January 2005 - Solar-general - lists.ourproject.org

Re: [Solar-general] comunistas!
by CETECC 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

Diego Saravia escribió: >>y allí sí es donde el software libre produce >>una revolución, porque genera equipos humanos que no cobran por su >>trabajo de creación e innovación. Voluntarios. Mano de obra gratis. >> >> >Falso en general (en algunos casos cierto, pero solo se necesita un >contraejemplo para voltear una afirmacion), En este momento mas del 95% de >las contribuciones para pasar del kernel 2.4 al 2.6 vinieron de empleados de >multinacionales, una buena parte IBM. > > Hay 80.000 re-contra-ejemplos :-) en sourceforge.net de proyectos que en su mayoría no tienen apoyo económico de ninguna empresa. Y no es casual lo que apoyan las empresas como IBM: sistemas operativos que le permitan vender sus servicios, y software de oficina (Sun). No las veo apoyando otro tipo de proyectos cuyo destinatario no sean sus clientes: empresas grandes. No son las empresas las principales promotoras del software libre. Son los miles de programadores dispersos por todo el mundo que nos unimos para crear los softs. >>Hiperabundancia como la del polvo = valor cero. Son comunidades de >>personas voluntarias las que le quitan valor a las comunidades de >>personas empleadas por una empresa. Curiosamente, el perfil de lo >>que se conoce como "sociedad civil" o también mal llamado "tercer sector". >> >> > >civiles vs. militares? >empresas, civiles, gobiernos? > >Cuidado con el tercer sector. en general es gente empleada por ongs, que a >su vez reciben subsidios del gobierno u empresas. Hay muy poco voluntariado >real en el voluntariado o tercer sector. >Justamente se habla del tercer sector de la economia, para indicar que es un >sector economico financiado con subsidios, pero no viven del aire. > >El soft libre no tiene nada que ver con el tercer sector o la llamada >sociedad civil. > > > Creo que hay un error en llamar "tercer sector" a la sociedad civil, por eso decía: "mal llamado tercer sector". Sociedad civil para mí es mucho más que las fundaciones y asociaciones civiles. Sociedad civil es gente organizada. Sociedad civil son los grupos sociales que reclaman algo, aunque no tengan personería jurídica. Sociedad civil es gente organizada. El software libre es mayoritariamente impulsado por programadores que no lo hacen "como empleados" de ninguna empresa, sino uniendo su tiempo al de otros programadores. Y a nivel institucional, no olvidemos que el empujón inicial lo dio una Fundación, la FSF, y que las coordinaciones locales se hacen también mediante asociaciones como SOLAR misma. Creo que el software libre "es" totalmente un producto impulsado por la sociedad civil, por "gente" a secas, sin una determinada filiación política ni religiosa ni empresaria y sin siquiera pertencer a fundaciones o asociaciones civiles formales, pero el movimiento de organizarse y colaborar en proyectos de software libre es claramente un movimiento de la sociedad civil, tal vez el movimiento de la sociedad civil clave para esta época por los cambios de reglas de juego que implica. Que luego intentemos convencer a los gobiernos para que lo apoyen no quita que su origen sea la sociedad civil. Las empresas también tratan de convencer a los gobiernos para que usen su soft privativo, y no por eso vamos a decir que el soft privativo es impulsado por el sector público. A lo sumo es uno de sus principales consumidores, y cada tanto financia algún proyectito, pero el soft privativo es 100% impulsado por la (gran) empresa privada. Lo mismo con las empresas: que veamos con agrado que una empresa apoye algún proyecto del software libre no significa que el software libre sea impulsado principalmente por las empresas. El software libre es claramente impulsado por la sociedad civil (la gente común, digámoslo más claro). Es interesante ver cómo el surgimiento del software libre coincide con la visión de la filosofía política del último Guattari, de los años 80, cuando habla de la auto-organización de la sociedad a la manera de las moléculas, sin un principio convocante "a priori" sino espontáneamente, en organizaciones "ad-hoc" que se aglutinan repentinamente. . >>Pero el "producto" que están produciendo (el software) a medida que >>avance el software libre se va necesariamente convertiendo cada vez >>más en un "servicio" que en un producto. >> >>Y allí es donde las >>empresas gigantes todavía tienen cuerda para rato: van a competir >>abiertamente con la comunidad del software libre para ofrecer >>servicios (soporte, capacitación, etc.). >> >> >no compiten con la comunidad, en gran parte hoy la comunidad vive trabajando >en estas empresas, o es su dueño (caso redhat) > > Creo que a la larga sí que las empresas "grandes" van a terminar compitiendo con las Pymes creadas por miembros de la comunidad del software libre, cuando vendan los mismos "servicios" que ellas. Hoy dia el negocio de IBM y otras siguen siendo las "licencias" (las 500 patentes que IBM liberó ayer son apenas un 1% de sus 40.000 patentes. Es uno de los tenedores de patentes más grandes del mundo, si no el más grande. ¿IBM defensor del software libre? A lo sumo del open source -mientras les convenga). Y será una decisión política de cada gobierno si le compra soporte a IBM para la administración pública o si se lo compra