\documentclass[letterpaper]{article}
\usepackage{bulletin-new}
\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\begin{document}
\twocolumn[\masthead{bulletin-logo.eps}{Bulletin}{Issue 18}{June 2011}]
% In this issue...
\setcounter{secnumdepth}{-1} % no numbering on sections in the TOC
\noindent
\colorbox{Myblue}{%
  \begin{tabular}{p{1.5in}p{0.12in}}
    \Large\textbf{In this issue of the Bulletin...} \\
      \\
      \raggedright\normalsize{{Welcome to the\\Bulletin}} & {1}\
      \\
      \raggedright\normalsize{{Why should I care about that?}} & {2}\
      \\
      \raggedright\normalsize{{LibrePlanet 2011}} & {4}\
      \\
      \raggedright\normalsize{{Recommending licenses for new projects}} & {5}\
      \\
      \raggedright\normalsize{{The danger of ebooks}} & {6}\
      \\
      \raggedright\normalsize{{Spotlight: Merlin Cloud}} & {8}\
      \\
      \raggedright\normalsize{{GNU Press news}} & {10}\
      \\
      \raggedright\normalsize{{Free Technology Academy}} & {10}\
      \\
  \end{tabular}
}





\begin{figure}[htb]
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics[width=2in]{6.eps}
  \end{center}
  \caption{\small{Come on in!}}
\end{figure}

% START: Welcome to the\\Bulletin
\section{Welcome to the\\Bulletin}
\textbf{\textit{by Matt Lee\\Editor\\}}
\begin{document}

\cap{W}elcome to the first \emph{FSF Bulletin} of our 26th year. In
this issue we have insights on some of the exciting developments in
free software, as well as articles reminding us of potential threats
to our freedom and autonomy. 

We also have some changes at the Free Software Foundation. After ten
years with the Foundation, our former executive director Peter Brown
has decided to move on to new pastures --- handing over the reins to a
familiar face, John Sullivan. John has held a number of positions in
the Foundation, most recently serving as operations manager. He has
returned to Boston after his brief dalliance with life on the West
Coast. Josh Gay, who some of you may remember as a campaigns manager
from a few years ago, has also returned to continue that work.

Finally, throughout this issue you will see various pieces of GNU
artwork. These were recently rescued from our decaying archive and
scanned. Our thanks go to Etienne Suvasa for all of his work over the years
providing us with these glorious pieces of art.
\ender
% END: Welcome to the\\Bulletin



\begin{figure}[htb]
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics[width=2in]{1.eps}
  \end{center}
  \caption{\small{}}
\end{figure}

% START: Why should I care about that?
\section{Why should I care about that?}
\textbf{\textit{by John Sullivan\\Executive Director\\}}
\begin{document}

\cap{A}t the FSF, we have a goal of increasing the size and strength of the
free software movement. To expand the movement, we need to get the
attention of people who have never heard of free software before, and
explain why it's important. We have to make the case for the four
freedoms that characterize free software, and to succeed fully, we
must be able to do this for people who don't care to know more than
they have to about computers.

\emph{Freedom 0}, the freedom to run the program for any purpose, is the
easiest to explain. A word processor, for example, should not come
with restrictions that say you can't use it to write Republican
campaign materials. Because running a program on a computer to do
something one wants to do is the minimal definition of what it means
to use a computer at all, the importance of this freedom is easy to
explain.

Likewise, \emph{Freedom 2}, the freedom to redistribute copies so you can
help your neighbor, is straightforward. Like freedom 0, it is not hard
for everyone who encounters computers to see how this freedom directly
impacts their lives. When using a computer, it is \emph{prima facie}
beneficial and empowering to be able to exchange with others copies of
programs that do useful things.

So far, so good. But now we are left with the two freedoms for which
access to the ``source code'' is a precondition: \emph{Freedom 1}, the
freedom to study how the program works and to change it to make it do
what you wish; and \emph{Freedom 3}, the freedom to subsequently distribute
copies of your modified versions to others.

