Slashdot Mirror

A little fairy whispered in our ear: "MySQL AB is seeking a temporary injunction against NuSphere, even though they've finally released the source code for Gemini and MySQL Advantage. According to the GPL, NuSphere lost the right to redistribute when they violated #3 by not providing the source code originally. The FSF will testify tomorrow in court, according to this Newsforge article." Newsforge and Slashdot are both part of OSDN. We've done a couple of previous stories about the MySQL AB vs. Nusphere conflict: the original story, a follow-up, and a note about a countersuit. Update: 02/26 21:15 GMT by T : bkuhn (Bradley Kuhn of the Free Software Foundation) writes: "The FSF has a press release on the matter and affidavit that we filed is also available."

A little fairy whispered in our ear: "MySQL AB is seeking a temporary injunction against NuSphere, even though they've finally released the source code for Gemini and MySQL Advantage. According to the GPL, NuSphere lost the right to redistribute when they violated #3 by not providing the source code originally. The FSF will testify tomorrow in court, according to this Newsforge article." Newsforge and Slashdot are both part of OSDN. We've done a couple of previous stories about the MySQL AB vs. Nusphere conflict: the original story, a follow-up, and a note about a countersuit. Update: 02/26 21:15 GMT by T : bkuhn (Bradley Kuhn of the Free Software Foundation) writes: "The FSF has a press release on the matter and affidavit that we filed is also available."

bkuhn writes: "The FSF today bestowed its fourth annual Award for the Advancement of Free Software upon Guido van Rossum . The two other finalists were L. Peter Deutsch and Andrew Tridgell." Developing Python seems like a good reason :)

bkuhn writes: "The FSF today bestowed its fourth annual Award for the Advancement of Free Software upon Guido van Rossum . The two other finalists were L. Peter Deutsch and Andrew Tridgell." Developing Python seems like a good reason :)

sparrow_hawk writes: "One of Linux's strengths has always been the wide variety of older/obsolete hardware it supports. However, most modern distributions seem to assume that the user has a brand-new machine with processor and RAM to spare. Linux Journal reports on the RULE project (Run Up2Date Linux Everywhere). They are trying to come up with a low-resource-requirement, easy-to-use Linux installation for use on older hardware, intended as an option when you install Red Hat Linux. The FAQ has more information."

sparrow_hawk writes: "One of Linux's strengths has always been the wide variety of older/obsolete hardware it supports. However, most modern distributions seem to assume that the user has a brand-new machine with processor and RAM to spare. Linux Journal reports on the RULE project (Run Up2Date Linux Everywhere). They are trying to come up with a low-resource-requirement, easy-to-use Linux installation for use on older hardware, intended as an option when you install Red Hat Linux. The FAQ has more information."

bkuhn writes: "The FSF has released a draft version 1.2 of the the GNU Free Documentation License for comment by the Free Software community. Comments should be directed to <fdl-comments@fsf.org>."

bkuhn writes: "The FSF has released a draft version 1.2 of the the GNU Free Documentation License for comment by the Free Software community. Comments should be directed to <fdl-comments@fsf.org>."

Slashback brings you more words tonight on catching CS cheaters (and whom to credit for the software that does so), giving money near-painlessly to another worthy cause, complications in wiretapping California's phones, and more. Read on, and enjoy!

GA Tech TAs not given credit for program exposing those who don't give credit. zorba1 writes: "Chalk another one to the 'TAs get no credit' department. CNN is running an article on how on how Georgia Tech's College of Computing professors wrote a cheat-finder program that discovered 186 Intro to Computing cheaters. As a former CS TA at GaTech, some clarification points:

1. The app was developed by TAs, not by professors.
2. It doesn't detect 'exact duplications of computer code.' It removes variable names and examines duplication in code structure.
3. The only reason it's in the news is that GaTech recently required nearly all students to take one or two introductory CS courses."

The stench whiffed 'round the world ... Kelsevinal writes "A look at this article on the Chicago Tribune website reveals that our good friend Bernie Shifman is getting a little publicity... Think what you want about the situation, but I think it's funny as hell. I bet Shifman likes it too ... think of all the human resources depts. who might see this!"

After all, not everything is Free. xueexueg writes: "I just noticed that the Free Software Foundation has finally gotten around to setting up secure servers for orders and donations. For ages you actually had to print out and mail an order form to them, but now, at last, you can give them money for goods or charity, in your proverbial underwear."

And let's face it, there aren't that many places in the world where you can order T-shirts adorned with a levitating gnu.

Does this remind you of Gorman Seedling's electric collars? koganuts writes: "Updating a story posted by Slashdot on January 9th, according to The Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Gray Davis' proposal to let state and local police obtain roving wiretaps on suspected criminals was dropped from the legislation containing it Tuesday after the legislative counsel's office concluded that it was illegal." There were also provisions in the proposed bill which extended wiretapping to e-mail and the Internet. One thing I never knew was that "...wiretaps cost an average of $56,767.""

Have you learned your lesson? Eblis writes: "The Learning Machine Challenged hosted by AI has finally ground to a halt, with results available at lmw.a-i.com. Congratulations to the winners and to AI for hosting such a successful contest!"

Slashback brings you more words tonight on catching CS cheaters (and whom to credit for the software that does so), giving money near-painlessly to another worthy cause, complications in wiretapping California's phones, and more. Read on, and enjoy!

GA Tech TAs not given credit for program exposing those who don't give credit. zorba1 writes: "Chalk another one to the 'TAs get no credit' department. CNN is running an article on how on how Georgia Tech's College of Computing professors wrote a cheat-finder program that discovered 186 Intro to Computing cheaters. As a former CS TA at GaTech, some clarification points:

1. The app was developed by TAs, not by professors.
2. It doesn't detect 'exact duplications of computer code.' It removes variable names and examines duplication in code structure.
3. The only reason it's in the news is that GaTech recently required nearly all students to take one or two introductory CS courses."

The stench whiffed 'round the world ... Kelsevinal writes "A look at this article on the Chicago Tribune website reveals that our good friend Bernie Shifman is getting a little publicity... Think what you want about the situation, but I think it's funny as hell. I bet Shifman likes it too ... think of all the human resources depts. who might see this!"

After all, not everything is Free. xueexueg writes: "I just noticed that the Free Software Foundation has finally gotten around to setting up secure servers for orders and donations. For ages you actually had to print out and mail an order form to them, but now, at last, you can give them money for goods or charity, in your proverbial underwear."

And let's face it, there aren't that many places in the world where you can order T-shirts adorned with a levitating gnu.

Does this remind you of Gorman Seedling's electric collars? koganuts writes: "Updating a story posted by Slashdot on January 9th, according to The Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Gray Davis' proposal to let state and local police obtain roving wiretaps on suspected criminals was dropped from the legislation containing it Tuesday after the legislative counsel's office concluded that it was illegal." There were also provisions in the proposed bill which extended wiretapping to e-mail and the Internet. One thing I never knew was that "...wiretaps cost an average of $56,767.""

Have you learned your lesson? Eblis writes: "The Learning Machine Challenged hosted by AI has finally ground to a halt, with results available at lmw.a-i.com. Congratulations to the winners and to AI for hosting such a successful contest!"

Slashback brings you more words tonight on catching CS cheaters (and whom to credit for the software that does so), giving money near-painlessly to another worthy cause, complications in wiretapping California's phones, and more. Read on, and enjoy!

GA Tech TAs not given credit for program exposing those who don't give credit. zorba1 writes: "Chalk another one to the 'TAs get no credit' department. CNN is running an article on how on how Georgia Tech's College of Computing professors wrote a cheat-finder program that discovered 186 Intro to Computing cheaters. As a former CS TA at GaTech, some clarification points:

1. The app was developed by TAs, not by professors.
2. It doesn't detect 'exact duplications of computer code.' It removes variable names and examines duplication in code structure.
3. The only reason it's in the news is that GaTech recently required nearly all students to take one or two introductory CS courses."

The stench whiffed 'round the world ... Kelsevinal writes "A look at this article on the Chicago Tribune website reveals that our good friend Bernie Shifman is getting a little publicity... Think what you want about the situation, but I think it's funny as hell. I bet Shifman likes it too ... think of all the human resources depts. who might see this!"

After all, not everything is Free. xueexueg writes: "I just noticed that the Free Software Foundation has finally gotten around to setting up secure servers for orders and donations. For ages you actually had to print out and mail an order form to them, but now, at last, you can give them money for goods or charity, in your proverbial underwear."

And let's face it, there aren't that many places in the world where you can order T-shirts adorned with a levitating gnu.

Does this remind you of Gorman Seedling's electric collars? koganuts writes: "Updating a story posted by Slashdot on January 9th, according to The Los Angeles Times, "Gov. Gray Davis' proposal to let state and local police obtain roving wiretaps on suspected criminals was dropped from the legislation containing it Tuesday after the legislative counsel's office concluded that it was illegal." There were also provisions in the proposed bill which extended wiretapping to e-mail and the Internet. One thing I never knew was that "...wiretaps cost an average of $56,767.""

Have you learned your lesson? Eblis writes: "The Learning Machine Challenged hosted by AI has finally ground to a halt, with results available at lmw.a-i.com. Congratulations to the winners and to AI for hosting such a successful contest!"

It's not a contradiction: Free software costs money. (That's because server space, bandwidth, coffee, electricity, computers, and workspace all cost money.) Besides which, the time it takes to code new window managers, programming libraries (and languages), web browsers, and all the other goodies which make a modern computer useful may be spent as a labor of love, but it's time that competes with real-world jobs, family time, vacations in the Riviera and sleep. Besides the relative few who work at work on their Free software projects, the programmers, project managers, web-site maintainers, documentation jockeys and QA volunteers behind the programs we enjoy every day don't seem to be in it for the money, so much as the thrill of releasing new software, a desire to make their own world a little better, and for plain old fun. The staffers and volunteers who put long hours and dedication into organizations trying to safeguard online freedoms are also obviously interested in rewards that go way beyond salaries. This New Year's, consider giving them a little money anyhow. Here are a few ideas; you're invited to point out projects and organizations that I've left out.

