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.
Bullshit alert!
First of all, they are not selling other people's work. They are charging a reasonable fee for the distribution of Free Software (not to mention that it takes considerable effort to build and compile the hundreds of different pieces of software on a Red Hat system and testing them to make sure they work). It's not like they're out there selling software they have no right to distribute. They are doing exactly as anyone who distributed his or her software under the GPL intended!
Second, Red Hat employs Free Software developers. One of them was even interviewed for this article. Were you paying any attention at all? Yes, Linus wrote the core of Linux, but over the years do you think the kernel would be where it is if not for people like Bero and some other developers employed by Red Hat? Along these lines, do you really think that RPM is such a minor feat? It is Free Software, no? While you may have enjoyed finding and downloading and compiling the source to every Free package you wanted to use, and building your Linux system from scratch, most of us are not so inclined.
Third, I don't know when the last time you actually read Red Hat's annual report was, but they don't seem to be raking it in, like some proprietary software houses we might name. In fact, they are struggling to break even and have done so because they have taken on a lot of work besides selling Linux distributions. Don't forget the enormous expense that goes into maintaining servers where anyone can download the entire Red Hat software for no charge (and they even conveniently provide images to burn CD-ROMs). I mean, have you priced the cost of hosting something like that lately? You have to sell a lot of boxed sets at $99 a pop to cover that expense-- and don't forget that most companies only need to buy one boxed set, which they can copy in-house easily, or simply install multiple systems from that single image.
So who the fuck are you anyway? Craig Mundie? Bill Gates? The only people who oppose what Red Hat is doing are either braindead zealots (you'll notice that even hardliners like RMS seem to be in favor of companies like Red Hat, so where these zealots are coming from is beyond me) or people who want to equate selling software they didn't write with piracy. And either of these is a distortion that is not healthy for Free Software.
If you really don't like what Red Hat is doing, then send your donations to the FSF and Debian. Don't download Linux from RH, use something else. But as long as they are playing by the rules of the GPL, leave them alone and stop trying to infer that they are acting unethically. Free Software is about user freedom, nothing else-- and Red Hat is doing a pretty decent job of making sure that users can get into the Free world.
I do not have a signature
Using laws of scarcity to govern the infinite is foolish.
The problem is that ideas aren't infinite in the sense that you're using the term. You can't just reach in the air and pull out a good idea for containable nuclear fusion, for example.
The truly marvelous and useful ideas are normally the result of a tremendous amounts of hard work, brilliance, and/or extraordinary luck. They have a uniqueness that is quite analogous to the uniqueness of physical objects.
To disregard the value of that uniqueness is to disregard the work and brilliance of the mind that created it. Besides being a disservice to that mind, it's also a disservice to a society that seeks to cultivate such minds to create more and better ideas.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
I own a small software company. I use free software to build my products (it's an web based ASP). But, I charge a HELL of a lot of money for products and services. And no, they don't get the source. I have sent diff patches in for software that I use and have found bugs in or fixed, but that's it.
Why don't I give my code and products away? Because I wouldn't have a business if I did. I sell goods to make money.. if it wasn't software it would be Beans or Cabbage. Whatever.
Monopolies will come and go, but as long as there is a need for premium or niche services (almost any business now days).. there will be commercial software and there will be people getting rich.
Unfortunately (the brutal truth).. the people who are business minded are FEEDING on people like us.
I just have to shake my head and chuckle whenever I read anything from Stallman. Does he always have to be so intense and extreme?
I mean, I like "Free" software, and I've devoted some of my time to its creation and improvement - but when I see Stallman throwing around the word "freedom" as though the only thing between utopia and the world are those evil non-free software writers, I'm just more than a bit turned off to the rest of his message.
Free software is great for hackers sharing some code and for people who just like doing things that way. But it's not always the answer. Who's going to write the crappy quilting software that my 60-year-old mom enjoys using so much? A bunch of Linux heads? Yeah, right. If someone wants to write a piece of quilting software and sell it to my mom without giving away the source, than more power to them.
I think the root of this problem is Stallman's propensity to use a concept that's best maintained in a relative sense in an absolute sense. If I have absolute freedom to do anything I want, I can bash your skull in with a shovel. Yeah, now that's real freedom, right? Oops?