The importance of these freedoms has always been difficult to explain
to people who aren't familiar with how programs are written. We lack
an equivalent of Schoolhouse Rock's ``How a Bill Becomes a Law'' showing
how source code becomes a running program. Even if we had one, we
couldn't expect everyone to be interested.

Unfortunately, things on this front have recently taken a turn for the
worse. As of this writing, the top result when searching Google for
``source code'' is not a definition talking about the human-readable
language in which programs are written. It's a Jake Gyllenhaal movie.
I haven't seen this movie, but I'm told that in it, the ``Source Code''
is a government experiment revolving around a program that enables one
person to cross over into another's identity in the last eight minutes
of life. I've \emph{mostly} gotten over the theory that this movie is in
fact a conspiracy designed to make our jobs harder.\footnote{But if you have evidence, please contact me.}

The prominence of Gyllenhaal's \emph{Source Code} is just more buckshot for
naysayers who claim we will never be able to convince people on a
large scale that the freedom to modify a program is critical, because
most people in their lives will never want to modify a program. So why
should they care?

Richard Stallman has been asked and has answered this question many
times. In his answers, he highlights the importance of what amounts to
literacy. He says that, with access to source code, anyone can learn
to be a programmer and come to value this freedom; and it doesn't take
much work to learn how to do a lot, even for people who don't ever
intend on becoming master programmers.

I can testify that his answer worked for me. What little I know about
programming is self-taught from free software, other than a couple
high school classes in Pascal and BASIC. But I know enough --- most
importantly enough about how to look up answers for the things I don't
know --- that I can accomplish a great deal in my personal computing
environment.

Even such minimal literacy is emancipatory; it is the surest way to
make sure that you are not a prisoner of the software you use. But I
also recognize that this appeal doesn't work for everyone, and that's
okay. I believe we can also earn the support of people who can think
of nothing they would like to do less than learn or change how their
computer works.

In this effort, we are up against powerful marketing machines like
Apple, who spends millions of dollars to tell us repeatedly that
nobody should want anything more than for their technology to \emph{just
work}, in the process paradoxically defining freedom to mean the
antithesis of both the desire and the ability to change anything about
one's circumstances. This marketing strategy runs from their software
down to their physical devices, which are known for prohibiting simple
things like changing the battery or installing a new storage card.

Of course people want their technology to work. But Apple's
trendsetting overemphasis on this idea has made them the Fox News of
technology. Just as Fox News rides on the motto ``Fair and Balanced,''
heavy-handedly implying that viewers don't need any other news
sources, so Apple and its budding copycats ride on the idea that users
don't need real freedom, because they are already having the best
possible experience.

Free software certainly isn't always best when it comes to
functionality or ease of use, and in many places it can learn from
proprietary software. But just as plenty of people who do not write
news articles themselves still strongly support freedom of the press
so that others can write articles for them to read, so plenty
of people can come to recognize the ways in which proprietary software
company efforts to crush the creativity and intelligence of those who
\emph{do} want to modify source code --- of the non-Gyllenhaal variety ---
end up hurting everyone who ever needs to run a program to do
anything. Like the news media in places with no free press,
proprietary software means gate-kept control over information, tools,
and knowledge, and that's scary.

``Fair and Balanced'' exists in the context of the First Amendment.
Likewise, companies like Apple can exist and offer their users
streamlined choice-free experiences serving media certified by Steve
Jobs, but they must do so in a free world, eschewing the subsidized
backing of government coercion they currently enjoy in the form of
copyrights, patents, and Digital Restrictions Management. They can
have their image, but they must not rely on fundamental user freedom
being illegal in order to do so.

Many people can and do value freedoms that they themselves do not
exercise, because they empathize with the importance of those freedoms
to others, and recognize that the alternative is for their own, more
dear freedoms to someday be threatened (``First they came for the\ldots'').
Many people also care about the way in which the things they use are
produced, and they want those methods to be ethical. When inviting new
voices to the free software movement, we can and should appeal to
these empathies, but we don't need to depend on them. The character of
the software available to any of us is dependent on the ethical
environment in which that software is made. Whether programmers or
not, we all need the programs we use to be made and run in freedom.
\ender
% END: Why should I care about that?



\begin{figure}[htb]
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics[width=2in]{2.eps}
  \end{center}
  \caption{\small{}}
\end{figure}

% START: LibrePlanet 2011
\section{LibrePlanet 2011}
\textbf{\textit{by Matt Lee\\Campaigns Manager\\}}
\begin{document}

\cap{I}n March we had our third LibrePlanet conference here in
Boston. This year we wanted to run a smaller event, with the
expectation that next year's conference will be a larger affair --- our
biggest conference to date.

