Slashdot Mirror
Talk Things Over With Richard M. Stallman
Richard M. Stallman is not everybody's best friend, but in my opinion he is the most unwavering believer in the concept of free software there has ever been. Check gnu.org to learn more about RMS (as he is commonly known) and his many good works. Then post your questions below. We'll select 10-15 of the highest-moderated ones Tuesday afternoon (US EDT) and forward them to RMS by e-mail. His answers will appear within the next week or so.
Do you think that the idea of free software / free sources can be directly linked to the hippie / civil rights / liberty movement of the late sixties (in germany we call this the 68'er Bewegung)?
Maybe not that you or others of the free software movement have been envolved personally in this, but do you see an relationship in this two phenomens?
Or seeing it the other side around, without the peoples movement in the sixties, would there today be the free-software movement?
-- Florian G.
RMS,
Do you enjoy watching "non-free" movies like Star Wars or the Matrix,
or does your free information idealogy stop with software?
-ac157
I've been a programmer, consultant, writer, and entrepreneur for some time, and even though I think the free/open software movement is a much needed breath of fresh air in this industry, there are two aspects of it that I find very puzzling: First, what happens if the free/open software model "wins" and becomes so widely used that it's the norm in woftware development? Does this mean the death of any software-only company with more than a hundred or so employees? I've yet to see any evidence at all that any company larger than that can make money purely by supporting free/open source software. They simply can't generate enough revenue to fund ongoing development. Second, many people have expressed concern about the ability of the open/free source community to create new standards. I also think that's an issue. Can the open/free source community do this? Taken together, these two concerns lead me to believe that we're headed for a future where companies like IBM, that can afford to lose money on open source software in order to promote hardware sales (or other forms of revenue) will keep working with and contributing to f/o software, but the mid-size, software-only companies will disappear, and all the standards will be created by that handful of big companies and followed by everyone else. Comments?
Why do you reject the development/implimentation of common security features, such as requiring wheel group access to use 'su', in software? How is this stance tied to your views on personal freedom? Do you see your views changing as more and more users - and, judging by the amount of web page defacement going on, ones with less regard for the property of others - start using the net?
How would you feel about a revised GPL, which 'fixed' a number of legal issues, odd phrases, questionable wordings, and other ambiguities? I think the biggest problem these days is that there are lawyers (and wanna-be-lawyers) that claim the current GPL isn't up to snuff. If presented with something like, would you consider making it GPL version 2.5 or version 3?
Let me create a derivative question here for a sec...
"We must make aware, to the general populace, that this corporate complex is setting itself up to control the future digital world. This general awareness is vital to prevent the passing of laws which clearly stomp individual rights. How do you think we can best create such awareness? "
Given the way that open source projects spread like wildfire, and the way the folks who code this stuff like to release, mirror and promote anything that fights against the restrictions of freedoms (decss, freenet, gnutella, etc)...what do we do when the large entities that be suddenly realize that we won't go away, and seek to end us as a community/voice. I imagine one of the first that would happen is that Linux in all of its forms would be discredited as a "hackers"(the clueless' word for crackers, whatever) tool, made out as if anyone who does not use Windows/Mac is doing so because they are also doing explicitly illegal things. Where I work the upper management already has this opinion, ad as such will not allow Free/OS software anywhere on premises(large corp). What do we do then to fight this?
Now that we've asked you all these questions, what's the most important question that we failed to ask?
Richard, thanks for your immense work and leadership. /. ers would be fascinated.
In a recent interview you mentioned that when HURD is finished it could have significant benefits over the Linux kernel.
Could you go into a reasonably technical description of the design? I'm sure
If you had to nominate a favourite GNU/Linux distribution would it be Debian or are others also mentioning that dirty word "GNU"?
Is the GNU/Linux OS the environment you now use? Excuse me if you've answered this before, I haven't heard you mention your environment before and you seem to be avoiding talking too much about "Linux" (understandably given the hoopla).
BTW, since Free Software is about Liberty, why not replace "Free" with Liberty or Liberation or, my favourite, Liberation Software.
I realise it's more syllables and while it doesn't have "cost" connotations it does have freedom and "communist" connotations (why is the US so paranoid about communism?). Maybe we could hear the best alternatives you know of. Maybe you could use a word from another language which does have a more appropriate word and change the phrase around to Software Libere or some such.
Keep up the fight. Us gutless wimps need someone like you around to sleep at night.
Hi, as free software and open source software user, I am sometimes perplexed at some of the stances you take as father of GNU.
The matter that first comes to mind is that instead of embracing Open Source software, you have taken the stance that it is not your own brand of free software and on more than one occasion have elaborated on this point creating what appears to be a false dichotomy.
Open Source == free software, with the difference that "Open Source" is a less confusing term and more marketable (ie practically everyone knows the proper definition and benefits of "Open Source", whereas "free" still means free in the "free beer" sense to many).
Can't we all just kiss and make up? Why does Open Source software HAVE to be GPL'ed to satisfy you? The fact of the matter is that the GPL is a specific and very restrictive license; it may be useful to some but not to others. Forgive me if I say that your stance appears to be a matter of NIH syndrome and that the world would be a better place without such needless conflict.
Mr. Stallman,
First, let me take this unique opportunity to thank the Free Software Foundation for the countless things it has done for the software development community in general We all owe you an immeasurable debt of gratitude for your selfless work.
This is also a good segway into my question. The problem is, that a majority of COMMON users doesn't know much, if anything about the mission and achievments of the Free Software Foundation. This may not seem AS important a question as it really is. So, let me clarify with an example.
Imagine you are walking along the sidewalk in some small town. Where this town is is not of major importance. You're just walking along enjoying the ominous grey-green of an approaching thunderstorm. The air has the scent of rain in it.
You walk toward a building and notice a man standing in front of it. This man has a clipboard with some papers attached. The man looks up and notices you approaching. After a bit of convincing on his part, you decide to follow him inside to take part in an experiment.
The man leads you into a room, which is empty save for a single table. The table sits in the center of the room. Resting on the table is a Wendy's triple cheeseburger and seated at the table is a gorgeous blonde. You are relieved when the man with the clipboard leaves you alone in the room with the burger and the girl. You take the seat next to the girl.
Suddenly a voice booms out over a speaker mounted on the wall behind you. Of course, you didn't even notice the speaker earlier, because you were too mesmerized by the blonde's flirtatious smile.
"So which is it, Heather or the Wendy's triple cheeseburger?"
You, Mr. Stallman, representing the Free Software Foundation, are not entirely certain you heard that correctly, "huh?!"
The voice seems to grow quite impatient, "You can choose one or the other, but not both. So which is it? The Wendy's triple cheeseburger? Or Heather?"
You look at the Wendy's triple cheeseburger, succulent and dripping with juices... mhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhm.
You look at Heather, twirling her hair as she smiles at you... mhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhmhm.
So... here's the moment of truth, Mr. Stallman! Which is it? The Wendy's triple cheeseburger? Heather? Do you DARE respond, "Natalie Portman?!"
Lastly, if you KNEW beforehand that if you respond, "Natalie Portman," you will be beaten with a two-foot long, processed, spiced-meat stick and later find yourself naked and bruised on the sidewalk, THEN what would your answer be?
This is all one question.
thank you.
Do you forsee a future where porridge providers (such as Quaker Oats, Kellogs, etc.) provide open-source porridge free of charge so that it can be dumped down my pants in lieu of grits? This is a pressing question that must be answered immediately, immediately, immediately .. harumph, harumph, harumph.
Hello RMS, If you were filing a friend-of-the-court brief in Microsoft's antitrust trial, what remedies (if any) would you recommend for the court to impose on Microsoft? And, more generally, what do you think of Microsoft as a software provider?
Hi, Sorry for a technical question; I think most of the other questions are on philosophy. Perhaps this will be a nice break?
First, thank you, thank you for emacs.
Second, I was wondering about the transition to a scheme core in emacs. It strikes me that there is so much legacy code written in elisp that you'll need to support this somehow. Will you just lay in an elisp-->scheme interpreter, or will there be two low-level C engines for scheme and elisp?
I see this transition as quite significant in the history of emacs, and I wonder how projects such as this, that have accumulated a large body of working legacy elisp code, have to plan for backward compatability.
How do I convince someone to invest in my idea given the Open Source paradigm.
I'd like to hear Richard answer this one because honestly, I haven't heard a good, business saavy answer.
This is NOT as easy as it seems. People that would invest WILL eventually want to see some project return on their $$$. If the ONLY way you claim to recoup your development expenses is to sell services on the finished product - you've got a problem.
Why? Because GPL allows anyone can pickup your and sell services immediately. No waiting period to allow you to recoup your development expenses (ie, what your investors were paying for). Thus immediately cutting your service marketshare n-ways. (n being the number of people that pickup your program and resell it).
I have yet to see anyone make headway in solving this problem.
Another problem with the service-selling idea, is the usability of your programs MUST be pitiful for you to make a killing in the market (ie, why make the program inheriently easy to use when it would just diminish your profits from selling services down the road?). This is contrary to the noble idea of bring supercomputing power to the masses.
These are two problems I see with how the open source community has positioned themselves. I'd LOVE to see someone fix them, but no one to my knowledge has come forward with a good 'fix' yet.
Thanks,
Tom Gooding
Actually, I'm a major Stallman fan, and one of the things I respect most about the man is his willingness to stand up for his beliefs instad of trying to tone them down for the sake of popularity.
:)
BTW, I totally agree with the statement that my "...accomplishements so far pale in comparison to Mr. Stallman's."
- Robin "roblimo" Miller
I read sometime ago that you coded so much that your hands gave out.
Has the medical condition of your hands changed at all?
Alternately, is there anything that we can do to help if the condition has not improved?
GNU/Linux is based on Commerical Software! By selling Emacs in 1984 at $150, RMS became the first OSS (if you like such MS-isms) vendor.
If you link a proprietary, closed source program, against a GPL'ed library, do you have to open the source to the proprietary program?
--
Python
Python
Thanks, but this is something I want to hear from RMS as well.
--
Python
Python
The question of free software on closed OS's has come up twice for me recently. I'd like to know your thoughts on these issues.
I write free software (GPL) for PalmOS in my spare time. There is a small, but growing, community of free software authors for PalmOS, and I feel it is important to make an effort to replace some of the (ridiculously-priced, even ignoring the closedness) shareware which is prevalant on this platform. Do you think it's a good idea to work on this kind of thing, when it is unlikely that the PalmOS will ever be freed or (properly) replaced with a free OS? Is it worth working on free software for a non-free platform, when there is a need for the software and a need for it to be free, as opposed to working on free software for a free platform?
Another, similar, issue has recently come up in the PalmOS developer community. About 3 years ago, a free PalmOS development kit based on GCC was released, and it is very popular in the PalmOS developer community - estimates of up to 50% of the developers are using it. This toolkit (version 0.5.0) has now fallen somewhat behind the times, and needed some work, and someone stood up and took over 'ownership' of the toolkit, with the stated intention of producing a newer toolkit based on GCC 2.9x (and feeding the changes back to the GCC maintainers, hopefully for eventual inclusion in the main tree). This work took longer than expected, and before it was completed, Palm Inc. hired the developer to work on it full-time under their auspices. He released it (as version 2.0) earlier on this year and while it (apparently - I haven't actually used it yet) fixes some of the problems, it causes others, and apparently breaks some backwards compatibility. At around the time of this release, someone else (who had never said anything about working on this toolkit before in public, as far as I can tell) announced that he was also working on a modernisation of the toolkit. He released a beta version of his toolkit (version 0.6.0) and has been rather over-enthusiastic in his defence of his version versus the 'official' Palm-sponsored release. The discussion got quite rude at times, with the second developer (the 'owner' of the 0.6.0 release) being quite rude about the design of the 2.0 release, and stating that he felt it was wrong for a Palm employee to work on the GPLed toolkit - that it should be done by a third party so as to keep it independent of the Palm 'party line'.
Anyway, the point of the story is that a large number (probably a majority) of the users of this toolkit are using it on Windows, with the Cygnus Cygwin environment to provide enough of a GNU-ish environment to run the GCC-based toolkit. The 0.6.0 author has stated that he doesn't care about making his toolkit work on Windows, whereas the Palm-employed 2.0 author has treated Windows as something of a priority. My personal feeling is that it is better for Windows users to be using a GCC-based toolkit in a GNU-ish environment (if they cannot be persuaded to move from Windows) than that they use a proprietary toolkit. What are your thoughts?
If this makes no sense, tell me and I'll try to clarify. I haven't bothered naming names above, mainly because they're not important - it's the issue I'm interested in, but the full story is available in various mailing list archives, so it isn't a secret.
Paranoia isn't an infectious condition, it's a way of life
How do you become "a memeber of GNU"?
If you mean someone with an "@gnu.org" address, these used to be given to anyone who asked for one.
PS: The new BSD license is quite good, it is GPL compatible and has no obnoxious advertising clause. If you don't mind your code being used as part of closed software, and don't want to insist that changes to be contributed back, that's the license I'd suggest.
With a mass market product, you can use copyright law to distribute the development cost to all the users. With a large scale system like the above, you will typically sign development contracts with the customers in advance, so you don't have to rely on copyright law to cover the development cost. Thus, you can just as well make the source free.
In your experience, does this study reflect the experience of free software programmers? In other words, are we seeing the predicted suffering in quality as programmers chase after glamour projects and prestige, or other non-financial rewards?
(A part 2 to this is more directed to /. readers than RMS - has anyone done a study on programmers, both inside and outside the Free Software paradigm, to see what the effect is? And if not, when are you going to do one?)
P.S. Did you know RMS is world famous? His name's in virtually every physics and electronics text from high-school, upwards! :)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
--
while i am a very strong believer in free software, i still think there is a very important place for proprietary software. for example:
solaris is proprietary software. even if you can get the source now, it is still proprietary. many large internet companies use high end sparc hardware (ie enterprize 5K or 10K) to run their sites. on this hardware, they run solaris, because nothing else will measure up to their needs. 5 years from now, there will be free operating systems that can outperform the current version of solaris on this high end hardware. by that time sun had better have developed something new, or solaris will die out.
as long as proprietary vendors offer products that have some advantage in quality or performance over what is available freely, and are responsive to costomers needs, problems, etc. then i think they will survive, and do well.
in my eyes, the value of free software is that it gives us a choice, and therefore keeps proprietary vendors honest about what they do, and forces them to continue to offer better products, or else they will be surpassed by free products.
now to the question:
do you feel that there is any value or any place at all for proprietary software? from what i have read of your philosophy, you seem to believe that all software should be free, and that success for the FSF would mean nothing short of the elimination of proprietary software. do you really see this as being desirable or reasonable? i have seen you liken using proprietary software to being slaves to the software vendors. but the way i see it, we are not their slaves as long as we have a choice. the company i work for uses oracle for our database. i do not feel that we are slaves to oracle. we have the choice of a number of different databases to use, some of them free. and if oracle is not responsive enough to what we need as a customer we will leave.
to me, the purpose of free software should be to compete with proprietary vendors to get them to offer better products. if proprietary vendors die out, then free software will begin to stagnate without competition, just as many proprietary software vendors had begun to stagnate before the explosion of free and open source software.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
the suit against napster is more concerned with napster the server than it is with napster the software. gtknapster, knapster, gnomenapster, xnapster, etc. all use the same napster server. if this lawsuit would succeed in shutting down the napster server, there would be no point and no need for the riaa or metallica to come down on the authors of *napster, because all of these dozens of napster clients are now useless.
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
Something has always puzzled me about the GPL. Suppose the following: a company/individual has a closed source program that could be improved by some GPL software, so they decide to take the GPL code and put it into their product, but not publish their source. How would the original programmer (the one who wrote the GPL program) discover such an infringement, and what recourse would/could/should they have?
Right now, in order for someone to have a *decent* free operating system, they pretty much to be using a Unix clone. It's pretty clear that the GNU project is only concerned with Unix (duh), but have you ever heard of or ever though of starting a free non-Unix platform?
Much of the trend in Linux and GNU software seems to be towards Windows-ising it or Mac-ising it. Wouldn't the cleaner solution be just to start a new free operating system without having to carry around all that Unix baggage?
As a side note, do you ever regret choosing to implement Unix? I seem to recall in an interview that you implied that you had little experience with Unix at the time GNU was founded, thought it was the best thing since sliced bread, and later found out that it wasn't exactly the way you thought it was.
- Abandoning the GPL operating system clause altogether. Since free OSs have become complete, it is no longer necessary to link Free Software against non-free software.
- Modifying the GPL operating system clause so that it no longer allows to link GPL code against proprietary libraries, but to any kind of libraries which are Free Software according to the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
?Florian
gopher://cramer.plaintext.cc http://cramer.plaintext.cc:70
I know you had already contributed huge amounts of code to the MIT Lisp Machine effort and the Lisp Machine architecture was (maybe even still is in some ways) a far more advanced environment than the static C based Unix environment. Do you think a community would have grown up around that or was the path to Unix ordained?
You set out to develop a sufficient body of free software so that you would not have to rely on proprietary software at all. In GNU/Linux systems you have succeeded. What new mountains will the FSF climb?
<p>Do you see the FSF as a software development entity or more concerned with philosophical and legal issues in the future?</p>
I still feel a certain sense of dissatisfaction with ESR's business models... it's always seemed like when you make software free, the means that remain for you to make money are the things that used to be considered drudgery... paper manuals, manufacturing mugs and t-shirts or otherwise making money from advertising, and technical support. These things all serve to distract you from actually writing code. Now ideologically I really like the free software movement. But it's also nice to be able to make money doing what you love most.
Some of ESR's business models are quite legitimate, for instance "widget frosting"... if you're money is made with hardware, then of course the software to support it should be free because it will give you a competitive advantange and you'll sell more hardware.
Now that you have proposed that electronic books should be free too, if future software manuals tend to be in electronic form (as they should, for environmental reasons as well as searchability and portability), then that is one less way in which one can make money to support one's habit of writing free software.
If the world evolves into an "information economy" then that implies that money can be made from information somehow; and I've been wondering if the free software movement is a sign of a shift in value from the software, to the information being processed. But it's also easy to see pay-per-view as one of the more evil inventions of modern times. If it's wrong to sell either information itself, or the software to manipulate it, how are we going to have an information economy? Supported-by-advertising isn't an infinitely extensible business model is it?
I suspect that these issues are not as relevant to you personally as they are to most people, but you probably also have some opinions on how it's possible to write free software for a living.
To many people, 'Open Source' software and 'Free' software synonymous.
The real difference, it would appear, is that many companies are moving in the direction of opening their source, as opposed to setting the software 'free'.
Do you feel that the GNU public license, in all its purity, has been overlooked by many, in favour of simply opening the source? (This of course giving the software vendor more freedom than taking on the whole GNU public license)
If so, is it a priority for you to cater for a greater 'width' of market? Can this be reconciled with the purity of the license, in your opinion?
thenerd.
The camels are coming. I'm in love.
When the {L,}GPL first appeared, dynamic linking was quite rare, and CORBA still over the horizon. Now these technologies are ubiquitous (and Java, in particular, doesn't have a concenpt of static linkage at all). Are we going to see updated licences which are more aware of componentized software? And do you believe that Free programs should only be used with Free plugins (and vice versa), or might it be reasonable to allow the end user to mix Free and proprietary components, so long as they are communicating via a well defined, and completely open, interface?
But I'm rather worried about a reaction to this being taken to its logical extreme, and giving a very broad definition of `derived work'. But let's try taking this to its logical extreme:
It's possible to argue that I'm setting up a `derived work' of the commercial application and grep (we'll assume that this is a GPL'ed version of grep). There's a defined protocol being used between the two components (UNIX stream I/O). Now, I fully accept that this is a contrived example, but I think it does show that this is an area where ther is a rather fine line between freedom (of users to do what they want with software) and protecting the Free nature of the software components themselves.
Of course, some of this can be dealt with by individual developers of componentized applications making a clear statement about their interpretation of the `plugin issue' in the documentation. But it would be nice to have some more debate in the community to see what the general view is.
rms,
:-)
Are you willing to situate the FSF coding room in the William H. Gates building should MIT decide to shut down your building in Tech Sq. and offer the FSF another free office?