As you may have read the other day, the FreeBSD project is now taking donations via PayPal. And if you're in a clean, roots-UNIX kind of mood, the folks at OpenBSD and NetBSD (NetBSD PayPal) would probably also appreciate your goodwill, not to mention your money, hardware and time.

If you don't have a specific project in mind, but would like to donate some of your chunk of the time-money continuum to a worthy software undertaking, a good place to start is Software in the Public Interest. They can take both general donations as well as earmark for projects they support, like Berlin, Debian, GNOME and more. (Not into GNOME? KDE could use some assistance, including money, too.)

If you like the projects funded by the boxed-distribution makers (like paying for full-time work on endeavors like KOffice), you can do more than buy the box: Mandrake has recently formed something called the Mandrake Club as a gathering place for both people and funds.

To encourage (and reward) cross-platform goodness, supporting the Mozilla project is hard to beat. (This story was posted using a 9.7 build using the wonderful Modern theme.) Source of Mozilla wisdom Mozillazine could use some help paying for the switch to a new host, and to defray ongoing costs. Another good place to cast your perls is Yet Another Foundation, which supports the somewhat scrutable development of the not-so-scrutable Perl.

More generally, consider investing some money in organizations like the Free Software Foundation, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and the Electronic Privacy and Information Center (EPIC), all of which help battle (in court and in the marketplace of ideas) the forces who wish to monitor and otherwise exert top-down control of your computer and everything to do with your on-line life.

Remember, with all of these projects, non-monetary contributions are welcomed as well -- if you can write or correct some online documentation, create test-cases to root out weaknesses, or create some pretty graphics to smooth the user experience, you can contribute. (Long-distance pizza deliveries to developers are also generally appreciated.) Teaching a coworker, classmate, parent or friend how to set up mailfilters on a Linux box, or how to edit photos in the GIMP, is a nice way to save them money, too. Making a difference locally might also mean contributing some time, money or hardware to help run local LUG events.

Note: Many of the organizations named above are set up as 501(c) charities; if you'd like to claim any charitable contributions as tax deductions, now's the time to get the postmark, at least if it's important to you for those donations to be on the current calendar year. For a few more ideas on ways to donate geekily this year, see Jack Bryar's Newsforge column with some more links.

And a Happy New Year's!

eclectric asks: "This subject has been mentioned in passing in a few slashdot comments in recent weeks, but I for one would like to find more information on the subject of copylefting text. I've seen some licenses, including the GNU Free Documentation License and the Open Content License, but both of them seem limited to software documentation and academic papers, respectively. Is one of these the path to take, or does the creative world need a new 'copyleft' to combat the forces of evil, namely the DMCA. What kind of steps have other authors taken, including just putting their works in the public domain, to insure that their works remain free of the limitations of US and International copyright law."

Russ Nelson writes "OSI has approved four new Open Source licenses. The X.Net is BSD with jurisdiction specified (note that RMS says that the GPL is not compatible with such licenses,) the New Artistic, currently that used by Perl (one paragraph added), the Sun Public License is Mozilla 1.1 with minor differences, and the Eiffel Forum License. We also modified the rationale for Open Source Definition clause 9 to remove the word "contaminate" referring to the action of the GPL."

Slashback tonight with more on the continuing role of Mitchell Baker with the Mozilla project, flying through comet trails, gaming particulars, and the interesting Microsoft FrontPage EULA forbidding certain types of web pages be made with it.

Because not everything is as simple as who signs your paycheck ... cetan writes: "As a follow up to being laid off by AOL from Netscape, Mitchell Baker posted an article on Mozillazine discussing her role within Mozilla.org."

Can you think of a title to help her replace "Chief Lizard Wrangler"? All that wrangling has been a good thing, though, as recent builds make clear. I'd like to suggest "Reptilian Ambassador."

Sometimes, you just have to play. t0qer writes: "This is an update to this story. Originally I said kaillera was a net enabled version of mame, it's actually a free SDK to enable any emulator to have netplay. It was written by Christophe Thibault, of winamp fame. Contrary to some comments that the code was ripped from netmame, it was actually borged from jnetlib which was written by his boss and buddy Justin Frankel. So far kaillera has been adopted by 10 different emulators.

Speaking of games, iphayd writes: "Graeme Devine updated his plan , and released a version of Return to Castle Wolfenstein. While this isn't interesting in itself, he's claiming that he is getting 3x the frame rate on a dual 800 G4 system than his dual P3 800 system."

You shall not convert the news headlines in the MSNBC component into an audio format. MarkedMan writes: "There has been some confusion over Microsoft's Frontpage EULA, with some claiming it prohibited using the software to produce works disparaging Microsoft and some saying it simply prohibited the use of the Frontpage logo on such sites. (The logo restriction actually seemed reasonable to me.) After some searching I found that some versions of the EULA do indeed limit use of the program itself. This from Northwestern University's Microsoft User License: Check out page 2, section 2. http://www.tss.northwestern.edu/select/mspur.pdf"

We have come to terms. bkuhn writes: "The FSF and FSMLabs have an agreement on a GPL-compliant version of the RTLinux Open Patent License. You can read our statement and related press release on the matter."

It's cool to see this sort of conflict work be met and resolved.

Not quite a date with a star. Troodon writes "A brief reminder, JPL and BBCnews report that this Saturday (22/SEP/2001) at 2230 Universal time (3:30 p.m. PDT) Deep Space 1 has a date with the Comet Borrelly"

Slashback tonight with more on the continuing role of Mitchell Baker with the Mozilla project, flying through comet trails, gaming particulars, and the interesting Microsoft FrontPage EULA forbidding certain types of web pages be made with it.

Because not everything is as simple as who signs your paycheck ... cetan writes: "As a follow up to being laid off by AOL from Netscape, Mitchell Baker posted an article on Mozillazine discussing her role within Mozilla.org."

Can you think of a title to help her replace "Chief Lizard Wrangler"? All that wrangling has been a good thing, though, as recent builds make clear. I'd like to suggest "Reptilian Ambassador."

Sometimes, you just have to play. t0qer writes: "This is an update to this story. Originally I said kaillera was a net enabled version of mame, it's actually a free SDK to enable any emulator to have netplay. It was written by Christophe Thibault, of winamp fame. Contrary to some comments that the code was ripped from netmame, it was actually borged from jnetlib which was written by his boss and buddy Justin Frankel. So far kaillera has been adopted by 10 different emulators.

Speaking of games, iphayd writes: "Graeme Devine updated his plan , and released a version of Return to Castle Wolfenstein. While this isn't interesting in itself, he's claiming that he is getting 3x the frame rate on a dual 800 G4 system than his dual P3 800 system."

You shall not convert the news headlines in the MSNBC component into an audio format. MarkedMan writes: "There has been some confusion over Microsoft's Frontpage EULA, with some claiming it prohibited using the software to produce works disparaging Microsoft and some saying it simply prohibited the use of the Frontpage logo on such sites. (The logo restriction actually seemed reasonable to me.) After some searching I found that some versions of the EULA do indeed limit use of the program itself. This from Northwestern University's Microsoft User License: Check out page 2, section 2. http://www.tss.northwestern.edu/select/mspur.pdf"

We have come to terms. bkuhn writes: "The FSF and FSMLabs have an agreement on a GPL-compliant version of the RTLinux Open Patent License. You can read our statement and related press release on the matter."

It's cool to see this sort of conflict work be met and resolved.

Not quite a date with a star. Troodon writes "A brief reminder, JPL and BBCnews report that this Saturday (22/SEP/2001) at 2230 Universal time (3:30 p.m. PDT) Deep Space 1 has a date with the Comet Borrelly"

hoggardb writes: "The Nation has an excellent column by Eben Moglen, general counsel of the FSF, on why the U.S. has surrendered to Microsoft: because the big campaign contributors like Hollywood and PC manufacturers now want Microsoft to stay a monopoly." Not everyone will agree about the PC makers, but the Hollywood argument is harder to sidestep. The free-marketeer in me especially likes the last paragraph -- Moglen didn't get to be general counsel of the FSF for nothing.

Last week you asked Bradley Kuhn, VP of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) questions about working with RMS, his views on software freedom, and much more. He's answered at length below, on everything from becoming a saint to the "web app loophole," perl, and the next iteration of the GPL.

on freedom?
by merlin_jim

How do you view FSF's goal, that stated on their website as The FSF promotes the development and use of free (as in freedom) software ---particularly the GNU operating system(used widely today in its GNU/Linux variant)--- and free (as in freedom) documentation. In particular, how do you interpret what the word free means in respect to software and programmer's rights?

Bradley Kuhn: I believe strongly that all published software should be Free Software. Users should get all the freedoms as defined in the Free Software Definition. Namely, each person who receives a copy of a software program should have the freedom to study, copy, share, modify, redistribute and (optionally) redistribute modified versions of that program.

But that's surely no surprise--if I didn't believe that, I certainly wouldn't enjoy working for the FSF. ;)

As for the other half of your question, "programmer's rights," I certainly think programmers, like all users, have a right to all those freedoms I mention above. However, programmers don't deserve any "rights" that infringe on the freedoms of others. Often in society, we decide that the right to act a certain way should be limited because it infringes on the freedom of others.

