Slashdot Mirror
The FSF's Bradley Kuhn Responds
on freedom?
by merlin_jim
How do you view FSF's goal, that stated on their website as The FSF promotes the development and use of free (as in freedom) software ---particularly the GNU operating system(used widely today in its GNU/Linux variant)--- and free (as in freedom) documentation. In particular, how do you interpret what the word free means in respect to software and programmer's rights?
Bradley Kuhn: I believe strongly that all published software should be Free Software. Users should get all the freedoms as defined in the Free Software Definition. Namely, each person who receives a copy of a software program should have the freedom to study, copy, share, modify, redistribute and (optionally) redistribute modified versions of that program.
But that's surely no surprise--if I didn't believe that, I certainly wouldn't enjoy working for the FSF. ;)
As for the other half of your question, "programmer's rights," I certainly think programmers, like all users, have a right to all those freedoms I mention above. However, programmers don't deserve any "rights" that infringe on the freedoms of others. Often in society, we decide that the right to act a certain way should be limited because it infringes on the freedom of others.
For example, in the USA, white people used to have the right to own slaves. As a society, we eventually decided that this right was too restrictive on the freedom of the people who served as slaves. Because of that decision, it is now illegal to own slaves in the USA.
Our society took away the "freedom" to own slaves. Today, no one would even argue that owning slaves is a freedom. People now say that slavery is an inappropriate power that one person holds over another person.
Today, some argue that the "right to choose your own software license" is the greatest software freedom. By contrast, I think that, like slavery, it is an inappropriate power, not a freedom. The two situations both cause harm, and they differ only in the degree of harm that each causes.
Proprietary software is an exercise of power, and it harms the users by denying their freedom. When users lack the freedoms that define Free Software, they can't tell what the software is doing, can't check for back doors, can't monitor possible viruses and worms, can't find out what personal information is being reported (or stop the reports, even if they do find out). If it breaks, they can't fix it; they have to wait for the developer to exercise its power to do so. If the software simply isn't quite what they need, they are stuck with it. They can't help each other improve it.
Discussions of rights and rules for software use have usually concentrated too much on the interests of programmers alone. Few people in the world program regularly, and fewer still are owners of proprietary software businesses. But the entire developed world now needs and uses software, so decisions about software determine what kind of world we have. Software developers now control the way the world lives, does business, communicates and is entertained. The ethical and political issues cannot be avoided under the slogan of "freedom of choice (for developers only)."
The real question we now face is: who should control the code you use--you, or an elite few? We (in the Free Software Movement) believe you are entitled to control the software you use, and giving you that control is the goal of Free Software.
Current copyright law places us in the position of dictator for our code, whether we like it or not. We cannot escape making some decisions for others, so our decision is to proclaim freedom for each user, just as the bill of rights exercises government power by guaranteeing each citizen's freedoms. That is what the GNU GPL is for: it puts you in control of your usage of the software, while protecting you from others exercising their dictatorial power. This is the ethical choice, in a situation where laws give us and others such power.
New term for "Free"?
by abischof
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.
BK: I find it odd that you talk the question in terms of the "Open Source community". The term "Open Source" is typically used to focus the discussion away from talking about freedom. Thus, a question about the drawbacks of the adjective "free" seems strange when in the context of "Open Source". But, nevertheless, I am glad to see an Open Source supporter talking more about freedom! Thank you for doing that.
By the way, I don't think about the "Open Source community" as a distinct entity. There are two movements afoot: the Free Software Movement, whose focus is the political and ethical issues of software freedom, and the Open Source Movement, whose focus is to avoid political issues of freedom, and to talk about the technological benefits of "Open Source". The movements differ greatly because their fundamental philosophies and motivations are different.
However, together we form one community---the same community that started in 1984 when the Free Software Movement started. In 1998, within that community, we had another movement start up with a different focus, but we've always been together in one community. Thus, I hope you'll think of the community as including both the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement, and remember that it originally started as the Free Software community. At the very least, please call it the "Free Software and Open Source community", so that Free Software isn't left completely out of the picture.
As to your question about the adjective "free," we in the Free Software Movement have never come across a term that has any great advantage over the term "Free Software."
The term "liberated software", which you mention, has a clear drawback in that it only applies to software that was once proprietary software, and is now Free. GNU Emacs, for example, was never proprietary software, so it isn't "liberated software."
Fortunately, there are lots of ways to clear up the confusion, and make up for English's shortcomings. Many of us say "free (as in freedom) software" when there is ambiguity.
Others say "software libre" or "free (libre) software", using the Spanish word to make things clear. In fact, whenever I am speaking to an audience that I know will fully understand what "libre" is (in Europe, for example), I favor the term "Libre Software".
Also, when talking about the general concept of what we stand for, I always use the term "software freedom". This doesn't change what we call the software *itself*---that's Free Software---and there's really no other good term for it. But, the term "software freedom" gives an easy way of talking about the overall concept that is completely unambiguous.
So, while the term Free Software does have some drawbacks, the confusions are easy enough to clarify, and the drawbacks here are fewer than the other alternatives. Also, using the various methods that I mention here can work well together to help clear up any confusion.
Next big technical effort?
by Lumpish Scholar
Congratulations 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?
BK: You are quite correct that the GNU project is a collaborative work of contributors from around the world. It's the work of a cooperating community---no one person deserves the credit: the congratulations go to the GNU project as a whole. (BTW, I encourage you to thank the GNU project by reminding people that the system so often called "Linux" is actually the GNU system with Linux as its kernel).
As for the next "big" release: it's hard to say. We don't force any sort of schedules on GNU developers---they work as best they can, and put a release out when they see it as ready. So, I might be surprised to find out next week some major project is ready for a big release. So, I cannot make any prediction as to what the next big release will be, as I could easily end up being proven wrong later. (However, FWIW, a project that I know is getting close to a big release is GNU Emacs 21.)