I've noticed a significant amount of construction in that area, with at least one of those buildings demolished, but I don't know about the plans for the building in which the AI lab (and the FSF coding offices) reside. So, would you move to downtown Boston, where your business office resides, or enjoy the -- considerable -- irony of locating at least part of the FSF in a building named after the founder of Microsoft?
"Information wants to be free" and all that.
What's your view on the anticensorship protocol Freenet?
__
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
For each example think source code as well:
- We need to maintain the integrity of the FSF's version. (We need to maintain the integrity of XYZ proprietary software package.)
- We need to prevent confusion in the software world as to which GPL they are using. (We need to prevent marketplace confusion over XYZ product.)
Given every Free Software or Open Software (I'll not use them interchangably.) precept I can think of, there is no reason to have the license itself under copyRIGHT. If the FSF's version is the best, it will remain as the canonical version, otherwise, a better version will emerge. The risk of forking is the same for the license as the software licensed under it. If the license isn't in need of a Free license, why is software.Well, I'm probably off my rocker and I haven't thought this through completely, but someone probably has.
Please excuse any lack of clarity, grammar or other errors in this post. If I had to fix all of them before posting, I'd never post.
LetterJ
The Glass is Too Big: My Take on Things
Would you say that with the increasing use of GNU and other Free Software over the last few years, there is also increasing awareness to why Free Software is the right thing?
I see a lot of resources being put into propoganda by you and by the FSF. I sometimes wonder if this does not become less important, because people who get used to certain rights would also not accept being denied them.
Especially in the last couple of years we're seeing big money involved in Free Software. I'm wondering whether, even if all the software is Free, could the corporations' interests cause incompatibility problems in the GNU/Linux world.
I'm mainly concerned about splitting standards, as we can begin to see between GNOME and KDE that are backed by competing companies, or between different distributions.
Would you say that all the software being Free would solve or prevent all these problems, or that it might not be enough?
I think GPL has been very successful in promoting Free Software because libraries covered by it cannot be used with proprietary software.
But what about linking GPL software together with software covered by other, incompatible, Free licenses such as the MPL or the QPL (as we've seen in Debian's KDE problem)?
I would think that the fact the GPL does not allow it might hinder development without actually doing any good. Was this done on purposs? How would you say this issue can be resolved, other than looking for and asking the author of the GPL library for an exception clause?
What are your future plans for Emacs? Do you plan to extend it so that it cooperates well with modern infrastructure such as Gnome and Bonobo? I would sure like to be able to edit Bonobo-embedded texts with Emacs, or to see real-time rendering of an HTML file in an HTML widget.
I was starting to think about this problem when Transmeta announced their proprietary code-morphing firmware. Would you say that firmware should also be free? If so, is there any FSF project being planned to write free firmware?
Also: what do you think about attempts to create free CPU plans such as Freedom?
I remember making a project back in 1991, under X-window, using athena widget, in 1991 believe me, making X11 application was hard! i found a proggy which was using X11 and i reused some of the code to open windows, using cascading menus, and so on. Of course before doing this, i emailed the author, and he said "yes fell free to reuse my code", what i did. I have no idea what was the "license" for the software, but mine was a commercial one, and the guy never asked me to release all my source code or whatever.
all this just to say that what i like in free software, is when you can reuse the code freely.
sometimes i am confused with all the license scheme around the worodl, gnu, apache, bsd, etc. maybe i'm talking about public domain?
for me a free software is a free software with free code that people can reuse, giving credit for the part in their source, but i don't care if they sell their product and there's 100 lines of code from one of my freeware.
--
BeDevId 15453 - Download BeOS R5 Lite free!
"Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
I agree with you that deciding where to draw the line is very important, and not terribly easy to do. For example, I don't want to have an FTP client considered derivative of the FTP server. But if somebody builds a GUI shell around my "engine", I am convinced that such a thing is derivative.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I think we're just talking about parity.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
A more common problem is dynamic libraries that are distributed separately from the executable. You say that a court would hold those to be devices explicitly used to circumvent the license restrictions, but that's rather chancy, and no substitute for explicit language regarding what is, and what isn't, considered a derived work in the GPL. You seem to be hoping that copyright law will take care of that definition for you, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
There's also the problem of Application Service Providers, who make a work available for people to use without distributing it, and thus would be under no obligation to make the source code of their modifications available. Do I have to see my GPL work abused that way as well?
It seems there's a lot of new technology that the GPL isn't keeping up with. Can't we have some changes to address these things?
Thanks
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens.
What is the state of Hurd? Is it stable? Are there networking / IO / API modules yet?
What do you see as the benefit of Hurd over Linux or *BSD?
Would it be possible to get a Hurd - based system up sooner running a Linux kernel as a Hurd process a la Mach / MacOS X?
Considering the continuing change in computing hardware, esp the move to more SMP - based systems, is a microkernel architecture the way to go?
Forgive me if my questions seem naive, but I'm eagerly awaiting HurdThe fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.
Mr. Stallman,
I had recently developed some software with a friend and we ran into trouble when we got to how we were going to lisence it. He wanted to go commercial and make money with it and I wanted to release this software under the GNU GPL. How do you deal with situations like these when working with your peers? For example yourself and ESR. You manage to stay on good terms although im sure you are butting heads a lot because of your conflicting views.
--dis
--Brett
... the general public?
Ok, I had the chance to hear your talk at Linux-Expo in Paris, and even had the chance to ask you a question, and I miserrably stumbled on my words so it did'nt get very far. Let me restate here slightly differently, because I think this is a very important issue.
You've managed to win over a significant part of the programming community; however, as the DeCSS case (and Mattel etc ...) show, this is something that appeal everybody's freedom at large. But how should we reach the public? Do you have any plans for action? How do we the public and the medias to know that "Intellectual Property" is not that absolute right that big corporations have on us?
Then, a more provocative question: do you hate californians? I mean: in your talk, you never mentioned BSD even _once_. Though it seems to fit Free Software's definition pretty much. Why?
Development is slow, but I don't think it's because people feel hopeless about it. I think of the HURD as a project that WILL happen. It might take a long time, (it already has) but there are a lot of very smart people who have invested a lot of time in the project, and I really think that it will become a viable alternative.
:)
Not really hopelessness, but it may be that one of the things HURD is suffering from more is just the INTEREST in linux. Not that that's bad, but the number of people qualified to hack kernels is very finite, and if all of them are wrapped up in patching linux 2.3.x and so on they may be a little bit slower to decide to start from scratch and bone up on HURD source.
As to the differences, sometimes it seems like there are more differences between HURD and linux than there are similarities. Neither has a bad approach, just radically different approaches.
I am trying to bone up on mach and HURD to contribute to the project. I don't think many people realize what a TREMENDOUS amount of ass the HURD will kick upon completion.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
No, the FSF requires copyright assignments signed
by your employer if you contribute any code. Is it
really a win for the FSF if you contribute code
to the GNU Hurd (say, Linux binary emulation) and
Microsoft sues the FSF and wins big time?
As you are probably aware, the technical pronunciation of GNU is 'new' (if you didn't before, you do now.). (For those of you who didn't, its because when a word's root word's 'gn' only procedes OR follows (as in sign or gnome), the 'g' in the 'gn' is silent.) My question is: "What is your take on this all too important pronunciation issue? How should GNU be pronounced?"
Sorry for answering the latter one.
What does the "M" stand for?
I'm not trying to start any fights, but do you honestly think anyone's going to -- properly -- state then entire name, acronym and all? If so, how do you think it could come about?
"How many light bulbs does it take to change a person?" --BMcC-->
One thing I've never been able to find in your writing...or perhaps I'm missing it, and if so could anyone here enlighten me, is what you believe the fundamental reasonings are behind those choosing to do Open Source Software and those doing Closed Source Software? Is it simply a matter of the all mighty buck vs. the common good? Or is it more complicated and/or deeper then that? I guess what I'm asking is what do you belive the fundamental chism is between the two camps and is there a realistic way to bridge that gap? Or will the two always be fundamentally exclusive to each other?
Another rambling post brought to you by:
SgtPepper
With the idea being to look for interesting questions to moderate up, I don't understand why a moderator would waste a point to mark an off-topic question as a troll, but based upon some of what I've seen around here lately, I'd say that Malda is painfully overdue an uninterrupted month's vacation somewhere with balmy breezes and nothing any higher tech than a stone axe.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
I don't need the formula for Coke(insert lawyer appeasement here), but I sure do wish VCR's and other consumer electronics came bundled with service manuals. They're going to publish a few to sell for 35 or 50 dollars to service shops anyway, they could put one in every box for an extra 2 dollars. That way, getting the thing repaired wouldn't be such a hassle whether you do it yourself or pay someone else.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
In your recent article in the May 2000 MIT Technology Review, couched in rather a lot of words and obfusticated with marginally related scare stories, you seem to have a rather skewed view of the role of copyright, implying that once upon a time readers purchased from publishers ink-splattered pieces of paper bound together and covered, with copyright adding a modicum to the price (said increase being passed on to the person, the author, responsible for the unique and particular arrangement of those ink splatters) which was a minor and therefore tolerable annoyance, but now that modern electronics allow readers to perform for themselves the service previously provided by publishers, and even to serve as publisher for other readers, that same copyright that financially rewarded the author for his/her labors is no longer acceptable. Is that your philosophy, now that publishers can be supplanted by technology we might as well go ahead and deprive the authors of any financial reward for their labors and ignore their wishes concerning their creations? Do you feel that they have some obligation to society to create with no hope or thought of financial reward? If they have dark skin shall we inform them of another obligation to society to labor without reward, this time involving cotton fields? Or to put it more simply, now that we can bypass publishers, let's go ahead and fuck over the authors, just because we can? 'Cause it sure sounds that way to me.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Hokay, here goes:
Over the years, my socio-economic views on software have moved closer to yours. This took me several years and some conceptual revelations. You clearly sussed out the implications of infinitely copyable bits well before anyone else.
However, to the untrained observer, you espouse your points of view with a harsh, impatient energy that many people find off-putting. You stand on the intellectual peak of Free Software, beckoning others to come join you, but when others ask you to point out the logical path you took to get there, you seem to respond, "Isn't it obvious??"
No, it isn't. Not to everyone, anyway. (I'm marginally clever, and I had to pick my own way up the mountain.) Have you considered, if not "softening" the energy of your views, at least conceptually decomposing the path to Free Software so that more people can grok how you got there, and how other people can get there, too?
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
Mr. Stallman, How do you feel about ASP model of software development and its affects on free software? For example, do you feel that hosted apps (such as yahoo maps, for example) should have GPL'd source code available?
Well for starters, RMS is not a big fan of OSS, as that's a marketing phrase designed simply to sound "better" than "Free Software." Of course, "Open Source Software" says nothing about freedom, and that's what RMS will probably tell you if you ask him this question again.
---
The recent discussion about the Mattel Webfilter countersoftware
raised some interesting points, namely:
- A (free) software license may only be valid when money was paid
- A (free) software license may require a (hand-written) signed
document to be non-retractable
This could be solved by central trusted instances that free software
authors hand their copyright over (signing a document and receiving a
dollar), so that users of this trusted software know that the original
author may not retract the license. They have to trust the central
authority that could retract it, but a trusted instance would be a big
improvement over random software authors. Also, we may have several
such central instances, each package "sells" the copyright to one of
them and sells a non-retractable license to several others.
For GNU software, the FSF already does this, at least the signing
part.
Questions:
- Do you consider paying the dollar (or such) for the license and/or
copyright transfer, just in case it may proof required?
- Would the FSF accept such a role of central authority for free
software that is covered not by the GPL, but GPL-compatible
licenses, such as the BSD (without advertising clause) or MIT/X11
licenses?
- Would the FSF be in a role to actively build a network of such
trusted instances?
Martin Cracauer cracauer@freebsd.org
I'd like to know your/the FSF's position on Java. Obviously Sun's
policy regarding development of the core language (through standard
processes) and access to the JDK lacks what we want (both the GPL -
style free software people and the "OpenSource"/BSD people).
On the other hand, some people say that Java is a great opportunity
for free software, namely the ease of code sharing, the improved trust
one can set into a library (compared to a C library), portability and
some abstraction features (passive reflection, inner classes,
namespaces). Those people argue that Java will make a project model
of great coders doing core libraries and less programming-mad people
using them to create applications in their non-programming/
non-computing domain easier and/or more effective.
Questions:
- Do your think that free Java tools reached the critical mass to
continue use of Java even when we can't use Sun's tools anymore?
- Do you think the free software Java movement is big enough to split
the language in the extreme case, renaming it and doing something
that is "just" compatible to Sun's Java?
- Do you share the above opinion that Java might make free software
projects more effective (especially desktop projects)?
- What is considered "linking" in the GPL sense for a Java program?
Putting the class files into the same zip/jar file?
As one of the most prominent "elder generation" hackers, and as one who has worked extensively with *non*-Unix systems such as ITS and the Lisp Machine, what do you see as an important focus for free software programmers in the near future? My (limited) personal experience with, for example, Lisp vs. C has led me to believe that more productive and useful systems can be designed on high-level languages than C-based ones such as Unix, Windows, BeOS, etc. Is the Unix platform worth keeping on technological merits? I understand the social reasons for adopting Unix as the base for a free-software system; now that we have one, what next?
(Anything potentially inflammatory here is not meant to be taken as such.)
:-)
:-) and would a clause like this meet with your approval, since it promotes free software reuse in general, or disapproval, since it potentially degrades the notion of copyleft as defined by the gpl?
One of the most practical problems I see with the gpl is its incompatability with other 'free software' (but non-copyleft) licenses.
Have you ever thought about making changes to the gpl to remove these practical problems. Something along the lines of (but much more legalese than
<ahem>
"you may link this program with source code that meets the definition of "free software" as defined by the Free Software Foundation, as long as you can apply the additional *basic* restriction of the gpl (complete source code availability as set forth within the gpl guidelines) to the Program as a whole" {{{optionally: "... and no additional restrictions are imposed on the gpl code as a consequence of linking against said source code"}}}
</ahem>
The intent would be to preserve freeness of the entire code base (something the lgpl can't do) while removing the compatibility issue for linking against other free software (think old bsd)
Would something like this be worth a separate license (it seems part of the very spirit of the gpl is incompatability w/ other free software licenses
more generally, have you ever considered free software compatibility issues in terms of "what can I do to 'fix' the gpl" vs "what can I do to 'fix' other licenses (ie bsd)"?
regards, Buck
One of the many goals of the GPL is to promote the freedom of the code. However, to gain that freedom, the GPL imposes some rather onerous restrictions of derived works which is rather expansive. These restrictions are so restrictive in nature that one cannot write GPL'd code which calls proprietary code if one doesn't have the rights to use distribute that proprietary code. This significantly limits the ability of people on proprietary systems to contribute free software under the GPL. Please explain how this helps to further software freedom.
This just in on Slashdot:
Bruce Perens writes "Be is violating the GPL on my software. While it's something they can easily fix, it's a good example of why people need to keep track of where the software they are using came from, and what license is applied to it."
This brings up in my mind some fundamental GPL enforcement issues. No one can spend all his time checking that his GPL released software isn't being used in proprietary code - there're too many proprietary programs. For that matter, how could someone even verify it given access only to the binaries?
For example, suppose some company released a product which links in the GNU gmp library for bignum handling. How would the FSF realize this is occurring?
A lot of people make claims like "games can't be
free software" for various reasons, but I've always thought it's because we've never had a hugely successful Free-speech game -- when I say successful I mean on the scale of Quake or Warcraft or NHL '99. It seems that most of the "free software community" is perfectly willing to give games an exception to the "we won't use it unless it's free" philosophy.
Is there anything different about the Gaming marketplace that prevents it from being free? Should the community refuse to play non-free games (ie no Quake III - only Quake I, etc.) Will you go to Texas and try and convince Carmack to open the source to Q3? (The industry is pretty good about following in whatever he does)
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon?
-- Give him Head? Be a Beacon? :P)
(If you can't figure out how to E-Mail me, Don't.
I've modified some term of my contract with every employer I've ever had including with such biggies as IBM, Apple, and Dow Jones/Telerate. All you want is to make it clear that if you do software development on your own time on your own premises using your own equipment not using any proprietary information of your employer's - you own it. The time to make this clear is whenever you are being asked to sign something to the contrary.
I play Nerd-Folk!
For several years the GNU project has touted its Guile Scheme interpreter as the future configuration/scripting language for GNU applications. To date, none of the major GNU programs (GCC, GDB, Emacs, Make) embed Guile. Do you expect this to change soon? Have you considered replacing Scheme with Java in this plan?
Thanks
-John
I'm currently attempting to persuade a hardware manufacturer to provide unobfuscated source code and hardware documentation to free driver writers.
In your opinion, what is the best and/or most effective way to go about this? The court of public opinion? Economic arguments? Pointing out the higher quality of free drivers? Or should I just advise people to move to more enlightened hardware manufacturers.
(Thanks for the GNU/Abacus, by the way!)
--
how to invest, a novice's guide
What were the postive results of your meeting with the Pope? Did he let you wear his hat?
When will I hear your song on my local radio station?
Under US patent law, I don't know that a free-software patent-pool would do anything significant except waste money--a better solution is to, when you come up with an idea for something new, create a reference implementation. This stops anyone else from gaining a pat for it, in the future, as you can easily demonstrate prior art.
Also, being able to say that something is unpatented helps assure everyone that no one--not even you--are going to abuse a patent. Witness PNG.
-rozzin.
Lets assume for a moment that free software becomes the way business happens. Every company, if it wants to keep shareholder value anyway, opens up the source, makes their softwre free. What's next? Where do you go from there? What do you do for an encore? Or is that the "end of the war" and at that point, GPL protecting our freedoms, you go back to coding?
ZOMG I WOULD LOVE TO KNOW ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ON MACINTOSH VERSUS WINDOWS, VI VERSUS EMACS, AND HOW YOU'RE NOT A DORK
(Aww, come on, moderate it up. I just want to see what he says. :) )
--Tom
Tom Geller
1) The personal question:
You are widely perceived as a person who stands up for what you believe and never, ever back down. Has there been any case where you have changed your position on something that you had previously considered to be a matter of principle? In other words, has anyone ever convinced you that a position you took was wrong? If so, what was the position, and what was the argument that convinced you?
2) The ethical/free-software question:
The GPL, for all its merits, has a disadvantage (in my view) that it is incompatible with almost every other free software license. If someone could come up with a license that would offer most of the protections of the GPL, but offer compatibility with other free software licenses -- something in between the GPL and the LGPL that allowed linking with anything so long as it was under an approved free software license, for example -- would you endorse or support such a license? If not, why not (especially considering that you do endorse the LGPL, albeit not very enthusiastically)?
Stuart.
way back in the days of yore, linus started his little experiment and basically said it wasn't going to be "big and professional, like gnu". How did you gnu guys find linux and help make it "big and professional"?
I post links to stuff here
What are your view points on legalization/decriminilization?
Here is why I believe a free country is just as important as free software.
The Free Software/Open Source paradigm has had a powerful impact on the computing industry, from the development of the internet and the world wide web, to the emergence of Linux and FreeBSD.
Recently you published an open license for publishers, extending some of the concepts of the GPL to another area of endeavor: book publication.
At openflick.org there is an effort I and other ware working on to extend this concept into the areas of music and video production, and I imagine there are numerous other projects which are similarly trying to create an "open commons" of material for their particular areas of interest as well.
Do you see the concepts embodied in the free software movement and the GPL being extended successfully into other areas of endeavor, and if so, what practical suggestions do you have for people trying to achieve this? What kinds of mistakes and pitfalls do you see, based on your experiences with creating the GPL? When looking for help in charting such new territory, what resources would you suggest one turn to for help?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Is the hair the secret to your power?
I am serious about this - when did you decide to grow it out? Do you feel it has helped shape your life or set you apart?
I have a younger brother who skipped a few months of haircutting and wrote his first compiler at 15. Is it the hair? He is growing it out now, will he be the next champion of programming?
Thank you and good day.
In other words, it appears to me that with the availability of both copy right and left, we are having our cake and eating it, too. We have propriety software to lead development in marginally worthwhile things, and rich people that will pay them to do it. And for the rest of us, we have an increasingly vast corpus of good freebeer freedom software.
Or to put it another way: is not the GPL itself implemented in copyright? It is as if you were for Unix but against C.
power, basically.