a Bubi-Olivera y asociados :-) A eso me refiero cuando digo que compiten. El mercado los pondrá en competencia cuando se dediquen a lo mismo. ¿A quién le vamos a comprar soporte o capacitación de Ututo? ¿A IBM? :-) No. A Daniel Olivera y su equipo. ¿Por qué? Porque tiene el conocimiento sobre Ututo, que es lo que realmente "vale". Nadie le impedirá a otros ofrecer lo mismo, pero ellos corren con ventaja. Fueron los que crearon la idea. Tienen el conocimiento. > Y muchas empresas van a > > >>preferir pagarle el soporte a IBM que a los programadores de >>software libre locales. >> >> > >hay para todas las escalas. > > Afortunadamente para las Pymes sí, pero van a convivir mucho tiempo las Pymes con las grandes. >>Por lo cual en el modelo de producción del >>software libre "el software" no está en el centro de la maquinaria >>productiva, sino los "servicios" relacionados con el software que >>venden tanto empresas como miembros de la comunidad del software >>libre. Así que hay que estar preparado a ver cómo las empresas >>cambian su modelo de negocios cada vez más hacia el del software >>libre, pero eso no significa que desaparezcan, sino que cambian lo >>que venden: en vez de licencias de software, venderán servicios. >> >> > >totalmente de acuerdo con esto. > > >>Entonces, ya que los medios de producción son intelectuales, de las >>personas, y que el valor principal de la comunidad del software >>libre es la cooperación, por lo tanto lo valioso es que las personas >>posean conocimientos y valores que las hagan compartir sus >>conocimientos. Eso es lo único que tiende a valorizarse en este >>mercado de la hiperabundancia. >> >> > >no confundir valor en general con valor economico > > > >>Creo que lo novedoso es que no estamos unimos simplemente "para >>estar en contra" de su proceso acumulativo, sino que por primera vez >>en la historia millones de personas estamos "actuando >>constructivamente" en otro proceso paralelo a ese proceso >>concentrador: mientras que ellos "depredan" los mares del >>conocimiento con sus redes nosotros seguimos sembrando peces >>pacientemente... cuando haya tanta hiperabundancia de peces que no >>valga la pena pescarlos, solo va a poder vender pescado el que lo >>cocine mejor, con la salsita más rica. Y los artesanos suelen ser >>mejores cocineros que las factorías. >> >> > >totalmente de acuerdo > > > > > >>Creo que es todo lo contrario, que el software libre "es" el capital >>intelectual más valioso de la época. >> >> > > >el soft libre no es capital > >no tiene valor economico, no es escaso. > > Quise decir "la comunidad" del software libre, las personas. Son capital humano. Capital intelectual. Ideas. Innovación. Conocimientos. >>Pone el valor en lo que >>verdaderamente tiene valor, es decir, en las comunidades de personas >>unidas con un propósito colaborativo. Eso tiene un valor no solo en >>el plano de los "valores humanos", sino también en el meramente >>económico: un proyecto de software libre "tiene más éxito" (y "vende >>más" servicios relacionados) en la medida que "su comunidad" se agranda. >> >> >ese valor al que te referis no es economico. >no vale nada en el mercado. > >que se pueda brindar servicios con un soft libre no implica que tiene valor >de mercado. Pues no hace falta ser su "dueño" para dar esos servicios. > > No es el software lo valioso, sino los servicios (que dependen 100% del conocimiento humano): la diferencia de valor entre un servicio barato y uno caro pasa por el conocimiento agregado. Y el conocimiento lo agregan las personas, los equipos, la comunidad del proyecto. Si a mí me ofrece soporte IBM a $1000 y Pepe a $200, voy a tender a pensar que IBM "sabe más" del tema que Pepe. Pero si Pepe me demuestra que ya hizo mil instalaciones o capacitaciones como la que necesito, le voy a comprar a Pepe. Y no sería raro que IBM no pueda bajar el precio de sus servicios por los gastos fijos que tiene, y tampoco sería raro que Pepe vaya subiendo sus precios en la medida en que pueda demostrar "que sabe". Yo prefiero que me adapte el osCommerce alguno de los miembros de la comunidad de sus creadores, y no IBM. >>Por eso tanta gente lo apoya, porque claramente "no es capitalista", >>y claramente "no es comunista". Es otra cosa. Es gente unida >>colaborando y produciendo riqueza. >> >> > >mmm, el termino riqueza es bastante ambiguo. > >ciertamente no produce, crea, ahora esta creacion no tiene valor de mercado > > La innovación (creación) es el valor más importante en la generación de riqueza en la economía del conocimiento. Es la clave que permite vender más caro cualquier producto, y no solo intangibles. ¿Cuánto será el "plus" que se paga por un celular con cámara digital, que no todas las marcas venden? Mucho más que la suma de ambos dispositivos. ¿Cuánto "plus" se pagará dentro de 3 años por eso, cuando todos los celulares lo traigan? Nada. Hoy mismo ya están diseñando alguna otra cosa que agregarle al celular para que la gente lo compre dentro de un tiempo... Si hoy salgo a fabricar y vender un Fiat 600, o un tocadiscos, o un celular de esos ladrillos que había en los años 80, no me los compra nadie; es conocimiento obsoleto. Es el conocimiento agregado durante años a los productos lo que me permitiría cobrar bien un producto. Con los servicios es igual. Saludos! -- Hernán Beati ------------ www.cetecc.org --------------

