Slashdot Mirror
Stallman And Bero Interviewed
Juraj Bednar writes: "I have done two interviews: one with Bero from RedHat and one with Richard
Stallman, the GNU and FSF founder. I usually write in my native language, but since these interviews were done in English, I asked myself why not to share them" Readers may want to also visit Bero's shared-source.com, and bookmark it as a FUD antidote.
First of all, this is not some generic interview section - it's just a pointer to some questions about "shared source" I answered a while ago.
;)
But since I'm reading this, guess there's no reason not to reply.
1) Ever since the Qt license problems have been resolved, RH hasn't had problems with KDE. Actually, most people in this office use KDE.
There have been a couple of internal flamewars of course, but nobody really takes them seriously.
2) Sure - some of the most serious gripes I've had with Red Hat Linux when I started BeroLinux have been fixed for quite a while - for example, the lack of a possibility to add a non-root user during installation (added in 6.1), KDE integration (initially added in 6.0, updated to a sane version in 7.1), or wasting space by not compressing man/info pages (fixed in 6.1 or 6.2, don't remember), or the lack of optimizations (all 7.x releases are compiled with -march=i386 -mcpu=i686). There are still some things I'd do differently, but overall, I'm quite satisfied with the current version (the current beta in particular).
3) Yes, to an extent. It annoys me even more that RH never bothered to make an official statement regardning the compiler.
I think the whole thing wouldn't be the way it is if someone in power had taken the time to communicate it correctly, preferrably before the 7.0 release.
4) That strongly depends on what you want to do - I personally want to eliminate the need for non-free OSes, which means usability (and thereby KDE) needs the most attention at the moment. But then, things like scaling down to embedded devices and up to high-end servers are not exactly useless either... I think going ahead in all directions the way it's happening now is a good thing.
5) We have a more generic approach to prelinking (needs a patched ld.so and binutils though). This is part of the current beta of RHL.
This message is provided under the terms outlined at http://www.bero.org/terms.html
Right here.
This describes what Microsoft USED to do. Microsoft no longer restricts it to their biggest companies (or universities, which for a long time have had access, which noone here seems to realize), but instead allows anyone to look at WinCE code. You can even mess around with it, modify, recompile, as long as it's not for commercial use. This is pretty cool. You can hack with it, play around with it, etc., as long as you don't try to steal Microsoft's code.
Granted, it's not open source by a long shot, but it is a way for Microsoft code to become friendlier.
Oh, and if you check it out, they even allow you to use code in your own. So it's NOT the "Oh-my-god-if-your-seventeenth-cousand-thrice-remo ved-looks-at-this-you-can't-make-anything-more-tha n-shell-scripts-or-Linux-will-be-fucked." Indeed, they're willing to give you ideas.
Shared source isn't what we're into, granted, but it is a lot nicer than we give it credit for. If we're going to be opinionated, let's at least be right.
RMS listed several companies that sell commercial free software. From what I understand, his idea is that software should be free as in speech but need not be free as in beer. As far as I have seen, the main ways to accomplish this and make money at free software are
- The source is free as in speech, but companies can sell compiled binary versions so the users don't have to go to the trouble of compiling their own.
- Some companies also charge for support, documentation and services, while the software itself is free as in speech.
What I am trying to understand is how well this will play to general, non-technical users, the real market that needs to be conquered in order to compete with Microsoft et. al. and get a foothold in the industry.I think that in order for the free software/open source movements to succeed, they need to appeal to everyday users. I think that there also need to be mainstream companies that make money with free software so that the programmers creating the free software can do it as their day job. So please help me understand, in all sincerity, how we will accomplish this?
The very first paragraph of his page says that the Windows CE source code was released under a Shared Source license. A mere five sentences later (note that this is also five paragraphs later, since he's one of those idiots who uses a new paragraph for just about every single sentence he writes), he's telling us that Shared Source "gives only some selected (by Microsoft) large companies the permission to view parts of the source code [...]" This is also a point (entirely incorrect, by the way) that he continually harps upon. Is he senile or something, or did he forget what he wrote only 5 sentence earlier?
As if that weren't enough for one sentence, he continues by saying, "[...] under the provision that it is not modified, compiled (turned into an executable file the computer rather than the programmer understands), or redistributed, in modified or unmodified form." Please note that this is complete bullshit, and anyone reading the short and very easy-to-understand license will see this immediately.
Let me know if the rest of it has anything useful, but because he so bolloxed up the first page length of his article with lies, I'm not going to bother with the rest of it.
Public domain software contains no disclaimer of liability. If someone uses your software to build a baby threshing machines and gets their arm caught in it then you could be sued. Open and Free software licences disclaim such liability with better legalese then you could probably come up with on your own.
Your door is safe is because the FSF has never been out to bust anybodys nuts. The GPL and other major licences don't place restrictions on use so end users have nothing to worry about. The only obligations are on people who redistribute software. All of these licences basically disclaim liability for the author (it's free so no bitching if burn your face off with it or hold it in your hand when lit) and require acknowledgement of authorship. I don't think anybody here would defend the "right" to plagiarize the work of another. The GPL places the additional requirements that derivative works are also covered by the GPL and that anyone you give a binary to has a right to the source code as well. If the copyright on the GPLed software in question is owned by the FSF then they will enforce it. Contrary to popular belief they aren't out to say force the open sourcing of Windows because a Stallmanite agent provacatuer inserted a GPLed comment line into the source code. They have historically been content with the removal of the GPL component or a revamping of the application so the binary isn't "linked" to a GPL library.
Besides if you find the GPL too onerous there are always the X, BSD, and LGPL licences.
Also, pretty much the only thing that would draw the ire of the FSF is someone trying to make a closed work with their code. Many say that isn't true freedom but they are trying to avoid a contradiction that arises from total and complete freedom. You are not free to infringe the rights of another. If someone puts out a piece of code with the intention that anything made with it always be free then respect that intent. There is plenty of X and BSD code whose authors will be cheerfully indifferent if a derivative is closed.