:)
knowledge is power
so if someone (or by extension some small group of people) know what the source code to a program is, they have all the power whereas in opensource, anyone with the testicular fortitude to hack at the code can share in the power of knowledge.
money is, by extension, an issue...but only in the closed-source model...if you have all the power (aka. source) in a closed-source model, you're the only one who makes money off the product. in the open source business model sorta thinghee, this doesn't work since anyone (potentially everyone) has the source and hence the power to make money off it...the way open source projects make money is by selling something else, whether it be support, packaging, manuals, whatever...anything _except_ the product based on the source since anyone can compile and release it too, you have no advantage (in a closed-source kinda sense).
basically in the closed-source model, making money off the product _depends_ on the source being closed whereas in the open-source model, making money off the product depends on _anything but_ the source, whatever state it's in.
so yes, the two are mutually exlusive
-dk
-dk
Dream with the feathers of angels stuffed beneath your head.
As a hardcore user of the top two free versions of EMACS, it has always struck me as divisive and counterproductive the split between the parties of GNU EMacs and XEmacs. In the past two years, I have been mostly using XEmacs and find its features a tad more complete and useful than those of GNU Emacs. I have also read about the history of the fork, but mostly from the XEmacs side of the fence. It seems to me that most of the technical and philosophical (XEmacs originally being part of a commercial Lucid product) can now be put aside.
So my question is, given that both versions of Emacs are free, in the sense championed by the FSF, and that the technical issues that originated the split seem to be melting away, couldn't we see a deliberate effort by the FSF towards the goal of merging the code GNU Emacs and FSF Emacs?
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
Every system has it's weak points. Where does the open source model (and the GPL) break down and becaome ineffective or inhibiting? What are the alternatives to the open source/GPL model under these circumstances?
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Would you like to see more free software kernels out there, which could be used as part of a GNU system, as the Linux kernel is currently used? Would you like new kernels to be able to compete on a level playing field based on quality, technology and other merits? Would you like to eliminate a major barrier to entry for alternative kernels, including the HURD?
Enough of the rhetorical questions; here's the real question: Would you reconsider supporting Project UDI, so that developers don't have to waste time duplicating effort supporting the same devices in one kernel after another?
Yes, I know you've already addressed this question, but I believe it bears revisiting. Here is a quote from your opening:Isn't this exactly the sort of cooperation that free software is intended to encourage? Can't we work towards the ideal you've described? Must we shackle ourselves to poor legacy practices merely because proprietary interests could benefit? The free software community has a lot to gain here in the long term, and it may help us more than the proprietary interests in the end...
At risk of making this posting way too long, let me briefly respond to some of your objections:
- "People could run free GPL-covered Linux drivers with Windows systems." If the GPL-covered drivers are dynamically loaded, this is probably true. However, the cat's out of the bag on this one; the proprietary company could always port the GPL driver to UDI themselves.
- "It would not directly hurt us, either; but the developers of GPL-covered free drivers could be discouraged to see them used in this way, and that would be very bad." Look at the flip side; developers of GPL-covered free drivers might be very encouraged to see their driver used on a wide variety of free kernels, knowing that their efforts have been leveraged to increase the greater good. (This could outweigh the downside of possible use by proprietary systems, couldn't it?)
- "People could run non-free Windows drivers on GNU/Linux systems." The cat's out of the bag on this one already also; since Linus has declared the API between the Linux kernel and device drivers to be public, and not covered by the GPL, it is already possible to distribute proprietary drivers for Linux. (One might try to argue that this is still improper under the GPL, but Linus would have to enforce it, and it appears that he won't.)
- "To the extent that the community began to accept the temptation, we would be moving to using non-free drivers instead of writing free ones." This is a user/developer education issue more than anything. It is important to help people understand the value of freedom for its own sake. Many people have trouble with that concept (witness the struggles of the Libertarian Party), since too many people are willing to sacrifice liberty for convenience. This is an ongoing battle, with or without UDI.
- "But why encourage the community to be weaker than it needs to be? Why make unnecessary difficulties for the future of free software? Since UDI does no good for us, it is better to reject UDI." Having a lack of stable APIs for device drivers makes us weaker. (Look at how often Linux drivers have needed to be recoded to adapt to kernel architectural changes.) Having incompatible drivers between different free operating systems (e.g. Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, HURD) creates unnecessary difficulties, keeping us much more factionalized, which makes us much weaker than Windows. If free operating system developers could cooperate and leverage their efforts, we have a lot to be gained here. What does Microsoft have to gain here? Not much; the hardware vendors will always write drivers for Windows without Microsoft lifting a finger, as long as Windows is the dominant platform. If we could level the playing field with UDI, Microsoft would lose a key strategic advantage they currently enjoy over free operating systems.
- "Given these consequences, it is no surprise that Intel, a supporter of UDI, has started to ``look to the Linux community for help with UDI.'' How does a richand self-seeking company approach a cooperating community? By asking for a handout, of course. They have nothing to lose by asking, and we might becaught off guard and say yes." I agree that Intel was less than tactful in asking (nay, expecting) Linux developers to assume the burden of UDI driver development. (Bear in mind, however, that UDI originated with SCO a number of years before Intel recently jumped on the bandwagon; it started as a standardization attempt for UNIX systems.) Indeed, Intel is hoping to freeload off our efforts. They should have offered some fair compensation for our efforts, such as writing their own UDI drivers for all old and new Intel hardware, and releasing those drivers as free software along with hardware specifications. A commitment like that would have been taken more seriously. Instead, they asked for a handout, and it backfired on them. Now we have many honorable members of the free software community hostile to the idea of UDI (irrespective of the technology) because of the (correct) perception that Intel (and others) would like to take advantage of our efforts in this area. At the same time, "don't cut off your nose to spite your face." Free software can benefit greatly from a common API (whether UDI or not), and refusing to use one because it might help "the enemy" still leaves us in the same mess we've been in for too long. Let's evaluate it on the benefits we can derive, not on the benefits we can deny to the opposition.
- "One way to make a deal a good one could be by modifying the UDI project itself. Eric Raymond has proposed that UDI compliance could require that the driver be free software. That would be ideal, but other alternatives could also work. Just requiring source for the driver to be published, and not a trade secret, could do the job--because even if that driver is not free, it would at least tell us what we need to know to write a free driver." Actually, a good start would be to convince them to honor their commitment to place the specification in the public domain as described in the following paragraph from the "Project UDI Policies and Procedures" page:
- "One difficulty with any deal with Intel about UDI is that we would do our part for Intel at the beginning, but Intel's payback would extend over a long time." Not necessarily; we could implement UDI environments for free operating systems and wait for them to start creating some UDI drivers before we put too much more effort into it. After all, they have a vested interested; they'll surely invest some effort into writing drivers if they can't get us to subsidize their bottom line with charity work. Free-software developers might still port some drivers in their own interest (e.g. a FreeBSD hacker porting a Linux driver to UDI, perhaps) but we wouldn't have to "loan" our efforts to Intel (et al) if we choose not to. Even if we don't, we might as well implement UDI environments to take advantage of the work of proprietary companies...
Basically, I believe that a common device-driver API represents the best opportunity for new free operating systems to flourish without having to compete with established free operating systems (much less Windows) on the basis of levels of device driver support. Whether UDI is the best API for this, I don't know. Perhaps UDI will be a dismal failure for performance reasons, as Alan Cox repeatedly insists will be the case. Perhaps a better API will come along. But we need something if we're to stop wasting time retracing our steps over and over again. Right now, UDI seems like the best prospect, and I believe we should embrace it for our own benefit rather than letting fear of possible misuse dissuade us from improving our software and methodology.This statement couldn't be any more clear, yet the UDI 1.0 specification as finally released has an entire page filled to the brim with copyright declarations. A good question for Project UDI is why they failed to follow through on this commitment. (The lawyers probably insisted...)
UDI drivers released by vendors would be valuable to us, even if some of those vendors fail to release their UDI drivers as free software. First, the source to a non-free driver might be published by the vendor, simply to increase market share -- UDI compatibility is only guaranteed at the source level. Even if the source is not released, the UDI driver is tightly constrained; it must funnel all interaction with outside code and actual devices through the UDI environment implementation -- this allows "black box" investigations that can easily see what effects the driver has, even if the source is not available. This should make UDI drivers easier to reverse-engineer than Windows drivers, especially if a special "test-rig" UDI environment implementation was created to facilitate such reverse-engineering.
Personally, I'd like to play around with writing a new kernel from scratch, even if nobody but me ever uses it. I may never finish (or even start) such a project, or it may never be useful compared to a mature kernel like Linux. Suppose (for the sake of argument) that I do finish it, and it's somehow superior to the design of the Linux kernel (as it sounds like HURD may be) -- would I really want to port all Linux drivers to this kernel and maintain them? Of course not. I'd much rather invest the time once in implementing a UDI environment, and support free-software UDI drivers, unchanged. That's what people mean when they talk about "working smarter, not harder"...
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
When I started learning about developing software with GNU and using the GPL, I found myself reading quite a bit of what I would deem philosophical material. When I hear you and yours talk about why software should be free, I feel almost like I were attending some Congress of the young United States in which certain inalienable rights were drafted.
I have a been a computer enthusiast for as long as I can remember. But I haven't really paid much attention to free software until three or four years ago, and at that point "gratis" meant more to me than "free." It wasn't until very recently that I even knew that I had reason to be discontent with non-free software, or that I should value a form of freedom I had never even considered before.
How can you convince a people to acknowledge this freedom, when they don't realize they are enslaved? And what is the moral code that makes free software right? I have read some literature in favor of free software (particularly GPL software) that might also be used in defending religious practices -- in the name of freedom -- that many in this community would lambast.
Sir Stallman,
You have seemed to differ with ESR in the past over the mixing of corporatism with Free Software. Do you consider recent crashing of Linux stocks as an example of that viewpoint?
p.s. Did you own any Linux stocks?
----- if ($anyone_cares) {print "Just Another Perl Newbie"}
warn "Just Another Perl User" if $anyone_cares;
Mr Stallman-
I noticed that way back in June 1988 on one of the installments of GNU's Bulletin (vol. 1, no. 5), you urged people to avoid purchasing Macintoshes or writing programs targetting the Macintosh platform, as a protest against Apple's role in the look-and-feel copyright lawsuits.
Do you still urge developers not to write code for the Macintosh platform? Even code that falls under the GPL? Obviously you're not completely ignoring Apple, since you wrote a commentary on their attempt at an open source license some months back.
I would think that the benefits of pushing GPL'd code onto as many platforms as possible, (thus further spreading the GNU Message and making more people aware of the benefits of Free Software), would outweigh the drawbacks of providing support for a platform that is backed by a company whose business practices one does not agree with.
-Felix
arvind rulez
The problem of Free Software seems to me not at all related to figuring out how to make a buck by selling services as some other poster suggested. Instead it should seek to limit the reach and duration of all intellectual property claims.
The real question ought to be how can we rationally draw a line between intellectual property and tangible property rights so that attacks against the former don't also fall against the latter.
RMS is the Patron Saint of Free Software Keep up the outstanding work, Mr. Stallman!
CmdrTaco Rules!! Slashdot is the best, in spite of it's shortcomings.
Why build something other than Unix? Because the rest of the world is already doing Unix. How passe... *yawn* ;-)
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Judging from the userbases and past successes of Mac, Amiga, and Windows, there would seem to be a demand for a fast single-user operating systems. Yet there are no well-known free OSes like that. Is there anything special about Unix that has made it particularly suitable for adoption by free software advocates?
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Remeber people, it is called Free Software, not Open Source Software. RMS is going to hate this! (or maybe love it, since he gets to correct everyone.) This, along with several things, is something that RMS feels very strongly about, and with good reason. OSS does not have the same meaning as Free Software. Read this to understand more Free Software
The basic sleazeware produced in a drunken fury by a bunch of UCBerkeley grad students was still the core of BIND. --PV
Would you like to sing The Free Software Song again? (That will obviously please jwz, as he then would have even more ``evidence''... :-)
--
The obvious answer is to reply with the list of products made by your company for which no support exists once you have "end-of-life'd" it. Similarly, state that if you buy 'closed source' versions of any product you still have no guarentee that anyone is going to be around to support it if the supplier/manuafacturer goes out of business or "end of life's it".
With Open Source products, the situation is slightly different; there are a number of people apart from the primary distributor who you can reach out to and ask for help and assistance.This effectively means you have a second safety net. Your support with Open Source products has multiple redundancy, and thus is better than a "closed" source product.
You can normally purchase support for an Open Source product as with any other - e.g. I'm sure Red Hat, Caldera et al. would be delighted to offer support for Linux and will tell you how much they charge for the service.
Simply be honest and say that if you insist on having "someone to blame" support, you pay for it like everyone else. However most people using Open Source products find they can post a question on UseNet and have a free solution within 24 hours. And if noone does know the solution to your problem, you can try and fix it yourself; something you almost certainly have no chance of doing with a closed product.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
What do you think is necessary to get open source projects started on the kind of things that make suits start noticing (e.g. Office suites, Groupware, Contact Management, and a pretty, user friendly OS)?
And what do you think is necessary to get open source projects to start distributing their projects in a more user friendly manner?
Although we might enjoy tweaking a package to get it to work, it is not something that is likely to be done by a sysadmin on several hundred clients.
So, all in all, what do you think is necessary to get OSS ready for prime time?
If it were up to you, what remedy would you impose on Microsoft?
Tweet, tweet.
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
If you release the algorithm under the GPL, commercial software interests won't touch it with a ten-foot pole. It makes a rather effective, and quite free-software-friendly way of protecting your IP, while keeping your options open to alternate licensing schemes (that are more agreeable to said software interests).
Look at FFTW for a case study of this approach. It's a library for performing Fourier transforms, distinguished for being faster than anything out there. They have it available as a free, GPL'ed download, and sell commercial licenses for a pretty penny.
iSKUNK!
I've read your explanation of why "Linux" should more properly be referred to as "GNU/Linux" (and therefore, "GNU/Hurd" as well). It seems to me that, following the same logic, a Solaris machine with the proprietary user programs stripped off and installed with the GNU system could in some sense properly be referred to as a "GNU/Solaris" system. (Of course, the example could be repeated for AIX, HP-UX, IRIX, etc.)
My understanding of your position is that you disagree with "GNU/Solaris" as being proper.
So my question is simple: why not?
- Method of Business Patents (Amazon, etc.)
- deCSS court cases
- RIAA vs. MP3, Napster, etc.
- Censorship cases [Mattel vs. CP Hack, Australia's censorship attempts, the Demon UK ruling, etc.]
- conflicting versions of Java, Javascript, etc.
- domain registration conflicts
- DCMA and UCITA legislation
What do you think that we need to do to insure that free, open source (GPL, LGPL, etc.) software survives in this current litigious and regulatory climate?...Open Source isn't the only answer -- but it's almost always a better value than the alternatives...
How do you feel about OSS software
More importantly, how do you feel about people who use an acronym and then expand part of the acronym? For example,
SAT (or ACT) test
PC computer
SIMM memory
FSF foundation
Is this redundancy morally wrong, or merely non-optimal? And what do you think about the pedants who point these errors out? Jerks, or merely really really bored?
What's the cost of losing the tool? In my 15 years of MIS experience I have received virtually no support from a software vendor. The only people from whom I have consistently received support (which varies greatly in quality) are my VARs. I have had one successful support call with Sybase, I've never needed to call on Oracle, I have completely given up on calling Microsoft. No other software vendor has provided me with any direct support. Admittedly, I am hardly an entire organization. In the places I've worked over the last 15 years, good value has been obtained primarily from the VARs who sold the package (from IBM's support of our RS-6000s to DEC's support of our bigger Alpha servers [running HP/UX, to be sure] and Sun's support of our E10000).
VARs provide most of the support. Selecting a good var matters more to me than individual software vendors. I really would rather have the source. Programmer's do cost money. That's why they should be paid to build systems and fix problems, not to sit on hold for many hours only to find that no one on the other end of the phone knows the first thing about their own product.
The support myth is just that. I'll take source over an 800 number any day of the week.
This is the basic issue so many people have with support and open source software--closed, commercial softare provides little enough in the way of guarantees, but open source provides even less in most (but not all) cases.
I couldn't disagree with this more strongly than I do. I've had a number of nifty little closed-source commercial products that I have used, and continue to use, to aid me in software development. I have a set of C documentation tools that I run under DOSEMU on my Linux box to help me cross reference my code. These companies have long since discontinued their products and support for them and there is not one thing I can do about it. So I rely on open source tools (Linux and DOSEMU) to extend their useful life.
If these had been free software (in the FSF sense) I would have had the source code and the option to port them to my more modern operating systems. When you have the source you have a much better support guarantee than you can or will EVER get from a closed source vendor.
Sure, IBM, Oracle, and Microsoft are going to be around for some time. There is (probably) little risk in selecting them as a vendor. But they do have you on the upgrade treadmill. How many companies that bought into OS/2 (and there are more of them than you think, especially in the banking and insurance sectors) are now abandoning it out of fear that IBM will stop supporting it?
So, while I think a case can be made for the purchase of closed solutions for the "big" "enterprise" system components (OS, database, etc.), it is in the smaller utility and yes, specialty development tool space that I think free software is ALWAYS more supportable. Truth is, I think this open source supportability question extends to the "big ticket" items as well.
So, you use a tool from a small company. It goes under. You've got nothing.
You use a tool from a free software product. The developer abandons it. What do you have? Nothing? Nonsense! You've got the source code and the right to use it. (This is part of why the GPL is so important -- this guarantee of your present and future right to use the code.)
I don't think the AC here meant to make a FUDish statement -- I can se where he/she is coming from, but I still think he/she is DEAD WRONG!
Are you considering broadening the mandate of free speech products to include open art, open music, etc... Do you think that the open content license:
http://www.opencontent.org/opl.shtml
is a good idea ?
Will the free software foundation support open hardware efforts like:
http://www.opencores.org/
Hardly absurd questions. The vast majority of people in the community see the "Linux vs LiGnuX vx GNU/Linux" controversy as trivial. This is the small stuff. It is a very valid question to ask why RMS spends a seemingly inordinate amount of time and bile in his insistance that we use his terminology.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
What are your opinions on patenting and OSS (and possibly the BSD license)
The BSD license IS Open Source and Free Software!!!
Ditto for the MIT, QPL, MPL, and even the Artistic License (despite RMS's objections to the contrary, the AL meets all requirements of the OSD and his own list of free software definitions).
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Why do you guys at GNU keep on with your tactic of Orwellian GNUspeak? We can all see through your charade. Please don't tell us what words we can use. We are not children!
Free Software does not equal only GNU and GNU is not the sum of all Free Software. Yet each and every Free Software project outside of GNU calls themselves BOTH Free Software and Open Source Software. Both the GPL and the LGPL are Open Source licenses. There is a 99.99% overlap between Free Software and Open Source Software. GNU IS OPEN SOURCE! Or did you mistype and really meant to say the "GNU Community".
RMS states that he wishes that English had a better term for "free". Well, it does! That word is "open" and it much better fits what is meant than "libre" (though it is still an imperfect adjective). There are no physical or metaphysical chains or shackles upon me when I use closed source software. To equate Free Software with liberty is ludicrous and an insult to the memory of everyone who ever died to give you the guarantee to the right of free speech.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Sorry, I was trying to keep my post short. I failed to mention yet another tactic in our schem^H^H^H^H^Hfight against software ownership. We don't directly castigate anyone who releases their software under a non-GNU license. Instead we publish an educational article on Free Software. Therein we list all approved Free Software licenses, but we explain each an every one of them as being substandard and inferior to our own. We use phrases like "obnoxious advertising terms" and "no protection against exploitation" and "not GPL compatible".
Then when only a few people are using those other licenses, we start picking them off one by one. As a case in point, we once declared the Artistic License to be Free (but inferior). Now, however, our tactic tells us to change our minds and declare it unfree, proprietary and enslaving.
p.s. True story: I once received an email from a member of GNU asking me to reconsider my decision to license my own software under the Artistic License. He warned me of possible exploitation, and that perhaps I wasn't aware of the benefits of using the GPL. This was pretty amazing to me as my software is pretty obscure to begin with. I obliged him and changed my license to the new BSD. I hope he's happy.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I would be more than willing to give up the right to free speach if it meant silencing retarded morons like you.