3 6

decreto de vigilancia, las empresas también se oponen!
by Beatriz Busaniche 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

http://www.clarin.com/diario/2005/01/12/elpais/p-01401.htm Algo sobre el decreto de vigilancia. Las empresas también están en contra. ..................................................................... QUEJAS POR INVERSIONES PARA ALMACENAR INFORMACION SOBRE COMUNICACIONES Empresas de Internet van a la Justicia por decreto de seguridad Es el que las obliga a entregar información sobre sus clientes a la SIDE. ________________________________________________________________________ Luis Ceriotto. lceriotto(a)clarin.com Luego de dos meses de un silencio absoluto, las empresas de telecomunicaciones están comenzando a plantear reparos legales a un decreto del Gobierno que las obliga a efectuar inversiones adicionales para auxiliar a la Justicia y a la SIDE en los seguimientos de secuestros y casos de narcotráfico. El decreto exige que la infraestructura adicional debe estar lista y en funcionamiento para junio de este año y especifica que el costo de esas inversiones debe correr por cuenta de las empresas. Los empresarios, a su vez, plantean que afectará profundamente la naturaleza del negocio, sobre todo a las firmas más chicas. También cuestionan que deban proporcionar información confidencial a la SIDE. La nueva normativa nació como consecuencia de una de las leyes que el Congreso sancionó a partir de los reclamos de Juan Carlos Blumberg, padre del estudiante secuestrado y asesinado en marzo del año pasado. La ley modificó un artículo de la Ley de Telecomunicaciones, para agilizar el acceso de los organismos de seguridad a los elementos de comunicación de las bandas de secuestradores o narcotraficantes. Por esa razón, los empresarios están manejando el tema con pie de plomo, con la intención de evitar que sus quejas sean interpretadas como una muestra de mala voluntad. La Cámara Argentina de Bases de Datos y Servicios en Línea (CABASE), que nuclea a la mayoría de proveedores de servicios de Internet, ya llevó el tema a la Justicia. "Coincidimos con los objetivos de incrementar la cantidad de elementos que permitan a las agencias del Estado a que mejoren la seguridad. Pero ese rol lo debe cumplir el Estado, no las empresas", dijo Patricio Seoane, titular de CABASE. La entidad presentó un recurso de amparo a mediados de diciembre basado en dos reclamos: * Que las erogaciones para los equipos adicionales sean financiadas por el Estado. * Que la Justicia determine si es constitucional que las empresas entreguen información a un organismo del Estado que no sea un juzgado, como la SIDE. En las empresas más grandes, como Telefónica y Telecom, no quieren anticipar si harán alguna movida. Pero admitieron que tienen el tema en estudio. "Seguimos evaluando el impacto económico de la medida", dijeron voceros de Telefónica. "Para una empresa chica, las nuevas inversiones equivalen a 10% de su facturación total a lo largo de un año. Son costos hundidos", agregó Seoane. -- Beatriz Busaniche http://www.d-sur.net/bbusaniche/

2 1

IBM libera 500 patentes para Software Libre (pero no alcanza)
by Martin Olivera 13 Jan '05

