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?
How about this scenario: I obtain a license to a patent with permission to distribute it freely under the GPL for any code that I own. The freedom to redistribute is unlimited, but derivative works would be illegal unless the copyright was assigned to me. How would the FSF interpret the GPL in this case?
The case of post-distribution discovery is also interesting. Since the GPL says no encumbrances are allowed, does the patent invalidate the GPL on that work?
Even Slashdot wants to hide some things
" though I'm not exactly sure how it applies here (in the context of RMS and the FSF)."
I don't know that it applies to RMS or FSF, You were talking about socialism (which also does not apply to RMS or FSF as far as I can see). I was commenting about socialism in general.
"There are some who believe that Socialism is based on Christian principles. There are others though who will quote the passage: "He who does not work should not eat."
As an atheist it has always amused me to no end that for any idea expressed in the bible the aooposite idea is also expressed. One the one hand god says "turn the other cheek" a few chapters later (earlier?) he says "kill them all, kill their women, kill their children, kill their animals and salt the earth so that not even plants survive". It must be massively disorenting to be christian. I suppose I should not pick on them because the moslems and the jews probably suffer from the same level of dissonance. Maybe that's why they seem to enjoy killing each other so much.
Getting back to the point (sort of). It seems to me that if christ designed a society it would look a lot like socialism. Surely he would not let people starve or suffer in poverty. If the devil designed a system it would look a lot like capitalism. It would be based on greed, envy, gluttony, pride, and all the rest of the seven deadly sins and the endless devotion to accumulation of money. If the love of money is root of all evil then capitalism is indeed based on evil at it's core. I certainly have never heard any passage from the bible, koran or any budhist texts that say "accumulate all the wealth you can, become so rich that you can never even spend all the money you have earned, hoard cash and use it to corrupt politicians. Buy the most expensive car in the world and then buy 20 more becasue a righteous man shall have many forms of transportation with burled maple dashboards" etc.
Like I said it must be very disorienting to be christian in the capitalistic country.
War is necrophilia.
In spite of all of RMS's great understanding of the working of "Free Software", and his passion for promoting real Freedom, he has unfortunately picked up this image of a foaming-at-the-mouth raving lunatic pinko. How to you plan to combat this image, without compromising on the real issues behind Free Software, or the passion with which the FSF promotes these ideals?
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Alewando's comment is totally irrelevant: the FSF is a non-profit and therefore does not have the same preoccupations as a business. It lives on donations and does not have a "business model" but a goal.
Also, the FSF is over 15 years old now, and I fail to see how it can be related to the tech bubble burst in any meaningful way.
It is disorienting, in the sense that people who come to the Bible for easy, pat answers to complicated questions aren't going to find them. Also, the Bible (and I'm sure every other "Holy Book") is full of statements which are easily taken out of context. If you don't look at a quote as it fits into the larger picture, you're bound to come up with a twisted understanding of what it's trying to say.
Methinks it's not that different from Stallman. Look at a quote here and there, and he looks like a raving loonie. Take all his statements together and they start to make sense, or at least follow a logical pattern.
However, this thread is getting out of hand. Please send me an email address if you wish to continue, and I'll be happy to respond.
> Like I said it must be very disorienting to be christian in the capitalistic country.
Unfortunately, there's more truth to that statement than a lot of people want to admit...
Your Servant, B. Baggins
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
You know that the FSF has never had this business plan? They sell stuff for thousands of dollars.
What is your stance on Software protection? In the FSF stance, what would you do or reccomend to be done if (check that if, WHEN) a GNU program and programmer is attacked in a way that will be very like what we see with Dimitri. Many of the GNU programs and software packages are, as far as I am concerned, in real danger of being attacked or persecuted by large corperations. With laws like the DCMA and other unbelievable laws that are being drafted as bills every day, What do you think can be done to protect this freedom?
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
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?
So, what types of software do you use at home?
there are no stupid questions, but there are a lot of inquisitive idiots
For more information, look at the GNU Hurd site. You should also check out Debian GNU/Hurd.
== I am not Me.
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
Two years ago, the FSF's business model of giving the product away in order to increase market share was all the rage. The power of the internet had lifted internet stocks into the stratosphere, and the world had attained a pervasive shade of what can only be described as "rosy".
Alas, all good things must come to an end, and so the tech bubble burst. Some key players such as AOL had managed to leverage their inflated stock prices and buy up some meatspace companies like Time/Warner. It doesn't appear the FSF took advantage of whatever opportunity it may have had to do so.
My question is this: how has the collapse of the technology sector changed the FSF's business plan? Companies that formerly gave their products away for free are now charging a price (such as Britanica.com). Does the FSF have any plans to start charging as well?
Most tech companies have seen massive layoffs with the realization that it is simply not feasible to maintain a hundred/thousand-man developer base. The FSF claims to have a base far in excess of even these most optimistic of companies. Do you have any plans to cut back on your headcount?
And the few companies that haven't actually laid off their staff have asked their programmers to take a big paycut and participate in unpaid-leave programs. Does the FSF plan to follow suit?
I've been running the numbers, and I just can't see how the FSF's small capitalization and dwindling revenues can keep up in the fast-paced cut-throat economy of tomorrow. Will the FSF's ship be steered off its path to destruction? Or are you merely content to stick your collective heads in the sand and hope for the best?
What happened to Tim Nay?
In particular, how do you interpret what the word free means in respect to software and programmer's rights?
I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
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
Replying you is probably useless as you chose to be AC...but I'm talkative, what the hell. :)
Recently I work on mobile device and have seen the immense potential of Java in this area.