FSF and the cause?
by Lumpy
What is your stance on Software protection? In the FSF stance, what would you do or recommend 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 corporations. 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?
BK: We must all act politically and speak out to defend our freedom. I feel as you do that we are about to enter a rough period in the history of the Free Software Movement. Large corporations such as proprietary software companies and entertainment companies now have a financial interest in restricting various software freedoms that many of us currently take for granted.
We might very well have to fight for this freedom in courts in the USA or elsewhere. We are preparing ourselves for this possibility, and we will rise to the challenge if it comes to that. The FSF is saving up money in case we need to fight a legal battle. Eben Moglen is also working with large donors to set up a separate Free Software Legal Fund.
Meanwhile, the best thing we can do is to work hard to get laws like the DMCA repealed. We encourage everyone in the USA to contact their congressional representatives, and explain why the DMCA is harmful.
Another way you can help fight the DMCA is to attend the "Free Dmitry Sklyarov March" on the Federal Building in San Francisco on Thursday, 30 August 2001. The USA government is prosecuting Dmitry, under DMCA, for making a particular program available to the public. Please join the protest---everyone is meeting outside the Moscone center in San Francisco at 11:30 in the morning on August 30th.
On another matter, please make your congress-person aware of the threat of software patents! Software patents are harmful to Free Software, but they also hurt just about any software developer who doesn't work for a big corporation that has access to large patent pools. Let people know the threat that software patents have for small software businesses and Free Software.
If you live in Europe, please help fight the possible EU decision to approve software patents.
At home?
by cnkeller
So, what types of software do you use at home?
BK: I use only Free Software on all computers that are under my control, which include the ones I use for my work at the FSF and my home computer.
I use Official Debian GNU/Linux ("testing" on my work laptop, "stable" on my home desktop machine).
As for specific programs, I spend most of my day using an email client, and I use mutt running inside GNU Emacs' ansi-term. (It sounds weird, but it really works well for me.) I use GNU Emacs for all of my editing, text manipulation, and the like.
I have always been more command-line-oriented than GUI-oriented, so I run a minimal X Windowing System desktop. I use sawfish as my window manager, which I really like, because I can script it so I rarely have to use the mouse.
I use Mozilla when I need a graphical web browser, but also use a mix of links, lynx, and Emacs/w3 when graphics aren't needed.
I use GnuCash to manage my personal finances. I really enjoy that program, as I am pretty pedantic about keeping track of ever penny I spend. If you ever go to dinner with me, you'll notice that I ask for a receipt for everything: that's so I can come home and type it into GnuCash. ;)
Related to that, I'll mention this additional amusing story since someone else asked what my "position" is in the "Church of Emacs". I officially became a saint in the Church of Emacs on 31 December 1999. I had given up nearly all non-Free Software in April 1998, but until December 1999, I still used one non-Free Software program: Quicken running under WINE. I finally got the time to convert my files over to GnuCash, and decided that I'd make a clean break with the new year (2000), and fully switch to GnuCash.
Thus, GnuCash made it very easy for me to move into full sainthood. ;) And, I've never looked back. I feel so much better using and developing only Free Software now.
The one thing I am still missing is a "saint name". At one point, I'd thought of another existing saint whose name sounded good with a "gnu" in the middle (like IGNUcius). Sadly, I didn't write it down right away, and promptly forgot. If anyone has ideas for a saint name, let me know. ;)
But, please keep in mind the the entire idea of a "Church of Emacs" and saints therein is just a joke. Sometimes, people get confused and think that Emacs really is a religion. It's not a religion, even if it is a way of life for some of us. ;)
Apple and the FSF
by imac.usr
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?
BK: Today, our feeling toward Apple is like our feeling toward most software companies who do both Free Software and proprietary software. We thank them for their Free Software contributions, but still push them to go further in supporting software freedom. We have to judge each action separately. Some things that Apple does are good for the Free Software community, and some things it does are bad Free Software community.
Apple has allowed many of its employees to contribute to various GNU programs, and we are glad that they have done so. But Apple still develops lots of proprietary software and for that we criticize them.
Also, I wouldn't say that Apple "obviously has a vested interest in supporting the FSF". They clearly have some interest in helping certain Free Software projects (such as GCC and GDB), but I don't think they are really dedicated to the goal of software freedom. For them, it's likely only a pragmatic necessity that leads them to support some Free Software projects.
I also should mention that it was only a partial victory for freedom in January 2001 when Apple released APSL 1.2. They came much closer to a Free Software license than the APSL 1.0, but they fell short by continuing to require that "deployed" versions in an organization be published. Thus, they still restrict the important freedom of private modifications.
I hope that Apple will take that final step in the next version of the license and make the APSL into a Free Software license. I urge those of you who use code released by Apple under the APSL to work at convincing Apple to make the change.
How can you get the average person to support FSF?
by ColGraff
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 legislators) 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?
BK: Fortunately, we are fighting for rights of people---the same people who ultimately elect the legislators who represent us. Today, many people are beginning to feel corporate interests encroaching on their rights, and we simply need to empower them with tools to do something about it. We began our efforts reaching out to highly technical people and have been quite successful at creating momentum for Free Software alternatives to proprietary software.
Now, reaching non-technical people is an active goal for us, and we are open to ideas. I am a hacker (in the original, positive sense of the term), so I am much more comfortable talking to those who develop software. However, I am trying to retrain myself to learn how to think as non-hackers, politicians, and judges think, so that I can better deliver our message to them.