For example, in the USA, white people used to have the right to own slaves. As a society, we eventually decided that this right was too restrictive on the freedom of the people who served as slaves. Because of that decision, it is now illegal to own slaves in the USA.

Our society took away the "freedom" to own slaves. Today, no one would even argue that owning slaves is a freedom. People now say that slavery is an inappropriate power that one person holds over another person.

Today, some argue that the "right to choose your own software license" is the greatest software freedom. By contrast, I think that, like slavery, it is an inappropriate power, not a freedom. The two situations both cause harm, and they differ only in the degree of harm that each causes.

Proprietary software is an exercise of power, and it harms the users by denying their freedom. When users lack the freedoms that define Free Software, they can't tell what the software is doing, can't check for back doors, can't monitor possible viruses and worms, can't find out what personal information is being reported (or stop the reports, even if they do find out). If it breaks, they can't fix it; they have to wait for the developer to exercise its power to do so. If the software simply isn't quite what they need, they are stuck with it. They can't help each other improve it.

Discussions of rights and rules for software use have usually concentrated too much on the interests of programmers alone. Few people in the world program regularly, and fewer still are owners of proprietary software businesses. But the entire developed world now needs and uses software, so decisions about software determine what kind of world we have. Software developers now control the way the world lives, does business, communicates and is entertained. The ethical and political issues cannot be avoided under the slogan of "freedom of choice (for developers only)."

The real question we now face is: who should control the code you use--you, or an elite few? We (in the Free Software Movement) believe you are entitled to control the software you use, and giving you that control is the goal of Free Software.

Current copyright law places us in the position of dictator for our code, whether we like it or not. We cannot escape making some decisions for others, so our decision is to proclaim freedom for each user, just as the bill of rights exercises government power by guaranteeing each citizen's freedoms. That is what the GNU GPL is for: it puts you in control of your usage of the software, while protecting you from others exercising their dictatorial power. This is the ethical choice, in a situation where laws give us and others such power.

New term for "Free"?
by abischof

Is the FSF brainstorming any ideas on alternatives to the term "Free"? Unlike many other languages, it seems that English does not have separate words for "without cost" and "having freedom." So, we in the Open Source community end up using phrases such as "free as in beer" or "Free with a capital 'F'" (neither of which are immediately intuitive to the public at large).

Much better, I think, would be to come up with a new adjective to describe such Free software ("Free" with a capital "F", that is). One idea that has been batted about is "liberated software," but that has the connotation of "stolen software" to some people. Of course, this isn't to say that the term "Free" wouldn't be used anymore -- but it would be nice to have an alternative for use at, for example, picnics or family gatherings.

BK: I find it odd that you talk the question in terms of the "Open Source community". The term "Open Source" is typically used to focus the discussion away from talking about freedom. Thus, a question about the drawbacks of the adjective "free" seems strange when in the context of "Open Source". But, nevertheless, I am glad to see an Open Source supporter talking more about freedom! Thank you for doing that.

By the way, I don't think about the "Open Source community" as a distinct entity. There are two movements afoot: the Free Software Movement, whose focus is the political and ethical issues of software freedom, and the Open Source Movement, whose focus is to avoid political issues of freedom, and to talk about the technological benefits of "Open Source". The movements differ greatly because their fundamental philosophies and motivations are different.

However, together we form one community---the same community that started in 1984 when the Free Software Movement started. In 1998, within that community, we had another movement start up with a different focus, but we've always been together in one community. Thus, I hope you'll think of the community as including both the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement, and remember that it originally started as the Free Software community. At the very least, please call it the "Free Software and Open Source community", so that Free Software isn't left completely out of the picture.

As to your question about the adjective "free," we in the Free Software Movement have never come across a term that has any great advantage over the term "Free Software."

The term "liberated software", which you mention, has a clear drawback in that it only applies to software that was once proprietary software, and is now Free. GNU Emacs, for example, was never proprietary software, so it isn't "liberated software."

Fortunately, there are lots of ways to clear up the confusion, and make up for English's shortcomings. Many of us say "free (as in freedom) software" when there is ambiguity.

Others say "software libre" or "free (libre) software", using the Spanish word to make things clear. In fact, whenever I am speaking to an audience that I know will fully understand what "libre" is (in Europe, for example), I favor the term "Libre Software".

Also, when talking about the general concept of what we stand for, I always use the term "software freedom". This doesn't change what we call the software *itself*---that's Free Software---and there's really no other good term for it. But, the term "software freedom" gives an easy way of talking about the overall concept that is completely unambiguous.

So, while the term Free Software does have some drawbacks, the confusions are easy enough to clarify, and the drawbacks here are fewer than the other alternatives. Also, using the various methods that I mention here can work well together to help clear up any confusion.

Next big technical effort?
by Lumpish Scholar

Congratulations on the release of version 3.0 of the GNU Compiler Collection. This is the cumulation of a lot of work by contributors to the GNU project from all over the world. What do you see as the GNU project's next big release? Mono and DotGNU? Bayonne? Something else?

BK: You are quite correct that the GNU project is a collaborative work of contributors from around the world. It's the work of a cooperating community---no one person deserves the credit: the congratulations go to the GNU project as a whole. (BTW, I encourage you to thank the GNU project by reminding people that the system so often called "Linux" is actually the GNU system with Linux as its kernel).

As for the next "big" release: it's hard to say. We don't force any sort of schedules on GNU developers---they work as best they can, and put a release out when they see it as ready. So, I might be surprised to find out next week some major project is ready for a big release. So, I cannot make any prediction as to what the next big release will be, as I could easily end up being proven wrong later. (However, FWIW, a project that I know is getting close to a big release is GNU Emacs 21.)

FSF and the cause?
by Lumpy

What is your stance on Software protection? In the FSF stance, what would you do or recommend to be done if (check that if -- WHEN) a GNU program and programmer is attacked in a way that will be very like what we see with Dimitri. Many of the GNU programs and software packages are, as far as I am concerned, in real danger of being attacked or persecuted by large corporations. With laws like the DCMA and other unbelievable laws that are being drafted as bills every day, What do you think can be done to protect this freedom?

BK: We must all act politically and speak out to defend our freedom. I feel as you do that we are about to enter a rough period in the history of the Free Software Movement. Large corporations such as proprietary software companies and entertainment companies now have a financial interest in restricting various software freedoms that many of us currently take for granted.

We might very well have to fight for this freedom in courts in the USA or elsewhere. We are preparing ourselves for this possibility, and we will rise to the challenge if it comes to that. The FSF is saving up money in case we need to fight a legal battle. Eben Moglen is also working with large donors to set up a separate Free Software Legal Fund.

Meanwhile, the best thing we can do is to work hard to get laws like the DMCA repealed. We encourage everyone in the USA to contact their congressional representatives, and explain why the DMCA is harmful.

Another way you can help fight the DMCA is to attend the "Free Dmitry Sklyarov March" on the Federal Building in San Francisco on Thursday, 30 August 2001. The USA government is prosecuting Dmitry, under DMCA, for making a particular program available to the public. Please join the protest---everyone is meeting outside the Moscone center in San Francisco at 11:30 in the morning on August 30th.

On another matter, please make your congress-person aware of the threat of software patents! Software patents are harmful to Free Software, but they also hurt just about any software developer who doesn't work for a big corporation that has access to large patent pools. Let people know the threat that software patents have for small software businesses and Free Software.

If you live in Europe, please help fight the possible EU decision to approve software patents.

At home?
by cnkeller

So, what types of software do you use at home?

BK: I use only Free Software on all computers that are under my control, which include the ones I use for my work at the FSF and my home computer.

I use Official Debian GNU/Linux ("testing" on my work laptop, "stable" on my home desktop machine).

As for specific programs, I spend most of my day using an email client, and I use mutt running inside GNU Emacs' ansi-term. (It sounds weird, but it really works well for me.) I use GNU Emacs for all of my editing, text manipulation, and the like.

I have always been more command-line-oriented than GUI-oriented, so I run a minimal X Windowing System desktop. I use sawfish as my window manager, which I really like, because I can script it so I rarely have to use the mouse.

I use Mozilla when I need a graphical web browser, but also use a mix of links, lynx, and Emacs/w3 when graphics aren't needed.

I use GnuCash to manage my personal finances. I really enjoy that program, as I am pretty pedantic about keeping track of ever penny I spend. If you ever go to dinner with me, you'll notice that I ask for a receipt for everything: that's so I can come home and type it into GnuCash. ;)

Related to that, I'll mention this additional amusing story since someone else asked what my "position" is in the "Church of Emacs". I officially became a saint in the Church of Emacs on 31 December 1999. I had given up nearly all non-Free Software in April 1998, but until December 1999, I still used one non-Free Software program: Quicken running under WINE. I finally got the time to convert my files over to GnuCash, and decided that I'd make a clean break with the new year (2000), and fully switch to GnuCash.

Thus, GnuCash made it very easy for me to move into full sainthood. ;) And, I've never looked back. I feel so much better using and developing only Free Software now.

The one thing I am still missing is a "saint name". At one point, I'd thought of another existing saint whose name sounded good with a "gnu" in the middle (like IGNUcius). Sadly, I didn't write it down right away, and promptly forgot. If anyone has ideas for a saint name, let me know. ;)

But, please keep in mind the the entire idea of a "Church of Emacs" and saints therein is just a joke. Sometimes, people get confused and think that Emacs really is a religion. It's not a religion, even if it is a way of life for some of us. ;)

Apple and the FSF
by imac.usr

Now that Mac OS X and Darwin are out, Apple obviously has a vested interest in supporting the FSF. They have been trying to get changes to gcc for Altivec support and PPC optimization merged back into the tree, and they are showing at least some support for both Open Source and Free Software. Plus, development of more Cocoa software should in theory lead to better support of GNUStep in the future. With these changes, has the FSF's opinion of/relationship with Apple changed since the boycotting of the '80s, or is it still more or less adversarial?