Bad news is that unless you made a HUGE business deal with SUN and mobile carriers, you probably have problem embedding JVM/KVM in your device for mass production.
Nokia can do that, Motorola can do that; but absoultely not a tiny startup can do that.
So unless we could find a gullible VC, kaffe is our only hope. Unfortunately, checking the bug database you'll find many unsolved problems(probably will never be solved) hinder the decision to put kaffe to use. java.security make it unusable for e-commerce apps, for example.
Trust me, we sincerely hope that kaffe can replace SUN's JVM/KVM. The news that Microsoft bought up Transvirtual worried us, and now our worry come true. As Sun said, Microsoft's sponsorship on Kaffe is just to disturbing Java's development. Now we can see many vital parts of kaffe seems to be missing.
Nevertheless, kaffe still has hope - it's GPL and anyone could create a better derivative from it. It'd be a huge prospect in mobile business.(Man I love GPL).
Kaffe would be killed by dirty business practice, but I'm sure a better GPL JVM will be emerge sooner or later....
Your perljvm - The Perl to Java Virtual Machine Compiler is impressive. I believe you've the authority to answer this question.
Sun has its sole control to their Java VM, and the control is extended to other JVM versions. As Richard said, free software build on non-free platform/program is useless to Free World.
We had much expectation on kaffe. However, it has halted its development long time ago, since Microsoft made business deals with Transvirtual. The only free JVM is basically dead now.
I'd like to have your opnion on this: do you have Java in your vision of Free World?
Thanks!
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
However, now that you mention it, I have no idea what Stallman's religious beliefs are, but it is true that some of the primary people behind the Free Software and Open Source movement are Christians, and base a lot of their philosophy of giving things away on their religious convictions.
I will say however that Christians don't all fit into neat categories. There are some who believe that Socialism is based on Christian principles. There are others though who will quote the passage: "He who does not work should not eat." There are plenty of conservative Christians who believe in being rewarded in proportion your work, and that riches (when held on to with a spirit of generosity) can be an indication of God's blessing.
Point is: When you get down to it, neither Socialism nor Capitalism is a really "Christian" economic system. They both have their strengths and pitfalls, and trying to shoehorn Christ or Christians into either one is no more useful than trying to pin a particular economic theory on all Athiests as if they were a monolythic group. You can still promote what are considered by the general public to be "radical ideas", without having to paint yourself Red or True Blue.
Your Servant, B. Baggins
We've heard a lot about it, and the prerelease of the users manual is out on the web and being checked for typos and such. However, there's no communication with the community at all as to where Emacs 21 currently is, progresswise.
Thus my question -- when will the community find out how Emacs 21 is progressing?
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.
maybe it was Mr.Knipfer? :)
The last thing we need on here is a Knipferspot.
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
While it's obviously true that words often change their meanings over time, the term "pinko" was originally a reference to suspected Communist sympathizers, originating in the McCarthy era and subsequent purges shortly after WWII. They weren't "Red" (i.e., actual Communist Party members), but they were supposedly sympathetic to Communist views (i.e., "Pink"). Of course, the McCarthy trials turned into witch hunts, but that's a subject for another day...
Your Servant, B. Baggins
Mod the parent up.
Given RMS' public persona, I imagine his managerial style would be somewhat rigid.
Yes, the nick is flamebait
So, I notice that you share a middle initial of 'M' with RMS. The natural question then, becomes: what does your 'M' stand for? ;^) Also, for comparison's sake, what does RMS' stand for? I've actually wondered this for quite a while, but my (obviously worthless) attempts to surf it up have all failed. Thanks.
main(O){10<putchar(4^--O?77-(15&5128 >>4*O):10)&&main(2+O);}
You often here people speak hypothetically, and sometimes not-so-hypothetically, about what happens when someone decides to close-source something they own the copyright to, but have licensed under the GPL. We all know that others can take the last GPL release and fork a GPL branch. The question often raised is "What about third party contributed patches?" Who holds copyright on those patches when noone has claimed it one way or the other, except for the copyright notice for the original owner at the head of the file? Can the closed-source version use those patches? Do the contributors who wrote the patches have any recourse?
Q:Doctor, how many autopsies have you performed on dead people?
A:All my autopsies have been performed on dead peop
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?
beat you regularly ?
This is exactly why the GPL was modified with respect to gcc and Bison to allow the output (even though it was in part derived from the software itself) to be exempted from the GPL.
The line must be drawn somewhere in the vicinity of exposing the functionality of the software interactively. 'Public performance of the software' is the best attempt at tying this into existing case law that I'm aware of.
What I'd like is for exaqmple a modified gcc that was exposed as a compilation service to be required to distribute it's modifications, but the compiled output (the result of using the service) to still be exempted. And if the modified gcc was being used internally as a service, then the resulting compiled binaries should still be able to be distributed publicly, without the gcc modifications needing to be distributed.
The real Webmaven is user ID 27463. I don't rate an imposter, because my ID is such a lame-ass high number.
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
Would you like to eliminate all proprietary software? Could you live with free and proprietary software, and under what terms? What about protection of ideas, such as copyright and patents; what protections do you think are justified or necessary, and why? What would have to happen for the FSF to say, "We've successfully done our job," and disband and go home/ continue coding/ whatever?
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?
The GNOME/KDE split has sapped a lot of Linux's momentum. Along the same lines, the GNUpedia/Nupedia business doesn't exactly show Stallman in a flattering light. How do you think the FSF can move beyond this kind of counterproductive stuff?
Find free books.
Does the FSF also support the inane freedoms provided by the United States constitution such as the freedom to bear arms?
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?
My money is on Doogles.
Sorry, I was busy working all day. I'd put $50 on it being Lance.