Recently, I changed my mode of dress to be a bit more traditional, and I cut my long hair. I did this in part because my fiancee wanted me to, but also in part because I realize that non-hackers are sometimes threatened by the "typical hacker style." This actually wasn't my idea; I got it from Jello Biafra, a social commentator and spoken-word artist (who is most famous for leading the now-defunct punk band "Dead Kennedys"). Jello pointed out that the "Halloween costume" approach (i.e., wearing clothes that seem like a costume to you, but are "normal" to most people) can really work when trying to reach people who don't agree with you. Some people are uncomfortable enough with our ideas, and if our dress, clothing, piercings, or mannerisms turn them off, they won't even take the time to listen to our ideas. Since I was never that attached to long hair and my "t-shirt and jeans," I decided to make the changes, in case it might help to reach such people who would otherwise be turned off. I kept the beard, though, because I really don't want to shave every morning!
That's an example of a superficial change that I've personally done to make myself more accessible to non-hackers. I also think a lot about how our work can improve everyone's life, and I always try to address my points to a person's individual concerns. For example, when talking to teachers, I often point out that proprietary software puts students at a disadvantage. The best way to learn to be a great programmer is to study the historical works of programming and to try to make them better. Only Free Software gives the freedoms required to learn well. Teachers often connect with this point, or at least it raises for them some cognitive dissonance about their school's use of proprietary software.
The point here is that you have to give each person reasons for software freedom that are relevant to her daily life. The best way I've found to do this is to imagine that person's use of software, and express to her how freedom could make her life better.
If you are trying to convince a large group of non-hackers about Free Software, please keep in mind that the FSF has a speakers' list and several on the list are excellent at reaching non-hackers. Eben Moglen, for example, is a law professor and is an excellent speaker on our behalf. Tony Stanco, who started FreeDevelopers, is also a lawyer and is good at reaching non-hackers. We also have Robert J. Chassell, who has been involved with the FSF since its inception, and he is very good at speaking with the non-hacker business community.
But, it's up to each of us to speak out about software freedom when we talk with others. Please help us. If anyone has additional ideas on how we can reach non-hackers with the message of software freedom, we'd love to hear from you.
As to the question of how we will pay for it, this is the reason we are 501(c)(3) charity. Part of what we use our funds for is these sorts of advocacy efforts.
BTW, just as "Open Source" is not what we advocate, "closed source" is not what we're against. The opposite of Free software is proprietary software. We have been working for 17 years now to replace proprietary (non-Free) software with Free software. All closed source software is non-Free, but some open source software is also non-Free.
GPL for web-apps
by webmaven
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?
BK: When a web application is run to provide a service to the public, I believe that the service provider has an ethical obligation to make the software available as Free Software to the users of that application.
Of course, we realize that the GNU GPL, version 2, does not require this. But, calling it a loophole is an exaggeration. The GPL does prohibit the worst possible wrongdoing, which is to publish a non-Free version of a Free program. In the case of web services, it doesn't prohibit a lesser form of wrongdoing.
As it turns out, it is a hard legal problem to figure out if a copyright license can even try to make this sort of requirement. This is something RMS and Eben Moglen are working on for the GPL, version 3.
Work on the GPL, version 3, has been on hiatus for nearly two years. First, work stopped so that we could do the GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL). After that was done, GPLv3 work was slowed substantially by personal matters that kept Eben Moglen from doing pro bono work for us during much of late 2000 and early 2001. Work on GPLv3 is just getting moving again.
I should note that it was well worth it to spend the time on the GNU FDL. It has gained adoption, as print publishers are discovering that there is a way to license their books that gives freedom and is profitable. For the first time, we can begin recommending that GNU users buy some books released by the commercial publishers. It's a very short list, but it is growing. (You can see this list on our website).
RMS
by Cirvam
How is working with RMS? If compromise is needed does he give in or does he stick to his line no matter what?
BK: RMS never compromises on matters of ethics. This is, of course, something that makes me quite glad. The last thing we want is the president of the FSF saying: "Oh, well, we might as well permit people to distribute proprietary versions of GPL'ed software." And, fortunately, I agree with the ethical positions that the FSF takes, so I never have disagreements on ethical matters with RMS.
RMS and I do disagree from time to time on matters of tactics, and on practical and technical matters. In these cases, I have found RMS to be strong-willed, but not uncompromising. In fact, when I compare RMS to other hackers that I know, he is among one of the most fair and even-handed. RMS always hears out the point of view of all sides and asks good questions to clarify the data and people's positions.
I have never known him to make a decision rashly, and he always seeks feedback from others before making any major decision. And, if we can prove to him that we have a better way to do something, and can back it up with evidence, he will change his mind.
In short, it's easy to lump "taking a firm ethical stance" together with "uncompromising". I believe these are separate issues, and I would say that RMS takes a firm ethical stance, but is willing to compromise on issues that don't impact an ethical position.
'Raving Lunatic' Image?
by Bilbo
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?
BK: It's easy to dismiss someone as a "lunatic" if they are the only a few people standing up for a particular point of view. Some people once thought that abolitionists, suffragettes, and union organizers were "foaming-at-the-mouth raving lunatics", too.
For years, RMS stood up firmly for software freedom, and thus some people attacked RMS in that unfair and inaccurate way. He is still standing for software freedom all these years later, but now there are many more standing with him, including me. The best way for us in the Free Software community to combat the "lunatic" image is to stand for software freedom with him. As more people take a strong ethical stance for software freedom, those who use this underhanded tactic will find it less useful.
The ultimate solution is to change USA political sensibilities, so that USAmericans don't immediately label someone as a "lunatic" or "pinko" simply because (s)he puts freedom, community and goodwill as higher goals than the profits of shareholders. RMS has said publicly that he isn't a communist, and he isn't. As for "foaming-at-the-mouth" and "raving", those are just insults designed to turn those who don't know him away from what he stands for.
We responded to that attack by pointing out that our positions are actually in the spirit of what the USA is all about. I wrote an essay about this, and RMS did, too.
You know, when I hear the word "pinko", I can't help but associate it with the first time I ever heard that word. "Pinko" was the word that Archie Bunker always called his son-in-law, Mike "Meathead" Stivic, on the USA television show All in the Family.
