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.
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
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)
--
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?
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?
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
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 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.
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
What does the "M" stand for?
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
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?
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?
-- 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'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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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!
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
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.
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)
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
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?)
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'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.
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
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
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 ?
Why is or isn't it consistent with your 'GNU/Linux' position to call Linux 'X/GNU/BSD/Linux'?
Geeky modern art T-shirts
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!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
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?
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?
The answer to this question is really dependant on what colour the chairs, walls, table, cheeseburger and heather are (not to sound racist). It's an obvious question formed from sound psychology literature and it cannot be answered without these important details. Obviously the voice was stern but I also think the familiarity of the voice needs to be addressed. Would Mr Stallman trust this voice? Would the voice make him hungry or horney? The colour scheme and the particular pitch of the voice comming out of the speaker are the deciding factors here.
How we know is more important than what we know.
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
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)
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
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.
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?
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)
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!
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.
Are 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.
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 :)
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!
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?
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
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?).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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?
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
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 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
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?
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?
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