BK: Today, our feeling toward Apple is like our feeling toward most software companies who do both Free Software and proprietary software. We thank them for their Free Software contributions, but still push them to go further in supporting software freedom. We have to judge each action separately. Some things that Apple does are good for the Free Software community, and some things it does are bad Free Software community.

Apple has allowed many of its employees to contribute to various GNU programs, and we are glad that they have done so. But Apple still develops lots of proprietary software and for that we criticize them.

Also, I wouldn't say that Apple "obviously has a vested interest in supporting the FSF". They clearly have some interest in helping certain Free Software projects (such as GCC and GDB), but I don't think they are really dedicated to the goal of software freedom. For them, it's likely only a pragmatic necessity that leads them to support some Free Software projects.

I also should mention that it was only a partial victory for freedom in January 2001 when Apple released APSL 1.2. They came much closer to a Free Software license than the APSL 1.0, but they fell short by continuing to require that "deployed" versions in an organization be published. Thus, they still restrict the important freedom of private modifications.

I hope that Apple will take that final step in the next version of the license and make the APSL into a Free Software license. I urge those of you who use code released by Apple under the APSL to work at convincing Apple to make the change.

How can you get the average person to support FSF?
by ColGraff

How is the FSF going to compete with Microsoft and other closed-source-companies in public relations with the non-tech-savvy masses? Microsoft has legions of corporate and individual clients (and partners in other projects) extolling the virtues of closed-source, and spreading all sorts of vile lies about the Free Software Movement. How do you and Stallman plan to bring the goals and ideology of the FSF to the average person in a way he/she can understand and appreciate? It seems to me that without widespread public support of the FSF, judges and legislatures will tend to support the big corporate interests that (in the case of the legislators) pay for their campaigns in any conflict, such as a GPL violation case or software laws.

So, how will you rally the non-techie public to the FSF and GPL, dispelling the image of both as the product of socialist, somewhat freaky nerds? And how will you pay for such a campaign?

BK: Fortunately, we are fighting for rights of people---the same people who ultimately elect the legislators who represent us. Today, many people are beginning to feel corporate interests encroaching on their rights, and we simply need to empower them with tools to do something about it. We began our efforts reaching out to highly technical people and have been quite successful at creating momentum for Free Software alternatives to proprietary software.

Now, reaching non-technical people is an active goal for us, and we are open to ideas. I am a hacker (in the original, positive sense of the term), so I am much more comfortable talking to those who develop software. However, I am trying to retrain myself to learn how to think as non-hackers, politicians, and judges think, so that I can better deliver our message to them.

Recently, I changed my mode of dress to be a bit more traditional, and I cut my long hair. I did this in part because my fiancee wanted me to, but also in part because I realize that non-hackers are sometimes threatened by the "typical hacker style." This actually wasn't my idea; I got it from Jello Biafra, a social commentator and spoken-word artist (who is most famous for leading the now-defunct punk band "Dead Kennedys"). Jello pointed out that the "Halloween costume" approach (i.e., wearing clothes that seem like a costume to you, but are "normal" to most people) can really work when trying to reach people who don't agree with you. Some people are uncomfortable enough with our ideas, and if our dress, clothing, piercings, or mannerisms turn them off, they won't even take the time to listen to our ideas. Since I was never that attached to long hair and my "t-shirt and jeans," I decided to make the changes, in case it might help to reach such people who would otherwise be turned off. I kept the beard, though, because I really don't want to shave every morning!

That's an example of a superficial change that I've personally done to make myself more accessible to non-hackers. I also think a lot about how our work can improve everyone's life, and I always try to address my points to a person's individual concerns. For example, when talking to teachers, I often point out that proprietary software puts students at a disadvantage. The best way to learn to be a great programmer is to study the historical works of programming and to try to make them better. Only Free Software gives the freedoms required to learn well. Teachers often connect with this point, or at least it raises for them some cognitive dissonance about their school's use of proprietary software.

The point here is that you have to give each person reasons for software freedom that are relevant to her daily life. The best way I've found to do this is to imagine that person's use of software, and express to her how freedom could make her life better.

If you are trying to convince a large group of non-hackers about Free Software, please keep in mind that the FSF has a speakers' list and several on the list are excellent at reaching non-hackers. Eben Moglen, for example, is a law professor and is an excellent speaker on our behalf. Tony Stanco, who started FreeDevelopers, is also a lawyer and is good at reaching non-hackers. We also have Robert J. Chassell, who has been involved with the FSF since its inception, and he is very good at speaking with the non-hacker business community.

But, it's up to each of us to speak out about software freedom when we talk with others. Please help us. If anyone has additional ideas on how we can reach non-hackers with the message of software freedom, we'd love to hear from you.

As to the question of how we will pay for it, this is the reason we are 501(c)(3) charity. Part of what we use our funds for is these sorts of advocacy efforts.

BTW, just as "Open Source" is not what we advocate, "closed source" is not what we're against. The opposite of Free software is proprietary software. We have been working for 17 years now to replace proprietary (non-Free) software with Free software. All closed source software is non-Free, but some open source software is also non-Free.

GPL for web-apps
by webmaven

As both Bruce Perens and Tim O'Reilly have pointed out, it is possible to publicly deploy a web-app that is derived from GPL'd software without having to distribute your modifications.

While I certainly feel that it should be possible to do this for applications that are deployed internally without having the deployment count as 'distribution,' I am less happy about deployments on public websites. I would want web-applications that I create to have an additional 'public-performance' clause in their license that would require modifications that are publicly deployed to be made available in source form.

This is the so-called 'web-app loophole,' and I was wondering what your thoughts on the matter were?

BK: When a web application is run to provide a service to the public, I believe that the service provider has an ethical obligation to make the software available as Free Software to the users of that application.

Of course, we realize that the GNU GPL, version 2, does not require this. But, calling it a loophole is an exaggeration. The GPL does prohibit the worst possible wrongdoing, which is to publish a non-Free version of a Free program. In the case of web services, it doesn't prohibit a lesser form of wrongdoing.

As it turns out, it is a hard legal problem to figure out if a copyright license can even try to make this sort of requirement. This is something RMS and Eben Moglen are working on for the GPL, version 3.

Work on the GPL, version 3, has been on hiatus for nearly two years. First, work stopped so that we could do the GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL). After that was done, GPLv3 work was slowed substantially by personal matters that kept Eben Moglen from doing pro bono work for us during much of late 2000 and early 2001. Work on GPLv3 is just getting moving again.

I should note that it was well worth it to spend the time on the GNU FDL. It has gained adoption, as print publishers are discovering that there is a way to license their books that gives freedom and is profitable. For the first time, we can begin recommending that GNU users buy some books released by the commercial publishers. It's a very short list, but it is growing. (You can see this list on our website).

RMS
by Cirvam

How is working with RMS? If compromise is needed does he give in or does he stick to his line no matter what?

BK: RMS never compromises on matters of ethics. This is, of course, something that makes me quite glad. The last thing we want is the president of the FSF saying: "Oh, well, we might as well permit people to distribute proprietary versions of GPL'ed software." And, fortunately, I agree with the ethical positions that the FSF takes, so I never have disagreements on ethical matters with RMS.

RMS and I do disagree from time to time on matters of tactics, and on practical and technical matters. In these cases, I have found RMS to be strong-willed, but not uncompromising. In fact, when I compare RMS to other hackers that I know, he is among one of the most fair and even-handed. RMS always hears out the point of view of all sides and asks good questions to clarify the data and people's positions.

I have never known him to make a decision rashly, and he always seeks feedback from others before making any major decision. And, if we can prove to him that we have a better way to do something, and can back it up with evidence, he will change his mind.

In short, it's easy to lump "taking a firm ethical stance" together with "uncompromising". I believe these are separate issues, and I would say that RMS takes a firm ethical stance, but is willing to compromise on issues that don't impact an ethical position.

'Raving Lunatic' Image?
by Bilbo

In spite of all of RMS's great understanding of the working of Free Software, and his passion for promoting real Freedom, he has unfortunately picked up this image of a foaming-at-the-mouth raving lunatic pinko. How to you plan to combat this image, without compromising on the real issues behind Free Software, or the passion with which the FSF promotes these ideals?

BK: It's easy to dismiss someone as a "lunatic" if they are the only a few people standing up for a particular point of view. Some people once thought that abolitionists, suffragettes, and union organizers were "foaming-at-the-mouth raving lunatics", too.

For years, RMS stood up firmly for software freedom, and thus some people attacked RMS in that unfair and inaccurate way. He is still standing for software freedom all these years later, but now there are many more standing with him, including me. The best way for us in the Free Software community to combat the "lunatic" image is to stand for software freedom with him. As more people take a strong ethical stance for software freedom, those who use this underhanded tactic will find it less useful.

The ultimate solution is to change USA political sensibilities, so that USAmericans don't immediately label someone as a "lunatic" or "pinko" simply because (s)he puts freedom, community and goodwill as higher goals than the profits of shareholders. RMS has said publicly that he isn't a communist, and he isn't. As for "foaming-at-the-mouth" and "raving", those are just insults designed to turn those who don't know him away from what he stands for.

We responded to that attack by pointing out that our positions are actually in the spirit of what the USA is all about. I wrote an essay about this, and RMS did, too.

You know, when I hear the word "pinko", I can't help but associate it with the first time I ever heard that word. "Pinko" was the word that Archie Bunker always called his son-in-law, Mike "Meathead" Stivic, on the USA television show All in the Family.