It's interesting to me because, as a child in the early 1980s, that character, Mike Stivic, was the first person I ever saw on television talking about the kinds of social change and political views that I believed in. Of course, Mike wasn't a pinko, except in Archie's distorted thinking about the issues. Today, I can't hear the word "pinko" without thinking of Archie Bunker.
Your opinion on Java
by jsse
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!
BK: You didn't ask the perljvm question that I was expecting: "Why isn't it done yet?" ;) (The answer to that one is: I've been working so much for my official duties at the FSF, I haven't had time to hack on it!)
But, your question is an interesting one. I certainly agree that we have to watch Sun, or any other company that exerts efforts over a 'de-facto' standard, closely, to make sure we can implement that standard in Free Software.
However, in the case of the Java environment, I am not too worried. I agree that Kaffe development seems to have slowed, but that is likely because the VM itself is quite stable and usable. (I use it as a development environment for perljvm.) I have heard they are pushing to make it compatible with newer versions of the Sun's proprietary software JVM, and I am happy to hear it.
In addition, now that GCJ has been fully integrated with GCC, Java, the language, is a first-class citizen in the GNU system. I think as time goes on, we'll see even more Java support on GNU systems. I recently saw, for example, that the GNOME-GCJ bindings are getting pretty good. So, I think that support for Java in the Free Software World is going to grow and get better, not wane. Eventually, I believe that the installed base of free Java platforms will grow enough that Sun won't be able to make incompatible changes without coordinating with the Free Software community, lest they have an outcry from the user base.
But, with Java, as with any software technology, we must keep watch for proprietary software twists that can leave the Free Software community constantly playing "catch-up". This threat exists for any technology, though, as long as we continue to live in a world with proprietary software.
In practical terms, for users of this technology, this means that we must only use those features of a technology supported with Free Software. If you are a Java programmer, make sure that your software runs in Kaffe and GCJ first, and don't make changes that require the use of a proprietary software Java environment.
Hardware Companies?
by 2400-n-8-1
Do you and/or the FSF support any certain hardware or hardware companies to go with free software?
Does the FSF have anything in mind to deal with hardware issues in the future?
BK: The important issue with hardware is to make sure that it can be controlled completely with Free Software. Some hardware companies are friendly enough to release their drivers as Free Software. Others cooperate enough to give full specifications, so that at least we can write our own drivers to compete with their proprietary ones. Sadly, some hardware companies still work against us, by keeping the interfaces to the hardware secret.
You, the hardware-buying public, have the power to change this situation by not purchasing any hardware that can't be run with Free Software. You can do even more to help by informing hardware companies that you would have bought their hardware if they'd only made a Free Software driver available.
There's a threat to freedom every time a new hardware device is released. We as a community have to watch closely and make sure that each exciting new hardware technology is fully supported with Free Software.
For a long time, we've wanted someone to build a full list of hardware vendors and note how friendly they were and are to Free Software. Compatibility HOWTOs exist, but this would be a list that gave reports of how much a given vendor helped us. If anyone wants to work on this, please let me know.
The Middle Initial
by Emil Brink
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. BK: As people already noted on the slashdot comments, RMS' M stands for Matthew, or its pun variant: "Math You." ;) My M stands for "Michael," which sadly has no pun variant that I can think of. ;)
Food (ask, he'll understand)
by nowt
Gold Star or Skyline? Aglamesis or Graeters?
BK: I was amazed at how many people referenced my time in Cincinnati in the questions. I lived in Cincinnati for only four years before moving to Cambridge, MA. I lived in Baltimore for nearly 24 years, yet no one asked me my favorite restaurant in Baltimore ;), (which, BTW, is now closed: the Hacienda on Bel Air Road at Moravia).
But back to nowt's question: I never even went into Gold Star, but it seemed like they didn't have any vegetarian options on their menu. (I've been a vegetarian for about nine years.) Skyline had a few vegetarian items, so I ate there occasionally. My friend Matthew really hated eating there, so we stopped going on his account.
I heard of Aglamesis, but never went there. There was a Graeters not too far my apartment (I used to live near Clifton and Ludlow, as a slashdot comment mentioned), and my fiancee really loved Graeters' Chocolate cake with chocolate icing. We made sure we bought one a few weeks before leaving to have it one last time.
The Cincinnati food item that I miss most, though, is Adriatico's pizza. When he visited Cincinnati, RMS tried a piece and liked it too. I like Bertucci's, which is a brick oven pizza chain that started here in Somerville, MA, but I really miss that Adriatico's garlic crust.
Of course, I'll have to give it all up if I go completely vegan, which I've been thinking about doing. (For now, I have just resolved to reduce my dairy and egg intake by about a half.)
"Why do you answer Richard's email for him?"
by Anonymous Coward
Bradley, I've heard that you read Richard Stallman's email and replies to it, signing Richard's name rather than your own with no indication that someone else wrote the reply. In fact, I've gotten a couple of emails from "Richard" that definitely seemed like they were not written by him -- they directly contradicted things he'd said in other emails and did not sound like his style. How can you ethically justify this? Isn't it totally dishonest to sign email with someone else's name?
I do not recall ever posting nor emailing something with RMS' name on it unless RMS himself specifically gave me the text and said: "Send this as me." I do this from time to time, since RMS' network connectivity is sometimes spotty when he travels. Once or twice, I may have made very trivial edits to the text, if I saw a typo or an incorrect URL, but if I did that, I sent the text back to RMS so he knew what change I made.
One of the tasks that I was originally hired to do at the FSF was help RMS handle his huge email spool. The original idea we had was that I'd compose candidate responses, send them to RMS, and he'd decide whether or not to use them.
This ended up not working out, because RMS had to spend time editing the candidates, and it didn't save much time. However, there may have been times that RMS sent a response that was mostly written by me. But, he always saw the text and agreed that he wanted to say that first.
