 20 percent of > new custom-developed
code as Open Source Software (OSS) for three > years, and collect
additional data concerning new custom software to > inform metrics
to gauge the performance of this pilot.6
\begin{center}
\makebox[2.25in][l]{%
\includegraphics{DRMcollage}

{\small{}Selfies against DRM in Web standards
Visit: \url{u.fsf.org/1yp}}{\small \par}%
}
\par\end{center}

We can see right away that the FSF did not write the policy, because
if we did, it would focus on free software rather than open source,
in order to emphasize freedom. It would also say 100 percent, not
20 percent.

This has been a year in which we've done a lot of work in the area
of government software choices.

In February, I testified in person at a hearing in New York City about
proposed legislation.

We had a confrontation with the US Copyright Office over their broken
way of using regulations.gov -{}- requiring proprietary JavaScript
and refusing to accept emailed comments about DRM.

We've focused on the US, as a model for elsewhere, but also urging
the US to follow lessons from elsewhere. Italy has a law requiring
agencies to give an explanation if procured software is not to be
\textquotedbl{}open source.\textquotedbl{} Russia is considering a
law that would give preference to free software in government agency
purchases.

Overall, free software being used in many places in the US government
already. 

This policy is definitely a big step, and is heartening to see.

In our comment, we highlighted why it's important for governments
to use and encourage free software, for their own autonomy and the
freedom of their citizens.FOOTNOTE:\{URL:\{https://www.fsf.org/licensing/fsf-comment-on-proposed-u-s-federal-source-code-policy\}\}

This policy talks about values like cost, lock-in, inefficiency. This
is reflected in the name and terminology of the policy -{}- focusing
on open rather than free.

Even more importantly, this is reflected in the lack of full-throated
commitment.

What effect did the FSF comment have?

The Free Software Definition was added, so it's not just the Open
Source Definition, as in the original.

Mention of documentation licensing was added to the policy; this was
a significant, qualitative change that would've been a big loophole
if it had been left out. Vendors could have shared the code but kept
training and documentation proprietary, which effectively still holds
government hostage.

We also have to acknowledge the White House for accepting comments
via email, and not requiring proprietary JavaScript. We wish the policy
would commit other government agencies to do the same; notably earlier
this year the Copyright Office refused to accept comments unless they
were submitted through the regulations.gov system, which requires
the user run a significant amount of proprietary JavaScript.

We still have concerns with the policy. We do think the terminology
needs to change, along with the freedom. The justification for the
policy should expand more to stem from the freedom of citizens and
autonomy of government rather than be so focused on interagency software
sharing.

There is an overreliance on Github. As we say in our repository criteria,
there are ethical concerns with code-hosting sites that the government
needs to be aware of.

We also have to worry about the policy's future. The administration
will change in January. Also, the policy indicates that the results
of study of this \textquotedbl{}pilot\textquotedbl{} program could
lead to changes.

The policy would do well to urge use of copyleft licenses, at least
when the software commissioned is not a contribution to an existing
projcet under a noncopyleft license. Otherwise, permissive licenses
can just be a government subsidy to proprietary software.

Despite its shortcomings, the policy shows a lot about visibility
of the free software movement and use of free software. It's consistent
with the theme of our 2017 LibrePlanet conference: \textquotedbl{}the
roots of freedom.\textquotedbl{} The free software movement's strong
roots anchor a spreading structure of influence; that influence may
be weaker at the furthest reaches but can get stronger as the root
system expands.

It is not usual for pieces of free software to be adopted ahead of
free software values. When this works, the software serves as an ambassador
for the values, which then take root. When it doesn't work, it's just
a temporary software choice/preference.

So we need to work to help make the policy permanent, and stronger.
Discussion on the policy is still happening -{}- there is a mailing
list to participate in.

You can contribute to USFG projects when they are released, to help
them see that this is worthwhile to do. Part of the opposition inside
government to policies like this is that there is no point in releasing
custom government software, that it is just extra overhead. 

The FSF will continue pushing for removal of proprietary requirements,
and you can help us do that.