It's interesting to me because, as a child in the early 1980s, that character, Mike Stivic, was the first person I ever saw on television talking about the kinds of social change and political views that I believed in. Of course, Mike wasn't a pinko, except in Archie's distorted thinking about the issues. Today, I can't hear the word "pinko" without thinking of Archie Bunker.

Your opinion on Java
by jsse

Your perljvm -- The Perl to Java Virtual Machine Compiler -- is impressive. I believe you've the authority to answer this question.

Sun has its sole control to their Java VM, and the control is extended to other JVM versions. As Richard said, free software build on non-free platform/program is useless to Free World.

We had much expectation on kaffe. However, it has halted its development long time ago, since Microsoft made business deals with Transvirtual. The only free JVM is basically dead now.

I'd like to have your opnion on this: do you have Java in your vision of Free World?

Thanks!

BK: You didn't ask the perljvm question that I was expecting: "Why isn't it done yet?" ;) (The answer to that one is: I've been working so much for my official duties at the FSF, I haven't had time to hack on it!)

But, your question is an interesting one. I certainly agree that we have to watch Sun, or any other company that exerts efforts over a 'de-facto' standard, closely, to make sure we can implement that standard in Free Software.

However, in the case of the Java environment, I am not too worried. I agree that Kaffe development seems to have slowed, but that is likely because the VM itself is quite stable and usable. (I use it as a development environment for perljvm.) I have heard they are pushing to make it compatible with newer versions of the Sun's proprietary software JVM, and I am happy to hear it.

In addition, now that GCJ has been fully integrated with GCC, Java, the language, is a first-class citizen in the GNU system. I think as time goes on, we'll see even more Java support on GNU systems. I recently saw, for example, that the GNOME-GCJ bindings are getting pretty good. So, I think that support for Java in the Free Software World is going to grow and get better, not wane. Eventually, I believe that the installed base of free Java platforms will grow enough that Sun won't be able to make incompatible changes without coordinating with the Free Software community, lest they have an outcry from the user base.

But, with Java, as with any software technology, we must keep watch for proprietary software twists that can leave the Free Software community constantly playing "catch-up". This threat exists for any technology, though, as long as we continue to live in a world with proprietary software.

In practical terms, for users of this technology, this means that we must only use those features of a technology supported with Free Software. If you are a Java programmer, make sure that your software runs in Kaffe and GCJ first, and don't make changes that require the use of a proprietary software Java environment.

Hardware Companies?
by 2400-n-8-1

Do you and/or the FSF support any certain hardware or hardware companies to go with free software?

Does the FSF have anything in mind to deal with hardware issues in the future?

BK: The important issue with hardware is to make sure that it can be controlled completely with Free Software. Some hardware companies are friendly enough to release their drivers as Free Software. Others cooperate enough to give full specifications, so that at least we can write our own drivers to compete with their proprietary ones. Sadly, some hardware companies still work against us, by keeping the interfaces to the hardware secret.

You, the hardware-buying public, have the power to change this situation by not purchasing any hardware that can't be run with Free Software. You can do even more to help by informing hardware companies that you would have bought their hardware if they'd only made a Free Software driver available.

There's a threat to freedom every time a new hardware device is released. We as a community have to watch closely and make sure that each exciting new hardware technology is fully supported with Free Software.

For a long time, we've wanted someone to build a full list of hardware vendors and note how friendly they were and are to Free Software. Compatibility HOWTOs exist, but this would be a list that gave reports of how much a given vendor helped us. If anyone wants to work on this, please let me know.

The Middle Initial
by Emil Brink

So, I notice that you share a middle initial of 'M' with RMS. The natural question then, becomes: what does your 'M' stand for? ;^) Also, for comparison's sake, what does RMS' stand for? I've actually wondered this for quite a while, but my (obviously worthless) attempts to surf it up have all failed. Thanks. BK: As people already noted on the slashdot comments, RMS' M stands for Matthew, or its pun variant: "Math You." ;) My M stands for "Michael," which sadly has no pun variant that I can think of. ;)

Food (ask, he'll understand)
by nowt

Gold Star or Skyline? Aglamesis or Graeters?

BK: I was amazed at how many people referenced my time in Cincinnati in the questions. I lived in Cincinnati for only four years before moving to Cambridge, MA. I lived in Baltimore for nearly 24 years, yet no one asked me my favorite restaurant in Baltimore ;), (which, BTW, is now closed: the Hacienda on Bel Air Road at Moravia).

But back to nowt's question: I never even went into Gold Star, but it seemed like they didn't have any vegetarian options on their menu. (I've been a vegetarian for about nine years.) Skyline had a few vegetarian items, so I ate there occasionally. My friend Matthew really hated eating there, so we stopped going on his account.

I heard of Aglamesis, but never went there. There was a Graeters not too far my apartment (I used to live near Clifton and Ludlow, as a slashdot comment mentioned), and my fiancee really loved Graeters' Chocolate cake with chocolate icing. We made sure we bought one a few weeks before leaving to have it one last time.

The Cincinnati food item that I miss most, though, is Adriatico's pizza. When he visited Cincinnati, RMS tried a piece and liked it too. I like Bertucci's, which is a brick oven pizza chain that started here in Somerville, MA, but I really miss that Adriatico's garlic crust.

Of course, I'll have to give it all up if I go completely vegan, which I've been thinking about doing. (For now, I have just resolved to reduce my dairy and egg intake by about a half.)

"Why do you answer Richard's email for him?"
by Anonymous Coward

Bradley, I've heard that you read Richard Stallman's email and replies to it, signing Richard's name rather than your own with no indication that someone else wrote the reply. In fact, I've gotten a couple of emails from "Richard" that definitely seemed like they were not written by him -- they directly contradicted things he'd said in other emails and did not sound like his style. How can you ethically justify this? Isn't it totally dishonest to sign email with someone else's name?

I do not recall ever posting nor emailing something with RMS' name on it unless RMS himself specifically gave me the text and said: "Send this as me." I do this from time to time, since RMS' network connectivity is sometimes spotty when he travels. Once or twice, I may have made very trivial edits to the text, if I saw a typo or an incorrect URL, but if I did that, I sent the text back to RMS so he knew what change I made.

One of the tasks that I was originally hired to do at the FSF was help RMS handle his huge email spool. The original idea we had was that I'd compose candidate responses, send them to RMS, and he'd decide whether or not to use them.

This ended up not working out, because RMS had to spend time editing the candidates, and it didn't save much time. However, there may have been times that RMS sent a response that was mostly written by me. But, he always saw the text and agreed that he wanted to say that first.

We at the FSF never say something came from RMS unless he approved the text (save a very rare minor typo fix, which we always inform him of after the fact).

Note, though, that there have been a number of cases of people impersonating RMS, particularly on slashdot. I believe that the slashdot staff got this under control, but what you may have seen are RMS impostors.

Most of these impostors do make statements that contradict what RMS would say. However, there's one particular case of an RMS imposter who made good points about software freedom that we agreed with. We tried to get in touch with him, to enlist his help in a non-imposter way to make points about Free Software. But, sadly, we never found him.

BTW, I'd like to note that unless I am in a big hurry or not at my own machine (both of which are rare), I GPG-sign all my messages with my GPG key. Even when I answer a general-contact addresses, such as <gnu@gnu.org>, you'll know that I answered by the GPG-signature.

RMS also has a GPG key, and occasionally he might be willing to sign a message if you are unsure about whether or not he wrote it. But, it's somewhat inconvenient for him to GPG-sign messages, so if people ask for it too much, he will likely not be able to oblige everyone.

There's more to the Free Software Foundation than Richard M. Stallman, you know. Like bkuhn, AKA Bradley M. Kuhn, who has been a full-time employee of the organization since February '01 and has taken over some of the duties that were previously RMS's exclusive province. Got a question for bkuhn about the FSF -- or anything else? Post it below. We'll select 10 of the highest-moderated questions, forward them to bkuhn, and post his replies as soon as we get them back.

marquise2000 writes: "You can now check out what Microsoft's 'Shared Source' idea is worth. They released the source to the Windows CE 3.0 Core OS yesterday night, see this page. You need a Microsoft Passport to get behind the registration. A hotmail account will do (no matter how much spam you have in your inbox)."

If you haven't yet taken a look at Microsoft's "Shared Source License," this is a good time: contrast the restrictions on use and redistribution to the clauses on those things in the GPL.

Interesting that Microsoft should denigrate Free Software licenses as pathogenic but require that anyone who redistributes the software as source under their new "broader" license "include a complete copy of this License with your distribution." That license includes a provision that "if you sue anyone over patents that you think may apply to the Software for a person's use of the Software, your license to the Software ends automatically."

But since you may not distribute the licensed Microsoft code "in source or object form for commercial purposes under any circumstances," nor use it to run a business, it may be unlikely that such a suit would arise. All in all, I'm not sure who besides companies selling Win CE hardware or software will benefit from this "sharing."

However, if you ever intend to work on any Open Source programming project which might involve similar code, you might want to think twice about downloading any code under the provisions Microsoft lists here: a simple database query can establish whether "Yourname Lastname" had access to the Microsoft-owned code, which could result in legal problems down the road. Even if you never look at the downloaded code, the electronic trail will look like you did -- which is perhaps the most insidious aspect of this version of sharing.

A few city blocks and many philosophical lightyears away from the New York University auditorium where Microsoft Senior Vice President Craig Mundie extolled the virtues of proprietary software a few weeks ago, Richard M. Stallman spoke this morning instead on the reasons that software developers, CEOs and every citizen whatsoever should prefer the Free software movement's methods and results. Stallman, founder of the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation, said a lot of things that he's been saying since 1984, but also threw in some zingers aimed at Microsoft's recent public criticism of open development models. Update: 05/30 01:56 PM by T : Correction: I incorrectly reported in the story below that David Touretzky of CMU introduced Richard Stallman at this speech; in fact, it was Mike Uretsky, Administrative Director of NYU's Center For Advanced Technologies (CAT) and professor in the Stern School of Business; the text below reflects this. With many apologies to both professors and to readers, timothy. (Read more.)