We at the FSF never say something came from RMS unless he approved the text (save a very rare minor typo fix, which we always inform him of after the fact).
Note, though, that there have been a number of cases of people impersonating RMS, particularly on slashdot. I believe that the slashdot staff got this under control, but what you may have seen are RMS impostors.
Most of these impostors do make statements that contradict what RMS would say. However, there's one particular case of an RMS imposter who made good points about software freedom that we agreed with. We tried to get in touch with him, to enlist his help in a non-imposter way to make points about Free Software. But, sadly, we never found him.
BTW, I'd like to note that unless I am in a big hurry or not at my own machine (both of which are rare), I GPG-sign all my messages with my GPG key. Even when I answer a general-contact addresses, such as <gnu@gnu.org>, you'll know that I answered by the GPG-signature.
RMS also has a GPG key, and occasionally he might be willing to sign a message if you are unsure about whether or not he wrote it. But, it's somewhat inconvenient for him to GPG-sign messages, so if people ask for it too much, he will likely not be able to oblige everyone.
grep -ri 'should work'
Nobody but you ever asserted that it was worse than slavery; bkuhn simply said that it was analogous, with the primary difference between the situation being the degree of harm that they inflict (i.e., that slavery imposes more harm.) You really aught to read before you flame, AC.
"The positive argument for realism is that it is the only philosophy that doesn't make the success of science a miracle.
To me, the comparison to slavery highlights the fact that systems of ownership have a structure that has consequences, and, additionally, that the idea of property has always been defined in the context of society. Don't tell me to swallow your definition of property, and then nab my taxes to hire police and courts to enforce it. Thomas Jefferson and other fairly smart people who founded this country thought intellectual property was a crock, I do, and so do a lot of other people. Stop taking my money and my freedom to enforce your views.
I don't think RMS and Bradley Kuhn understand that there are quite a few of us who cannot make a living by giving keynotes.
Is that funny, or what?
How Bout' "Freeh Software" -- You know like Microsoft giving all their licensing information to the Gov't!!!!!
many people in the past felt that slaves weren't intelligent or driven enough to govern their own lives, and that controlling and using them for someone else's good was beneficial to everyone involved.
Actually, this introduces another interesting part of the slavery/proprietary software analogy. Some people argue that proprietary software is appropriate, because "users aren't intelligent or driven enough" to make use of the freedoms to modify and study the software. This is terribly unfair. Programmers are in the class of users. Some users program a little, some program a lot, some don't program at all. But even those who don't program often know who the good programmers are, and can ask them to modify a program on their behalf. Users deserve these freedoms, and it's wrong to think that they don't under the guise that they aren't smart enough to make good use of software freedom.
I know it wasn't ethereal who was making this argument, but I thought it was an interesting point to introduce to the discussion.
>
> 2) they are free from ridiculous GNU-isms
> like the hideous "--" options.
>
Roger that 18-wheeler! Let's stomp-out this
hiddeous option syntax starting today!
Just say no to '--'...
Great! I suppose you will volunteer to write the C compiler for us.
> The gcc used comes from egcs (as does modern gcc), which was forked a long time ago after Stallman installed a bonehead maintainer. It is true GNU software, but most of the code is from non-GNU sources.
EGCS was a short fork that was remerged over a year ago. The GNU project may not have written a lot of the code (any more than the Apache group wrote all of Apache, or Linus wrote all of Linux), but they did the merging and releasing, awesome projects for something as large and complex as GCC. If the FSF had not been there, there would be ten thousand GCCs, with poorly maintained forks for every system out there.
Also, it's a huge project to get any open-source project started. Whatever anyone else may have done to GCC or glibc or gdb, the structure and framework were built by RMS (for GCC and GDB) or by someone working for the FSF (as in getting paid) (for glibc), and that structure was obviously valuable enough to build on.
Akers law: During a discussion where the merits of a particular viewpoint are being outlined, once a comparison to slavery is made, the person or persons making the comparison are immediately branded as communists and are dismissed as being 'semiliterate subversives'. This is commonly found in Pro GNU/FSF essays, or rebuttals to essays advocating closed source software.
Feed The Need[goatse.cx]
Does anyone else find this quote downright scary :
And fewer than that earn their living by writing programs, so presumably it must be even more justifiable to ignore their rights.
I agree with many of the FSF's goals, but arguing that the welfare of a group of people is irrelevant just because that group is a minority betrays a very ugly mindset.
Wow. Another 'true believer'. You might want to look into scientology. They need people like you.
So, what about Eric Raymond's question he posed to you at LinuxToday today[sic]?
if you two could get a law passed making proprietary licenses illegal, would you do it?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I am working on getting there. I became a vegetarian over a period of
years, and I am working in that way toward being a vegan. It will
take a while, but I hope to get there in the end.
When I buy a car, I don'y expect the hood to be sealed. If I purchase a car, or a piece of software, I should be able to play around with the insides or make repairs as necessary.
It is not Free Software advocates who are wielding the gun. It is "intellectual property" holders who are doing so. If you violate intellectual property laws, jackbooted government troops bearing firearms will break down your door and drag you to jail at gunpoint.
Free Software advocates want less force-based coercion in society, not more. To claim otherwise is simply Orwellian.
DATE: 02/20/2001 11:28:46
SUBJECT: Stallman stalls again
Late '99 I wrote a backend for gcc targeting the java virtual machine. At the time the university I was working for did not want to release the code (they had paid me to develop it) but I managed to convince them that it was better to release the source code than have it sit on the shelf and do nothing. They refused however to sign the copyright assignment forms to make it part of the gcc distribution. I recently asked RMS if he figured it would be worth my while to go and ask for the assignment again as I figured that after reaping nothing from the code for 18 months they may be more forthcoming. This is the response I got. RMS essentially tells me to bury the code in the backyard because it might be "dangerous".