You can advocate in your state and country for similar policies -{}-
if they can happen at this level, they can happen almost anywhere.
You can use the LibrePlanet wiki at URL:\{libreplanet.org\} as a base
for coordinating on advocacy materials.

You can donate to the FSF and encourage others to as well, so we can
have a stronger presence and influence on policies like this, both
directly and through our production of materials to inform policies.

The US Federal Government has a substantial influence on the software
market. If we can encourage and expand this latest policy, it could
make a real difference in the culture of software worldwide.\ender

\section{So here's the thing: free software isn't cool.}

\myauthor{Georgia young}{Program Manager}

\cap{N}ow, before you say, \textquotedbl{}Who cares about being cool
when it comes to freedom?\textquotedbl{} let me explain what I mean,
and why cool should matter to the movement.

Let's define cool for this context. A 2014 study by S. Shyam Sundar,
Daniel J. Tamul, and Mu Wu in the International Journal of Human-Computer
Studies identified three criteria for measuring coolness in technology
products: originality, attractiveness, and subcultural appeal.\footnote{u.fsf.org/1yg}
In other words, a cool piece of tech is inventive, it looks stylish,
and it helps the user assert their identity: these three criteria
are my focus here. 

Why should free software advocates care about the cool factor when
it comes to free software projects and activism? Adoption. People
need technology \textendash{} but they want it to be cool.

Many of the people who drive free software development, use free software,
and encourage others to ditch proprietary software in favor of freedom
are involved because the Four Freedoms are more important to them
than what's cool. Maybe you've been hacking on projects since childhood,
or maybe you used proprietary systems for years, until something went
wrong: Microsoft forced a Windows update on your home computer, or
you learned that your supposedly low-emissions Volkswagen was anything
but.\footnote{u.fsf.org/1ye}\footnote{u.fsf.org/1yf} You've got
great reasons for going free.

But other people don't prioritize freedom or change their habits when
they realize they're being treated unjustly. Maybe they fret about
how they're going to afford an extra \$159 for wireless headphones
to go along with their new jackless smartphone, but the power of cool
can be strong enough to override such concerns.

The key to cool in software and hardware is often rooted in design.
We may avoid Apple products because they deny us our freedoms, but
others perceive their products as easy to use and beautiful, because
they are designed with an eye to great user experience and a pleasing
look and feel. 

But we want everyone to use free software, and that means free software
(which by nature promotes user freedom) must find its cool. That's
best achieved through design that will be delightful and seamless
for the user. 

The good news is, we're already on our way. Need a simple way to build
a website? Try WordPress. Want a great desktop user experience for
your GNU/Linux system? GNOME and KDE have embraced beautiful design
throughout their desktop environments. Maybe you or a child you know
want to experiment with electronics. Try littleBits, useful and beautiful
electronics prototyping hardware. And of course, cool is often about
fashion, so the FSF has you covered there with our RUN GCC t-shirt.

WordPress is a web-based content management system, and a hugely successful
free software project.\footnote{wordpress.com} Used by over 25\%
of the world's 10 million most-visited sites, WordPress makes it easy
to assert your identity on your website, offering different themes
that change the look and functionality of a website without altering
its content. You might even use WordPress to create a site for your
free software project.

GNOME and KDE are GNU/Linux desktop environments that have emphasized
user and developer experience in design, and (especially in the case
of GNOME's distinctive design) that makes them stand out.\footnote{gnome.org/}
\footnote{kde.org}GNOME offers human interface guidelines that may
inspire your own efforts to integrate good interface design in your
development process.\footnote{u.fsf.org/1yh} littleBits makes modular
electronics pieces that snap together by way of small magnets.\footnote{littlebits.cc}
They are meant to make prototyping and learning about electronics
easy. They're Creative Commons and CERN Hardware licensed, and the
best part is: they're fun! Each bit is color-coded using a neon palette
that defines their function, making them easy to identify and experiment
with. Magnet-based connections mean there's no soldering involved.
There are so many invention possibilities, and they're so simple to
use, kids and teachers alike get excited about using littleBits. How
can a color palette and a consistent look for common elements in your
program make it more useful and cool?\footnote{u.fsf.org/1yi}