Ah yes, so this is how the Stallmanistas really view free speech. An impediment to their sensibilities.
Voltaire: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."
Anonymous Coward" "Do us all a favor and shut the fuck up."
Thank you for stating the GNU position so succinctly.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
In your rush to invent unalienable rights out of whole cloth, you fail to understand the essence of freedom.
I am not subjugated when I use a closed source program, such as Windows, StarOffice or Java, because I have full and unconstrained free will to use or not to use them. Subjugation, domination and oppression (Stallman's terms) presuppose a lack of choice. But I have every choice in the world to pick between Windows or Linux, VC++ or g++. I did not have to grab my musket and march off to Bunker Hill in order to use Linux. I did not have to pledge my sacred honor and fortune to use Linux. I simply went and picked it up. I had full free will in the matter. It was not an act of rebellion at all.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Just because I refuse to assign myself the appelation of "oppressed" does not infer that I am a rand-bot, randroid or objectivist.
If you wish to wallow in delusion that freedom is derived from software licenses, then go right ahead. Just don't expect me to join you. 'Cause I don't need no special dispensation from St. iGNUtius before I'm free.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I make this distinction, because if I understand copyright law and your structure, then GPL'd software isn't enough. Unless all the code is copyrighted by the same person (fictional or real), then the license would be difficult to enforce.
So here's what we do: start a campaign decrying copyrights as imoral. Castigate anyone who retains ownership of source code, even if they release it under a innocuous unrestrictive license like MIT. At the same time, we have to discourage people from following up on this by their releasing stuff into the public domain. So we attack public domain as anarchistic and lacking protection for the author's rights. When everyone gets all confused over this, and can't decide whether they should relinquish ownership rights and take it public domain, or hold on the copyright in face of public disapproval, we step in with tactic number three. We offer ourselves up as arbiters of morality and demand that they transfer ownership and copyrights to us. After all, it is only we that have the moral foundations and rightness of purpose and strength of will not to abuse ownership priviledges. Software ownership is wrong, so let us own your software for you.
Yes, this means that we will be in a position of legal and political authority over you if we hold title to the software you yourselves wrote. But fear not! Our dictatorship of the hacker will wither away in time, leaving all people free.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
You have stated several times that the restrictions and conditions in the GPL serve the purpose of ensuring freedom, to guarantee that the source code will always be available for copying, modifications and redistribution.
You have also stated on several occasions that copyrights for software are wrong, and even have a few articles and links to articles on that line at www.gnu.org. Yet, because copyrights exist, you use them "defensively" to protect software through the GPL and LGPL.
But what if copyright laws were repealed? What then? What would now protect software? What prevents people from statically linking their closed source programs to readline? What prevents people from distributing emacs itself closed source? What prevents people from distributing binary-only encrypted derivations of gcc that require monetary payments to obtain the key?
How is a future without copyrights any better for software than simply releasing software as public domain today?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Care to share the last part of your su manpage with us? The last part of mine says:
--version
Print version information on standard output then
exit successfully.
FSF GNU Shell Utilities 1
, which I'd hardly call weird.
Ooh, fun. Anybody wanna crack richies home box? :-)
You should ask that question from ESR; we're not members of the open source community, we're members of the free software community. Please see this page for an explanation.
Would not a very effective reply be, "Well, what company is supporting FooProduct now that we aren't?", and leading into a brief push for the benefits of being able to choose your support vendor independently of the code provider, to the point of hiring your own programmers if need be.
:-)
Of course, I've been told I lack tact in such situations, so perhaps that would not be an effective reply.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Hi
Many people see the open source movement heading in opposite direction to corporations and government. But governements are responsible for some major "open" enterprises, like our road systems. They made sure that telephone communications were "open" (design your phone and plug-it anywhere) and have been a major player in the scientific research domain.
It strikes me as natural that everyone pays, through taxes, for building an open infra-structure for open-source software, like we do for science, roads, etc... Why do most people see this dichotomy between open source and goverment? Is the FSF or any major player in the open-source movement lobbying to get government funding?
Thanks
How important is the Linux Standard Base to the long term success of GNU/Linux? How do you feel about Red Hat first embracing the LSB and now shying away from it? What does this imply about free software companies' allegience to standards in general?
Ryan
First off, I notice several people here saying "open source software" as if you should have an opinion on that, when you've made it relatively clear in the past that you're only interested in the "free software" (FSF style). Do you dislike the "open source" but not "free" programs? Do you use them at all?
:)
;)
Next, there's a lot of problem whenever you go out in public about the "GNU/Linux" vs. "Linux" thing. Personally I've been tempted on several occasions to build a linux distribution without any GNU parts just to avoid this problem.
Let me explain, now, that I have a great amount of respect for you, and for FSF, and GNU software in general. My contention is that you can't force somebody to say "GNU/Linux." While most of the supporting apps and utils are likely GNU, that doesn't mean the system is GNU. (HURD, of course, would be.)
So the question is: What is your opinion of -- well -- people like myself, who are willing to acknowledge GNU contributions, but aren't comfortable tacking a GNU onto the beginning of the name? Certainly there's nothing in the GPL that says "each product using this code must have GNU in the name..." I personally find it very offensive that you would refuse to speak to me on the grounds that I don't tack a GNU onto the front.
In an ideal world, would software be free, in the speach and beer senses? I know that you endorse the free speach end more, but wouldn't the software eventually become free in the beer style, too?
Lastly, I notice that people have started to abbreviate your name, which makes you sound like a VMS system service. What's your opinion of VMS, especially the RMS service?
As the GPL hasn't had a chance to be tested in court, it may yet fail to hold water. Wouldn't it be a good thing if someone were to violate the GPL so they could be sued to have a legal precident to go by? It seems like "If the GPL is going to fail in court, it would be better if it happened before any more code falls under it". What do you think?
The louder he talked of his honour, the faster we counted our spoons. -- Ralph Waldo Emerson
What question do you think is the most important one we could ask you and what's the answer to it?
--
Linux MAPI Server!
http://www.openone.com/software/MailOne/
(Exchange Migration HOWTO coming soon)
First... what is the reasoning behind that quite odd bit at the last part of the GNU su man page.....
.. but free software is free software... and their contribution is just as great as the FSF's...
;)
Secondly... what is the big quarrel with the BSD movement.... I mean, i know you don't agree
Don't fall into your own fears...
There was an "Ask Slashdot" on this a couple of days ago.
There are a huge number of FAQs on it. It's pretty simple.
If you are linking in the traditional sense (using a C Library or something), then the answer is yes, the program code must be GPLed
If you are using somthing like CORBA, no one is quite sure... the GPL needs to be cleared up because the definition of linking isn't clear enough.
You seem to approach just about everything with a rather suprising amount of intensity and focus.
What sort of things do you do in your spare time, and do you approach them with the same amount of intensity that you have for free software?
--
then it comes to be that the soothing light at the end of your tunnel is just a freight train coming your way
What if. . .
Copyrights and patents are both completely abolished by Congress tomorrow. Would the world be a better place? What problems would you anticipate during the transition? Do you think that it would become appropriate to reinstitute more limited forms of copyrights and/or patents?
If you woke up tomorrow and all software were made free (thus eliminating the major impetus for the GNU system), what sorts of things would you start hacking on? What promising ideas have you seen lately that you'd be interested in bringing to the state of the art? What program is just screaming, "RMS, please code me, so I can change the face of computing!"? :)
You're a suburbanite.
I'm sure this question will be asked more than once... But here I go.
We have all been long waiting for the HURD kernel. Some of us have read a bit about it, and -no doubt- it sounds very, very good. Now, HURD has been in pre-beta stages for several years already. Do you think that Linux has acted as a negative effect for the HURD development? Many developers, in my opinion, prefer adding features or polishing existing ones in an already-working and very popular system than hacking the most obscure bits of a system which may never see the light.
On the other hand, being the HURD as modular as I understand it is (and please don't flame me, I am not very much into the guts of operating systems, and what follows may be nonsense), do you think it will be possible to port some modules from the Linux kernel to the HURD?
And, as a last point, about other free OS efforts... What future do you see in them? I'm not talking about the classic Linux/*BSD systems, but about another radical attempts at something undone, such as Freedows.
Let me give you a reality check, Mr. Limo. You are an editor at a Linux/Perl/Free Software advocacy site. Like him or not, your accomplishments so far pale in comparison to Mr. Stallman's.
One thing I'm always amazed by is the incredibly low reading comprehension displayed by some of the slashdotiratii. Roblimo did say what his opinion of RMS was at all, he only stated the fact that some people don't like him. Even ESR has made negative comments about him (saying at one point "shut up and show me the code", the logic in ESR saying this to Richard Stallman is completely lost on me, however)
I like RMS, and it bugs me when people bash him, and still use his code. But there are people like that, and there are people in the 'Open Source movement' who wish he would go away. Whether Roblimo is one of these people was never stated.
BTW, a 'rant' is usually more then one line of text.
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Someone touched on this already, but I thought I'd ask anyway.
Something I've been wondering about is the use of Open Source on web-based applications. A good example would be slashdot; witch is GPL'd as far as I know. Right now, that means that there's nothing stopping me from making my own site, making tons of modifications, and lots of money off it, without contributing my code back, since it's still 'private use'.
As bandwidth gets better, and our network interfaces more seamless, what's to stop someone from 'hijacking' open source projects with proprietary web interfaces?
I guess what I'm trying to ask is 'what is the user that gets the rights to this source?' The person using the software for day-to-day tasks, or the admin who actually starts the program on their box? And what rights should those people have?
Do you think this is something that needs to be addressed by the GNU organization as network computing becomes more prevalent?
ReadThe ReflectionEngine, a cyberpunk style n
Which Free Software project do you personally consider to be the most exciting project at the moment? (And why?)
Since you're pretty much perceived as the uncorruptable flag-bearer of the movement, what's next on your cause wish-list?
.02
My
Quux26
My
Quux26
www.crashspace.net
using their webinterface makes you the 'user' of their program, and therefore entitles you to get the source.
greetings, eMBee.
--
Gnu is Not Unix / Linux Is Not UniX
As we have seen, opensource has brought some great effects. Many security issues have been flushed out as well as some great advances. But with the idiotic patent issues flying back and forth, should the opensource community wait until source code patents are guaranteed not to happen? If you look hard enough, you will see patents for stupid algorithms such as bubble sort and the y2k "if the year is greater than 70, it's 1970-1999" patent. What are your opinions on patenting and OSS (and possibly the BSD license)
---
-
ping -f 255.255.255.255 # if only
To what extent is the spread of OSS compatible with capitalism? Most of OSS is made possible by companies that pay us to write other stuff, thereby keeping us alive to write the free variety.
Could you envision an extreme situation where OSS becomes too successful and it is difficult to make a living in the software business?
Hotnutz.com - Funny
What is the current state of the HURD? In reading the web page it looks like a great kernel, but it seems as though development is moving on rather slowly. What can people out there do to spur development on the HURD? What resources are available to developers to help them get started? I personally think it would be great to see another free software kernel based on fresh ideas.
I can't think of any questions, just: I love you!
I know this is far too late but my question is quite simple. Do you play quake now the code is GPL'd?
I've recently been working on trying to formulate some type of license of new media. The interesting aspects of digital media have made it patently clear that our current laws and attitudes are insufficient to fully explore digital media's potential.
The basic idea is to remove the profit motive from distrubution and reproduction,i.e. you can use it the artifact, and share the artifact, but only the original creator is allowed to sell it. This idea is similar to the GPL, but different in very important ways. To use the standard metaphor, it would be free beer, not free speech. (with the original owner protected to profit from any addictions that manifest)
To sum up, do you think such a thing is worthwhile/possible, and where is a good place to start, because, thanks to all that's good, IANAL.
--
+&x
I do understand that you can avoid the heavy distribution charges. My point is that an organization that relies on donations and escapable fees is likely to be forever cash-strapped. I assume that neither RMS nor the FSF are opposed to money per se, only the use of software licenses.
My suggestion, and IANA businessman, is that FSF consultancy might be a way to get more money into the FSF, which would in turn allow them to produce more free software faster. Why ask for money when you can sell stuff (consultant services) without compromising your morals?
--The basis of all love is respect
Why not go into the business of funding GNU development with GNU consulting fees? While you probably wouldn't want to become a full for-profit center (imagine all the back taxes!), I'm certain that any excess revenue could be plowed into something useful.
--The basis of all love is respect
What if it isn't? What then?
--- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
At the heart of the GNU philosophy, as I understand it, is the idea that information should be freely accessible and shareable, without restrictions.
Obviously this idea has implications outside of software. There seem to be cases where restricting access to information is better than sharing it (e.g., due to security concerns). In your opinion, what concerns should be weighed against people's right to have and share information?
How is this insistence different from the "obnoxious advertising clause" that you so rightfully object to in the classic BSD license?
One is a licence condition with the weight of the law behind it and the other is a request that you can freely ignore if you choose (and likewise he can freely ignore reporters' requests for answers if he chooses, based on the terminology they use or anything else).
- information: how the software accomplishes what it does, and
- participation: the ability to change the software to suit your needs?
The GPL provides both, the LGPL can be used to restrict the first (by closing the source to an application using the library), and Open Source software can restrict the second (by requiring royalties, for example).-rt
======
Now, I think it would be GOOD to buy FIVE or SIX STUDEBAKERS
and CRUISE for ARTIFICIAL FLAVORING!!
- Why GNU Will Be Compatible with Unix
This was definitely the case in 1985, and still applies to some extent today. However with the advent of the year 2000's systems (and the primary target has changed from 68000-type multiuser boxes to individual PC's), how do you feel about the idea that Microsoft's Windows 2000 environment has several key things "done right" that the Free software community still is significantly lacking for having a reliable Free-software based solution for everyone's needs? In today's world, would not a Windows user / programmer experience be the most "convenient for many other people to adopt"?Unix is not my ideal system, but it is not too bad. The essential features of Unix seem to be good ones, and I think I can fill in what Unix lacks without spoiling them. And a system compatible with Unix would be convenient for many other people to adopt.
o/~ Join us now and share the software
Alot has been talked about the Free Software patent pool.
Software algorithms/methods will be patented and will be allowed to use only in free software.
The idea is to give free software a competitive advantage over propietery software.
What do you think?
Ballerinas have fins that you'll never find
If you had the chance to alter your decisions that had an important effect on the situation as it is today, what would it be?
What do you consider some if the bad moves you made?
s/open source/Free Software/gi
r eedom.html.
If that's really what you mean!
Free Software != Open Source. In fact, RMS really doesn't like the term Open Source, and for good reason, if you ask me. For more info, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-f
Thank you.
-BenC
First, congratulations and thank you. I remeber reading the GNU Manifesto in Dr. Dobbs' back in the 80's and being totally blown away.
I've just returned from rereading the essay on the GNU site concerning the BSD license . In it, you refer to the "obnoxious BSD advertising clause".
Subsequent to the publication of this essay, you went on record asking the community not to refer to a Linux system as just "Linux"
I've seen reports that your position on "GNU/Linux" versus "Linux" goes farther than the temperate and informative essay linked to above -- for example refusing to answer questions at press conferences/public Q&A sessions/etc. about "Linux" until the question was rephrased to use "GNU/Linux" or () "Lignux".
How is this insistence different from the "obnoxious advertising clause" that you so rightfully object to in the classic BSD license?
This page accidentally left blank
Sir,
It would seem that you are our last hero when it comes to free software.
Linus Torvalds stated in an interview with Marjorie Richardson in the Linux Journal that he wanted to make it clear that unlike yourself, he had no message.
Eric S. Raymond has stated that since he's incredibly wealthy, that he'll start charging for public speaking engagements since people can no longer claim he's doing it for the money.
It would seem that everyone is selling out these days. Apart from you that is. In the face of everything, you stand alone. One man against the world. You are our messiah, leading us to free software.
But after you're gone, then what? Who do we turn to when the corporations have patented everything and the little guy has no chance anymore? Do you have a system set up in the FSF for a replacement someday? Do you have a team of officers that are just as dedicated as yourself to furthering the cause of free software?
Most of the posts today have been asking your opinion on "open source" such and such. I know your opinion on that already. I want to know what your plan is regarding free software.
Thank you for your time sir.
No todo lo que es oro brilla
do you feel that free software will threaten the job market in the computer industry ? eventually free software *will* be better than commercial (various reasons including extended beta cycles etc) ..will this alter the software industry for the worse ?
Knowing that you are one of the original Emacs developers, what features/enhancments are we to expect from Emacs in the near future? Also, how is development affected when working on such an old project? Things like coding-style and such? // Simon
A free software business model provides a service, as such, must leverage the fact that the software is used widely. This is contrasted by the traditional software business model which leverages the market by creating artificial scarcity by restricting software distribution.
Phil Greenspun builds on one of the central observations of the GNU Manifesto, that software benefits society the most when it is used by the most people, in this article about software pricing. He argues that selling software like a traditional manufactured goods doesn't promote good quality software or provide full benefit to society. He proposes selling a portfolio of software packages via a subscription service for which subscribers pay a flat fee, revenues are distributed to authors according to how many people use their software. He doesn't advocate free or closed software in the article but it is not hard to see a RedHat or SourceForge providing the subscription service.
Open source software, as represented by the recent Linux-related IPOs, was perhaps the last trend to arrive before the get-rich-quick atmosphere began to collapse. It has also suffered more in the aftermath (LIFO).
What impact do you think this will have on the creation of free software? If daytraders and similarly shallow-minded management turn their back on free software, how can we make sure that Linux, GNU, the BSDs, etc remain vital and growing?
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.
The biggest strength of the GPL is also I believe its biggest weakness. Fundamentally the GPL trusts that people will have the mind to follow it and what it entails. Somebody who opens their code to the community is trusting that people won't steal their work and take credit for it. Yet by the very nature of code and how it traverses the internet and the mentality of most people that feel anything digital is free and their's anyway there really isn't anything in place to truly protect the developer except from blatant copying and obserdly stupid people. So what is to stop a large business like Microsoft from cutting and pasting parts of programs they need or just like into their code base? I at least expect people to have morals and feel guilty about taking credit for somebody else's work but I certainly don't know of any companys that do things other than for the almighty buck.
This space for sale
How can an open sourde model guarantee that every single module in the system is properly specified and tested? Surely for saftey critical applications such as ATC, it's neccessary to use some kind of formal development model, which would preclude the vast majority of Free Software developers.
Besides, what would the benefit to the Free Software Community be? How would unrestricted access to the source for an ATC help my neighbour?
Come to that, what would the benefit be in giving away the source code to many "bespoke" projects?
Why is or isn't it consistent with your 'GNU/Linux' position to call Linux 'X/GNU/BSD/Linux'?
Geeky modern art T-shirts
I first found and read your articles almost 2 years ago; the next day, I started installing Debian GNU/Linux.
It seems like some people here don't understand what's wrong about proprietary software. Can you give a clear, consise explaination of why it is unethical to write and use?
Become a FSF associate member before the low #s are used
Does your philosophy of free software extend to other forms of intellectual property (music, movies, books)? If not, why not? Why is software different (other than that you desire it be treated differently)? If so, do you believe there should be any legal protection for IP, or is it a bogus concept?
I have seen references saying that you believe the lack of peer review to be a closed-source weakness. I have personally been on closed-source projects where a large degree of peer review happened. It is an integral part of the CMM (Capability Maturity Model) from the SEI. While this level of review does not seem generally used by 'desktop market' developers, it is in heavy use by safety and mission critical system development.
How do you see peer review done to Open-Source as improving on the sort of strict review demanded by good commercial software 'process'?
(Note, I was involved in a discussion of this here.)
EZ
-'Press Ctrl + Alt + Delete to log on..'
"Oops, I always forget the purpose of competition is to divide people into winners and losers." - Hobbes
Secondly, what application does the Free Software line of thinking have for hardware control below the operating system level (particularly with Transmeta)?
--Humpty Dumpty was pushed!
Richard, you are known for always taking the hard line for free (libre) software, and your integrity in representing this cause is unquestionable. Your statements pro-free software leave no room for leniency towards even partially proprietary solutions. I would like to know if you view your role as a crusader towards a practically achievable goal of all software being free, or as a hardline advocate of free software to temper the hardline proprietary advocates?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
two questions:
1. do you read slashdot? how regularly? under what name do you post comments?