13 Jan '05

http://wiki.ffii.org/Ibm0501En IBM libero 500 patentes para proyectos de software libre http://www.ibm.com/ibm/licensing/patents/pledgedpatents.pdf Mientras tanto, recordemos que el problema no es que alguien nos impida o nos cobre por usarlas, sino la existencia misma de las patentes de software. La gente de NoSoftwarePatents acuso a IBM de hacer tacticas de distraccion ya que lo que libero es el 1% de sus patentes en USA. http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=288 -- Asociación civil SOLAR Software Libre Argentina http://www.solar.org.ar

3 2

POA: Welcome to 6th edition of Internacional Free Software Forum
by Martin Olivera 12 Jan '05

12 Jan '05

Quoting Marcelo D'Elia Branco <marcelo(a)debian-rs.org>: > (em Português and in English) > > Welcome to 6th edition of International Free Software Forum, your best > free software conference, taking place in Porto Alegre, Brazil, in June > from 1st to 4th, 2005. > > This is the call for papers for our conference, and you are invited to > submit proposals using the form below, since your proposal fits in our > themes. > https://fisl.softwarelivre.org/papers/index.en.html > > > Bem-vind@s à 6a edição do Fórum Internacional Software Livre, que > acontecerá em Porto Alegre, de 1 a 4 de junho de 2005. > > Esta é a chamada para inscrições de trabalhos para nossas palestras. > Você está convidad@ a enviar propostas usando o formulário abaixo, desde > que elas estejam dentro de nossos macro-temas. > > Referente: www.softwarelivre.org/news/3555 > -- > Marcelo D'Elia Branco > marcelo(a)softwarelivre.org > www.softwarelivre.org > > Fórum Social Mundial > De 26 a 31 de Janeiro 2005 > Porto Alegre - Brasil > Confira a "agenda da liberdade do conhecimento" > www.softwarelivre.org/news/3543 > > _______________________________________________ > lista coordinadores-hipatia > coordinadores-hipatia(a)listas.hipatia.info > http://listas.hipatia.info/mailman/listinfo/coordinadores-hipatia > www.listas.hipatia.info - info(a)listas.hipatia.info > -- Asociación civil SOLAR Software Libre Argentina http://www.solar.org.ar

2 2

Re: Fwd: FSF - Richard Stallman´s Encounter with P resident Chavez
by Martin Olivera 12 Jan '05