Now that you're thinking about how cool your free software project
could be, what about your own look? Take the hip-hop inspired RUN
GCC t-shirt. While most people probably don't know the GNU Compiler
Collection \textendash{} a key piece of the GNU Project \textendash{}
RUN-D.M.C. are a wildly popular American hip-hop group founded in
the 1980s. Their personal style \textendash{} black fedoras, Adidas
tracksuits, and thick, ropelike gold chains - was as memorable as
their lyrics. Their logo, RUN DMC in huge white letters on a black
background, framed by horizontal red bars, is highly recognizable,
and the RUN GCC logo created for the FSF mirrors that style, sparking
curiosity in those unfamiliar with GNU. %
\noindent\begin{minipage}[t][1\totalheight][c]{1\columnwidth}%
\includegraphics{/home/marxistvegan/Downloads/rungcc-shirt}
\begin{onehalfspace}
\begin{center}
{\small{}Visit \url{shop.fsf.org/}}
\par\end{center}{\small \par}
\end{onehalfspace}
%
\end{minipage} It just looks cool.

How might visual and user experience design improvements make your
favorite free software project cooler, potentially attracting more
users? Share design-related resources and your thoughts on LibrePlanet.\footnote{https://libreplanet.org/wiki/Design}

\ender

\section{Head in the clouds, files on a actual server }

\myauthor{Ruben Rodriguez}{Systems Administrator}

\cap{S}ervers are just high-grade computers not very different from
a regular desktop machine, usually having multiple processors, redundant
disk systems and high speed network adapters installed on a high-end
motherboard. When you use servers that are under somebody else's control
they are called \textquotedbl{}the cloud\textquotedbl{}. But even
if you do have control of your own servers they are still a minefield
of freedom issues, although there are a few good options. 

Freedom advocates often make the point that the backbone of the Internet
runs on free software. And while it is true that many free software
applications had made their way to be the standard of the industry
-be it HTTP servers, databases, code processors, virtualization systems
or management software, among many others- it is still hard to build
a completely free software solution if you take into account networking
devices and appliances. And in a time when corporations and governments
are pushing to weaken our privacy by trying to outlaw or cripple cryptography
or by planting backdoors on common software and hardware, having servers
we can trust from the ground up is a priority. 

A basic principle of servers is that they are usually managed remotely
by administrators, connecting to them to perform setup an maintenance
tasks in an efficient way. This is usually done at the application
level -using tools like ssh or application backends- but modern servers
also offer methods to gain controll at a much lower level, in a way
that is independent of the operating system or applications that the
machine is running -often even if the machine is turned off. It provides
complete control on all the data and actions performed by the machine
without the operating system being aware of it. Those capabilities
could be useful for a sysadmin that has to work with many machines,
but when given to the wrong hands they become the ultimate backdoor.
As it turns out most modern processors implement those kinds of features,
Intel calls it Management Engine and AMD calls it Platform Security
Processor, and they both include it in every processor they currently
make. The code that implements this backdoors is of course non-free
software, so we cannot be sure if it is there to serve us or somebody
else. And even if we were to assume that it has been placed there
with nothing but good intentions, being proprietary software -that
we cannot audit- we should not trust it. In a similar way, many server
motherboards implement remote control functions in their BIOS which
should be avoided for the same reasons. 

The platform that we selected to avoid these problems uses the last
common CPU that did not implement the mentioned such backdoors (AMD
Opteron 62xx, released in 2011) running on a motherboard (ASUS KGPE
D16) that is compatible with the free BIOS replacement GNU Libreboot.\footnote{u.fsf.org/1yj}
The result may not be the most bleeding edge technology but it is
powerful enough for a single server to run dozens of virtual machines
efficiently. 