2. what do you think of Mr. Katz articles?
One thing I've never understood in the quest to get everything open source is, why should software but not anything else? I mean, I don't see anyone pressuring CocaCola to tell what their secret ingredient is, nor do I see anyone asking Intel to give away full schematics to the Pentium III. Do you feel unsafe in an airplane because the ticket doesn't include blueprints?
The only difference I see is that there are more people who are able to compile/understand source code than there are people able to produce/modify the other things I mentioned.
I can't see why anyone would disagree with that, as stated in those 3 words. Then again, I didn't follow the link.
Female Prison Rape in NY
Female Prison Rape in NY
Are you still unable to type? Do you use any alternative input devices and if so, what are they and are they as efficient as you used to be at hacking out code in the 80s and before? Do you still have an assistant type for you?
Finally, on a personal level, how did you cope with the news when you first realized you couldn't type anymore? I can just imagine it must have been difficult for you.
In the quest for cheaper handheld devices, manufacturers are looking at using GPLed code such as Linux. They also want to use mask ROM. But this would mean that even though the manufacturer releases the source code, the end-user can't make changes and run it on their device.
Is this allowed under the GPL? How can manufacturers use mask ROMs and fulfill their obligations under the GPL?
Netscape opened up a failing project in order to save it. Microsoft has more coders than Netscape, but the internet has more coders than Microsoft. That sort of thing. I think grey wants to know what would happen if a popular, successful project was opened, like Windows, or one of Apple's expensive authoring tools.
I'd say that the server is the killer app for the desktop.
What does the future hold for the HURD if things keep going the way they're going? What if acceptance for the HURD explodes, like it did for Linux? In either case, will it at some point replace Linux, or move into a niche alongside it, say, running the big iron while Linux scales down into all the little embedded devices? Do you or other GNU folks actually use it for anything now? If so, what? Do you feel like Linux has created interest in the HURD, or just stolen its thunder?
I hope the moderators moderate this one up, no matter its humor value. I get the impression RMS could really give an insightful answer to this.
I would agree with this except that rms also tends to constrain himself in some ways when he writes; he writes forcefully about a particular point, knowing that he cannot abuse his airtime by saying something that seems nontopical. In some ways he is rather businesslike...
Do you like my sig line?
How we know is more important than what we know.
What question do you think is the most important one we could ask you and what's the answer to it?
The most important question we could ask (as judged by moderation) is:
"What question do you think is the most important one we could ask you and what's the answer to it?"
And the answer to this question is:
"What question do you think is the most important one we could ask you and what's the answer to it?"
Be careful what you wish for.
I'm not a journalist, but I play one on slashdot
Recently you wrote an interesting article about how readers of eBooks may lack the rights readers of paper books currently have.
This article got me wondering what would become of libraries if, a few decades from now, most written information was electronic. (Because of lower electronic publishing costs I believe paper's days are numbered.) One option could be having vast numbers of books stored on a system of public servers free of charge, or for a small charge. Or we could turn to the system, like most newspapers online do for their archives, of charging (too much) for everything downloaded.
As a reader I would much prefer the former option. But extending the concept of the library into the electronic relm raises problems. I don't think that publishers, their (small) profits at stake, or writers, facing the prospect of no one paying for their work since they can download it for free, would support such a system, and I don't know what they'd put in its place.
How do you envision the digital libraries of the future (both the ideal and those we're likely to have)? Can we keep the information public while still protecting the rights of writers?
Programming, in my opinion, should be paying work. The only question is how and what kind of programming. It is better for programmers as a class if they are compensated for the work they do. It is better for a few rich companies and wiley, business oriented hackers if they make money by writing (or buying, a.k.a. Bill Gates and DOS) a few programs and make money from licensing them.
There is a middle ground, but with out salaried programmers a significant amount of useful programs won't get written.
Again nothing I've read by or about RMS contains the waiter's quote, so it may, for all I know, be apocryphal.
I admire samantha's literary style.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
Suppose very strong, nearly unbreakable encryption were used on traditional Software DVD (i.e. stuff like M$ software or other companies software, just in a DVD format) and a DVD CCA for software were set up saying, "You aren't allowed to access the content of any DVDs unless you use our licensed DVD decryption software. Oh, and our DVD decryption software contains a legally enforceable (under UCITA) software license which states that you cannot reverse engineer any content you have decrypted using our decryption software." How would Free Software handle it? Does there now need to be a Free Hardware philosophy which states that "Hardware which exists tied to a proprietary software system must be replaced by Free Hardware standards" or something similar?
I ask only because I believe the future battles against proprietary software are going to be against tied hardware/software combinations and that the anti-Free Software forces are going to use the DMCA, UCITA, and strong encryption in their arsenal.
All the creatures will die, And all the things will be broken. That's the law of samurai. (Jubai, 1605)
I love the idea of free software, but I have a major problem with the idea of replacing all proprietary software with it.
:). A free software world does not seem worth it.
:). A world of sharing sounds wonderful, but is it practical?
If I understand correctly, you say that the users are ethically more important than the programmers, simply by force of numbers. I agree with this. But Joe User doesn't care about whether his source code is open. He just wants a program that will let him get his work done. And today's proprietary software, all in all, seems to be about as useful as today's free software. So Joe User doesn't care at all whether his software is free or not.
So a world of free software would advantage a certain group of users, those who like it because they can modify it and redistribute it at will. In other words, it advantages programmers. The same programmers who income went way down because free software is less profitable than proprietary software.
The only other factors seem to be vague ideas like "intangible ethical pollution" which I find hard to swallow.
So, all in all: most users don't care, programmers have their freedom but are starving to death
Please answer this and convert me to GNU
I know this is quite off topic, and you're not the only one who could answer this, but what does the M stand for? I've been looking all over the place, and nothing will tell me.
Also, what is it with you Open Source guys using your middle initials? ESR, RMS..
This might seem a bit trollish, but I seriously AM curious.
Yes, God yes. I've been reading this whole thread, swearing that if no one else asked this, I would have to. I've wanted to ask RMS this myself, especially now that FreeNet has appeared, espousing that the havoc it wreaks through convenience piracy is of no matter, because they (FreeNet) follow RMS's beliefs.
I'm a programmer. I believe I'm a good one. I believe (perhaps arrogantly) that the best programmers are artists, not just technicians, and this field is an art, just like writing, painting and music. Many of the best programmers I know are very creative people, and do write, paint and make music. (Or would if they didn't program so darn much). I believe I make great software. Lord knows I try. I put more hours into making great software than I really should. I would be perfectly happy to give my software away for all to enjoy. But I don't. I'm one of the evil ones. I'm a capitalist. I sell my software. Why?
Because I own a car. And I have bills. And I bought a house. And I like to eat nice food when I'm not eating burritos and doritos and Mountain Dew. And I like to travel and ski and play when I'm not programming. And someday I will have kids, and I want to give them a good home and childhood. And in our world, this means I need to make money. And not small amounts of it either.
I'm not opposed to working hard -- far from it, I work too hard already and don't play enough. I read The article about reward and creativity on the gnu.org site. It's correct, yes. But it doesn't mean all of us programmers (and other artists and IP-authors by association) should give our hard work away. It means we want to feel sufficiently compensated that we don't have to worry about creating for money, and we can get on with creating great works for the sake of creating great works.
I don't want to be a waiter. I see through the handwaving about Free Software authors making a living 'through other means'. I don't want my company to make a living through that nebulous 'support' thing. I want to make software that's so great that the masses don't need to pay someone to support it. Besides, building on that business model means you end up focussing all of your company's efforts and resources on a whole bunch of support infrastructure and (unhappy and hard-to-staff) support positions, and not on the real deal: writing great code and making a great product. Tom Gooding (anonymous Coward) said it well in #153, above. No offense to anyone involved but it's easier to make a living supporting a moderately complex hacker-ish product like Emacs, an OS like Linux, the GNU tools or a web server like Apache, than it is to do the same with an application like Photoshop.
I read Atlas Shrugged. I'm not a frothing objectivist, but I agree with ronfar (above). A wise person I once knew said, "Yes, but great programmers must also eat." The Internet offers many ways to streamline the software development and distribution process, and I take advantage of every one I can to improve the relationship between my company and our customers to help deliver a better product and a better experience with it. But the day I can no longer make a decent living doing what I enjoy (coding great stuff) is the day I quit making great stuff and go become a ditch digger, and keep the fruits of my art to myself. And maybe, finally, have a healthy lifestyle and a suntan.
-- There is no truth. There is only Perception. To Percieve is to Exist.
There are several cases where the technical merit of a free program vs. an unfree program are debatable, like Linux Kernel vs. Solaris Kernel. How do you show the technical merit of freedom itself? Slamming copyright law isn't going to win me any friends where I work, and neither is shunning license agreements. When these guys think of freedom, they think of drinking beer and watching TV. Are there some business-oriented ideas you can give us that address the profitable practicality of using free software?
-- Ken Kinder ken@_nospam_kenkinder.com http://kenkinder.com/
Free Software and its variant has proved to be very successful in the product arena, Emacs, Linux, sendmail et al. And with the likes of Enhydra the supply to the enterprise is there. However most of the work I've ever done has been working on large scale systems that cost millions of dollars over several years and have a definate business defined delivery date.
I just don't see how Free Software scales as an idea into the enterprise arena. To take one example:
I worked on an Air Traffic Control system which will take in total around 10 years and $4 billion. How would the free software model meet the rigours and demands of this sort of enviroment ?
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
The GNU Project was launched in 1984, and although it was intended to create an operating system, I think you would agree that its main contribution to the world was the concept of free (as in speech) software, and the license that goes with it.
However, during the 80's and 90's, thousands of programmers began writing "freeware" code. It seems fair to say that most wrote their programs for no personal gain, and for the good of the end-users. Yet it was never suggested that, since no material gain was involved, they might release their source code and their control over the software. Sites like Tucows continue to this day to distribute free (as in beer) programs like this.
How did FSF's message fail to reach these programmers? Do you feel that it is the fault of the programmers themselves, or do you see it as a failing on your part?
grep -ri 'should work'
Though I may be projecting, I suspect Stallman is a utilitarian - one who believes that those acts which have a "positive" effect on society as a whole are moral, and those which have a "negative" effect are immoral. Generally the terms "positive" and "negative" are defined in terms of the net happiness of the members of the society, and the society is defined as being an arbitrarily large grouping of persons. In particular, Stallman's essays on the relative immorality of commercial software licenses seem to be written from a utilitarian standpoint, since he claims that by denying copying they deny persons the ability to "help their neighbors" and thus increase the net happiness of the members of their community.
--
"HORSE."
"HORSE."
-Flaming Carrot
I was looking through all of the comments and, seeing that no one had asked a question I had been wondering about for a long time, I felt I had to ask- why the letter "G"? Any particular significance? By this, I mean- GNU is obviously, to those who know it, a recursive acronym; however, could it not as easily have been PNU? Or FNU? Or even ZNU? Why G? (Obviously, everything else that follows is based on that G, so it seems to have had a significant role...)
-Chris
When I first read "Hackers" in 1984 I remember you mentioning how much you enjoyed the coding process, just like everybody else profiled in the book. With all the hassles and politics you've faced in the past 10-15 years, is programming still as pleasant a pastime for you?
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
As someone who supports my family writing software, I have a vested interest in obtaining financial compensation for my work. At the same time, I like to make the code I write available for reuse by as many people as possible.
The best way I have found to do both is to get commercial companies to pay me to write code for them, under terms that allow me to release said work as open source. I think this will be how an increasingly significant percentage of open source code is produced.
The sponsors of the released code need to recoup their development costs, most commonly by selling a proprietary application - service works only in niche areas, and IPO games are not the only business model.
However, unless we significantly complicate matters by releasing under multiple licenses which cannot trivially share subsequent work, I don't see where the GPL fits into this picture at all.
I would argue that as more commercial houses release code as open source, and more contractors negotiate for the rights to release, I think that GPL is destined to become marginalized.
I see and understand GNU's efforts to recreate every reusable library under GPL right now, but I think that will inevitably be surpassed by the efforts of independent and resources of commercial groups wishing to make actual money off of libraries, using licenses like LGPL and BSD.
I am very curious as to your comments on this subject - to date all I've heard are religious arguments from either side.
Kerry L. Bonin
Sr. Engineer, Security/Cryptography & Advanced Visualization, Cisco Systems.
VScape lead architect - Adaptive secure clustering for multiuser VR.
I've seen on some gnu.org's page that you don't want to release official translations of the GPL, because it would be too difficult and expensive to check that the translated license really has the same meaning as the original GPL. Though that makes sense, in France there's a law that states that (software) licenses should be written in French to be valid. I guess other non-speaking countries have similar legislations, in order to make sure that people really understand what they agree to when they get to use a product. Considering these laws, some people think that the GPL may not be applied in France or in any non-english speaking country with similar legislations. Now of course there are unofficial translations, but they are well, unofficial, and refering to the original GPL in english. Do you think this is an issue ? Do your have more information about it ? Will the FSF ever release official translations or are non english speaking users of free software stuck to "hope" the GPL is valid in their country until someone takes it to court ? Not that it prevents us from using/writing GPL'd software, but it's a bit funny when you think about it...
Are you familiar with the works of John Perry Barlow - particularly the more well known quote, "Information wants to be free"? If so, would you expect that principle fits the FSF? Is software merely a form of information, meaning that sharing it not only should be allowed, but is a natural consequence of its existance?
Hrm, yes.. Semi-free, I mean what does RMS eventually want? if MS were to make all their source open and free, it would obviously crush the company as we know it today. I highly doubt it would bring a total end to MS, but as we've seen recently, the business world is very slow to accept anything that's "free" as there's always been stings attached, as as in the case with GNU, there _ARE_ legal obligations and such that should be adhreared to. So the point I'm trying to get acorss is if MS or apple were to go 100% open source, I think the world's technology driven economy would very rapidly collapse. Of course this is only my random ponderings, tho I would like to hear what RMS has to say about it, because just as MS or Apple would collapse, I think someone would move in to fill their place, but would it be fast enough. Also, in terms of business, there's a HUGE problem with having 500 distributions of Windows all of them slightly diffrent...as it is I can only barely get things to work across the diffrent linux distro's, what would happen if/when an already buggy OS were taen apart? Anyways, 'tis late and I am ranting again, applogies
-Doug
Q. What's it take to get a story posted on
RMS: I'm fairly new to the opensource world as a user, but I've supported the idea for a long time. However in my work and daily use I mostly use Windows. The question I have is: outside of the linux/unix world, does GNU and openSource truely exsist, and what do you think would happen to our nation of geekdom if some of the big players went opensource, such as BeOS, the rumored "new Amiga", and *gasp* even MS or Apple. The point I am trying to get at hre is would this cause such a huge surge as to totally overwhelm everyone, and cripple everything, or is this something that the people at the tops of these projects wouldREALLY like to see? :)
hope my question makes since, I'm in a rush to get in here first
-Doug
Q. What's it take to get a story posted on
Hi Mr. Stallman. I don't use Linux for various reasons of personal preference, but I am excited about the GNU HURD OS and I would like to participate.
The thing is, I work for Microsoft. I am in a bind that I'm sure is shared by many developers who work in large corporations. I want to help out with certain free software projects, but when I was hired at my company, I signed all the various "you own my brain" forms that big companies typically require.
I want to know, would you let a person in a legal situation like mine work on software that is meant to be GPL'd and free? Or would you decline my help based upon the fact that the ownership of my code is disputable?
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
-konstant
Yes! We are all individuals! I'm not!
I actually had this question for him a while ago. I suggested something like a license where the terms change after a period of time..
So distribute the code under the most anal proprietary license you want, and say that in 6-12 months that the license then changes to the GPL.
I asked this of RMS a few months ago, specifically I asked what time period he would find acceptable. He said 6-12 months.
There is a second way to make money from GPL software. Sell exceptions to it. If you hold the copyright to your work, you can distribute it under any license you want, and several licenses concurrently.
So, if you create the ultimate video codec, you can license the decoder as LGPL. Then, since the coder is the hard part, you can license it with a proprietay license which expires into the GPL in 6 months. (So you always have 6 months of leadtime to sell your new version before it goes under the GPL.) Finally, you can sell exceptions to your license. (If someone wants to make Net-TV boxes, you can offer to let them license the coder/decoder under a NON-GPL license so that they won't have to worry about distributing source.)
Another example is if you make a game. What you do is you hand the source code to (say) the FSF's lawyer in escrow for 6-12 months. Then you make money from selling the game for 6-12 months.
Or, if you make a GPL game engine which other people want to use, but without the 'issue' of the GPL, you can sell them a different license at whatever terms and prices you want.
This is how Aladdin works. Old versions of Ghostscript become GPL, and then they sell their postscript interpreter to various printer manufacturers under a more acceptable license.
Remember, RMS isn't demanding that software be 'free' immediatly, just that it will be free in a reasonable time frame. And I think that he would accept minor offshoots that are not free, as long as the main body is.
How would you feel, in principle, about a license provision that allowed a "loan" of free software, letting a developer incorporate GPL'd code into a proprietary product, and allowing a copy-restricted binary-only release of that product for a period of three or four years, if, at the end of that time, the developer was required to release all of the code, including the proprietary portion, under the GPL?
I am a college student at Plattsburgh State University in New York and in a class I am in titled, "Computers in Society" we have recently read teh GNU Manifesto as part of our studies. This writing was included among other writings in a book titled, "Computers, Ethics, and Society" by Erman, Williams, and Shauf. My question for RMS has to do with another piece of writing in this book. Chapter 9 of this book, written by Eugene Spafford is about the ethical nature of hacker break-ins. Spafford goes as far to say that, "This hacker ethic states, in part, that all information should be free. This view holds that information belongs to everyone and there should be no boundaries or restraints to prevent anyone from examining information. Richard Stallman states much the same thing in his GNU Manifesto. He and others have stated in various forums that if information is free, it logically follows that there should be no such thing as intellectual property, and no need for security." Getting to the point, what do you think about Spaffords train of thinking? How much of what Spafford says here really reflects the GNU Manifesto and your beliefs? I have read the GNU Manifesto and I didn't draw the same conclusions Spafford did. However by accepting Spafford's critique of the GNU Manifesto, Spafford makes conclusions which I believe treat Free Software and RMS unfairly, in effect possibly misleading people as to what you stand for. (I will not discuss Spafford any more and if anyone is curious you can read for yourselves in the book, "Computers in Society")
"The importance of using technology in the right way has never been more clear."
Granted, it's great to have Free documentation, such as my much "loved on" version of my emacs lisp manual, but why for example do we need a free Perl manual at this point?
---
You were a moderator with 5 points. You should have read the moderator guidelines before you did any moderating
What has been the hardest aspect of showing people the advantages of freedom software?
Gnu and freedom software have been successfull these past 25+ years. e.g. Linux, GNU Utilities, Apache, etc. Is there anything you would of done different in the free software movement?
:)
(Yes, I know its free software, but free means freedom, not price, so I think the term freedom software has a nicer ring to it
If I have heard the GNU GhostScript story correctly, you worked with Aladdin software to get a free implementation of ghostscript. Further, you expected the free version to quickly surpass the non-free version in performance and features relatively quickly. However, the GNU GhostScript project seems to be a failure. Development is at a snails pace because -- after all -- it is already done in Aladdin GhostScript. Today, if you have any relatively new printer want to use the new features, you have to get Alladin-GS. Would you agree the free model of having one older, free product and another closed newer project is failed model?
In many of your rights you speak eloquently about the rights of the public to software that may be freely distributed, examined and modified. And I agree strongly that software must be open/free if it is to be maximally effective.
Whoever, I have on problem. Before software can be freely distributed and used it must first be produced. While all digitally based information is freely and infinitely distributable, there is not an infinite pool of talent creating the content. Far from it. Yet in many of your writings you seem to ignore this problem to the point of saying that programmers should make their living at something else rather than writing programs! Why? This is a highly scarce and quite needed talent. Why is it wrong to be paid for being able to do it and do it well? As anyone like yourself who has created major software knows, the effort and dedication involved is quite intense. Yet you seem to say that the person putting in that effort has little or no rights to the fruits of the effort or to expect any rewards at all for having put out that kind of energy. This seems very lopsided to me.
Thanks for your time!