12 Jan '05

> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Fernando Cassia <fcassia(a)gmail.com> > Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 02:05:21 -0300 > Subject: FSF - Richard Stallman´s Encounter with P resident Chavez > To: Fernando Cassia <fcassia(a)gmail.com> > > > Grande Stallman! El tipo representa 100% mis valores ideas y > convicciones. Y ratifico lo que alguna vez dije: Chavez tiene huevos, > que es lo que les falta a muchos politicos en Argentina. > > Richard Stallman´s Encounter with President Chavez > http://agia.fsf.org/rms-blog/entry-20041206 > > > Encounter with President Chavez > > > by Richard M. Stallman > > I returned to Venezuela after Mexico, for a conference called Artists > and Intellectuals in Defense of Humanity. On Saturday, our main > activity was a meeting where President Chavez would speak. I had lunch > that day with Sergeant-Major Torres, who has converted the Venezuelan > Army's servers to GNU/Linux, and his wife. Since we've become friends, > I encouraged him to come back to the hotel and try to get into the > meeting too, figuring the security would probably ok his entry, and > they did. > > The first speaker was Sr. Perez Equivel, a Nobel Peace Prize winner. > He told a fable of a chef who called together various animals to ask > each one, "What sauce would you like to be cooked with?" The chicken > responded, "Actually I'd rather not be cooked at all", but the chef > said, "That's outside the discussion--all you can decide is which > sauce." > > An invited American speaker then compared the invasions of Afghanistan > and Iraq to the wars of aggression for which the Nazi leaders were > convicted. (I supported the invasion of Afghanistan because of the > totalitarian cruelty of the Taliban, which goes beyond Bush.) He > described Fallujah as the Guernica of the 21st century, and warned > that all countries now feel fear of being attacked by the new empire > of the US. He referred to the celebration of torture, in Guantanamo as > well as in Abu Ghraib, as a brutal threat against the whole world. > Regime change imposed by the US, over and over, has led to a regime > much worse than what preceded it; he cited the Congo, with its 37 > years of tyranny, and the US-organized coup in Haiti this year, and > accused the US of being behind the attempted coup in Venezuela in > 2002. (The US recognized the coup leaders' government immediately.) > But the US is not merely a global scofflaw; Bush intends to be above > the law, as shown by the US plans to exempt itself from the > International Criminal Court--feeble as that is. > > His remarks in English were interspersed with Spanish translations > that were often absurdly and ridiculously incorrect. The interpreter > seemed to translate most of the concepts that had just been mentioned, > but often garbled their relationship. Most amazingly, she translated > Martin Luther King's famous words as "tengo sueño" (I feel sleepy) > instead of "tengo un sueño" (I have a dream). I can't imagine how a > native Spanish speaker could make that mistake. > > Then Daniel Ortega, former president of Nicaragua, entered the hall > and people applauded him. > > A deputy (congressman, more or less) from Argentina then spoke, and > referred to the problem of the dictatorship of the unidimensional > corporate media. He proposed setting up a Latin-American alternative > to CNN which would break its dominance over news. He then referred to > the bombing of Hiroshima as an act of terror--a somewhat controversial > idea to an American, but possibly justified. > > Then President Chavez spoke. He covered many topics, and I wished I > had asked for a simultaneous translation receiver, because I couldn't > always follow his Spanish. > > Chavez is greatly admired by Venezuelans, who praise him in more > glowing terms than I would praise anyone (even the people I most > admire). But Chavez doesn't ask people to praise him--he directs > people's admiration to Bolivar, San Martin, and various others who > fought against the colonial rule of Spain. He refers to them often, > not just to their names but also to their writings and their deeds, in > a way that Americans used to talk about Washington, but probably with > greater accuracy. The national anthem, which I think was changed under > Chavez, praises the "brave people". > > He spoke about the recent first graduation of Project Robinson 2, a > project for teaching literacy and basic school knowledge to adults who > didn't have a chance to learn before. (This project is named after > Bolivar's teacher.) He hopes to extend this program to over a million > people, to help them escape from poverty. He spoke of the kitchens > established for poor people, including street children, and how they > have been situated near to Project Robinson 2 so as to lead them to > get an education also, so they could "be their own liberators". He > spoke of educational grants of $100 a month that have been given to > half a million people so they can study. He responded to criticism > that this money should be spent on building "infrastructure", saying > that building a sovereign people with dignity is more important than > constructing buildings or highways. If my memory is right (I'm not > sure of this), I think he also read a description from an old book of > some of Bolivar's educational policies. > > Chavez spoke about the 70 clinics in poor neighborhoods that have > started operating in the past year; the plan is to expand to 1400 of > them, to cover 95% of the population. I visited one of these clinics, > in the city of Barinas, while other invitees went to other cities and > saw clinics operating there. In these clinics, about half the doctors > are Cuban and half are Venezuelan. Cuba has an excellent medical > system, aside from the shortage of medicines due to the US embargo, > and trains many doctors; meanwhile, people told me that many > Venezuelan doctors didn't want to get their hands dirty with poor > people. Chavez didn't try to force them, he just hired Cuban doctors. > > Venezuela has many kinds of cooperation with Cuba, which makes sense > since the US tries to attack them both. However, I am puzzled that > Chavez, who both speaks highly of democracy and practices it > scrupulously, also speaks so highly of Cuba. He turns a blind eye to > the fact that Castro does not hold elections, and has imprisoned a > number of people for criticizing the government. > > Chavez quoted the results of a survey called Latinobarometro, which > found that in most countries in Latin America, the number of people > who believe that democracy is the best form of government has fallen > since 1996--often fallen by 20% or more. In Venezuela, however, the > support for democracy increased by 12% over that period. Venezuela has > among the smallest percentage of people who say they might prefer a > military government, and likewise for the percentage who say they > would give up freedom for the sake of order. He drew this conclusion: > support for democracy is falling in many countries because their > democracies have failed to deliver what the people want. They have let > the IMF, the megacorporations, and/or a national oligarchy exercise > power. > > Early in his