Slashdot Mirror
What's Up With FSF VP Bradley M. Kuhn?
There's more to the Free Software Foundation than Richard M. Stallman, you know. Like bkuhn, AKA Bradley M. Kuhn, who has been a full-time employee of the organization since February '01 and has taken over some of the duties that were previously RMS's exclusive province. Got a question for bkuhn about the FSF -- or anything else? Post it below. We'll select 10 of the highest-moderated questions, forward them to bkuhn, and post his replies as soon as we get them back.
Does the FSF have anything in mind to deal with hardware issues in the future?
Congratuations on the release of version 3.0 of the GNU Compiler Collection. This is the cumulation of a lot of work by contributors to the GNU project from all over the world.
What do you see as the GNU project's next big release? Mono and DotGNU? Bayonne? Something else?
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
I know that many GNU/Linux systems are referred
to as "GNU Systems", and that the GNU offerings are an important part of making many OS's useful.
I wonder, though, when there will be a pure GNU
system, running HURD, shipping with the GNU Software Source CD set, and building the base
system purely from that at install time.
If such a product existed, and was packaged with secure server systems in mind, I'd definitely buy a copy.
Is this something that is on the FSF map?
This model is very centric to the idea that the software can't (or ideally won't) be copied for free (beer), but instead will require a fee to obtain a copy of the binary only software. In my opinion, this is Open Source/Free (liberty)Software's only downfall. For the current software market, Open Source and Free Software don't seem like to have standing ground. I know about other business models that do work based on the idea of Open Source and Free Software, but what I wonder is:
How can Free Software be applied to current markets and be made profitable?
How long will it take for these newly made Free Software business models to penetrate the market, and become a better alternative to current business models?
arcane for life
As both Bruce Perens and Tim O'Reilly have pointed out, it is possible to publicly deploy a web-app that is derived from GPL'd software without having to distribute your modifications.
While I certainly feel that it should be possible to do this for applications that are deployed internally without having the deployment count as 'distribution', I am less happy about deployments on public websites. I would want web-applications that I create to have an additional 'public-performance' clause in their license that would require modifications that are publicly deployed to be made available in source form.
This is the so called 'web-app loophole', and I was wondering what your thoughts on the matter were?
The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.
For corporate consulting, and business to business software, I can see the financial viability of working only with GPLed software. But, that is not the only segment of the software industry. For the average consumer (read: home user, non-geek, non-businessman, "where is the any key" 90% of the computer-using world), any program that requires "service" means calling tech support, which is a bad thing. If you need support, the program is flawed in their eyes. So how does one make money in the consumer market? Custom add-ons are a market that can support maybe 3 people. How can one make money writing, say, a computer game if it's GPLed? If you have to get support for a game, something is wrong. How could a company like Blizzard, Id, or other game companies big and small survive with GPLed software? Then there's the thousands of independent shareware authors for whom selling the software at a few bucks to a lot of people is their bread and butter. How can they make money by writing GPLed software instead?
I am not against the GPL, far from it. But I am still uncertain as to how it maps into the half of the market that deals with end users rather than businesses. Considering that is the industry that I wish to go into, I am faced with the moral dilema of supporting Free Software on the one hand morally, but also needing to find a way to feed myself. What do you suggest as a way to be both morally secure and financially secure in the other half of the market?
Larry Garfield
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
Is the Linux kernel the official GNU kernel now? If not, I will humbly suggest that AtheOS be considered as the GNU OS. It's a modern, multi-user OS that has its own aims but doesn't abandon UNIX compatibility. Much GNU software already compiles and runs on AtheOS. Would the GNU Project consider this?
Is the FSF brainstorming any ideas on alternatives to the term "Free"? Unlike many other languages, it seems that English does not have separate words for "without cost" and "having freedom". So, we in the Open Source community end up using phrases such as "free as in beer" or "Free with a capital 'F'" (neither of which are immediately intuitive to the public at large).
Much better, I think, would be to come up with a new adjective to describe such Free software ("Free" with a capital "F", that is). One idea that has been batted about is "liberated software", but that has the connotation of "stolen software" to some people. Of course, this isn't to say that the term "Free" wouldn't be used anymore -- but it would be nice to have an alternative for use at, for example, picnics or family gatherings.
Alex Bischoff
HTML/CSS coder for hire
What happened to Tim Nay?
What do you think of Tim O'Reilly's definiton of Freedom Zero? Roughly, "Freedom Zero for me is to offer the fruit of your work on the terms that work for you."
This freedom (which sounds so reasonable to me) often puts the other four in conflict, as the FSF always describes software as a public good.
We met at the O'Reilly Open Source Convention. I remember you beeing the first person taking the microphone to ask Craig Mundie some questions during the debate. You invited him to discuss the philosophy behind the GPL compared to the philosophy behind Microsoft's shared-source license.
I wanted to know. Did he accept your invitation? What will you ask him when you two meet face to face?
Haim.