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 08:59:32 -0700 (MST)
From: Richard Stallman >
To:
Subject: Re: java backend
If it is possible to compile languages such as C into Java byte codes, I see a great danger. The danger is that people will use Java byte codes to hook GCC up to proprietary back ends and proprietary front ends. They could also generate Java byte codes, run a proprietary optimizer, and feed the result back into GCC. In effect, the support for Java byte codes would undermine the goals of the GPL. If your changes really do make such activities much easier, more feasible in practice, then I think it would have been better if you had never implemented the feature. And now it would be better now if you take these changes off your web site, and don't mention that they exist. Of course, someone else really determined could redo the work, the extra burden of doing so might dissuade people from trying. Did we discuss this previously? I don't remember, because my memory is not as good as it was. If we did, I will search for the old mail.
These "extremists" saved your asses. Or maybe you'd prefer having to drive to your local college to use the Internet, or worse yet, using a Windows box.
Up your a$$, all of ya.
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
I'm seeing an "either/or", black-or-white mindset to the issue of free software. True freedom is maximal for all concerned. It's too far of a stretch to insist that when I write software and sell it without the source, I am somehow abridging the buyer's freedom. If I get too big I might someday face monopolist charges, but, for example, Microsoft is not abridging my freedom when it doesn't give me source code any more than Fridigaire is for not giving me the schematics to the refrigerator they just sold me. I'm involved with Linux and free/open software out of choice, which doesn't (in my mind at least) preclude the existence of others being involved in proprietary software. Laws exist to protect us from monopolists, but until I say so, any property of mine belongs to me--with all the inherent karmic ills of property ownership, too. A superior product produced by a superior system will prevail; I personally think the Free/Open software system is the best. Yet one's participation therein should be based on personal beliefs, not external coersion. I've been a left-winger for decades now, and I've seen how lame the Left is at getting anything done. It invariably comes down to holier-than-thou posturing and politically correct moralizing. The Right has long since been de-fanged from any serious moralistic coersion, but in the past 20-30 years the Left has simply repeated their mistakes, i.e., this hair-splitting and infighting is typical non-productive leftist behavior. I've come to a very libertarian attitude about morality and idealism: I have mine and you have yours. I may try to change your mind. I may oppose you and even work against you. But unless you're dangerous and/or truly delusional, I should not disrespect or discount your opinions. People who disrespect and discount others opinions are ramping up for destructive acts. It's a terrible mistake to totally dismiss people simply because they fail a hidden political correctness test. It's done to me all the time, and it hurts. I know a "do what you need to do, brother" attitude doesn't always fit the situation, but always worrying about your own karma first adds civility and even wisdom to life. Again, I'm involved in Free/Open because it squares with my view of life. I don't need to worry so much about what others are doing.
--- WWSD? What Would Strider Do?
There might not be a good substitute word for Free (capital F), but there is one for free (as in beer): GRATIS
.peter
What I am thinking is the following: should there be any HTML checker (unbalanced italic tag in this case) for slashdot editors? I mean, the former can be dispensed if we have a WYSIWYG web-based HTML editor or an X-Window app. Writing directly HTML is becoming a nuisance these days. I am against a spelling checker, because we will miss funny comments from readers.
¦ ©® ±
vegans. They are so pathetic. Being a vegan is the stupidest crap. No wonder people are so irritated with the FSF. It takes a certain holier than thou ignoring reality in exchange for the wam fuzzies kind of mindset. Yick. Vegans are about on the same level as jehovas witnesses on the pathetic-o-meter.
"Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
dude, where is the faq? it sounds funny!
Another way you can help fight the DMCA is to attend the "Free Dmitry Sklyarov March" on the Federal Building in San Francisco on Thursday, 30 August 2001.
How many geeks are left in San Francisco during burning man weekend?
Controlling software is like controlling your own car or your own bank account. It won't do anything by itself. It needs someone to use it.
Try this on for size:Controlling software is like controlling your own speech. It won't do anything by itself. It needs someone to hear it.
It puts me of a mind of two things: the key requirement of totalitarian regimes to control speech; the danger inherent in the intentional falacy, the idea that locutor's intention can be relied on in the interpretation of his language. Copyright is only another subtle attempt to legislate this control. Tyrants and fools (public|private) lose because they build on the shifting sand of their dream of control. The wise (programmer|writer) knows that her content is not originary, her intent is unclear and the potential utility of her artifacts is ambiguous.
Software, like speech, is always already libre. The fight is not *for* freedom, it is *against* fools and tyrants who conspire to impose short-sighted limits and their dreams of control.
illegitimii non ingravare
I don't call for complete abolition of copyright and patent laws. I do think we should reevaluate all copyright and patent laws to see if they do what the constitution says they should: "promote Science and the Useful Arts". If copyright and patent laws do not do that, they are not in harmony with the original intent (at least in the USA).
I believe strongly that all published software should be Free Software.
;)
:-)
It's exactly this sort of intolerance of other licenses and needs that has made me less and less supportive of the FSF and the GPL as time goes on. At least the BSD crowd acknowledges that users' needs differ and doesn't try to impose (and yes, "impose" is> the correct word) its worldview on all software universally. It's interesting that his very first words are so revealing of the FSF philosophy on this point.
BTW, I encourage you to thank the GNU project by reminding people that the system so often called "Linux" is actually the GNU system with Linux as its kernel
No, it's not. This is true for most distributions, but many of us prefer real Unix-flavored (usually derived from BSD) versions of the utilities for good reasons: 1) they're more compatible, and work as expected, 2) they are free from ridiculous GNU-isms like the hideous "--" options, and 3) they are also sometimes considerably more stable. I'm getting a little tired of the GNU/FSF folks trying to take all the credit for Linux. It's a crock, and they know it - there is not a single piece of GNU software that is completely essential to Linux - it would be a pain to replace it all (especially the compilers and thier ilk), but it *could* be done. Linux is Linux, GNU is a set of mediocre Unix utility ripoffs.