speech, Chavez said that he wanted especially to hear our > criticisms of his policies. He later showed this was not just idle > talk, because after speaking for perhaps 40 minutes he asked for > questions from the audience. There were a few hundred of us in the > auditorium, and quite a number wanted to ask questions or give their > messages of support, so we were asked to limit ourselves to 3 minutes > each. Chavez spent over 4 hours listening and responding. After > listening to a number of questions, and (apparently) taking notes, he > responded to them one by one. > > Could you imagine any recent president of the US holding such a > meeting? Bush doesn't even accept unfiltered questions in press > conferences. > > In one answer, Chavez explained how Venezuela practiced voter > suppression in the past. For instance, poor people were give only > provisional identity cards, so they were unable to vote. He explained > how he had sent trucks with computers and printers to give poor people > real identity cards so they could vote, and told how a child (who I > suppose wasn't old enough to vote) was happy that he now had a real > identity card with a picture of Bolivar on it. > > Given my persistent opposition to national ID cards, I feel somewhat > less than unalloyed happiness about this solution to the problem, > although it was a good thing to make sure poor people could finally > vote. > > Chavez remarked that the term "democracia popular" ought to be > redundant, because "demo" means "the people"; but democracy has > degenerated so far in most countries as to make the term meaningful. > > Another answer that he gave, when asked about the persistent US > intervention in Colombia, is that in the past decade or two some had > claimed imperialism had become benevolent, like a protecting father; > but that after examples like Colombia and Iraq, this theory had become > incredible. > > He was asked what he thought about the "war on terrorism", and said > that it is "more terrorism". "The only way to end terrorism is with > justice." I applauded that (as I did some other things). He condemned > the world's armament spending, above all in the US, for the waste of > not using this money to reduce poverty. > > When it was my turn at the microphone, I raised the issue of the new > law to regulate the broadcast media. This law has been cited by the > opposition as a form of tyranny. I obtained a copy of the text a > couple of weeks ago, and found no tyranny, but a number of rules that > were stated rather broadly, and whose natural interpretations could > prohibit broadcasting things from Harry Potter to various somewhat > dangerous sports to my own opinions about unauthorized copying. (The > term "apología al delito" seems to include that.) The law had been in > discussion for over a year, but in an agonizing coincidence, just > after I had written down comments on the text and started to circulate > them, the law was voted on. If only the timing had been a little > different, I might have been able to help make it better. > > I explained how what I say in my speeches appeared to be prohibited by > this law, and said that I was asking, not in the spirit of opposition > but in a spirit of friendly criticism, to make sure this law would not > restrict the expression of opinions on radio and TV. > > Chavez responded at length to my question, as he did to many > questions. Unfortunately, I couldn't follow all of his response > clearly. > > Chavez explained certain distinctions, about who would be legally > responsible for certain kinds of broadcasts, using the example of an > interview with a person who said he wanted to kill the president, and > whether the interviewer actively contributed to expressing that > sentiment. This example is not unrealistic in Venezuela; he told how > the TV stations had, for a period of weeks, constantly called on the > public to attack Chavez (but the public didn't). The opposition now is > no longer so directly violent, but still harsh by US standards. In the > airport, as I left Caracas, I looked at an opposition newspaper; it > condemned the government for how it has honored the recently slain > prosecutor, who was prosecuting participants in the attempted coup. > You would never see a major US daily newspaper criticize Bush policies > so harshly. > > However, choosing that example missed the point somewhat, since > calling for violence is not the same kind of case as the one I raised. > Perhaps in my question I should have explicitly distinguished > expressing opinions from fomenting violence. I felt I had had just one > chance, and I had fumbled it just a little, and wasted the chance. I > felt like a failure. > > About 20 minutes later, as the meeting ended, I asked Sergeant Torres > and others to explain to me the parts of Chavez' answer that I had not > entirely heard or understood. They told me he said that the > constitution, which overrides any law, guarantees the right to express > opinions, and also that the requirements in this law will not be > enforced by judges but rather by a "media responsibility committee" > made up of representatives of the media, civil society, and > government, which would apply all the requirements in a less strict > way. People also said that the word "apología" is understood in > Venezuelan law to mean something beyond merely expressing an opinion; > only a direct call to commit a crime would qualify as "apología al > delito". > > As a result of that, I feel my concern has been mostly resolved, but > I'd still feel more comfortable if the law said this more explicitly. > So I still feel a burning sense of futility from having come to the > issue just barely too late. > > On Sunday evening I participated in a dinner which was concerned with > the plans to start Canal Sur, as they call the planned alternative to > CNN. Many suggested making it a "revolutionary TV" station, and > following the best progressive ideas in all ways--for instance, one > suggestion was to try to represent not just Latin America but all > downtrodden parts of the world. > > I suggested, rather, that they follow the model of Al Jazeera, which > doesn't call itself revolutionary and doesn't try to be progressive in > all ways, but has succeeded in showing millions what Bush doesn't want > them to see. > Created by johns > Last modified 2004-12-16 11:24 AM > News > Blizzard > 2005-01-10 > Visit to Marrakech > 2005-01-05 > Santander and Bilbao > 2004-12-23 > Encounter with President Chavez > 2004-12-16 > Venezuela, Colombia and Mexico > 2004-11-30 > More... > Upcoming Events > RMS: Copyright vs Community > Santiago, Chile, > 2005-01-17 > « January 2005 » > SuMoTuWeThFrSa > 1 > 23456 78 > 9101112131415 > 1617 1819202122 > 23242526272829 > 3031 > 2005-01-06 > 22:00-23:00 RMS: radioActive Interview > 2005-01-17 > 15:00-17:00 RMS: Copyright vs Community > ________________________________ > > Plone and its visual design is Copyright © 2000-2005 by Alexander > Limi, Alan Runyan, Vidar Andersen. > > > This site conforms to the following standards: > > > > > > > > -- > "Hay dos caminos claros para mí: la creatividad > o el ridículo" > Adolfo Castelo (1940-2004) > -- Asociación civil SOLAR Software Libre Argentina http://www.solar.org.ar