As with many things in life, freedom is best when it's balanced properly. As computer people, we probably like the whole binary concept, and we think it'd be great to have something like "freedom" be an on or off thing. Real life is just a bit more complicated than that.
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
Unfortunately (the brutal truth).. the people who are business minded are FEEDING on people like us.
You say this like it's a bad thing. Dung beetles feed on what I produce, too (well, not literally, but they could), but you don't hear too many people complaining.
OSS only works for commodity software. Kernels. Web servers. Mail servers. Toolkits. Stuff that people use to get other forms of business done. The software you're writing is not a commodity, so you can sell it. But you rely on a certain level of infrastructure (Apache, say), so it's in your interests to fix Apache if it's causing you a problem. You could fork Apache, and start bundling Pengo-httpd with your product, but who would want that?
Yes, the nick is flamebait
So, how is this division of land being decided, kind of a divide the area of the earth by the number of people on it and we each get a slice of that size?
Why are you letting these clowns ruin our country?
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
Richard Stallman: With free software, you are free to make a modified version and use it, and free to publish the modified version if you want to, but you are not required to publish it. That's you choice.
Freedom is the key. Intellectual property owners accuse those who copy the stuff they publish of stealing their property. They want to prosecute (persecute is a better term) those who do, fine them and/or put them in jail like common thieves.
My question is this, who's going to prosecute IP owners who steal my freedom?
Let's face it, if you can't put a fence around it, or chain it, or lock it up in some manner, it does not belong to you. It does not matter if it's music, writings, software, ideas, inventions, drawings or what have you. Once you release it, it becomes like the air that we breathe: it belongs to nobody and to everybody.
You say, "Well, I worked hard and I must get paid for my work." Right. Well there are a million things in society that you never paid a scent for and you enjoy them freely. Time for you give something back. "Well", you say "how am I gonna make a living?" Good question. It is one that you need to ask your governement.
They instituted the slavery system that you live and work in. Tell them it's no good. Tell them that everybody should be given a piece of the earth, an estate if you will, for you and your descendents. Ask them what they're going to do when AI and advanced technologies finally make human labor obsolete. How is the slave system going to work then? What will your worthless intellectual property going to support you then?
If you read the whole shared-source.com page there is a section on "if open source is so unsafe then hack this computer". It lists all of the software and version numbers the box is running.
It would be nice if a MS website where able to be that bold.
Ascii artist &
I'm serious about this - I'm not trying to be a troll.
If software is to be free, then who can we expect to write it. Obviously, I have a need for a paycheck. Since I have this need, I have an employer. In order for my employer to pay me, I have to contribute to their revenue.
Is it reasonable for companies to only make money from services, and to offer the software for free? Are there companies who are successfully doing this? (Yes I saw the RedHat Quarterly report, but that was a little number fudging - they still lost money). Do we just have to wait out a certain transition period before the idea of Free Software pervasively existing is realistic?
Right here.
Hey, unlike many, I like what Stallman says, and frequently how he says it. But it looks like Stallman just copied and pasted some boilerplate. Heck, I bet Jim Allchin could have written those responses to the question on behalf of Stallman:)
But seriously, I think the interviewer wanted a solid answer in the first question: How does your view help me? We got the standard "someone can make a change". Maybe a better question is: how will this help my grandmother?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
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.
I'm sorry but I don't believe that Bero is being completely accurate when he claims that the "GPL makes no claims to data generated, processed, or stored by something covered by it." According to the text of the GPL "The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does." IANAL, but in my opinion, for a company to be completely safe about using the output of GPLed software, they must examine every line of the source code. The reason is that it is possible that the program will inject portions of itself into the output. An example is Bison whose license was modified. To quote documentation from an older version of Bison 1.20 "Bison grammars can be used only in programs that are free software. This is in contrast to what happens with the GNU C compiler and the other GNU programming tools. The reason Bison is special is that the output of the Bison utility--the Bison parser file--contains a verbatim copy of a sizable piece of Bison, which is the code for the yyparse function. As a result, the Bison parser file is covered by the same copying conditions that cover Bison itself and the rest of the GNU system: any program containing it has to be distributed under the standard GNU copying conditions." The license was later changed in version 1.24 and beyond: "As of Bison version 1.24, we have changed the distribution terms for yyparse to permit using Bison's output in non-free programs. Formerly, Bison parsers could be used only in programs that were free software."