Let people know the threat that software patents have for small software businesses and Free Software.
This is just a flat-out lie. I know patents aren't popular here because so many in the community have learned from the FSF to hate them. The reality is that patents of *any* kind are a huge factor in levelling the playing field with the "big corporations" Kuhn so likes to demonize. A world without patents simply guarantees that companies like Microsoft will have total domination. (I do think that patents in fast-moving technology areas should have a much shorter term, say five years, but eliminating patents is NOT the answer - see my letter to LWN last year on this subject for a full explanation.)
Sometimes, people get confused and think that Emacs really is a religion. It's not a religion, even if it is a way of life for some of us.
I'm not really sure he's joking here, despite the smiley...
I also should mention that it was only a partial victory for freedom in January 2001 when Apple released APSL 1.2. They
came much closer to a Free Software license than the APSL 1.0, but they fell short by continuing to require that "deployed"
versions in an organization be published. Thus, they still restrict the important freedom of private modifications.
An alternative view held by many would be that Apple has explicitly preserved the freedom of private modifications. In reality, the APSL is less restrictive and more free than the GPL in this regard.
Recently, I changed my mode of dress to be a bit more traditional, and I cut my long hair. I did this in part because my fiancee wanted me to, but also in part because I realize that non-hackers are sometimes threatened by the "typical hacker style."
This is very interesting to those of us that have long held that despite their protestations to the contrary, the free software movement is indeed inextricably tied to a communist worldview. RMS and others routinely deny this even though it's the only logical conclusion one can reach upon reading and thoughtful consideration of their positions on the issues. The fact that they are more aggressively pursuing subversive tactics should come as a sharp warning to those that are "a bit uncomfortable" with GPL/FSF/GNU.
"The future's good and the present is nothing to sneeze at." - Roblimo's last
Bradley,
Software based POS systems have always been proprietary. The cost of the system and custom development of menus and food inventories is way too high for anyone to give away.
The reason you thought that was because, not all restaurants had a POS system at all (apart from a cash register).
So, I am sure those owners would rather go back to a pad and pencil. They don't see their freedoms as being infringed upon. They are getting work done, and serving customers better.
I think you have gone way off the deep end when you start using bizarre analogies to get your points across.
Name one restaraunt that serves any significant number of people that uses a free POS based computer software package. You can't, because they don't exist.
Free speech software : Libre software
Free beer software: Gratis software
Roll it around on your tongue. It's not hard to get used to.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
However, I meet many Open Source supporters who think that a mixed model---some proprietary software and some Free Software, is acceptable and even required. We in the Free Software Movement something fundamentally disagree with that.
To the extent that the Open Source Movement does a good job at convincing business people and others that would not agree with the message of the Free Software Movement, I think that's great. There are many ways to get a job done, and I even refer people to the Open Source Movement if they are trying to convince people who fundamentally disagree with the Free Software Movement.
What I'm calling for is to keep in mind that this is a big community that includes both the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement. Calling the whole thing the "Open Source community" leaves us Free Software folks out of the picture, and that's not really fair.
I am glad that there are people like you, Russ, convincing people that we don't reach in the Free Software Movement. But, the Free Software Movement takes a firm ethical stance, and we aren't going to change that. You mentioned the Quakers doing a good job on abolition of slavery. But, there were many different abolitionists all using different ways of talking about the issues, and that's what finally ended slavery.
It takes many points of view, cooperating together, to change the world. When our goals overlap, I call for the Open Source Movement and the Free Software Movement to cooperate, and I am open to any form of fair cooperation on common goals.
Right, Freedom Software then means software that gives or protects your freedom. Like Freedom Fighters. Or I migth be wrong ... english is not my primary language
"USAmericans" is the long form version of, and therefore tacit approval for, "USians". It is now official and you libertarian USians will please modify your writing pattern.
Thank you.
...Skyline pioneered the cheese coney...
Actually, I think some stand in New York's Coney Island pioneered the cheese coney. Skyline et al. just happens to sell a lot of them with Cincinnati-style chili.
Yes. It would be nice to "port" ORP to the GCJ run-time environment. (Note that ORP is not stand-alone.)
What reason would anyone possibly have for modding this down? That guy's fucking smart.
I've heard from a networking guy at my ISP (who I know is friends with guys at M$ - met some) that M$ has guys specifically Astroturfing Slashdot, running hundreds of nyms each and filtering them with a bot so they quickly know which ones have Mod powers that day, so they can moderate every article, but I don't believe it. And it's third party rumor, so you shouldn't either.
But the above rebuttal was very logical and didn't flame anyone, and way better than I could have done, so maybe M$ IS here. I wouldn't put it past them. But only Taco and his logs could tell me.
_Steven_
I have no Karma,
I just don't care
as long as i have
big karma underwear
"As for the other half of your question, "programmer's rights," I certainly think programmers, like all users, have a right to all those freedoms I mention above. However, programmers don't deserve any "rights" that infringe on the freedoms of others. " /. itself is constantly on the side of the creator when it comes to writers. And of course artists have the right to retain sale, distribution and reprint right of their art. And most people even bend from their stealing MP3s long enough to admit that they think the musician actually deserves being paid for thier music. And software engineers aren't allowed to be paid for thier creations? If someone else toils over something for hundreds of hours and you enjoy using it. THEN YOU OWE COMPENSATION! To do any less is just plain selfish. (And don't even START on the damn pizzas!)
The "programmers" are the creators. Every single other place in society, creators are the "owners" of their creations!
There is NOTHING so special about software over art, writing, music, backyard gardens or anything else someone does that that someone toils endlessly on that the USERS have more control and rights that the creators. The FSF et al. are taking a philosophical trip through fairy land and it's time they fscking wake up!
Contrary to popular belief, coding is not all free blow-jobs and beer. Those things cost MONEY!
