Re: [GNU/consensus] [RFC][SH] User Data Manifesto

[flawer]

> GNU consensus cannot support that manifesto in its current form,
> because it conflicts with ideas of the GNU Project.

yes, the text is quite sympathic, but needs more consitency.

i'd love to improve this table for example:

http://wiki.socialswarm.net/Software


my dump, for now:

ownership serve us for protecting the freedom(sharing) we choose. hk, i 
see your point in ownership making it rival based by default
and so we could look for other phrasings[0]. if we get to specify a lot 
the rights and duties, no need for ownership anywhere probably. points:

right to delete everything

right to delete everything in one click (with fsn security meassures 
for freazing it for a time before the final delete)

right to download a copy of everything you uploaded

rigth to download a copy of everything you uploaded, at cost on request

rigth to download a copy of everything you uploaded, at a aproximated 
specified cost on request

the fsn has to offer database dumps

the fsn has to offer database dumps (of content allowed to be on some 
free license) [1]

right to encrypt

right to encrypt everything

right to ssl browsing and stronger encrypting than sha, md5, etc 
everything

right to basic permissions (private, logged, public) [2] [3]

right to custom permisions (i make my own visibility group)


If these parameters are not required to be a recommend/compliant with 
the fsn principles/minimums,
they could be anyway used for providing a qualification number of the 
fsn, which is a flexible and useful enough thing.

[0] http://sharewiki.org/en/Shareful_Invitation is a life project for 
me. we are not using owner at the text, instead we use mediation, use, 
sharefulling and sharefuller and etc.
Operator, contact (from lorea exprience) are also usable terms.
that SI is a 'license' appliable to things (live cds containing the 
gnewsense, etc), to declare the property (ownership / useship rights)
invited to be haven by all people by default.

We have also developed a 
http://sharewiki.org/en/Freed_Shareful_Invitation where 'owner' promises 
/ vows to won't use their powers
 while nobody would be able to own it at the same time, deliberately 
risking difamation otherwise.
This freed / commons point is also lawfully risking owner to be even 
sued by "abandoning, losing or mislaying" the thing by using that 
clause. but it is interesting enough to be specified.

Apart of those, we could think further standards about the giving 
property rigths of the fsn by uploaded and quality of the uploaded 
content to the uploader
but that's probably too much.  This, for me, for now, introduces the 
[1] and the [3] notes

[1] refering to the freedomdefined.org standard for contents?

[2] right to different authentication registrations?

[3] the fsn should have 'public' as default for their publishing, so we 
promote accesibility, we are focusing in share,
be easy for the future archeologists. You'll have to click if you wanna 
be less sharer,
if you are already gonna 'somehow' own/control your info[4], you should 
publishing for all for allowing others easierly evolving
with your new creation, which is not completely and lonely magickly 
yours (instead of what copyright says for example)
cos you were based in other previous creations for doing that.

[4] information is as plain as data, but a bit better for 
differentiating the user data from "the code of the program". Content is 
even better cos the code is the container.
creations, works (as in the gpl), could be also. but i am not 
uncomfortable with data either. perhaps looking at merriam would solve 
it.. :-)