Selecting all the other components that a server stack usually requires
is not less tricky. Fiber optics network cards have embedded firmware
that can potentially host similar backdoors at a network level, and
so do switches. We opted for 10 gigabit Ethernet controllers (Intel
X540) that work with the GNU Linux-Libre kernel, and unmanaged switches.
We also chose a Linux-Libre compatible disk controller card with no
RAID support, to avoid non-free firmware blobs. And of course these
servers run on fully free GNU/Linux distributions.\footnote{u.fsf.org/1yk} 

The resulting server stack allows for large amounts of fast storage
-up to 16TB of SSD disk per node or more- which is replicated through
the network using CEPH. This data pool is then accessed by servers
running virtualization -KVM, XEN, containers-, and every component
is fully redundant and load-balanced. With this we achieve the most
powerful, freedom and privacy friendly servers available today. But
there are still things to improve, hard drives have non-free embedded
firmware, and processors contain microcode that -with or without explicit
remote control functionalities- are still a big black box that needs
to be set free through reverse engineering{[}3{]}.\footnote{u.fsf.org/1yl} 

\ender

\begin{center}
\begin{minipage}[t]{0.9\columnwidth}%
\begin{shaded}%
\begin{center}
\textbf{Get 10\% off!}
\par\end{center}
\begin{center}
\rule[0.5ex]{1\columnwidth}{0.5pt}
\par\end{center}
\begin{center}
\textbf{Support the Free Software Foundation by purchasing GNU Press
merchandise. }
\par\end{center}
\begin{center}
\textbf{Visit} \textbf{our \url{shop.fsf.org} with new material soon!
Enter discount code} FALL2016.
\par\end{center}\end{shaded}%
\end{minipage}
\par\end{center}

\section{On the road with RMS}

\myauthor{Jeanne Rasata}{Assistant to the President}

\cap{F}SF founder and president Richard Stallman (RMS) is still not
slowing down! He continues to champion free software and, since mid-May,
has been to nineteen cities across eight countries on three continents
to spread the free software movement's message. 

He went to Valencia and Alicante, Spain, to raise awareness among
political leaders and technical managers of the benefits of free software.
As the guest of the Department of Transparency, Social Responsibility,
Participation and Cooperation of the Valencian Government, he gave
his speech \textquotedbl{}Free Software in Governments,\textquotedbl{}
at the Polytechnical University and at the Advanted Polytechnical
School, respectively. 

At the invitation of the school of applied sciences (ENSA), he then
headed to Morocco, where, at the colloquium \textquotedbl{}Free Software
in the Economic South,\textquotedbl{} in MeknÃ\textasciidieresis s,
he spoke about the free software movement and, in Tangiers, about
free software, digital development, and the relationship between cybersecurity
and free software. 

He then went to Villepinte, to be part of Viva Technology Paris, where
he entreated startups and major players in digital innovation to opt
for free software: \textquotedbl{}Free software respects users' freedom,
and their privacy, because the users control what it does. If you
want your software not to mistreat you, make sure it is free.\textquotedbl{} 

At PSESHSF, a hacker festival in Choisy-le-Roi, he discussed \textquotedbl{}policies
that have been proposed for freedom in computing, specifically to
promote free software in the State and in education, and to limit
systematic surveillance of the public, either by the State or by private
entities.\textquotedbl{} 

At the Eleventh HOPE conference, in New York City, he explained the
importance of having software that schools or the government make
us run\textemdash to get an education or to avail ourselves of services
we have a claim to or to exercise our rights or to be heard\textemdash be
free software. 

In August, RMS spoke at the World Social Forum, in Montreal, and at
Abstractions, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, where he reached out to
an audience of software developers, and also, in September, at Symbiosis
Gathering, in Oakdale, California, where he both gave a speech and
was the Technological Society Panel, and at Libre Learn Lab, in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, to speak about free software in schools. 

RMS also gave stand-alone speeches, throughout the summer and fall,
in Monza, Italy, Frankfurt, Germany, Amsterdam, Netherlands, Fresno,
California, and Grenoble, France. 