NYU Information Systems chairman Mike Uretsky and NYU computer science professor Edmond Schonberg briefly introduced Stallman to a standing-room-only crowd at NYU's Courant Mathematical Institute.

Stallman drew laughter and applause during Uretsky's introduction by calling out "I do Free software, Open Source is a different crowd" when Uretsky made a reference to Open Source software. Rather than a point-by-point rebuttal of Mundie's speech advocating Microsoft's current "shared source" initiative, Stallman's speech presented both an overview of the Free software movement -- several times emphasizing how it differs from the more pragmatic Open Source movement -- and a defense of Free software at several levels. Though peppered with jokes and historical asides, the bulk of Stallman's talk was devoted to explaining the benefits of Free software and comparing community-based, non-proprietary software development to the "deliberately inflicted waste" of proprietary software.

The publicity that Mundie's speech has stirred up around software licensing is obviously not forgotten, though. Stallman began by saying "I'd like to thank Microsoft for providng me the opportunity to use this platform. For the last few weeks I've felt like an author whose book was fortuitously banned somewhere, but all the articles about it are giving the wrong author's name, because Microsoft describes our license as an 'Open Source' license." Stallman emphasized at several points that the approach he and GNU project have is at its core philosophical, not merely pragmatic.

Beginning with cooking rather than computers, Stallman pointed out the advantages of being able to share functional documents in the form of recipes. He pointed that while nearly everyone cooks, "unless you're great, you probably use recipes. You've probably had the experience of getting a recipe from a friend -- and unless you're a total neophyte, you probably have also had the experience of changing the recipe. If you've made changes and you make it for your friends, and they like it, you can write down your changes for them." Imagine, he said, if recipes were packaged in black boxes, unavailable for inspection.

Stallman named the qualities he uses to define Free software. He began with "freedom zero" -- the freedom to run the software for any purpose -- noting, "If you're not even free to run the software for anything you want, it's a pretty damn restrictive license."

He went on to describe three additional freedoms which distinguish Free from proprietary software: the right to change software to suit user needs; to redistribute the software; and to publish improved versions.

These freedoms are absent in proprietary software, Stallman said, and cited what he said was his first taste to the evils of non-disclosure statements, which took place while he was working as an operating system developer at MIT's Artificial Intelligence Laboratory.

Stallman knew of a computer scientist at Carnegie-Mellon University with a copy of the Xerox source, and asked for a copy in order to add this feature. He found his request was denied, because his fellow academic had signed a non-disclosure agreement.

"He had refused to cooperate with just about the the entire population of the planet Earth, because he had signed an non-disclosure agreement. This was my first encounter with a non-disclosure agreement, and I was the victim -- my lab and I were the victims. The lesson it taught me is that NDAs have victims, they aren't harmless."

Toward the close of his speech, Stallman pointedly applied the advantages of Free software to businesses, giving examples of ways in which a community of more than 100,000 developers leads to more robust and maintainable software, all issues of price aside.

Describing his experiences after releasing GNU-Emacs in 1984, Stallman said "I got a msg that said 'I think I saw a bug, and here's a fix.'" Others emailed him with new feature requests and bug reports, and in many cases, the code to implement an improved version, "until they were pouring in on my so fast that just making use of the information I was getting was a big job. Microsoft doesn't have this problem."

The iterative, inclusive software development process resulted in constantly improving code for the GNU Project's various pieces of software, said Stallman. "What people began to note around 1990 was that our SW was better -- it was more powerful than the proprietary alternatives."

Since that time (before the Linux kernel was developed and employed alongside many GNU utilities), Free and Open Source software has increased dramatically in use and public acceptance.

Citing the large number of companies now paying to develop Free software, and that the majority of pages on the World Wide Web are served with Apache running on GNU/Linux systems, Stallman scoffed at claims that the GPL was unfriendly to business. "Microsoft says that busineses can't get along with the GPL. So if businesses don't include IBM, and HP, and Sun, then maybe they're right."

Addressing one persistent myth, Stallman said "It's not true, sometimes I wish it was true, that if a company uses GPL in any project, that the whole project has to be GPLd. If programs operate at arms' length from each other, then they're legally separate, in general."

Again, though, Stallman was careful to point out that the advantages and intent of Free software had more to do with ethics and social good in a variety of fields than any particular bottom line. Closed software, he said, "causes psychosocial harm which affects the spirit of scientific cooperation. Progress in science crucially depends on people being able to work together. Nowadays you see scientists act as if they're in gangs at war with other little gangs of scientists ... we're all held back." And not just scientists -- of anyone who uses computers in the workplace, Stallman said that in the absence of a broad right to modify and improve the software they use, "Their lives and jobs are going to be frustrating -- people protect themselves from frustration by deciding not to care. When this happens, it's bad for those people and for society as a whole."

Trepidity writes "In stark contrast to the plethora of false alarms recently, there's a pretty clear-cut case that Vidomi, a DVD ripping product by SloMedia, is composed of a great deal of code from VirtuaDub, a GPLd product. As SloMedia have refused all requests to either release their source or stop using the code, the developer is planning to file suit with the aid of the Free Software Foundation, in what could be the first legal test of the GPL's enforceability."

Thought the GPL was a nice license for your software project, one that fit with your thoughts about software freedom? Perhaps the BSD license was more to your taste? Well, even if you confine yourself to the ones approved by the Open Source Initiative, you can now choose from a grand total of 23 different licenses. Two new licenses have been blessed by the OSI: IBM's Common Public License Version 0.5, and the Apple Public Source License 1.2. Both may fit the OSI's definition of Open Source, but Free? Neither one uses that word. Richard Stallman isn't kidding when he says Open Source is not synonymous with Free Software. Clearly, there is nothing to stop every software company in the world from writing its own Open Source license. So here we are with at least 23, and rising.

An anonymous reader wrote in to tell us that "The latest Free Software Foundation take on the newly released APSL v1.2 "In January 2001, Apple released another updated version, 1.2, of the APSL, but it too remains unacceptable. It still has the requirement that any "deployed" modified version must be published. So it is still not a free software license." The dance continues."

During LWCE last week, LinuxWorld Paris was also going on. RMS ^[?] was there, and gave this year's award to Brian Paul. Brian is known for his amazing work on the Mesa 3D Graphics library - and deserves lots of credit. They took a *really* big video shoot of it - you can grab the video and a player from our servers at SourceForge.

Aggrazel passes along a FinancialTimes.com story that would send chills down my spine if I weren't already jaded and bored by such patent nonsense. You mean suits at a megacorp are taking advantage of absurd U.S. intellectual property laws to stifle innovation, quash competition, and steal candy from hard-working programmers? I'm shocked, shocked! Here's the InternetWorld interview: "...virtually everyone out there who indexes the Web is in violation of at least several of those key patents. Q. Does that mean you'll pursue that? A. Yes, we will. Coming up in the first quarter of 2001." Could someone please find out what patents CMGI owns? And in related news, DeadSea notes that the search engine that powers the ODP (dmoz.org) has been released, under the MPL. It's rough around the edges; go thou and smooth it out. While you still can.

i, Mac writes: "Apple just updated the APSL to version 1.2, removing most (if not all) of the requirements that irked the Open Source community. You no longer need to distribute modifications made for personal use, you no longer need to notify Apple of your modifications when you distribute them, and the suspension of the license clause now reads more clearly - See for yourself: " The FSF has a response to the previous iterations of the license if you're curious.

shiwala writes: "id software is auctioning the SGI Origin 2000 used to process all of the map data for Quake II and Quake III Arena." Hemos and I have been debating auctioning off the case that was the 2nd Slashdot (for a six months). I've been trying to find the alpha that was Slashdot for the first 9 months of its life (it served the first million pages: if I only knew that we would serve that many pages every day). Probably donate the $ to the FSF or Project Gutenberg or something. Anyway this id box amuses me: opening bid is $7500.

If you've tossed and turned wondering whether the Plan 9 License is Free or merely free, or tossed back the warm milk and cookies waiting for the first stabilizations for XFree86 4.0 to arrive, or counted sheep as you daydream about a cheap Linux-based terminal without monthly fees, or forced deep breathing exercises to get over the thought that perhaps you could doing something to stamp out discourteous Web page behavior ... relax. Go to sleep right after you read these updates.

How soon is now? Unlike a lot of cool-sounding soon-to-be-released, wouldn't-it-be-cool promiseware, it's interesting to see hardware that actually makes it to market before its underlying idea is doomed by advances sweeping past. Larry Ellison's $199 Linux box mentioned on Slashdot a while back appears to have reached that point. The NIC Web site has changed, and no longer is the only way to order one donating it to an underserved school.

Why don't you find out for yourself? jesser writes "Many slashdotters asked on the lock-in attack story whether/when mozilla would be safe from this type of attack. Here are some links to bugzilla bug entries in case any slashdotters would like to work on making mozilla more secure:

• bug 29346: Prevent repeating pop-up windows
• bug 33448: disable 'new window' when close box clicked
• bug 22049: javascript alert should not put up extermely modal dialog"

You've got everything now. Patrick Mullen writes "I just finished my review of XFree86 4.0.1. I've had a lot of requests to see a feature on this when it hit (apparently they liked the last article), and here it is. There's benchmarks, overview of the bug fixes, and new features. In addition to the review, I've also got the new NVidia 0.9-4 drivers which allow NVidia's line of cards to function correctly on XFree86 4.0.1 available on the website-and these are not available on even NVidia's website at the time."