1 0

[Fwd: Article: "Biopiracy or Bioprivateering?" By Richard Stallman @ Heinrich Boell Foundation]
by Beatriz Busaniche 12 Jan '05

12 Jan '05

Biopiracy or Bioprivateering? by Richard Stallman For decades, new drugs have been found in exotic animals and plants. Genes from rare species and subspecies are also useful in producing new breeds, whether by genetic engineering or ordinary cross-breeding. The drugs, and nowadays the new breeds as well, are typically patented. This causes trouble for developing countries that could use them. Patent monopolies on plant and animal varieties, on genes, and on new medicines, threaten to harm developing countries in three ways. First, by raising prices so far that most citizens have no access to these new developments; second, by blocking local production when the patent owner so chooses; third, for agricultural varieties, by forbidding farmers to continue breeding them as has been done for thousands of years. Just as the United States, a developing country in the 1800s, refused to recognize patents from advanced Britain, today's developing countries need to protect their citizens' interest by shielding them from such patents. To prevent the problems of monopolies, don't establish monopolies. What could be simpler? But developing countries need support from world opinion in order to do this. It means going against a view that companies strongly advocate: that biotech company investors are entitled to monopolies, regardless of how they affect anyone else. It means going against treaties that these companies have prevailed on the US to force through threats of economic warfare on most of the world. To challenge an idea which is backed by so much money is not easy. So some have proposed the concept of "biopiracy" as an alternative approach. Instead of opposing the existence of biological monopolies, this approach aims to give the rest of the world a share in the profits from them. The claim is that biotechnology companies are committing "biopiracy" when they base their work on natural varieties, or human genes, found in developing countries or among indigenous peoples--and therefore they ought to be required to pay "royalties" for this. "Biopiracy" is appealing at first glance, because it takes advantage of the current trend towards more and bigger monopoly powers. It goes with the flow, not against. But it will not solve the problem, because the problem stems from the trend that this concept legitimizes and fails to criticize. Useful varieties and genes are not found everywhere or with even distribution. Some developing countries and indigenous peoples will be lucky, and receive substantial funds from such a system, at least for the twenty years that a patent lasts; a few may become so rich as to cause cultural dislocation, with a second episode to follow when the riches run out. Meanwhile, most of these countries and peoples will get little or nothing from this system. "Biopiracy" royalties, like the patent system itself, will amount to a kind of lottery. The "biopiracy" concept presupposes that natural plant and animal varieties, and human genes, have an owner as a matter of natural right. Once that assumption is granted, it is hard to question the idea that an artificial variety, gene or drug is property of the biotechnology company by natural right, and thus hard to deny the investors' demand for total and world-wide power over the use of it. The idea of "biopiracy" offers the multinationals, and the governments that work for them, an easy way to cement forever their regime of monopolies. With a show of magnanimity, they can concede a small part of their income to a few lucky indigenous peoples; from then on, when anyone questions whether biological patents are a good idea, they can cite these indigenous peoples along with the fabled "starving genius inventor" to paint such questioning as plundering the downtrodden. (This behavior pattern is widespread among business today. For instance, the "music industry" lobbies for increased copyright powers in the name of musicians, who they like to call the "creators", while paying musicians only 4% of the companies' total income.) What people outside the developed world really need, for their agriculture and medicine, is to be exempt from all such monopolies. They need to be free to manufacture medicine without paying royalties to multinationals. They need to be free to grow and breed all sorts of plants and animals for agriculture; and if they decide to use genetic engineering, they should be free to commission the genetic modifications that suit their needs. A lottery ticket for a share of royalties from a few varieties and genes is no compensation for losing these freedoms. It is indeed wrong for biotech companies to convert the world's natural genetic resources into private monopolies--but the wrong is not a matter of taking someone else's rightful property, it is a matter of privatizing what ought to be public. These companies are not biopirates. They are bioprivateers. Copyright (C) 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001 Richard Stallman Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted in any medium provided this notice is preserved. ------------ Related information: Report Working Conference WITHIN AND BEYOND THE LIMITS OF HUMAN NATURE http://www.boell-latinoamerica.org/en/nav/5.htm The Big Down: Atomtech - Technologies Converging at the Nano-scale. http://www.etcgroup.org/documents/TheBigDown.pdf Syngenta -- The Genome Giant? http://www.etcgroup.org/article.asp?newsid=493 -- Beatriz Busaniche http://www.d-sur.net/bbusaniche/