In June, RMS was honored by the Association for Computing Machinery,
when it awarded him the prestigious ACM Software System Award, \textquotedbl{}for
the development and leadership of GCC (GNU Compiler Collection), which
has enabled extensive software and hardware innovation, and has been
a lynchpin of the free software movement.\textquotedbl{} This comes
twenty-five years after they awarded him the Grace Murray Hopper Award,
\textquotedbl{}for pioneering work in the development of the extensible
editor EMACS (Editing Macros). Read the award committee's full announcement
at \url{awards.acm.org/press_releases/technical-awards-2015.pdf}. 

Later, in October, he was honored again, this time by the Pierre and
Marie Curie University and the Paris-Sorbonne University, which, in
a joint ceremony, in anticipation of their upcoming merger, recognized
RMS's entire life's work by awarding him his sixteenth honorary doctorate. 

Please write to \url{rms-assist@gnu.org} with any photographs you
would like us to share on RMS's blog, at \url{fsf.org/blogs/rms},
with recordings of his speeches for our audio-video archive \url{audio-video.gnu.org},
or to extend a speaking invitation to RMS. See \url{u.fsf.org/zi}
for a list of his confirmed engagements. 

\ender

\section{Free software at the wheel}

\myauthor{Zak Rogoff}{Campaigns Manager}

\cap{T}hrough a lot of work, we've managed to write enough free software
that we can use PCs with no proprietary programs. Developers are constantly
at work extending the opportunity for full computer user freedom on
multiple fronts, from smartphones to 3D printers. There's no question
that we'll be {*}technically{*} capable of building a functional autonomous
car running only free software; efforts to do this already exist.
The question is whether governments will allow these cars on the road.
If we don't engage in a productive dialogue with policymakers and
prototype new enforcement and accountability mechanisms for developers,
we are likely to get only halfway to free-as-in-freedom autonomous
cars.

The debate is likely to come down to reprogrammability. A lot of regulations
will be written about the code manufacturers load in autonomous cars
and other robots, likely requiring them to drive safely, to drive
in an energy-efficient way, and to pull over when signaled by a police
officer (or autonomous police robot). Governments will be uncomfortable
with the prospect of individuals overwriting legally compliant car
software with something else, and they will be interested in creating
meta-policy that makes it harder for owners to bring their cars out
of compliance with regulations.

\noindent\begin{minipage}[t]{1\columnwidth}%
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{i-support-fs_yellow-bg}
\begin{onehalfspace}
\begin{center}
{\small{}Sharable badges at u.fsf.org/badges.}
\par\end{center}{\small \par}
\end{onehalfspace}
%
\end{minipage}

It will probably be impossible to stop governments from creating these
meta-policies, but we will have a chance to influence the form they
take. The most freedom-maintaining option is to reinforces the existing
system of human accountability around cars -{}- for example, extending
liability for a car's autonomous behavior to the person that programmed
it. The other end of the spectrum is a proprietary software mandate,
policy that requires manufacturers to make cars resist users' attempts
to reprogram them in the first place, to minimize the possibility
of faulty or malicious reprogramming.

As free software users, our obvious first choice is a system of human
accountability, which preserves our same rights over car computers
that we have when loading software on traditional computers. However,
the promise of expos facto accountability, or even mandatory code
inspections, may not be enough to reassure those concerned with the
very real possibility of a maliciously reprogrammed autonomous car.
Such a monstrosity could take many lives before its programmer could
be brought to justice.

Under restrictions that prevent owner reprogramming, even companies
that {*}wanted{*} to make free software cars would only be able to
get halfway there. The freest cars would echo the TiVo TV-recorder
of the early 2000s, which came running programs compiled from free
source code that users could copy, study and modify, but but were
also hampered with had hardware restrictions that prevented users
from loading modified software onto the TiVo. Even though the source
code for the TiVo's software was free, the binary running on the devices
was not, because the owner couldn't exercise Freedom 1 and run a modified
copy in its place.