That joke isn't funny any more. A number of readers wrote in with harsh words about the report that Apple forced the removal of rumors regarding an alleged next-generation translucent-cased machine.

Kaufmann, for instance, wrote: "Remember the whole story about MOSR's article regarding the new generation of Macs getting pulled at the request of Apple Legal? Well, an Alan Smithee is claiming that it's a hoax. To prove it, he's put up the very same article on the Personal Homepage service provided by Apple at Mac.com. Further investigation seems necessary." Note: not that putting an article on Apple's Personal Homepage service proves it's worthiness, but it does beg the question of Apple being quick to pounce on it. "Alan Smithee" doesn't exactly inspire confidence either, though -- that's the pseudonym directors traditionally use to distance themselves from films they consider too bad to bear their real names;)

Similarly, an unnamed correpsondent had this to say: "The Apple cube that has been talked about the past few days is a total hoax. Some guy sent an email with fake specs to MacOSRumors and they posted it. Kind of makes one question the credibility of Ryan Meader saying that Apple forced him to take it down. Anyways you can see the fake email at: [this link]."

Stop me if you think you've heard this one before ... QBasic_Dude writes "Richard Stallman wrote about the Problems of the Plan Nine License. Technocrat has a discussion about this, and so does Advogato."

Richard cites what he considers odious provisions in the putatively "open source" Plan 9 license (like this one: "You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request, with a copy of the complete Source Code version, Object Code version and related documentation for Modifications created or contributed to by You if used for any purpose.") and responds with typical Stallman pithiness, "This prohibits modifications for private use, denying the users a basic right." There's much more to read there, and worth your time. (As are the discussions at Advogato and Technocrat!)

galore writes "Certicom's ECC2k-108 Elliptic Curve Discrete Logarithm challenge has been broken! This was the largest public calculation ever to use a complex parallel algorithm. $5,000 dollars in winnings will be donated to the Free Software Foundation. Congratulations to everyone who participated, including team Slashdot! " There seems to be conflicting versions of info about the prize money - some says 8,000 to the Apache Foundation, others say 5,000 to the FSF.

Zippy writes, "According to a message posted to the Darwin-Development mailing list, Apple plans to assign the copyright for its changes to gcc to the Free Software Foundation. Sounds like there are a growing number of folks at the company that get it. Now if they'd just open the hardware ... "

tgeller writes "The Free Software Foundation (FSF) just won a $25,000 IDG/Linus Torvalds Community Award "for its continued support of the Linux community". This one's from publisher/expo organizer International Data Group. See the press release. What, Stallman's $100K Macarthur Fellowship wasn't enough? :) " Silliness aside, some big congrats are in order here.

Swampfox writes "This should technically be under GNU, though the article is entitled Linux May Be Running On Some Spindly Legal Legs. It's not a bad article, though, and it basically points out that since the GPL has *yet* to be really tested in court against a well-heeled and motivated opponent (hmm...can anyone think of a well-heeled and motivated opponent of Linux that might be on the horizon?) that it might eventually be an Achilles' heel that could weaken the movement. " Hopefully, this is one of the areas that the FSF will continue to champion and support-and it's a 501(c)(3), so make a contribution to them. The article also talks about the fact that RMS is going to be revising the GPL later on this year.

Mark Wielaard writes "The FSF has updated their definition of Free Software. It now says something about the freedom to actually run the program for any purpose, the freedom to redistribute copies to anyone, anywhere (export restrictions) and how those freedoms should be irrevocable (license termination). "

Mark Wielaard writes "The FSF has updated their definition of Free Software. It now says something about the freedom to actually run the program for any purpose, the freedom to redistribute copies to anyone, anywhere (export restrictions) and how those freedoms should be irrevocable (license termination). "

Victor Tavares asks: "It is always expected to find a file called 'ChangeLog' or something similar in most software source tarballs. There is a section in the GNU Coding Standards document about them, but I have seen many different formats for ChangeLogs. Is there a standard way of creating ChangeLogs when using CVS/Emacs/ (insert your favourite tool) to manage the development? Are there ChangeLog tools or converters?"

Nothing I like better than post X-Files quickies. Oh wait. That came out wrong. (rimshot) I should post some links quick to cover up my terrible joke: Eduardo Silva sent us a link to the online version of At RMSs Essay from Open Sources. It's on the past, present and future of the FSF. Jaws sent us a link to a Katz article at Mercury Center called The End of the Microsoft Age. Dan Guisinger sent us a link to some new Rio Accessories including a remote control that plugs into the headphone jack. Andy King sent us a link to the Web Reference entry for the Slashdot Effect Elphin sent us a link to a nifty poster of the Netscape color palette. GtHS sent us a link to an article that the trillions of you who continue to submit the hamster dance will like: It's the Penguin Dance. Pete Rijks sent us a link to the Scary Squirrels for all you conspiracy nuts. GTM writes The Net Wars Trilogy, a strange net parody of a certain trilogy you might like. baegucb sent us a link to another site on the hot topic of furby mutiliation. This time with a microwave. jchildress@netspeak.com sent us a link to another scary patent. How does this stuff get in the system?

Microsoft is not going to wait for the outcome of its trial with the DOJ before attacking Linux. The battle scene is France, where Microsoft's new (expendable?) regional director Marc Chardon has just issued an open letter to his clients. Click below to read the translation of the Linux-section (it's in French) and some commentary. The new director of Microsoft France (MF) has just issued an open letter to his clients. Most of the letter says essentially "We're right. Critics aren't. Millions of people use our products." and other fascinating insights. However it does contain two interesting revelations: Microsoft's OS is an integral part of your PC, and Linux is of very limited interest to anyone but fringe groups (students and researchers).

As previously reported, it is illegal in the EU to tie the sale of a product with another in the EU. However Microsoft France (MF) argues that because a computer can be argued non-functional without an operating system (or a hard-drive), what is being sold is a single product, not two. A little later, MF's director contradicts himself by stating that "assemblers" (basically small computing shops that will assemble a computer from standard components according to your desires) will sell you a computer without an OS -- is that a broken computer? Indeed, since the same letter claims there are more OS's for PCs than any other computer, we must be dealing with a product tied to another precisely because no other OS is sold (according to the letter) with a computer.

Further down, you'll see a whole section devoted to Linux. While today Microsoft's lawyers declared Linux to be developed by a single person, MF's director claims it to be a movement. I've translated the rest of what he had to say about Linux since it's interesting...

"It would seem that Linux does not satisfy the requirements of most companies, let alone the general public.

Linux presents limits that will slow down its widespread distribution, particularly in companies and the general public

In terms of the system's stability, Linux has problems of general coordination, and one feels strongly the lack of a project leader. Linus Torvald ( S: Microsoft can't spell!) left university last year to join a Californian company. The development of Linux has since considerably slowed down. Similarly, the maintenance of Linux' functionality depends on the mobilization of its teams. Thus, certain of its functions have not been updated in the last two years.

The installation of Linux is delicate. For optimal system performance, each version must be tuned on each computer at each installation, by a competent computer-technician. Setting it up and its administration are therefore not within the reach of a computer-technician used to more friendly operating systems, let alone basic users. Using Linux is complex, its programs generally take text commands.

Finally most Linux application software has limited functionality. Word processors rarely have functionality common on today's PC or Macintosh: dynamic spelling correction, graphic input of tables, integration of imported graphics. Most Linux word processors bear more resemblance to Microsoft Write written in 1985.

Linux' advantages of zero-cost and open source are not relevant criteria for most users.

The zero-cost of Linux is a non decisive advantage: the cost of an OS is minor in comparison to the other costs of a company. The price of the OS is only one of the elements of computers in companies. Putting a traditional OS into place costs many times the price of the OS itself, and the same goes for the creation of an application program and its maintenance. So, by installing Linux, one saves the cost of the OS, but one increases the cost of installation, and one takes risks for the maintenance of the applications and the system itself.

If certain people consider the permanent availability of source code to be an absolute guaranty of independence from software editors, we fail to see the benefit for a company or a person to have access to the source of his OS.

However, the distribution of the OS source code is very useful for students and researchers, to understand the inner-workings of the OS and eventually to change it. Linux will therefore probably stay for a long time a good subject of study for computer-scientist, rather than an OS destined for widespread distribution. "

I must apologize for any mistakes in my translation. Use babelfish to get an alternative translation. I'm open to any corrections. update! Linux Weekly News has just published a de-babelfished translation of the whole letter.

S: This letter obviously contains many "inaccuracies":

If I buy a car, is the fuel a separate product or not? What about electricity? Computers are non-functional without it. I hope the EU lawyers will notice this wriggling.

His attacks on Linus stating that Linux development has slowed down are not credible with the inflow of new developers and the number of ports now in the standard kernel. The letter very much ignores the fact that Transmeta lets Linus hack on Linux during office hours and has other employees that contribute, underplays Red Hat employing kernel developers, and completely ignores the current tidal surge of major corporations towards Linux: Intel, Compaq, Oracle, Sun, to name but a few.

Anyone who has had to install Windows from scratch, as I do every 3-6 months when it has corrupted its hard-drive beyond repair at work, knows that installing Windows is a royal pain. It takes over an hour, requires minding (yes... I'm just here to click OK)... Linux takes me 20 minutes on an 100 Mhz system. The only argument here is: when Windows is pre-installed (i.e. when you buy your machine) it's easier than it is to install Linux. Duh!