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
This would save us from having to rewrite what has already been written and allow us to put our effort into improving software that already has a large number of users. It seems like the fairest way to break a monopoly, since the copyright holders do not need to be forced into giving up their products.
We can apply this strategy to other copyrighted work. For example, while writing replacements for commercial software is feasible, there is no way replace copyrighted music. For art to become truly free, it needs to be purchased and re-released.
I think we're all familiar with your view on software patents by now. Do you have a similar position on business method patents?
I'm also curious about your position on ordinary (hardware) patents, including biotech and nanotech patents. Do you feel these should be restricted or abolished?
One of the drawbacks to the GPL is that it is ONLY compatable with the GPL. If the author of a piece of code chooses to use another copyleft-style license (such as the QPL or MPL) their code cannot be linked with any GPL software. The LGPL, however, allows linking with proprietary licenses, so it is not useful for an author who wishes to disallow use of their code in commercial software.
Would you be receptive to the idea of a license which is midway between the GPL and LGPL in restrictiveness? One which allows linking to code under any license satisfying the definition of "Free Software"? This would need to involve a certification process, such as the OSI Certified mark, and a precise definition of the attributes such a license must have. If the GPL 3 were made to work in this manner, currently existing GPL'd code could be grandfathered in, which would go a long way towards sorting out the license incompatability problem which seems to be on the horizon.
So, will it be OK to use GIF again once the patent on LZW runs out in the next year or so?
I can't spell or type, but that doesn't mean I'm unusually stupid.
Carpe diem!
A question like this is best asked of people who rarely appear in the media - people who don't normally take the opportunity to speak their minds before a wide audience.
RMS is definitely not like that - he will give you his opinions in any forum at any time. If he has some important question to ask, he has almost certainly already asked it in an appropriate place. This question is not a good way to get something new out of RMS.
Please don't let this question be one of the ones forwarded to RMS unless there are only nine other non-lame questions.
To a Lisp hacker, XML is S-expressions in drag.
GNU and the GPL are RMS's creations. That would be a little like asking you which child you liked better, your own son or the neighbors daughter..
.sig: Now legally binding!
Gah! The world is awash with a sea of dirty minds!
.sig: Now legally binding!
Increasingly "software", meaning computer programs, is becoming the way in which ideas are defined. Ie good ideas usually get a piece of software wrapped around them. Separately "software" is coming to mean information in any form you can imagine. Whenever value is added - bauxite to aluminium for example - a great deal of software of both forms is involved.
If in the end, the GPL were applied to all software, how could there be competition and thus incentive to innovate?
Personally I don't need an incentive to innovate, but most of the world does.
For people who develop technology for display, storage, and annotation of electronic texts, a paradox arises. When such a technology (like LZW, Qt, or RSA) is so successful as to be a de facto standard, it has become so critical a part of our media that by Stallman's philosophy it also becomes a prime target for replacement by free software, particularly if liscensing continues to restrict copying and modification. Even if ordinary users were happy up to that point, an unhackable technology is a menace (most obviously to the media hacker who has become a major force of social progress). The software development community determines the author (previously a free man playing by the rules he knew), and the patent or copyright law which supported his success, to be an enemy.
As with MP3, the cause of free software is going to continue to lose opportunities until free software spreads so widely as to become the de facto standard, and/or commerce or government can be convinced to enshrine your (Mr. Stallman's) ideas in practice or law.
Big investors in companies that are trying to build the infrastructure of the future might feel threatened by legions of hackers waiting to overthrow their model, so recourse to patent law might be a justifiable strategy. Can a reasonable standard for free software (including documentability, modification, inviolable modules, and distribution) be developed which corporate interests could relatively easily be convinced to incorporate into their standard practices?
Adhering to the Code would make the company a good "Free Software Citizen" and somehow protect them from being righteously targeted by the GNU replacement ethic, or give them brownie points on a citizenship scale applied to software packages, shades of McCarthy. Annual certification might fund free software. Perhaps independent verification that source code does not hide major security risks. Another carrot that is so draconian I'm afraid to suggest it, is a strong free software liscensing system which might require cryptography, viral code, or reporting over the network reminiscent of SBA tactics.
A key lies in today's news that Netscape 6 and IE for the Mac uphold HTML 4.0 but IE for Windows does not. Some questions that need to be asked are: What initiatives would convince an Adobe or a Sony to make their key technology free software? How can Sony be convinced to scrap the idea of zoning DVDs.. and is SDMI for free software, or against? How do we gain the hearts and minds of those who are building our eBook future into embedded modules, before the embedding is done? Is it possible for the FSF or the EFF to approach the American Library Association to get funding for free software intiatives which would uphold freedom worldwide and in the long term possibly save libraries money? Are you (Mr. Stallman) ready to take a step toward leading the developers' community in a pragmatic and understandable direction, or are you content to write essays and act as the custodian of the riches which free software has achieved thus far? Can freedom for any nation or man be purchased with draconian implementations which offend that freedom?
Solutions will require motivated people who can see both sides of the coin: Copyright and patents will still have worth in their original meanings, but the DMCA and compromised hardware must be made obsolete. Will you work toward giving corporations good reasons to get into free software besides raping and reselling it?
CoSource and sourceXchange have been mildy successful in promoting a sort of auction style commercial OSS development model. Ultimately, what kind of success do you think these sites will have. What changes do they need to make to become the next Ebay? Can you give an example of one more type of business model in which a web community will work together in the spirit of the open source movement?
Hi,
...
please appologize for those three not so related
questions. And of cource this is not meant as
an offense, either
a) Whats your education, or what do you read?
Once we two had a discussion about history
and we could not agree.
Your economic arguments don' seem very sound
often either. Do you have an education in history
or economics?
b) Is it true that you have some ghost writers
who participate in your name on mailing lists,
as e.g the license discussion list?
c) What do you have against communism?
Always when one accuses you to be
a comunist you get realy angry, but I miss
the point.
Regards,
angel'o'sphere
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
First of all, thank you for all the work that you've done, the great tools that you've brought to the community, and the vision that you maintain for a better world for users and developers of software.
I saw your free software presentation at a Linux user group meeting in New York a couple of years ago, and you mentioned that you don't spend nearly as much time coding as you did in the past, and that most of your time is taken up in managerial roles (I assume this includes advocacy).
Do you miss the time when you spent more time creating and debugging software, and do you see any time in the future where you'll get to spend more time doing those things once again?
CheersAre they able to take advantage of the availability of this software and if not, what can be done to make it avaiable to them?
Check out AbiWord.
What about a hardware public license? Though the device itself may not be virtual, the design is. (The device itself may approach being virtual if the means to make it becomes significantly easier.)
This would obviously help open source developers with say CPUs, video cards, motherboards and the like, but could also be a plus for other industries as well.
What are your thoughts?
First, I'd like to say that I admire your work. I'm a big emacs fan (helping build emacs.org), and I appreciate all of the wonderful tools GNU has provided us with. However, I was very suprised when I heard about your call to boycott Amazon. Don't you think that approach was a bit childish? Tim Oreilly for example, sent Jeff Bezos a letter, explaining his take on Amazon's patents and why they should change. Oreilly's letter made progress, and things turned out well at the end. Calling a boycott did not achieve anything.
-- developer_fuze
How do you feel about the recent commercial interest in free software? Do you care? Is it good/bad? Why?
I have been using free software since about 1995. I am learning to program, and plan on releasing as much free software as I reasonably can. I say this so that you will know that I am not a troll, or one who is trying to start a war, but rather one with a genuine philosophical question. I view releasing software as free software as a _great_ thing to do, a wonderful thing to do, but I have a hard time coming to the conclusion that those who would choose not to release their program as free software are inherently evil.
Typically, what I have heard from you is something along the lines of "anyone who would tell me I can't share with my neighbor is evil for telling me not to share." But I have a fundamental philosophical problem with that statement, as you are saying you inherently have a right to share something that is not yours (or is it yours, in your view?)? What I guess I am asking is, upon what philosophical basis do you claim to have a right to share other people's creative works? If they choose to license it with the GPL, great I say, but as it _is_ their work, shouldn't they have the right to share it, or not, upon their own terms w/o being called evil?
To put it another way, by your philophy, regardless of what you say about "Free" being freedom, it is impossible to have a profitable company whose sole business is to create software and profit from that work. The companies that come the closest are those create free software, and then do customization-for-hire, and/or support contracts, or some other ancillary business. Shouldn't the very act of writing useful software be something a company can take a profit from? What about the model taken by Alladin, GPL'ing software after selling it for a year or two? I seem to recall you making a comment at the Bazaar last December that you thought that was an okay model?
I switched over to GNU/Linux about 18 months ago, when I needed to run GNU Emacs and Scheme on my computer. It turns out that I can do almost everything I need with free software, but I can imagine situations where people who have to use a proprietary OS would still need the benefit of Free Software. They aren't able to switch OS's or maybe they don't have the time or inclination to learn Unix.
Is it acceptable, then, to modify Free Software to run on systems like the Apple Macintosh? Even if by doing so, it could keep people from wanting to switch to GNU/Linux? I know that the GPL gives a programmer almost total freedom, so what I am asking is more about ethics than about law.
Here's my second question. We've all been hearing about Internet Appliances and how they are going to be big in the future (well, maybe). In little gizmos like my Palm Pilot, the software and hardware are very tightly integrated, so replacing, copying, or modifying it wouldn't make sense, even if I could do it. How does Free Software fit into a world filled with little specialized appliances? Is this a threat to Free Software? Or will the emphasis on selling hardware rather than software licenses create a favorable environment for it?
I admire your goals and accomplishments, and thank you for your time.
Steve
========
Stephen C. VanDahm
I like to think that I work at a small progressive company, one composed mostly of techies and engineers that would appreciate the advantages of Open Source / Free software. One that would show willingness to accept and use such outside tools and code.
However within the past 6 months a 'marketing' group has appeared, composed entirely of respected programmers and techies.
I was recently in a meeting/review of a new product, one for which we were considering various open-source databases and tools, and was quite taken aback when the head of marketing, a real tech head and respected software engineer, asked "So who supports this? There is a company out there that provides patches and support right?".
( To me this seems like an idiotic question. In the past 6 months we ourselves, a 'real' company, have abandoned ("end-of-life'd" in marketspeak) a product and left our best customers hanging, and here was the person who had made that 'end-of-life' product decision, demanding that another company exist to 'support' (for free) the free software we were considering using. )
What is the 'killer' counter to that question? What is the most effective retort? Remember, we're not speaking to engineers and techies here any more. (Even if they were formerly). They're now marketing droids. What has been the most effective way to approach this question with them? Have you ever managed to successfully counter or convert a marketing droid? Be concise :)
Real-world question: a company sells a net-centric appliance, like a camera, that has GPL'd code burned in ROM on it. What happens to the end-user's right to update buggy code then? I happen to think that right lies at the heart of the GPL.
I think future versions of the GPL need to clarify the concept of linking and control. What physical and legal barriers can be erected to keep end-users from exercising their rights? What are those rights, anyway? Lines between hardware and software are fuzzy and getting fuzzier.
How would a non-company man (independant developer) go about making money writing free software?
In other words, if I do not work for a company that pays my salary and I write free software how am I to earn an income from said software? Assume for the moment that I am unwilling and/or unable to provide any sort of permanent support for this package.
Dave
It seems like free software/open source projects are impressive endeavors, but always trying to play "catch-up" with their commercial counterparts. Without the almighty dollar dangling in front of open source developers the way it does for the commercial software industry, how and/or when will open source start to take the lead in terms of product & feature development?
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
The example that comes to mind is that of an online game where the server sends information to the client that the client needs to display in a very particular way, but which if displayed by a modified client in some other way to a player might confer that player an advantage. (e.g. a cloaking device which shows up in bright colors instead of nearly transparent). I've never been able to figure out a mechanism that would prevent this kind of cheating that didn't at some point rely on preventing impersonation of an unmodified client - in other words that didn't ultimately rely on security through obscurity. In this situation it seems that a closed-source solution would actually be the only (admittedly imperfect, but better than nothing) defence against cheaters.
Most of the people here see the relationship between free software and business as a good thing, & I am inclined to agree, but I was wondering what your feelings are in regards to the possibilities of a more democratic way of structuring the creation & support of free software; that is, worker (esp. programmer) control of the companies that create & support software. I see a great potential for this possibility; but I was wondering what your feelings are on this under-reported subject.
The recent success of GNU/Linux and various other Free Software projects based upon the GPL has probably vindicated your ideals to a much greater extent than those of other idealists that, for the most part, toil in obscurity, crying out to an indifferent crowd that does not listen.
However, it would seem to me that the GPL was only one ingredient in driving the widespread proliferation of Free Software. I would submit that there have been latent forces in the market place for software that have resented the strictures posed by closed proprietary and profit-driven "standards" and which just became enough of a driving force to encourage the spread of free software given enough of the other ingredients. Unfortunately, that awareness seems fleeting and transitory in the sense that IT decision makers and casual home computer users, like moths near a flame, are still willing to succumb to "convenient" integrated solutions that compromise their fundamental freedoms, essentially replacing the Old Boss with the New Boss. As long as they're not bled too fast they seem to put up with a sorry state of affairs.
Even if Free Software gains important footholds and commoditizes the OS, the API and the data file formats, there will eventually be some future innovation (O-O protocol, interfaces, etc.) that will lure the unsuspecting into a different set of shackles.
Do you foresee means for breaking out of the cycle of this amazing propensity for people to relinquish their freedom for a small piece of convenience? Is a Bill of Rights in order?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
The best situation is a product with *both* guaranteed support from the supplier and open source in case it goes down.
If you must choose (if you *can* choose) btw closed source + support guarantee or open source + no guarantee, I'd take the OSS alternative as a general rule, but not *every* time.
Sometimes I've used a binary with source on the side, only to find that the source is a complete mess, and it is easier to start over.
One time I've used a proprietary component and reverse engineered it when they did not support a new platform (and it was no more work than the open-but-messy source alternative)
There are basically three scenarios where you need modifications in a piece of software:
- Install phase. You find bugs or incompabilities that must be fixed if you are to use the product at all.
- New platform. You upgrade your OS or database and have compability problems.
- New features needed. You want to use the product for something it was not originally designed for
In the following reasoning I'll assume I get software for a medium to big company. For small firms and persons the rules are completely different (in favour of OSS)In the first case it does not really matter if you get a closed or open product. Most commersial SW allows a trial period. If the supplier has a clue they will provide support (or lose you as a customer). Anyway you probably have the time to evaluate and search for patches and other solutions. You are not yet "stuck" with your choice.
In the second case you are in real trouble if you purchased a closed product that is no more (been there done that) *If* it is still supported, you generally are better off than with an open solution. Reason? It is generally cheaper to buy an upgrade than spending time coding yourself or hiring someone for the job. Esp. if it requires an almost complete rewrite... (There might be a working patch downloadable, congratulations you hit the jackpot, but don't count on it.)
For new features, OSS rocks. However it is not hopeless to get new features in commersial SW.
In MS Office (and others), there is always the option of macros. Many packages offer a programmable interface, plug-in support etc. That can be a better option than code patches.
In less frequent SW your wishes count big time. A SW firm that writer specialized products for a few customers can be *very* nice to them...
To summarize: There are no guarantees.
Commersial support is sometimes discontinued, the open source may turn out too expensive to fix.
Go for the best product. If you still have the choice, get the one with open source.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Are there any good case studies of large corporations opening up proprietary in-house source code? My ITmanagers don't see any value in this, and my opinion is that it is inevitable in the industry where I work. I don't want my work to perish when some forward thinking ITmanager at a competitor takes the plunge and their house standards becomes the industry standards. Please Help!
Do you think that ideas should be free, or particular expressions of those ideas? If I write a book esposing a particular idea, I think we both agree that the idea should be free to travel. But what about the actual words I said, or the entire book? Where is the line drawn? What if those ideas are about computer programming, and the book contains source code?
"The romance of Silicon Valley was about money - excuse me, about changing the world, one million dollars at a time."
Visit
I disagree, I am writing some moderatly involved pages right now to be released publicly and would be pretty ticked to see someone add a feature and not return it to the public. Right now my solution will probably be to write my own extension to GPL, but I would prefer a uniform system to avoid licence conflicts that can be so pesky.
At the CFP conference in Toronto Tim O'Reilly pointed out a possible weakness in the GPL. If websites, like www.onlinephotolab.com, become more and more like applications, the GPL's intention to keep freely developed software open and free is not met, the website's code can be closed even if it includes GPL code because it is not being distributed. This extends beyond only websites to any client server setup over the net.
What plans are there to address this issue? Might a new, stronger licence be developed that web developers might choose to keep their code free if they desire?
It is a very valid question to ask why RMS spends a seemingly inordinate amount of time and bile in his insistance that we use his terminology.
Language shapes thought. It's the Sapir-[Whorf] hypothesis, widely open to debate but worth considering.
Sumner
-- rage, rage against the dying of the light
One argument for free software is that it makes for better software than closed software. This is a very good argument, and I have no doubt that you agree with it. However, you argue that there is a more important sense in which software is free. The argument for this more important sense of freedom depends on some notion of the fundamental rights of humans that gets invoked when you compare free software to free speech. On the face of it, this can be a little confusing because software is very different from speech in many ways. What you seem to need is some principle that people ought to always retain control over the products generated by their labor. However, this is not a principle that is at work in general in our society. (Note that I am not defending the state of our society, I am describing it.) So, in your defense of free software are you depending on this principle that people ought to always retain control over the products generated by their labor? Or, do you have an argument other than this which I have missed?
I realise this clause was introduced as a compromise to allow certain important libraries and programs to be DFSG-compliant, but do we really need this now that Free Software has become (almost) mainstream?
I imagine a situation not too far into the future where there is potential for serious misuse of free technologies, with no legal (that is, reasonably successful) recourse available to the coder or coders, software which also ends up being used to violate the civil rights of average citizens.
One example might be where use of open source, heavy cryptography is regulated and exploited by government and corporate groups to questionable ends.
I mean, how much weight can the GPL and other licenses hold in a courtroom? What individual or small group has the resources to fight with _______ (insert monolithic entity with lots of pull and cash)?
I (and presumably most of slashdot's readers) advocate free software primarily for the "free speech" concept behind it: it allows programmers and administrators to modify any piece of code anywhere on their system. Given this (somewhat broad) assumption, what benefits do you believe free software gives an average end user (aside from improved code review by the community)? Do you see free software being adopted en masse by end users anytime soon? And if so, on what merits?
43rd Law of Computing: Anything that can go wr
No you see I'm deity. I have the name copyrighted and you have not paid me to use it. I will have my lawer call your lawer. Hopefully we can settle this out of court. Until then I'm going to seek a preliminary injuction agianst you and /. asking that you remove all reference to my copyrighted name from your files. Besides you mispelled it and I think that that was done on purpose to demean my good name.
deity (d-t)
n., pl. deities.
A god or goddess.
The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity. Deity. God.- ------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
[Middle English deite, from Old French from Late Latin deits, divine nature, from Latin deus, god; see deiw- in Indo-European Roots.]
Environmentalists are their own worst enemy. ~tricklenews.com
what's wrong with gnu/linux? linux is merely the kernel (as most everyone here is well aware) while nearly everything else on a standard system is a product of the gnu project. we don't call windows 'win32', although that technically the name of the kernel. it's the entire platform that's important, not simply the core.
It seems to me that the tradition of paranoia about continuing support derives from a mechanical paradigm where the parts become unavailable, and hence the widget or gadget can no longer be maintained. The part could no longer even be machined, because the blueprints or material specifications were held privately. These objections evaporate if you have the source for your software.
One area that you have been clear on is that to be incorporated into the GNU System, is that fixes must have copyright assigned to the FSF. I understand that this is important to allow the FSF to defend the GPL in regards to GNU software.
However, much of the "open source community" has taken the "code is code" mentality. When the GNU project is "complete" and we have a fully functional free system made available by the FSF, will the Linux "open source" group join us to create a truly free system or will we settle for almost completely free.
I make this distinction, because if I understand copyright law and your structure, then GPL'd software isn't enough. Unless all the code is copyrighted by the same person (fictional or real), then the license would be difficult to enforce.
Also, how do we get other hackers to do so. I mean, you were an MIT professor, many of the programmers in the "open source community" are in high school or college. While I'm not implying that education = intelligence, I am implying the education makes you more likely to have read up on these topics. The average hacker GPLing code doesn't. How do we get copyright assignments made so that the GNU system can include all the wonderful contributions that have been made.