There is a certain prevalent mentality that assumes the only significant motivation for doing anything is the desire to make money. There are a great many craftsmen (and women, I know) who would not say money is their prime reason to be doing what they are doing. Most of the best art falls in this category. The stuff made primarily for BIG SALES tends to suck. Britney Spears anybody?
Some people write this stuff because it is fun to run their own code. Others do it because the software in ancillary to their true goals. The Apache web server came about this way. Apache wasn't developed to make Webserver Inc a pile of money. Some webadmins needed a httpd daemon that was reliable and featureful. The original Linux kernel that Linus made available to his fellow hackers wasn't going to make anybody mounds of cash: it would barely boot a 386. The additions from volunteers was what made it valuable.
I'll agree that anybody who wants to make money trying to sell something that is free is on a fools errand. However there is nothing wrong in taking something free and using it as part of something larger that is sold. The school district that I work for uses a product called the Firebox. It is not marketed strictly as a Linux box. It is sold as an easily configured firewall and proxy server. The middle school tech guy loves that thing. Oh yeah, and they pay the guy who works on iptables. IBM and SUN are hardware companies and are all for anything that helps them sell hardware. Incidentally, the bulk of RedHat's profit doesn't come from selling the boxed distro. They also sell customization and consulting services.
Open source only fails to make sense to those who sell boxed software. It is a moneymaking or moneysaving opportunity for others with different models. Think about independent music for a monent. With the RIAA gone there wouldn't be many pop music multimillionaires. There would be and ARE a lot of people who earn honest livings writing and performing. The same is true of open source. No one will be a multibillionaire selling it but it will enable many others to earn decent livings.
I'm glad we finally get an interview with bero, one of the most underrated hackers out there imo, i've always been fascinated with the Bero Linux distribution from a while back and everything he's done with RH so far. I would have asked some other questions, so since we all know he reads slashdot I have a few questions:
... they rock.
1) You apparantly host dot.kde.org and post regulary, though RH 'sponsors' GNOME. Anyone at redhat have any comments towards you? Hate mail? Unexpected nerf ambushes? Do they sign you up for GNOME mailing lists? Do they make fun of the 'KDE guy in the corner'? (BTW, this is what makes open source so cool, the freedom to choose what you want).
2) Any of the ideas from bero linux make their way into the main RH distro? I know Mandrake did, but since RH is mostly conservative, I'd like to hear your opinion.
3) Does it piss you off that every complaint about the gcc in RH is answered on your website and you have to post the URL for the last 2 red hat releases including the betas? (that must suck).
4) You get paid to work on Linux, that rocks! What do you think needs the most attention?
5) Any chance that prelinking stuff will make KDE2.2? How about any of the other RH packages?
Thanks, and thanks for the kde daily builds
Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
Communism: A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.
I don't see where we have any authoritarian parties holding power, so please don't compare the GNU movement to the Soviet system of government.
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
First off read the license. It never says that.
Second off, if you are just an end user you don't have to give the BSD or GPL a second thought.
Thirdly if you are going to to tinker with the code, you have all the freedom any man/woman/child/whatever can have with a piece of GPL code. But this extends to everyone. Everyone is equally equal on the usage of GPL stuff. How much more freedom does anyone want?
You can read the code. You can learn from it(very important). You can modify it. You can put it in a blender and make a nutrious shake to make you loose weight and feel great. What every you feel is good for you.
As for this myth that Stallman/FSF/anyone else is going to beat you with the GPL stick if you don't release code upon immediately changing is all BS.
Anyone can take any GPL stuff modify to suite their needs and never need to release their changes back to anyone. Its nice to return code back to the hardworking authors(like bug fixes) but other things are meanless(like idiosyncratic stuff). Why does anyone need to know how my Linux kernel has been modified with some beta driver?
The only time you are forced to release changes back for GPL stuff is one "publish" it again. For instance I can't tinker with a GPL "Beta Video Driver 0.1" and then turn around and publish it on the web page in binary form only as "My Video Driver 1.0". That is a giant no-no.
Why would you anyway...it serves no purpose and robs the authors who worked under the GPL agreement of their rights.