Looking for a great online backup: Green Backup
I met rms about a month ago, on a LUG meeting. He said that if he ever 'retired' from the fsf for whatever reason, they had a very good VP to continue with the fundation. So, some questions to get an idea of how 'the succesor' is like:
What do you think about free software? 'free software vs. open source'? Do you ever think about the future? Are you obsessed (in a good way) with things like changing the names of the LUGs and distributions to 'GNU Linux', or asking people to use savannah instead of sourceforge? Do you like Linus?
--
Stay tuned for some shock and awe coming right up after this messages!
What have your biggest problems been with fighting the misconceptions that free (as in freedom) software is not, as Microsoft seems to have all the media outlets trained to believe, free (as in beer) software? What changes in the media need to occur to help make this line more distinct?
Where do you see the FSF 5-10 years down the road?
-ictatha
"... the advance of civilization is nothing but an exercise in the limiting of privacy" - Janov Pelorat
Now that Mac OS X and Darwin are out, Apple obviously has a vested interest in supporting the FSF. They have been trying to get changes to gcc for Altivec support and PPC optimization merged back into the tree, and they are showing at least some support for both Open Source and Free Software. Plus, development of more Cocoa software should in theory lead to better support of GNUStep in the future. With these changes, has the FSF's opinion of/relationship with Apple changed since the boycotting of the '80s, or is it still more or less adversarial?
I use Macs for work, Linux for education, and Windows for cardplaying.
Yes, but is RMS "moderately leftist"...
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
Now that Microsoft has revealed the wide communist conspiracy called FSF, I understand that you want to be as apolitical as possible and just stick to the safe ground of software licensing. But I must ask what really are your political leanings generally, not of FSF as organization but of its members. Here on /. the majority seem to think of themselves as libertarians. What is the situation at FSF?
How is the FSF going to compete with microsoft and other closed-source-companies in public relations with the non-tech-savvy masses? Microsoft has legions of corporate and individual clients (and partners in other projects) extolling the virtues of closed-source, and spreading all sorts of vile lies about the Free Software Movement. How do you and Stallman plan to bring the goals and ideology of the FSF to the average person in a way he/she can understand and appreciate? It seems to me that without widespread public support of the FSF, judges and legislatures will tend to support the big corporate interests that (in the case of the legislaters) pay for their campaigns in any conflict, such as a GPL violation case or software laws.
So, how will you rally the non-techie public to the FSF and GPL, dispelling the image of both as the product of socialist, somewhat freaky nerds? And how will you pay for such a campaign?
I'm the stranger...posting to
What do you see for the future of content providers in the presence of ever growing information-wants-to-be-free movements? How can the editorial process (as opposed to the marketing process) provide enough demonstrated value-added to overcome the decreasing marginal return on sales in an environment where the first copy costs $100,000 (that's the copy the author sells to the reseller/publisher) and each subsequent copy is free?
What, if anything, is the Free Software Foundation doing to promote the employment of programmers developing Free Software?
I understand of course that the FSF's main priority is seeing that Free Software gets developed, by any means, even by volunteer work.
But looking to the future... it would be nice someday if most or all programmers could all work on Free Software for a salary. Is the FSF leading any efforts in this area? How far away is this?
-- laws are the opinions of politicians --
How is working with RMS? If compromise is needed does he give in or does he stick to his line no matter what?
What about patents and the GPL? Can I release code under the GPL, but limit distribution by encumbering it with patents? What about if I license patents from someone else; under what conditions can I use them in code that I write and release under the GPL? Finally, what happens to code that I release under the GPL, but later discover infringes on patents belonging to someone else?
I've been wondering about this for a long time, first with gif, then mp3, and now Lineo has apparently licensed a patent for their realtime embedded GNU/Linux OS.
Even Slashdot wants to hide some things
I was recently asked about the possibility of trademarking the name of a free software project. I searched the web in vain for any discussion of the implications without success. What is your opinion? Can a free software project have a trademarked name and still be Free in the GNU sense of the word?
-sam
What do you think of the current situation with IP rights in the free software movement?
The individual gives up his IP rights but companies still uses them.
You don't control the software you have written but big companies like redhat and IBM is using their trademarked brands to associate Linux products with them in the pulics eyes.
One recent example of this is when Redhat grabbed postgresql and just changed its name to Redhat DB without compensating great bridge (that makes postgresql) for their hard work.
It seems to me that capital strong companies are playing by entire different rules than the people who are developing free software.
This may have changed in the last couple of months, but one of the bigest objections to the FSF, and one I aggree with, is that you do not appear to have ever published your financials.
Has this changed? If not, do you intend to or why not?
Recent comments by RMS and Robert Chessall have not been particularly encouraging (to the GNU/Hurd developers). Do you have anything inspiring to offer them?
How do you plan to manage the transistion from GPL v2 to v3? On large projects with hundreds of contributers (e.g., Linux, gcc, emacs, Gnome, KDE) it seems next to impossible to get approval from all contributers. Without approval, is is possible to re-license? If it is not possible to re-license, will it be necessary to reimplement large portions of the GNU codebase before v3 makes any difference?