A TiVoized car would be better than a car whose software was entirely
opaque to the owner, because it would at least be possible to study
the code and look for vulnerabilities or other bugs. But it wouldn't
empower car owners to fully control the behavior of their vehicles.
It wouldn't allow them to fix the vulnerabilities they found if manufacturers
were uninterested in addressing them. It wouldn't allow them to prevent
their cars from listening to the manufacturer's instructions before
theirs, or sharing information about them. It would stop the healthy
competition that comes from third allowing third-party companies to
service cars without manufacturer approval. TiVoized cars would be
missing some of the most important benefits that we get from free
software.

If we want to protect these benefits, we will have to be creative
with novel mechanisms of human accountability that convince society
that it is safe to trust us to modify our cars without prior approval.
We can start to brainstorm now, drawing on the rich experience of
the existing communities that reprogram consumer devices. In fact,
if you have any ideas or want to connect with others working on free
software cars, we encourage you to share them on the FSF's libreplanet-discuss
email list FOOTNOTE:\{URL:\{https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libreplanet-discuss\}\}
. There is a real chance that we will be able to come up with something
in time -{}- the free software community is known for legal as well
as technical innovation. But we should expect to fail multiple times
on our way to success. Fasten your seatbelts, it's going to be bumpy
ride.\ender

\section{The role of lawsuits in GPL compliance}

\myauthor{Donald Robertson, III}{Copyright and Licensing Associate}

\cap{T}here recently was some discussion among kernel Linux developers
regarding the role of lawsuits when it comes to GPL compliance. That
discussion drew out some misunderstandings about how organizations
like the FSF handle compliance work.

The email thread involved potential topics for an upcoming hackers
summit. Much of the relevant discussion revolved around the role of
lawsuits in GPL compliance. In particular there was criticism of the
compliance efforts of organizations like the Software Freedom Conservancy
and FSF, arguing that jumping into lawsuits created ill-will and didn't
bring violators into the community. The concern was that involving
lawyers and threatening lawsuits scares away potential collaborators,
and that back channel discussions have proven more fruitful in bringing
violators into the community. Jumping into litigation dashes any hope
for that ideal outcome. Instead, a lawsuit should be treated as a
last resort when all other efforts have failed. 

Which of course, is absolutely correct. That is actually how the FSF
and the Software Freedom Conservancy have always handled compliance.
We have even gone so far to make that point public and clear in our
adoption of {[}The Principles of Community-Oriented GPL Enforcement{]}{[}1{]},
where it states that \textquotedbl{}Legal action is a last resort\textquotedbl{}.
The discussion among kernel Linux developers highlights a misunderstanding
of how organizations like the FSF handle GPL compliance.

{[}1{]}:https://www.fsf.org/licensing/enforcement-principles

The FSF has done compliance work for the GNU Project for decades,
and in all that time, we've only been forced to file a lawsuit once.
The suit came about after years of working with the violator trying
to correct their compliance. Even in that instance, where fsf eventually
did have to sue, the violator later went on to become a contributor
to the GNU Project. The Software Freedom Conservancy has a similar
track record of avoiding lawsuits.

This does mean that the vast majority of our compliance work happens
behind the scenes. Generally people will only hear about a compliance
case if it ends up in court, where by necessity it becomes public.
This can give the impression perhaps that GPL compliance involves
a lot of litigation, but this is far from the truth. Compliance is
almost always an educational matter; most violators are unaware of
their obligations under the license and simply need additional help
to come into compliance. Almost all GPL compliance cases end quietly
with the violator correcting their mistakes, with only a minimal notification
of past recipients of the then-violating distribution that anything
has happened.

While lawsuits are a last resort, they do unfortunately have to remain
an option. Without the understanding that at some point a violator
must come into complete compliance, the leverage to gain compliance
from violators who don't find the goals and values of the community
compelling is limited. While compliance work is primarily educational,
everyone is expected to graduate at some point and learn to respect
the rights granted by the GPL.

The discussion among the kernel developers ended on a similar note,
with all agreeing that there wasn't a disagreement on this particular
issue. While the debate may have revolved only around perceived differences,
it did present an opportunity to share with a wider audience the way
things work behind the scenes.\ender

\clearpage{}\verbatimcopyright{2016}
\donate{foo}
\end{document}