Because we planned a smaller event, we chose a smaller venue than
in previous years. With only a single track of talks, it was clear we
could find a suitable lecture hall at many of the universities
and colleges in the Boston area.  For us, Bunker Hill Community
College proved ideal for our needs. Minutes from the heart of
downtown Boston and so close to the subway system that it has its own
station, BHCC features prominently in the movie \emph{Good Will Hunting} in
the office of Robin Williams's character.

The event kicked off with a welcome from our newly appointed executive
director John Sullivan, who listed some of the things he'd like to
achieve now that he's running the show: better access to the
people running the organization and an increased focus on our
campaigns work. This was followed by a talk from Brett Smith
about the work of the GPL Compliance Lab.
The Compliance Lab is responsible for resolving license violations
that involve GNU software. Brett acts as the liaison between the FSF and its
attorneys at the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) in New York City.

With the first two FSF talks out of the way, it was time for an
outside perspective. This came from conference regular Máirín Duffy,
who works on the Fedora distribution of GNU/Linux. Her talk
\emph{Empowering Girl Scouts using free software} described a collaborative
effort to teach groups of Girl Scouts and other young people in
Massachusetts how to use free creative software like GIMP and
Inkscape. The children made a variety of creative works, including
t-shirts and posters, which were later printed and put on display.

After lunch, Richard Stallman gave his keynote speech. Unlike
previous years, he did not announce a new philosophical essay, but
instead offered a warning about the dangers of cell phone tracking and
proprietary software on mobile devices. There was positive
news to report in this space: the Replicant project has successfully built
a fully free, functional version of the Android/Linux operating system for
the HTC Dream phone.

Lightning talks followed. Bob Call, Jason Self, Asheesh Laroia,
Mary-Anne Wolf, and Dave Crossland offered short but sweet insights
into their work on router hacking, Python advocacy, real-world
accessibility for disabled people, and free fonts.

The conference concluded with our annual Free Software Awards
ceremony. GNU Gnash maintainer and GNU veteran Rob Savoye received the
Award for the Advancement of Free Software, while Andrew Lewman from
the Tor Project stepped up to take home the Award for Projects of
Social Benefit.
\ender
% END: LibrePlanet 2011



\begin{figure}[htb]
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics[width=2in]{9.eps}
  \end{center}
  \caption{\small{}}
\end{figure}

% START: Recommending licenses for new projects
\section{Recommending licenses for new projects}
\textbf{\textit{by Brett Smith\\License Compliance Engineer\\}}
\begin{document}

\cap{W}e recently published a new page on our site, entitled ``How to choose
a license for your own
work.''\footnote{\url{gnu.org/licenses/license-recommendations.html}}  It's a
comprehensive set of license recommendations for new projects. It
explains what factors are important to consider when making licensing
decisions, and suggests specific licenses for different scenarios.

Publishing resources like this helps the Compliance Lab achieve a
couple of different education goals. Most obviously, it serves as a
guide to help new projects make good licensing decisions. It also
illustrates how the FSF uses licensing as a tool to encourage the
adoption and development of free software. Sometimes people have the
mistaken impression that we care more about a program's license than
freedom. They claim on Internet forums that the FSF wants
everything to be GPLed. This page clears up that misconception and
puts the GPL in its proper context as a means to an end.

During the drafting process for this guide, we decided to make one
adjustment to our existing recommendations: in situations where a copyleft
license is not appropriate, we now recommend the Apache License 2.0.
This shift was spurred on by several changes that have taken place
over the past few years. As sad as I am to admit it, patents remain a
growing threat to free software. Since the US Supreme Court's decision
in \emph{Bilski v. Kappos}, software patent litigation has continued as
before, and cases that have followed like \emph{Bedrock v. Google} are
clear attacks against free software. We will never be completely safe
until software patents are abolished, but any defenses we can
implement today are worthwhile.