Alex M. Hochberger
You are quoted as once saying, "Programmers should work as waiters so that they can afford to give away their code". With the advent of companies like Red Hat profitting from Free software I have noticed several places on the GNU website where you acknowledge that wealth from Free Software is acceptable as long as the software is free (as in speech). I have assumed (maybe wrongly) that one of the purposes behind the GPL was to make sure software stayed free (as in beer) by giving purchasers complete distribution rights so even if the original creator of the software sold it at $1000 a pop, a buyer could then resell at whatever lesser price they liked ($500, $100, $10, $0). This would eventually make GPLed software tend to be free (as in beer).
Does the emergence and your (seeming) acceptance of companies like Red Hat and VA Linux which have made multi-millionairres out of some Free Software proponents mean that you have softened your stance towards the accumulation of wealth from software or were you incorrectly quoted in the article I read the quote from (and if so what is the original quote?).
ooo, that drives me nuts :P
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
A fairer answer would require a fairer comparison. How many of those $4Billion you mentioned are going to overhead, such as administration, demonstrating equal opportunity compliance, paying for bonding, and so on? How much of it is being spent because the government has repeatedly changed it's mind about the hardware, the definition of the system, and on and on and on, causing most of the work to be scrapped each time?
None of this is a criticism of the contractor! My point is that the government model of getting things done is the most expensive model known (to me at least). If you are a government contractor, you WILL use the government model. If you are a free software developer, you will work on a project which interests you, and if a large body of people develop an interest in hobby air traffic control, I think that they could make better software cheaper, in their spare time.
I've been following the FAA's fiascos in this from a long distance, and it seems that they've developed a sinkhole that all of our dollars put together can't fill. That doesn't mean that ATC systems are inherently expensive, it means that the government is screwing up again. That doesn't mean that any random non-beaurocracy would make the same mistakes.
Nels
See what I've been reading.
What is happening with the Hurd? Can we expect anything soon? Is LISP the _only_ programming language worthy of us? Do you find yourself doing any coding nowadays or mostly just FSF ambassador?
Dear RMS,
I was fortunate enough to attend your talk in bangalore,India recently. All the best for your efforts and we are all with you. Which distribution of GNU/Linux do you use and why?
What is the current state of GNU/Hurd and when will it be released? I know that it is very much usable already.
It seems to me that recently several GPL-like licenses are springing up, and there's a lot of talk about Open Music licenses, Open Book licenses, etc.. It seems that a lot of people want to extend the concepts embodied in the GPL to other areas.
How applicable do you think the GPL is to these other areas? (As in, the concepts embodied in the GPL). Also, what are the essential aspects of any license that wishes to convey the same kind of freedom the GPL conveys? (For example, if I want to come up with a GPL-like license for my music, what would be the most essential aspects of it?) Is there any set of principles that can be applied to any areas of endeavour, not only to software? (In other words, can the principles in GPL be generalized so that it also applies to other areas?)
mikre he sophia he tou Mikrosophou.
I used to follow the FSF and GNU, but after witnessing your attitude on the tech@openbsd.org list and after having some personal contact with you, I have changed my mind.
This is from an email we exchanged:
"When I say what I intend to do, that is not a promise... If I had agreed to a contract with someone about what I would say on that list, perhaps it would make sense...I don't consider netiquette very important."
This was when you invaded the list to talk about yourself (ie. not OpenBSD). It was all rather sad and didn't look very good on you at all.
My question is: What do you say to those who read your papers, hear or read your words, take those things as your word (i mean, how else are we to take it?) only to find out later that you would only consider sticking to it if it were in a contract?
From the emails that were sent to the list and from the quote above, it's quite evident that you feel that your words belong everywhere but that you need not ever live up to them unless forced by law. How do you think this reflects on the work that GNU and the FSF tries to do?
I'm sure the list is archived for those who are curious.
Sincerely,
Derek Wyatt
wyatt@dear.god.dont.spam.my.ass.syndesis.com
os.system("perl -e 'print \"My first Python Script.\"'")
Hi Richard,
One of the most disturbing trends in recent history are the legal challenges being made to Free Software, i.e. MPAA vs CSS and RIAA vs. Napster et al. Regardless of the legality of the disputed points, it appears to be a David vs. (well-funded, publicity adept) Goliath type situation. Additionally, it appears the positions and interpretations of existing law (such as the DMCA) by the plantiffs are becoming more and more extreme. The unfortunate reality is that the defendants usually do not have the resources to defend themselves and must end up giving away their rights or censoring themselves.
My question: the GPL was originally setup to preserve the freedom of the individual with regards to future use/modification of software and distribution of that software. With GPL'd software falling under the assault of (quasi-) legal actions like the above and being under the threat of removal from distribution, does it make sense to include provisions to strongly discourage (i.e. punish) litigation like the above? I could see a license provision that would preclude any use of GPL'ed software by companies engaged in legal action against the authors of GPL'ed software. While this is not enough motivation to avoid all litigation, it would prevent litigious companies from profiting from the benefits of open source if they are simutaneously attempting to censor it.
Thanks for your thoughts and time.
The remark from mrs.dutch, "Here, now you can go on a cruise and play your game while I get some sun.", says much since she skipped past all other topics and pinned Linux to the wall. Cool idea by the way.
Is it too far out in time for you to say what your topic will be?
-dutch,freebsd user
Dear RMS -
First, thanks for all the great work you've done!
Anyway, I discovered GNU and the FSM back around 1990. At that time, I recall that you were _not_ targeting GNU toward Intel CPU's because you did not want to support proprietary architectures. This also applied to Windows, and at that time, I don't think there were any official releases of FSM software for Windows. (As a comment, I personally did a crude port of GNU Chess to DOS, and then someone did a wonderful unofficial port to Windows including full source.)
Yet IMO Linux has taken off precisely because it works so well on Intel, and we are starting to see more and more software targeting the Windows "space" as Internet investors might say.
Do you think it is possible to be too tied to noble principles? That is, GNU had maybe a ten year head start, yet it is Linux and to a lesser degree BSD that is really in the news all the time. Isn't it possible that if you and the FSM had had a more pragmatic outlook ten years ago that a viable Windows alternative might have come along much sooner?
Tom Rombouts, Torrance, CA
( at Ashton-Tate from 1988-1991 )
My take on the open source software movement as it stands now is that software companies will embrace open source for software that it sees as 'razors' and develop closed source software as value-added products to be 'razor blades'. I think a lot of companies are also using this relationship to 'embrace' open source and use it as a marketing strategy. Am I wrong? If not, is this troublesome to the open source movement? Is there any fear that the open source movement is open to exploitation by software companies this way?
I wanted to add something to my earlier question: The open source movement was conceived, I'm sure with the same good intent as the patent system. But I'm wondering if people wouldn't abuse it in much the same way that the patent system has been abused to not so much encourage and reward innovation, but as litigation tools and in some ways, prevent innovation by other companies. Isn't it conceivable that the open source movement may fall victim to this kind of exploitation in the hands of commercial interests?
Apache was the killer app for the free software movement on the server. What do you forsee as the killer app for free software movement on the desktop, or do you belive that that free software will never take the desktop?
Never underestimate the dark side of the Source
Have you always wanted to work with computers or was there was something else that you wanted to do when you were a child? And if there was something else, what was it, and do you make time now to do it now?
It's not small stuff to promote free software, and the terminology is a way to do that. Unfortunately, it's not really catching on in the mainstream. Every introduction I've read to GNU/Linux in the non- or semi-technical media has suggested that the entire OS, as opposed to its kernel, was created by Linus and his project. The history (or even existence) of GNU is never mentioned.
Actually, I've had some email conversations with RMS that brushed on this subject - in particular, it had to do with interpreted/runtime bytecode systems where the underlying technology is Open Source (GPL) but the stuff running on top was proprietary (it was a clarification for one of the Open Source projects that I am involved with).
We were discussing how it works, how GPL applies and doesn't apply, etc. And I nearly fell out of my chair when he mentioned he could tell me how to work around part of the problem if it required a proprietary, closed source section to be done (I'm not going to bother to explain the whole thing - I think the conversation probably rambled on for about 15 pages of written text, I think.)
I assumed that RMS was very much Open Source ONLY, no ifs ands, or buts. He has his ideology, but, seems to address and understand the validity of other ideologies, even if he doesn't agree with him. I gained new respect for him - he's not someone that I particularly looked up to until that point.
And then he mentioned that I should call Linux GNU/Linux instead. I decided I'd better cut and run while I was still ahead, and not loose respect for him over that particular issue ;-)
Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr - looking for something to read? Check out my three free novels at MidnightRyder.org
is my fave
.oO0Oo.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
With iD opening up the source to Quake 1 it introduced an interesting conundrum - you can re-write the client to cheat.
.oO0Oo.
Many people have proposed solutions including checksumming the client etc. but there always seems to be an arms race type scenario to defeat such schemes.
Security through obscurity isn't exactly perfect but it seems to be a better solution than making the software Free. iD were going to sue somebody that made a derived closed client from GPL'd code.
Have you put any thought time into this because plenty of great minds have failed to solve it. How about yours?
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I'm surprised that, on a quick check through the hundreds of postings to RMS, no-one has asked the following question: (I hope you moderating people are still watching and find a few precious points to get it to RMS' eyes..)
Programs are really just data. Music and other works of art are really just data. The GPL applies specifically to programs.
What do you think about extending the GPL concept to cover non-program data such as music?
Further, do you hold the same stance on such data as you do on programs? In other words, is it less moral if music is less free?
Related question: Gnu-tella is GPL, but it isn't Gnu, is it? Will you give it the official stamp of approval?
--------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
Dere's a storm a-comin'...
Do you think that open sourcing and free software will become the domain of large, popular companies, or remain a mainstay for smaller, more selectively-targeted ones? And which do you think will be more advantageous for the movement itself?
As of now, I think the open source movement is a strike back at the huge corps, but with the popularity it is having now, it has the slight but existing potential of becoming the same. Do you feel this will cause problems with the established advantages of open source?
-You're wearing...A bag? I have misplaced my pants.
C'mon, man; when can I write that Quake frontend to NetHack?
(Memo to self: Shoot the bastard who ports my Quake frontend of NetHack to Textmode Quake...)
B) If a free software hacker offered to buy you a drink, would you:
C) Which closed-source software product do you consider to be the least loathsome? (Erm... you may have to base this on what you've heard about them ;-)
D) As an admitted JargonPhile, I must ask, what do you think of Eric Raymond's version of the Jargon File? Is it an improvement? Worse? A historical document? Should classic hacker jargon be thus preserved in current usage, or should new generations of hackers create new jargon?
E) What is the most important piece of advice you could give to someone who's just recently embarked on the quest to write free software?
Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.
You wrote SAT (or ACT) test; PC computer; SIMM memory; FSF foundation. Others added PIN number; NIC card; ATM machine. I'll add DSS system, RISC computer, and...
The CORBA Architecture.
You know why we call it that? <ianal>The law considers trademarks to be adjectives.</ianal>
Will I retire or break 10K?
Those "dozens of napster clients" will not become "useless" if opennap has anything to say about it.
Will I retire or break 10K?
The GPL and LGPL are great licenses, but unfortunately they don't allow you to link to all free software. Is there room for another GPL license, call it GPL-F, that is based on the GPL, but has the following exceptions: (1) You can link any GPL-F to any free software program. Etc.
The GNU Lesser GPL already does that; the GNU GPL includes clause 10 that lets you add a "compatibility clause" to your README saying "This code may be linked to any code that is released as free software." Or just release the same code under multiple licenses, as was done back when BSD had the ad clause.
Will I retire or break 10K?
we don't call windows 'win32'
Unless we're distinguishing 3.5+ releases (NT/W2K, W9x/ME) from 3.1. And Windows's kernel is still Microsoft MS-DOS.
Will I retire or break 10K?
RMS:
t /research/education/etc.?
Why software, why not weapons/medicine/politics/economics/enterntainmen
What are your thoughts about the future of distributed data sharing that does not depend on a centralized service (GNUTELLA?)
Do you trust/condone the corporations that have used GNU/Linux as their money making tool (RedHat, VA Linux, etc?)
Are you interested in astronomy? If so, do you have a view about the universal formation? MegaGalaxies, other dimensions? Are you an atheist or are you religeous type?
What are your thoughts on the development of hardware lately (Intel vs AMD vs Apple and IBM vs SUN Spark)
What is your favorite (computer) game, do you play Tetris?
Did you like The Matrix?
What books do you read?
Thank you very much, roman_mir@hotmail.com
You can't handle the truth.
In ESR's book "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" he mentions that the psychology of the Hacker Culture could revolve around the gaining of reputation by giving "gifts" of code to the community. What is your view of the motivations for giving away source code today?
You're not supposed to make money selling your program as open source. That's the whole point, selling software is a ridiculous idea. If you like doing it, do it, but don't expect a return on it. Some people like mountain climbing but most of them don't make money off of it, they lose money just by doing it (buying equipment, travel, etc). If you want to make money, get a programming job that pays what you want, and write your program in your free time.
My other
What does OSS/GPL software need/want most(as in terms of talent) more than anything?
:)
And do you think people are "getting" into the OSS/GPL movement now that is becoming profitable (greed)instead of getting into it for the right reasons? Could you refresh exactly on what the "right reasons" are for getting into to the OSS/GPL movement, from your point of view. (and don't cut&paste from your web site
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
Patrick Volkerding of Slackware fame preferes Boxes to Breifs. Do you agree with this, or have negative feels towards this?
Do you think this issuse has any impact on the Open Source Movement, and do more OSS developers prefer one to the other? What is the trend with commerical developers, and how is the Boxers or Breifs issuse related to software development?
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
Lots of software these days are released under multiple licenses. Most of the time (for example
;)
for Ghostscript), the GPL version is the oldest/less enhanced one. Do you support multiple
licensing, do you think that software that is available in an enhanced binarie only version is still free software. What kind of message does that send to the public (free = inferior)?
(By the way thank you for being who you are
Je t'aime Stéphanie
The whole concept of free software certainly seems to have some socialist values. Everybody can use it for free after all. Idunno, do you think that's a bad thing?
OoO
OoO
Please do not publish outside of
Be more specific. Why are socialists dangerous? What kind of danger?
OoO
OoO
Please do not publish outside of
One of your arguments in favor of Free Software is that it is the best thing for the good of the public. If a general consensus ever develops that Free Software does not benefit the public, can you imagine changing your mind?
For example, let's say that business loses an interest in software to the point where only free software can be found, and users are often forced to wait long times to get the product they desire. Let's say that hospitals can't get software updates for their medical scanners because there is such a reduced incentive for people to provide updates.
In other industries, socialism tends to do a fine job of providing everyone with a minimum level of coverage, yet falls short at providing extra coverage for those who desire it. In many cases, the average level of output under a socialist system is considerably less than the average level of output under other systems. How do you justify persuing a course of action that may reduce the level of output? Exactly what is the chain of reasoning by which you justify your belief that Free Software benefits the public as a whole? It plainly benefits some people in the short term, but that's insufficient to prove it will benefit society as a whole in the long term. Do you have any economic and/or social science to back up your position?
I guess the key question here is, has Free Software become such a strong surrogate for Public Benefit in your mind that you can no longer separate the two?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
The FSF boycott of Apple was dropped in 1995. See http://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull18. html#TOC13
There has been a lot of debate lately about security in Open Source Software and whether it is better or worse than proprietary, closed source software. How do you feel about OSS software?
kwsNI
When it was announced, the guile project was intended to provide the free software community with a truly high-level, general purpose scripting language. It was also supposed to be the main scripting language of GNOME. Since then, I've heard little about it and GNOME/GTK scripting seems to be done mostly in perl or python.
Is guile still a priority for the FSF? Whare are your plans to promote it? I know I'd rather use scheme than perl or python or tcl, but it doesn't seem to be ready.
miles
I hope this question gets asked, because I see it as being a common misconception towards free software. I hope that RMS can put the matter to rest. However, I would like to comment on a part of your question.
You say:
the person putting in that effort has little or no rights to the fruits of the effort or to expect any rewards at all for having put out that kind of energy.
One day I added up the money made in sales on software that I had written. In almost 10 years as a professional programmer, my contribution has generated more than $30 million US. I have been paid about $500,000 Cdn. All of my professional work has been proprietary software.
Where is the fruit of my labour? I'm not even allowed to look at the source code to the software I wrote (I've moved from company to company). I got paid what I thought was a fair wage (although it might seem a bit low to some people), but I had no rights to my work at all. According to the papers I've signed at these companies, even the ideas developed in my own time belong to someone else.
Free software that I have written has helped people. It even enabled one person to create a business. I got no money for my work. But I was free. No-one owned me, my ideas or my code.
I may earn my living from free software someday. In the past, this would have meant striking out on my own. I had neither the experience nor the desire to start my own consulting company. However, things are changing and I may just get the opportunity to work free from the oppression of proprietary attitudes.
Remember: the free software movement is not driven by customers looking for a free lunch. It is driven by programmers who are sick of their creations being treated as other people's property.
All that aside did you ever in your wildest dreams at the very start of the "crusade" think that open source would be a "movment"?
There is money, power, and influence all behind open source today. Computers boot and rely on open source to work every day. And you've even managed to help influence others to open source their own projects in order to gain help on their own making powerful software free to the masses.
So did you ever imagine anything like what is happening now with open source would ever happen?
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Free software and free Operating Systems have been around long before Linux. Some, like the BSD's seem to be much more secure and have other advantages over Linux as well. So why has Linux become the most popular of the free operating systems, and even to the point of challenging commercial operating systems?
Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
The Free Software Foundation is very old-school in the sense that it never seemed to really "get" the Internet revolution. Sure, there is www.gnu.org, ftp sites, and such, but... (rhetorical questions)
It feels like the FSF as a whole invests less time in leveraging the Internet than much smaller projects -- related or not -- like GNUStep, FlightGear, Gnome or... the Linux kernel.
My question is... why? Has the FSF missed the Internet Revolution? Is the Brave GNU World Column an attempt to remedy this? Will we be seeing a more concerted effort regarding that? Or do you not agree that there is a problem?
Cool websites make free software more fun. And there is nothing wrong with fun. Not everyone attends conferences, and sometimes the best place to share your ideas with party-goers is at a party.
That's actually funny. On the anarchistic/socialistic graph, open source software is right on the crossover, which IMO, is the best place for any social system to be at.
---
script-fu: hash bang slash bin bash
[ approaching AI ]
You have been an advocate for Open Source for several years now, and probably know as much about the history of the movement as anyone. What, in your opinion, is the biggest mistake the the Open Source community has made? Is there anything that we should be doing differently right now?
When/if an easy way is found to pay small change for ebooks there's no surety that a given work won't be duplicated a zillion times and then in effect become free to all with nothing going back to the author/publisher/editor ... and it's important that thought be given to editors and publishers... especially since I'm both... I get manuscripts in that need months of editing, fact-checking, footnoting,indexing, layout, graphics bought for and all the rest that goes into making a readable book. Mr. Stallman's article in http://www.techreview.com/articles/may00/stallman. htm seems like mostly wishful thinking in regard to any compensation ever getting back to those who produce. I'd like to see some serious thought on compenstating producers not the pie-in-the-sky-maybe-you'll-get-paid-someday-someh ow blather RMS put out in the above cited "thought-provoker" ...
Hi, RMS
When (if ever) will Emacs fully and nativly support unicode?
--
M-x all-hail-emacs RET
It is not a troll, and you read way too much into the question. It is meant as it is stated, with no implication that one or more gods are necessary to morality. Perhaps I should have stated this explicitly, but I was striving to be brief. I feel it's simply an interesting question... God is an easy answer, but not the only one. I mention Stallman's atheism because that's the word he uses himself, a word which invokes religous ideas by negation, thus IMHO inviting both the question and the sort of language it's couched in.
In fact, that assertion (that only God can dictate morality) has serious problems, since it assumes that if the deity were to declare (say) murder to be ethical, that it would therefore be ethical to murder.
Yes, yes, if you're a divine command type. Natural law theology has it's own problems, but that's not one of them. And deism, bla bla bla. But what sort of universe does RMS believe in, and where does morality fit into it?