I, and many others don't view GUI's as necessarily friendly. Until they are a substitute for true understanding, I prefer to have control over my system and to be able to repair it. The usual answer for Windows to reinstall everything, and then try eliminating various components until you've found the "culprit". The same applies for source code. Funny that the latest C'T has devoted 19 pages to "Hacks & Bugs & Workarounds: Large Projects with Word, and how one survives them". To me, and many others, this is an unacceptable hit on my productivity.

Indeed, the whole notion that Linux is too hard for the average user is nonsense to me. I gave my mother a Linux box -- I'm living 8 timezones away so I cannot help her fix an unreliable OS. She cannot rely on computer-savvy neighbours either, since she's in a very rural area. But, with Linux as her first computer, she is happy using it laying ridicule on Microsoft's claims about the difficulties that the average layman will experience.

Complaints about Word processors are unfair since most Windows word-processors are also not very advanced. Percentage-wise (if you count all the free, shareware, and old ones), I expect Windows/DOS have a worse ratio. Only a few products provide the features Marc discusses. Similarly, on Linux, we have WordPerfect 7 (hey Corel, port WordPerfect 8!), Applixware, and StarOffice (which I sometimes use), Angoss, Dtop, and Axene's Xclamation, On the free front we have Emacs which is also used by a very large number of people under NT and which will soon have a WYSIWYG interface, Thot, EZ, Papyrus, Cicero, Doc, Maxwell, and new promising upstarts such as Glue. And let's not forget TeX: I and my fellow PhD students wrote their theses in it because it copes well with 700 page documents. Most academic papers must be written, and many books are written in it. It also accepts any graphics as encapsulated postscript. TeX is still the only format which is guaranteed to come out looking the same on any computer, and still looks better to me and many others than the output of any other product. As to dynamic spell-checking, I turn it off: I think, I write, I reread, I spell-check. Dynamic spell-checking just breaks the flow of my thoughts.

The attack on zero-cost software is a pretty obvious diversion, and tries to draw the reader's attention away from the fact people use Linux because of its stability and features rather than its cost.

Finally, Microsoft's attempt to make academics and students irrelevant is interesting, since they are the ones pushing Linux, but also very dangerous. France values intelligence and high education more than most other societies, as Marc Chardon's own CV shows.

So what do you think of all this?

I'd like to thank A Dark Elf, Jacky Liu, and Linux Weekly News Daily for some of the material I used here.

The FSF published a plea recently for the manuals documenting free-software to be placed under a GPL-like license, so that they stay up to date with the development of the programs they are supposed to document. This is a good point, but may contradict my hope that one can work full-time on free-software by living off the royaltees from its documentation. On the other hand, there are books freely available in source format that are also published. I know I buy Linux on a CD for ease of use, and a spiral bound copy of a good book is invaluable, so people would buy it. In fact I'm more likely to buy a book I have read and liked, than an unknown. So maybe it's possible to sell your cake and eat it. What do you think?

The FSF published a plea recently for the manuals documenting free-software to be placed under a GPL-like license, so that they stay up to date with the development of the programs they are supposed to document. This is a good point, but may contradict my hope that one can work full-time on free-software by living off the royaltees from its documentation. On the other hand, there are books freely available in source format that are also published. I know I buy Linux on a CD for ease of use, and a spiral bound copy of a good book is invaluable, so people would buy it. In fact I'm more likely to buy a book I have read and liked, than an unknown. So maybe it's possible to sell your cake and eat it. What do you think?

Matthew Miller has written in to express his concerns over GnuHoo- the web link tracking project that we posted last week. The issue is use of the term 'GNU' in their name- when in fact their project is all proprietary software. Hit the link below to read what Matthew has to say about it. When I saw the site, I assumed the source would be made available: In fact, I wanted to install a copy over here to track the links from old articles. Read the following very carefully. Update GnuHoo has now been redirected to NewHoo. I'm glad to see the Right Thing done. Best of luck to everyone involved with NewHoo. The following is written by Slashdot Reader Matthew Miller

This is a warning to all supporters of the open source movement -- stay away from the so-called "GnuHoo" web directory discussed on Slashdot a week or so ago!

From the name, and from a quick look, it appears that this is an attempt to create a Yahoo-style web directory only with the content and perhaps the backend software under a GPL-like license. People easily make the assumption that it's even backed by the FSF.

Unfortunately, it's not true. The directory is "free" in the same sense that Yahoo is free -- you don't have to pay to look at it. And yeah, anyone can sign up to contribute work. But, the copyright is owned by the Gnuhoo staff, and there's no open-source-style licensing provisions. In truth, it's not really even "free beer" free, let alone "free speech" free.

When all the confusion is stripped away, what we've got here is a version of The Mining Co. that, instead of paying its editors a tiny portion, attempts to cash in on free labor generated by the current open-source enthusiasm.

When confronted, the GnuHoo staff expressed surprise that anyone would be upset about this -- they argue that "GnuHoo is and will always be a free service", but that they want to be able to make money off of it. Now, I'm not opposed to anyone making money from open-source projects, but that's obviously not what we're talking about here -- this is a proprietary project masquerading as something it's not.

Furthermore, after a quick e-mail to the FSF, I learned that GnuHoo has been asked to stop using the name, or start working with free software. The GnuHoo staff has shown no willingness to do so, saying that the name is very important to the project, and that it was chosen because it conveys the sense of "a free, community effort". That may be, but it certainly conveys a lot of other things -- all of them misleading!

I've got no problems with a non-open project of this type -- it's a good idea. But it's wrong for them to pretend it's something it's not, and to use the GNU name to deceive people.

If people (and I'm sure some would) want to donate their time and effort to a for-profit company, that's fine. But it'd be far better for people to turn their efforts to making a real GNU-style web directory. It's sad to see the amount of enthusiasm wasted here -- people have already contributed hours to something that isn't what they thought (or maybe still think) it is.

I've pointed all this out (in a much less angry-rant-format way than this, I promise) on the GnuHoo mailing list, and so have several others. Without going into much detail (except to say that there was a lot of detail from us and little from the GnuHoo staff) the response was "We don't agree with you. sorry."

So, finally, after a short message requesting that a clear decision be made to change either the name or the license, one of the GnuHoo staff sent me a message saying: "Sigh. Will you please go away?" Well, I suppose I will. And I urge everyone else to come with me.

This is the first of hopefully many Slashdot.org Editorials. In addition to just reporting the news, the Slashdot Team really wishes to try to put out new ideas, or share other information that our readers may find helpful, interesting, or entertaining.

We're standing at an amazing crossroad here. The Free Software Foundation, and especially the Linux OS have gained amazing ground. The mainstream press (eg the ZiffDavis marketing monopoly) actually now regularly acknowledge Linux along side MacOS and Windows as being a "Real" Operating system.

And then there is the browser world, where the race was once one horse, then hundreds, and now 2. Microsoft and Netscape have been battling it out for some time now, and Netscape's once unstoppable 70% market share has begun crumbling.

Meanwhile the Free Software world is facing a battle of its own. The Commercial browser world has been reduced to the big ones, but the free world is producing Mneumonic, Gzilla, and various other smaller projects. Many talented programmers slave away on these products, but each day, Microsoft gains ground.

Add the final piece of data to the mix:Netscape is losing money as well as browser market share. What's a company to do? Maybe the solution is simple:GPL Netscape's Source Code.

So now that you've stopped laughing, let's talk about this seriously for a moment. Let's look at why Netscape should seriously consider this:

Talented programmers from around the world would actively improve Netscape's browser. The Free Software Movement has proven that if some control is enforced at the center (eg Linus) programs can develop communally. Netscape would not have to pay most of the development cost of their software. Coordination, and key programmers would be essential, but minor once coders around the world join in.

Netscape needs browser dominance to fuel its server market, and to remain synonymous with the Internet. If current trends continue, MS will = the Internet in another year.

Netscape is losing money on the browser market. They need to release their browser for free to compete with Microsoft anyway.

Source code would allow compilation on other systems- say a Pentium optimized version, or whatever other optimizations become available for platform X.

Excellent Publicity generated by such an original move would earn Netscape respect from the Free Software junkies who often have somewhat negative feelings towards Netscape. These Free Software Junkies are gaining control of much of the world's IS departments, and Netscape's good name will get them places in these corporate worlds.

So that's all well and good for Netscape, but what about the rest of us. Netscape has taken a lot of heat for its gapping shortcomings. In particular its bloated size and slow performance. Why would the Free Software World want to take on this project?

GPL means we would have a state of the art free browser.

Netscape could be ported to GTK or Qt for faster performance and lower memory requirements than Motif.

Various web browser efforts could focus on a single project (which could have many faces) which already has so many of the features they need. Instead of these projects dividing the effort, they could unify.

The superior programming talents of the world's programmers would make Netscape the superior browser, which would win over converts back from Microsoft even on Wintel boxes where MS is gaining support.

New browsers derived from Netscape for more specific tasks could share things like an HTML rendering engine for commonality.

Now I realize that there are problems. Large parts of Netscape's code aren't really Netscape's to give away. The "about:" screen of Netscape Communicator lists 12 companies besides Netscape including Apple, Macromedia, Symantec and many others. Perhaps these modules are removed. Perhaps these modules could also GPLd. Netscape does need to maintain the primary code base, and finding someone with the charisma of Linus to steerhead the development of code from hundreds of people will me a challange. Then there are problems with large portions of the Free Software world disliking Netscape. I really hope this could change, especially if they were given the opportunity to maintain it.

I really think this could be the answer to a lot of problems. With the power of an Internet full of programmers, even Microsoft's Billions of R&D dollars would be threatened. And we would be guaranteed a real choice even if IE4 becomes the standard on Windows boxes.

What do you think?

by Rob "CmdrTaco" Malda
malda@slashdot.org