The Apache License 2.0 is the best non-copyleft license that does what
a copyright license can to mitigate threats from software patents, and
the Apache Software Foundation deserves credit for their efforts in
this space. The Apache License is a well-established, mature license
that users, developers, and distributors alike are all comfortable
with. It also enjoys support from other free software licenses: GPLv3
is compatible with it, and the forthcoming Mozilla Public License 2.0
should be as well.

It's unfortunate that the Apache License 2.0 isn't compatible with
older free software licenses like GPLv2. As we considered this change
to our recommendations, this point was easily the most important one
weighing against it. Fortunately, every major copyleft license has or
will soon have Apache compatibility in their latest versions, which
mitigates those concerns. Ultimately, we went ahead with this change
because we want our recommendations to help projects make decisions
that will serve them well for a long time to come, rather than
focusing too much on today's immediate circumstances.

I hope our new guide and this article help people understand how good
licensing decisions can go a long way to help protect and promote free
software. If you have questions or feedback about any of this, please
don't hesitate to write us at \url{licensing@fsf.org}; we're always
happy to hear from our supporters.
\ender
% END: Recommending licenses for new projects



\begin{figure}[htb]
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics[width=2in]{5.eps}
  \end{center}
  \caption{\small{}}
\end{figure}

% START: The danger of ebooks
\section{The danger of ebooks}
\textbf{\textit{by Richard Stallman\\President\\}}
\begin{document}

\cap{I}n an age where business dominates our governments and writes our
laws, every technological advance offers business an opportunity to
impose new restrictions on the public. 

Technologies that could have empowered us are used to chain us
instead.

With printed books:

\begin{itemize}
\item You can buy one with cash, anonymously, and then you own it.
\item You are not required to sign a license that restricts your use of
it.
\item The format is known, and no proprietary technology is needed to read
the book.
\item You can give, lend or sell the book to another.
\item You can, physically, scan and copy the book, and it's sometimes
lawful under copyright.
\item Nobody has the power to destroy your book.
\end{itemize}

Contrast that with Amazon ebooks: 

\begin{itemize}
\item Amazon requires users to identify themselves to get an ebook.
\item In some countries, Amazon says the user does not own the ebook. 
\item Amazon also requires the user to accept a restrictive license on use
of the ebook.
\item The format is secret, and only proprietary user-restricting software
can read it at all.
\item An ersatz ``lending'' is allowed for some books, for a limited time,
but only by specifying by name another user of the same system.
\item No giving or selling is permitted.
\item To copy the ebook is impossible due to Digital Restrictions
Management in the reader and prohibited by the license, which is more
restrictive than copyright law.
\item Amazon can remotely delete the ebook using a back door --- It used
this back door in 2009 to delete thousands of copies of George
Orwell's \emph{1984}.
\end{itemize}

Even one of these infringements makes ebooks a step backward from
printed books. We must reject ebooks until they respect our freedom.

The ebook companies say denying our traditional freedoms is necessary
to continue to pay authors --- the current copyright system does a
lousy job of that; it is much better suited to supporting those
companies. We can support authors better in other ways that don't
require curtailing our freedom, and even legalize sharing.

Two methods I've suggested are:

\begin{itemize}
\item To distribute tax funds to authors based on the cube root of each
author's popularity.\footnote{\url{stallman.org/articles/internet-sharing-license.en.html}}
\item To design players so users can send authors anonymous voluntary payments.
\end{itemize}

\textbf{Ebooks need not attack our freedom, but they will if companies get
to decide. It's up to us to stop them. The fight has already
started.}
\ender
% END: The danger of ebooks



\begin{figure}[htb]
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics[width=2in]{3.eps}
  \end{center}
  \caption{\small{See gnu.org/graphics/license-logos.html for more logos.}}
\end{figure}

% START: Spotlight: Merlin Cloud
\section{Spotlight: Merlin Cloud}
\textbf{\textit{by Matt Lee\\Campaigns Manager\\}}
\begin{document}

\cap{J}ustin Baugh is a former systems administrator at the Free Software
Foundation. Now he works deploying large-scale clusters for major
corporations, and in his limited spare time works on a new free
software project to help people deploy their own virtualization.