Though I may be projecting, I suspect Stallman is a utilitarian - one who believes that those acts which have a "positive" effect on society as a whole are moral, and those which have a "negative" effect are immoral.
That would be just the sort of answer I'd love to get... from the man himself, of course. Talk about a theory that has serious problems, btw! Not that that makes it false...
But what are "positive" and "negative" to be understood in terms of? Pleasure and pain, like ol' Bentham and Mill? And how would he tie them to free software?
I really am not interested in tearing apart anyone's ideas, though. I'd just like to know what RMS' are... they're sure to be interesting. The fact that you can only answer in terms of your suspicions seems to me a validation of the Utility of my questions. ;-)
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
You often speak of notions such as right and wrong as if they were objective things; do you hold them to be so? Are there "natural" rights, and what is the nature of their existence? If so, how does this fit with your atheism? If not, do you feel that ethical claims have some basis beyond personal taste?
I'd love to hear you go a bit further and speak of your view of the world, of your notion of what knowledge is, and so on. I understand that you might not wish to tie the ideas you publically sponsor to those which you hold personally, but I think it'd be gratifying for many of us to get a better sense of "where is Richard Stallman coming from?"
And though I'm sure the other questions will say so as well: many thanks for many things! :-)
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton
While I don't believe that copying software is inherently immoral, I do believe that denying authors compensation for their work is wrong. Unfortunately, under the for-profit model of distribution we have now, free copying of software does translate into uncompensated authors. I think that in order for free distribution of information to be widespread, that needs to be fixed - authors need to make a living. Not all authors can offer service contracts, etc.(not to mention authors of books, movies, and music). Besides, not all authors may want to. Shouldn't the actual act of writing the software be worth something?
I am working on a research project at my university that involves Linux, video conferecning and a new patented algorithem. As a Linux user, I would like to release the program open source under the GPL. However, the University would like to sell or license the patent/program, for money. Does the GPL allow for the protection of intelectual property while not giving away the usefullness or money making possibilities of the patent? Does the GPL allow for compromise situations where patended material needs to stay commercially still viable? Aron Rosenberg.
Note that releasing a new version of the GPL with more restrictive conditions would not work, since people can choose to use any (later) version. A whole new license would be required.
Well, what happened ? There's all sorts of version control, but why don't we still have file version numbers as part of the OS itself ?
RMS, Perhaps this is more practical than interesting or insightful, but so be it. Would it be possible for the FSF to set up a branch in Canada, so that those of us who live here could get a tax deductible donation? MEA
MEA
You allways are noted around the Free Software community as telling people to say "GNU/Linux", not just "Linux." I understand your reasons for it, but other OSes also use parts from other companies and development groups. Why shouldn't Linux systems be named by their kernel just like everything else?
Not a typewriter
A while ago I herd ESR talking about how he supported 'intellectual property' because he's a libertarian and he believes in property rights. This really chapped me, because he is an expert on the foundation of property rights and surely must know that 'intellectual property' is no more a capitalistic natural-law property right than slavery was.
In fact his appeasement reminds me of the people who thought the slave states could peacefully get along with the free states. It's outrageous, and if anyone would/could call him on it - I thought it would be you, but at least to my ears you seem to be strangely silent about it all. Why?
BTW: I know you hate the term 'intellectual property' because you don't like mixing copyrights and patents. Sorry, but I still think it is appropiate in this context.
I've read a few thing about a new version of the GPL license, what can you tell us about it?
I am a participant in the Harvard Openlaw forum discussing potential defenses for 2600 against the plaintiff MPAA members.
After much debate there, it seems that there may be a defense for 2600 based on the DMCA's reverse engineering exemption. This is perhaps contingent on 2600's motivations in circulating DeCSS, at least according to the language of the DMCA. A sticking point in this 'perhaps' may be the license under which DeCSS was first released; currently, the story is that Jon Johansen was persuaded by members of the LiViD group to contribute DeCSS to the open source development of the LiViD DVD player - and if my understanding is correct, open source is circulated under the GPL.
Assuming these are the correct facts, could you state your (I assume non-lawyerly, but obviously well-informed) opinion as to what or whether protection is afforded to 2600 in their circulation of DeCSS?
It make a long time I wanted to know that and never found out. Not wanting to bother him with this small thing I didn't ask him but thought this was the perfect time to do it. So I checked nobody did it before, and someone did. Please moderate him up, so I can know :)
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Explain to me why I should replace the "Commercial" software in my organization with the "Free" software. My managers refuse to believe that "Free" software has any advantage. They say it cannot be supported or trusted. After all, it's Un-American to give something away to business.
What kind of a position do you take on applications such as Napster?
I discovered there are 15+ different unix/java/perl/etc. implementations of what appears to be the same or equivalent Napster application. I'm sure you're aware of what the music industry thinks of Napster.
Upon doing a quick search at freshmeat.net:
http://freshmeat.net/search.php3?que ry=napster
one finds the music industry will have a hard time fighting something that is already open source and free, not to mention how many different entities there are.
In particular, I see GTK Napster carries a standard GPL. I'd just like to know what happens when someone like Metallica wins a lawsuit against Napster who has a GPL'd counterpart such as GTK Napster? Can they touch it at all?
Your thoughts?
Thanks,
Greg Donald
Have you considered endorsing a presidential candidate? (I'm thinking that Ralph Nader would be a staunch ally of our freedom complaints.) Besides dropping the geek vote into the bucket, it'll get lots of us registered if they hear you say, "Go vote for this guy or girl because ..."
If you need text styles to communicate then you don't have a message.
What judicial remedy would you favor against Microsoft?
Tim O'Reilly and others have been drawing attention to the possibility that web-hosted applications such as MapQuest and Hotmailreduce the demand for free software.
There seems to be less incentive to open the source when it all sits in one centralized server farm controlled by one company. Or is there?
Lately, much attention has been given towards making a Linux desktop for the average consumer. Almost without exception, these efforts are attempts to duplicate the functionality, look and feel, and task model of applications by large software vendors such as Microsoft (StarOffice, KOffice, etc.) and Adobe (the GIMP).
Is this a victory?
He answers it at http://www.gnu.org/philosoph y/microsoft-antitrust.html.
Currently it is very difficult for Device Drivers to made for non wintel systems.
What in your view can be done to persuade manufacturers to release technical documentation , so that anyone can provide 3rd party drivers for their favourite os ?
What is your option on having the GPL cover books, Patents, Film, music, anything? Do you think it will work as well. What do you think will be the problems if any. If we want to stop software Patents should we have GPL patents to protect our way of writing software? is This hypocritical or just savvy? Do you think music that can be freely sampled as long as the music with the sampled sound is also GPL make Nabster like distribution more attractive to artist? I like the Idea expanding what GPL covers I just don't know if it will work as well it has for software? What would need to happen in order to make it happen. I like some comments Please thank you?
Mr Stallman,
I find myself agreeing with you on many things. This whole trend towards usage of "Open Source" rather than "Free Software" galls me because of it's emphasis on it being technically 'beter', rather than the freedom it gives us. However, I do see Open Source people's point that normal mortals will think of 'Free' in terms of 'zero money', rather than liberty.
I recently had an idea, and I've not seen it anywhere else: why not rename the FSF and Free Software to "Freedom Software Foundation" and "Freedom Software"? I know this would be awkward in some ways, but at least it would clear up a lot of doubts, fears and misunderstandings. The title of the sofware model and philosophy would then be clear to all.
What do you think?
Quix0te - Wales, UK
Open source (and sometimes free software) has been hailed as the answer to every problem known to modern programmers. It makes programs reliable. It makes programs secure. It makes programs more efficient. It speeds development. It encourages plurality and increases your options as a developer.
I think that there is a kernel of truth to all of these things, but also that it has been blown greatly out of proportion. One may hold on principle, as you do, that we should only use free software; in that case any benefits derived from the OSS methodology are a pleasant side-effect.
Others use the benefits of OSS themselves as the incentive for pursuing it. OK, fair enough. Still, despite the claims, I'm not aware of any scientifically conducted and peer-reviewed surveys (not case studies---these are only the beginnings of a statistical sampling) that substantiate them. If you know of any please provide pointers.
And then there are many zealots and marketing weenies who have seized on the notion with little thought other than jumping on the bandwagon, and now hold it up as a panacea. It reminds me an awful lot of the mania that surrounded Java and XML when they first gained prominence.
Personally I believe all this hype mania only weakens our position in making arguments for free software that we can substantiate.
What is your response to all this frenzy? Are we over the hump?
BH
Fools! They laughed at me at the Sorbonne...!
AFAIK, the GPL has never been challenged in court. Do you think it should be? Of course I'm not saying we should "pick a fight", but do you think it may be better to establish at least one precedent to demonstrate that the GPL actually holds up in the legal arena?
Of course, the best thing for free software adovcates is if everyone just follows the terms without any conflict, but it has occasionally occurred to me that confidence in the GPL could be undermined by even just one incident which impinges even indirectly on the legal validity of the GPL. If that happens, it would not only encourage people to stop using the GPL, but might destabilize existing free software houses like Red Hat, or even encourage a family of companies to lead a legal assault on the GPL which the FSF could not withstand, and which would render all of your and our (the free source community) work on free software unprotected.
BH
Fools! They laughed at me at the Sorbonne...!
This may be a little RTFM, but let us say I'm starting a company which develops open-source (GPL) software. We are selling the software in shops, in a nice box and it costs 25$. It includes documentation, a CD with the program and support. People can distribute the source under terms of GPL, copy the documentation/manuals, but must keep the copyright notice (this is not a opensource documentation license). You can only purchase it online, but after that it's free to distribute and copy etc, without getting marked as piracy, because we want people to spread it. This is a way of commercializing open-source, but not properitarizing it - is this legal according to GPL or? --Carsten Munk
-Stskeeps, http://unrealircd.com
Dear M. Stallman,
I love designing and coding software and, not surprisingly, I want to make a living doing what I love.
Freedom is very important to me, so I don't want to work for other people. Therefore, I want to set up my own company selling my software over the Internet.
Now, I don't see how I can make a living if my software is free. It is multi-media software that is easy to use. There's not much money in the support department...
Can you explain to me how I can make a living, selling my program as open source?
I realise that this is a very simple and obvious question. Still, no-one has ever given me a clear answer. Thank you.
English lacks some words. The free-beer/free-speach thing. In other languages, their ain't such confusion.
sigmentation fault
And, of course, ONLY American ways are good. All un-american idea, reasoning, philosophy, thingamajig and watchamacallit are invention of the Evil to corrupt the weak-minded. All hail America, the only source of true wisdom on Earth. No, in the whole Universe.
Joke aside, if your managers use that kind of arguments against Free Software, maybe you should replace them with more open minded and clever people.
> They say it cannot be supported or trusted.
sigmentation fault
Can the FSF design a license allowing a project to be controlled by its initiator, but with real freedom? I was thinking that perhaps a timed license could do the job, something like:
This program was published under the [something-license] on [somemonth, nth. year], and this version [version-number] can be considered as a [LGPL or GPL] sourcecode on the [between 6 months and 2 years later]...
The advantage is it would allow the project initiator to closely control the project as long as he/she/it release new versions often enough and, if the project goes to a wrong direction or is no more published under an open license, free software programmers won't have a too old base to work on. This license can allow distribution of modified version under another name, and the right of the project initiator to include or no part of the modification. It must be rather liberal, allowing to link with whatever libraries the project may need, in order not to scare companies.
I think time interval lesser than 6 month or greater than 2 years should not be allowed, as they will be useless or hypocrite. The project initiator should be able to choose if the project will became GPL'ed or LGPL'ed.
sigmentation fault
Mr. Stallman,do you think it is it possible to expand the ideas of Free Software to other industries?Is it worth trying?
----------
------------------------
Thus Spake ComradePenguin
This is so hilarious I nearly fell out of my chair when I read it. I needed a good laugh to get me through the rest of the day. Thank you.
Today in Washington environmentalists, human rights advocates, anarchists, and in general various people who are concerned with elitist corporate rule are protesting. They are protesting against the IMF and the World Bank; orginizations which are corporatist tools for the transfer of power from localized individuals to the global corporate elite.
While protest against these organizations and others (such as the WTO) is important, there is another factor in this equation that many people (present company of
We must make aware, to the general populace, that this corporate complex is setting itself up to control the future digital world. This general awareness is vital to prevent the passing of laws which clearly stomp individual rights. How do you think we can best create such awareness?
I woke up this morning, I was feeling kind of high, it was me, Jesus Christ and Haile Salassie I.
Why don't I ever hear this guy talk about the basic economic principles behind his beliefs. We live in a capitalist economy. We make things so we gain currency to buy the stuff we want. Thats the way it works. It would be great if we lived in a 'Star Trek' universe and nobody paid for anything but did what they were good at for the common good of the Federation. Thats not reality. Free software is what we'd all like, but anarchistic beliefs don't buy Big Macs.
What are some of the things that you've learned about making a software project (solo or team) work? I don't mean the coding or design per se, but things like work habits, time issues, physical and social enviroment, etc.
Life,
Rademir
ourpla.net is your planet
What would happen, in the hypothetical case, where you litigated the GPL, and lost? Do you have a Plan B?
and
Have you ever thought of taking a more conciliatory attitude to things? Does the phrase "Don't Sweat the Small Stuff" (I'm thinking of the "GNU/Linux" thing) have any resonance at all with you? Are there any things that you sort of care about, but not very much?
-- the most controversial site on the Web
What I want to know is what RMS really thinks about commercial software, and it's place on free operating systems. Should commercial applications be accepted or rejected from a free operating enviroment?
Also, the different type of licenses.. Which does RMS think is the best license? GPL or BSD License or many more..
-meff
I remember specifically when Apple sued over the "Windows" interface you published one of your great articles which basically states "Don't support/write for/buy Apple". Is it possible for a company that has done something like this can ever make up for what it has done? If so, what would that involve, something as unlikely as releasing all of their source, or something less earth shattering?
2 questions:
/. article, many people don't even seem to understand the difference between free and open-source software.
a) Today free software has come to a point where lots of people are using it without understanding or caring about the underlying ideas. More and more commercial software is coming to platforms which previously solely consisted of free software. Projects like KDE flourish based on non-free foundations. Even in the comments to this
When you try to focus attention to the free software idea, like in the GNU/Linux case, or the Library->Lesser GPL case, you are confronted with lack of understanding.
Considering this, do you think there is a realistic threat that in the near or distant future the free software ideas will be buried and forgotten ?
If so, how are you and the FSF going to stop this, especially considering that previous attempts seem to have had more of a negative than a positive effect ?
b) Sometimes you are called a communist, mostly by people that do not like you. But what *are* your views on the political and economical world ? How much do you think the free software philosophy is extendable outside of the software itself ?
--
GCP
Do you think that companies, like Corel, which adopt Free Software as a platform, and then produce commercial products for that platform threaten freedom? It would seem that many companies, like Corel, are trying to use some free software to leverage their commercial applications, like WordPerfect, to a non-Microsoft platform, in order to gain a new revenue stream. How can the free software commmunity ensure that all products related to free software are free?
If doing so gave you the brain power of Albert Einstein, would you sleep with Linus Torvalds??
How do you feel about the stupid penguin being plasterd all over you operating system? How about a big mean wolf, squirrel, or gorilla? Why not drop the /linux part too :) leaves you with GNU :)
Eric Raymond has posted a document called 'How to be a Hacker' describing the steps towards programming proficiency. What would be your advice to achieve this goal?
In my reading about the "open source" verses "free software" debate, two little facts dropped out:
- ESR has been described as a 'neopagan'
- while you've been quoted as saying you're an atheist
I know you've (jokingly) dressed the part of "free software messiah".It seems to me at least, that ESR is taking the less 'evangelical' route; that his existing religion is blunting a 'pure belief' in the ideals of free software. Could you comment on your faith in the ideology of free software?
Thanks.
-- King of the Luddites
Which leads me to a second opinion: what is RMS's opinion on the current lawsuit by Mettalica against Napster?
Thank you!!
I think, businesses are natively greedy. Not necessarily a malicious greed; it's only natural for a business to seek to make money for it's own growth and for the profit of it's shareholders. Of course this can be taken too far, but in a competetive marketplace, consumers will avoid you if they feel they're being exploited (unfair monopolies and industry cartels aside, anyway).
What, do you think, would drive a business with a profitable for-cost product, to start giving it away for free, source an' all?
Allicorn Cauce
OMG!!! Ponies!!!
Hi RMS. First off, I'd like to say, "Thank you", on behalf of all Slashdot readers. We are all indebted to your contribution to the software world. With that said...
Since being introduced to Free Software (like GNU/Linux) and to other software that undermines the control of information (like Napster or DeCSS), I have found the notion of information control--not just of software, but of all information--increasingly frustrating. The popularity of Free Software echoes this frustration: it points to a rising resistance against the control of information. Users everywhere are acting against licenses that dictate how information can be used after it has been acquired (whether gratis or for a fee).
My question is, "Do you (or would you like to) see a future where all information is as Free as GPLed software?" Should I be able to change the ending of, and redistribute, a best-selling novel? Should I be able to include any sample in my band's next song, royalty-free? Do you think that any information creators (authors, musicians, researchers, hackers, etc.) should have the right to restrict our use of "their" information once we have acquired it (beyond those controls applied by the GPL), or should a GPL-like license be the only one available?
Boycott Metallica and Dr. Dre NOW! (Please redistribute this
First of all, thanks for everything you've done for free software,
both promoting and producing it.
My question is related to the problems many people have with the
GPL license vs. the LGPL one (this topic has also been covered by
a recent Slashdot article, and I think that everybody knows what
you wrote on the difference between the two licenses).
To summarize what I think is the main issue, the GPL is focused on
the actions of copying, distributing and modifying a "program". It
explicitly states that "the act of running the program is not
restricted". I assume that by "running the program" one means
"using the program", because generally software is used executing
it. Basically, the GPL grants the user freedom of use, and freedom
of speech. That granting freedom of use is in the spirit of the
license is also stated clearly in
"http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html".
Here the basic "freedoms" related to free software are numbered
from zero to three. The first (and therefore most basic) one is
freedom of use.
In my opinion, the most straightforward way of using a library is
that of linking against it, either statically or dynamically. In
fact, I can hardly conceive another way of using a library.
On the other hand, a work "based on" the library would be a
modification of the library, or a program "including" the library
or a modified version or part of it literally in the source code,
without linking.
I am giving these definitions because I feel they are consistent
with the ones we use for programs: you use a program loading it in
memory and running it, and you use a procedure exactly in the same
way. Moreover, with component based architectures (like CORBA, COM,
of GNOME's BONOBO) the distinction between programs and libraries
literally fades away.
Now, the question: the GPL allows you to run a program inside a
proprietary operating system, but it does not allow you to run a
procedure inside a proprietary program. An application that
"works with" a free program is not "based on" it, it simply uses
it. This is true even if the free program is distributed with the
application (like movemail with Netscape on Unix). On the other
hand, you say that a non free application that calls (uses?) a free
procedure is "based on" the procedure, and therefore the GPL does
not grant the authors of such an application the right to use the
procedure, even if the procedure is supposed to be "free
software", and freedom of use is a basic freedom for software.
Don't you think this is contradictory, and against your own
principles? After all, the GPL is really revoking freedom of use
from free software in many circumstances!
Thanks,
Massimiliano
In the latest issue of the german publication Linux Magazin (this article is not available online), Till Jaeger mentioned that Sections 11 and 12 of the GPL, concerning warranty and liability, will be void according to german law.
He explained that the "General Trading Conditions Act" (Gesetz zur Regelung des Rechts der Allgemeinen Geschäftsbedingungen, aka AGBG) makes it impossible in germany to completely withdraw the creators responsibility for a given product, even if the product is donated, like software downloaded for free. I.e. in the case of intend ("Vorsatz") or serious negligence ("grobe Fahrlässigkeit") the author of a program will be liable to a certain extend.
Worst of all I think, because of the complete denial of warranty and liability the GPL is sporting, the aformentioned sections 11 and 12 become void.
So what about a localized "German GPL" or a "Germany Clause" in the GPL to reduce the risk for the program's author to a maximum extend by not completely voiding these sections?
(BTW: Maybe this problem not only concerns germany but also some eastern european countries - concerning trade laws and consumer rights, they have often adopted german legislation in the past decade.)