1 0

Busco el video de la conferencia de Richard Stallman en Bs. As.
by Hugo Ruscitti 12 Jan '05

12 Jan '05

Quisiera saber si alguien conoce algún sitio para descargar la conferencia que Richard Stallman dió en Bs.As. el año pasado. Se que el sitio del programa Dominio-Digital publicó ese video, pero el recurso no está disponible hace varios dias. Gracias. ===== Hugo Ruscitti www.loosersjuegos.com.ar ___________________________________________________________ 250MB gratis, Antivirus y Antispam Correo Yahoo!, el mejor correo web del mundo http://correo.yahoo.com.ar

3 5

Proyectos con Soft Libre financiados por el Gob
by Martin Olivera 12 Jan '05

12 Jan '05

Quoting "Ricardo H. Medel" <rmedel(a)cs.stevens-tech.edu>: > > Webeando, encontre algunos proyectos interesantes de software libre > financiados por el gobierno nacional: > > El siguiente proyecto del Gob de la provincia de > Misiones ha sido seleccionado por la Secyt para ser financiado como parte > de los Proyectos Federales de Innovacion Productiva, PFIP: > > MISIONES > 1. Fortalecimiento del Sistema de Informacion Geografico Forestal, > incorporacion de software de codigo abierto y uso libre, transferencia de > tecnologia a empresas PYMES del sector. > Beneficiario: Subsecretaria de bosques y forestacion del Ministerio de > Ecologia, Recursos naturales, Renovables y Turismo de la provincia de > Misiones. > Monto a financiar: $ 150.000.- > > Hay un archivo (.doc) con los nombres y montos de los proyectos que > ganaron el llamado: > http://www.secyt.gov.ar/noti_proyectos_federales.htm > > Los otros cien (aprox.) proyectos no tienen nada que ver con el software > libre. :( > > > Otro: > A traves de la Direccion Nacional de Programas y Proyectos Especiales, en > el marco del Programa de Calidad de Vida y Desarrollo Econmico-Social - > PROVIDA, se financia el proyecto proyecto "Adaptacion software Inventarios > 2005 de la Biblioteca Nacional (Fundacion El Libro)", por un monto de > $ 15.000 que "permitira generar por primera vez en la historia de la > Biblioteca Nacional un inventario exhaustivo de todos los volumenes > existentes en la misma. (...) El proposito de cubrirla con software de > distribucion gratuita y codigo abierto responde a una orientacion > estrategica en cuanto al desarrollo independiente en el manejo y acceso a > la informacion, describen los evaluadores del proyecto." > > http://www.secyt.gov.ar/noti_subsidios_calidad_vida.htm > > > > Ricardo H. Medel > Stevens Institute of Technology > ---------------------------------- > .o. "cuando triste la Patria esclavizada > ..o con valor sus vinculos rompio" > ooo 'Mi Bandera', Juan Chassaing > > -- Asociación civil SOLAR Software Libre Argentina http://www.solar.org.ar

1 0

OFFTOPIC: alguien que halla comprado en eBay con paypal?
by Satoru Lucas Shindoi 12 Jan '05

12 Jan '05

Si alguien lo hizo contacteme en privado please. Abrazos -- Satoru Lucas Shindoi CEL: 03783-15666916 ICQ: 95357247 - Jabber: lucxkers(a)jabber.org Messenger: slshindoi(a)hotmail.com - Yahoo: slshindoi(a)yahoo.com.ar -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sistemas de Informacion - DPEC - www.dpec.com.ar

1 0

ando en busca de una solucion.
by Alejandro Javier Lamela 12 Jan '05

12 Jan '05

Gente. les comento un poco mi necesidad. mi padre es ingeniero en seg e higiene del trabajo, una parte de su labor es completar unas actas de la Secretaria de Politica Ambiental, estas mismas vienen preimpresas (osea con campos a llenar). el problema es que el llenar es demasiado tedioso, a todo esto se me ocurrio hace algo en php para tal fin. el inconveniente es que realizar esta "aplicacion" es mas tedioso todavia. asi que la pregunta es. alguien conoce una aplicacion en lo posible para linux que sirva para realizar formularios con muchos campos y que sea facil acomodar margenes, espacios, renglones, etc.? (aclaracion. la idea seria completarlo desde la pc e imprimirlo a la hoja preimpresa...es por esto q necesito alinear los campos, etc) se agradecera. salu2 -- Alejandro Javier Lamela Consultor de IT 1554195899 www.syncdata.com.ar alamela(a)syncdata.com.ar

6 8