\textbf{First, let's dispel this myth about cloud computing. What is
it, and why is it compatible with free software ethics?}

``Cloud computing,'' unfortunately, is one of the most misunderstood
terms in the recent history of computing. Literally, it has a million
different definitions to a million different people. I like to think
of cloud computing simply as an abstraction: a system that provides
methods for requesting and utilizing computing resources without
having to know anything about the underlying systems providing them.

Primarily, cloud computing is about (a) aggregating server, network,
and storage resources into a seemingly contiguous system (``the
cloud''), (b) providing some kind of interface for the user to request
or release these resources, and (c) making these resources network or
location agnostic, so that the resources are accessible from anywhere,
even in the face of system or network failures.

I agree that there are many ethical considerations with ``the cloud,''
especially in its current invocation by larger corporations. However,
their cloud need not be ours; it is becoming more and more possible to
use free software to build clouds that respect free software ethics
and don't require a user to compromise on their freedoms or privacy.

For instance, one could imagine a GNU cloud which only ran free
software, and had strong privacy and data protection safeguards, but
provided users the same type of experience they might expect from
Amazon's EC2. This kind of vision is entirely possible.

\textbf{Okay, so what's Merlin? Give me the 30-second overview\ldots}

Primarily, Merlin is a Ruby on Rails application that I created as a
way of interacting and controlling EC2 API-compatible clouds. This can
mean Amazon AWS, which has many significant ethical concerns, but it
can also mean something like Eucalyptus/UEC (the GPLv3-licensed
version), or other free software which provides similar services.

Merlin allows you to quickly request the creation of new virtual
machines and storage volumes, and can also assist in provisioning them
(getting them ready to do real work). It handles a lot of details in
the background (such as Puppet certificate signing, BIND dynamic DNS
updates, etc.) and aims to make day-to-day cloud operations as easy as
a couple of clicks. It also aims to provide a free software option versus
the proprietary software or closed web services that are used to
interface and interact with clouds today.

\textbf{What technologies are used to make Merlin work?}

As I said, Merlin is a Ruby on Rails project. I actually used the
project as an excuse to learn Ruby/Rails, as I had only used Django or
Zope in the past. Underneath the hood, it uses ActiveMQ to pass
messages between the front end and the back end, and of course a whole
basket of Ruby gems. Merlin also assumes that you are using Puppet to
provision your systems.

\textbf{What can developers who are interested in Merlin do to help it
succeed?}

Merlin, primarily, needs more attention. It works for me, in my
environment; it would be helpful if others would try using it. It
really needs better packaging and documentation: it isn't as simple as
installing it and clicking a few things. It also needs quite a bit of
work on its UI, and I am hoping to get it to a beta release where a
lot of the basic functionality will be a bit more implemented than it
is now. In the future, Merlin will support spawning entire groups of
machines, or entire self-contained systems, within the cloud. I would
also like Merlin to be API-agnostic, and support a wide variety of
cloud software. All that being said, the software is available today,
so anyone who wants to hack on it can do so.

\textbf{We've seen some rather gloomy-looking options from big companies
who are talking up the cloud as the solution to all our problems. What
can Merlin do to give people some flexibility without requiring them
to give up their control?}

Primarily, the real issue with the pervasiveness of clouds with
ethical issues for users is simply that they are there, and they are
the only real option unless you are looking very carefully. The
average user isn't yet aware of the traps and pitfalls involved in
using cloud services, and is very much attracted to the ease of use
and simplicity that the cloud promises --- especially the idea of their
files or data being available ``everywhere.'' Unfortunately, this
simplicity comes with a price --- it is inherently linked to an
expropriation of freedom and privacy which becomes harder and harder
to reverse the more one relies on the corporate clouds.

To my knowledge, no one has attempted to build a large, scalable free
software cloud that inherently respects the freedom and privacy of its
users. I sincerely hope Merlin can be helpful in this regard, even if
it is only to encourage communities of users to build their own small
private clouds instead of always using the big companies.

\textbf{How do you use Merlin?}

We use it internally to provision new virtual machines within our
private cloud. Merlin will then provision these instances and even
register them automatically in DNS. It makes the rapid creation of
large numbers of provisioned virtual machines particularly quick and
easy, which I would say is a general, if unwritten, expectation of
cloud computing.
\ender
% END: Spotlight: Merlin Cloud



\begin{figure}[htb]
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics[width=2in]{4.eps}
  \end{center}
  \caption{\small{}}
\end{figure}

% START: GNU Press news
\section{GNU Press news}
\textbf{\textit{by Donald Robertson III\\Sales Administrator\\}}
\begin{document}

\cap{T}he FSF is proud to announce some new merchandise available at
\url{shop.fsf.org}. We have two new books out right now: \emph{Free as in Freedom (2.0): Richard Stallman and the Free Software
Revolution} and the second edition of \emph{Free Software
Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman}.
Signed copies are also available through the store,
but supplies are limited.

We've also introduced a new addition to the GNU menagerie, the
adorable and soft baby gnu. We still have our traditional stuffed gnu
as well, but for a limited time only.

Looking ahead, we expect to release a new edition
of the \emph{GNU Emacs Manual} soon, updated for Emacs 23.3.

As always, FSF associate members can get a discount of 20\% off all
purchases at \url{shop.fsf.org}.
\ender
% END: GNU Press news



\begin{figure}[htb]
  \begin{center}
    \includegraphics[width=2in]{emacscover.eps}
  \end{center}
  \caption{\small{The new GNU Emacs manual design}}
\end{figure}

% START: Free Technology Academy
\section{Free Technology Academy}
\textbf{\textit{by Matt Lee\\Campaigns Manager\\}}
\begin{document}

\cap{T}he Free Technology Academy provides formal training at the university
level about free software and standards. The FTA Consortium aims
to contribute to a society that permits all users to study,
participate and build upon existing knowledge without restrictions;
and more specifically to contribute to the building of a critical mass
in the use of free technologies.

\begin{itemize}
\item The Free Technology Academy consists of an advanced virtual campus
with course materials that are followed entirely online.
\item The contents of the program are focused on free technologies and
designed by e-learning experts. 
\item The Free Technology Academy is specially oriented to IT
professionals, students, educations and decision makers.
\item All learning materials used in the FTA are published
under licenses that allow them to be freely used, modified and
redistributed. Learners who enroll in the FTA receive tuition from
the partner universities' teaching staff, and FTA credits are
recognized by these universities.
\item The FTA aims to share the burden and benefits of developing and
exploiting course modules related to free technology. Organizations
interested in joining forces are welcome to strengthen the Partner
Network.
\end{itemize}

\subsection*{Why?}

The use of free technologies is considered a key factor for
sustainability: Free standards guarantee interoperability and provide
a level playing field for developers; free software implementations
help to prevent the formation of monopolies that hinder free
competition in the ICT sector.

The presence of free technologies is steadily growing in many sectors,
such as public bodies, entertainment, embedded systems, mobile
computing, etc. The FTA courses cover these fields form several points
of view: technical, economic, organizational, and legal.

\subsection*{For whom?}

FTA is for people who want to acquire knowledge about these topics and
obtain a certificate that is accepted at the master level by the
university partners. However, holding a university degree is not
required to enroll. Typical particpants are ICT professionals,
educators, students, civil servants, and decision-makers from different
countries.

\subsection*{Learning methodology}

All courses provided by the Free Technology Academy are conducted
entirely online at the FTA Virtual Campus. The FTA learning
methodology allows learners to define their own study schedules:
asynchronus communication tools, few deadlines, and activities that can
be joined at different dates and times. This model allows for anyone
to follow FTA courses, regardless of their location and job, as long
as they have regular access to the Internet.
\ender
% END: Free Technology Academy


\verbatimcopyright{2011}
\donate{foo}
\end{document}