Did you even read my fucking post? Since you talked to me in such a condescending way, let me do the same to you.
Here's what I see happening. I post something that offends the moderators on the site (be it Simms, Taco, or anybody else). They use their infinite moderator points to moderate my initial post to -1 using a combination of offtopic and troll.
Then they go into my comment history and mark EVERY FUCKING ONE OF MY PAST POSTS as -1, using the same moderation scheme. Let me say that again. EVERY FUCKING ONE OF MY PAST POSTS. Even posts that I made 2 weeks ago get moderated down to -1.
Fortunately, I avoided the guillotine this time, but I have had this done to me before.
Now, is there anything else you want to say that will further illustrate your ignorance?
Exactly. With the cygwin tools installed (much of which came from or has some root in the GNU project), I am finally perfectly had home on Win32.
But, as the old saying goes: success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan. I think a fair case can be made for the GNU project to be at least an equal parent with the kernel to the current success of the Linux phenomenon. Subsequently there are a number of very important free software projects that have also been extremely important. I would argue that Apache was very important in the rapid adoption of Linux -- hey, here's a free OS and here's a killer app to run on it. Samba is very important now to the current adoption of Linux. KDE and Gnome or both may have a hand in much future growth. But the usable OS came into existence when the GNU sperm found the Linux egg -- or vice versa (on second thought, I don't want to think too much about that image).
What I was trying to say is that I have a lot of sympathy for the desire of the GNU people to have equal billing in the success of Linux. However, I think that the insistance on this does more mischief to their reputation than good, whatever the justice of their claims.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Drepper certainly isn't known to mince words. Here's one example from l-k. Judge for yourself, who is more/less rational...
The manipulation of another person's E-mail or News postings without their express consent is comparable to both censorship and tampering with another person's snail-mail. I'm mildly horrified that an administrator would abuse their power in such a way; it's wholly inappropriate.
"The positive argument for realism is that it is the only philosophy that doesn't make the success of science a miracle.
Can't these guys see what has happened whenever government force has gotten involved in software licensing? You don't have to look too hard. Jon Johansen and 2600. Dmitry Sklyarov. Edward Felten. And most frightening of all, Microsoft's vague threats about what should be done with software that "threatens the American way".
Let Free Software succeed on its own merits, as I believe it will. Don't use the gun. There is no real freedom down that path.
grep -ri 'should work'
Chris Beckenbach
grep -ri 'should work'
When I was an undergrad at the University of Cincinnati my physics professor would order in Adiaticos when my small honors class would take exams... that was my first experience with Adriatico's... grrreeeaat pizza.
Unless you want to spend the evening on the toilet, I suggest you stay away from both Skyline and Gold Star. Cincinnati chili is good, but a bit purging. :)
Open Source Community gets despised by RMS (and fanatics like him) for not urging the "political issues", and in the same breath they want to put their name on and take credit for something made by the Open Source Community. Further, calling it GNU/Linux will give you the impression that a Linux distribution is made out of GNU software and the Linux kernel. This is far from true. A normal Linux distribution contains the Linux kernel, plus software from a lot of different projects like, BSD, Apache, Perl, etc... and GNU. And finaly, Linux is NOT a "GNU variant". Linux was not put into the GNU operating system. Instead, some GNU software (and just as important software ogirinating from other projects) was collected and put around the Linux kernel to form a complete operation system.
However, that difference is rapidly disappearing. More and more, it's becoming difficult to get a job in the USA that doesn't require the use of proprietary software. For example, I always used to cite "waiting tables" as a profession that never required using proprietary software. The other night, I made that point, and someone pointed out that the restaurant we were at had a proprietary software point-of-sale system. Even in that profession, people are required to use proprietary software when they weren't before.
In the industrialized world, we are rapidly approaching a day when you cannot work in any field without using software---and in nearly all cases, that software is proprietary software. The difference in the analogy you introduce disappears completely when that is the case. It's nearly disappeared already.
I'm a programmer who has previously released apps and tools for Windows - which has a much bigger marketshare than Linux, and therefore, a much better chance of them being purchased and used. Still, none of my ideas have made me any money yet, and any good feature ideas I have are QUICKLY stolen by a big firm who CAN make money off the idea.
I now agree with these GNU guys that private individuals should release their stuff under the GPL, since realistically, we're programming for fun and love of the art. If you're in this ONLY to make money, go work at Microsoft. Myself, I'll do proprietary coding and network admin during the day, and GNU at night. Being "Private and proprietary" makes you as much money as releasing under the GPL, with the one exception that a lot of the Linux guys will actually pay you to show support, whereas Windows users don't care if you live or die, since another coder will spring up in your place.
And the thing about people sharing software with their friends? Newsflash, hotshot. THEY DO ANYWAY. The GNU guys just accept that it happens and hope that people will be honest. They treat the user with respect, which in turn, has convinced my friends to PAY for Linux, rather than accept a copy from me, even one of my old ones. But they'll still burn Windows or a game for each other; Microsoft has not earned their respect. The Microsoft guys rant, rage, and threaten, which only serves to push people like my friends to Linux.
And slavery is what happens when everybody uses Windows XP or whatever comes after it, where soon, each time you turn on your PC, you will automatically dial in to your Masters at Microsoft, to prove that you're not stealing from them. Innocent until proven guilty. That's not how I want to live, and I have jumped off that slave ship forever.
Oh, yeah, if you're going to program at home, remember to get your boss at work to sign a waiver allowing you to write code in your spare time. Lame, but required. I think there is info on the gnu.org web page...
I agree this kind of anti-slavery propoganda is exactly the kind of shit i would expect from the FSF. Freeing the slaves had a horrible impact on the economy in the south. In fact many slave traders where forced out of business. I don't see how anyone could possibly say this was a positive change, in fact i find that freeing the slaves was highly unamerican. In addition to rumors of homosexaulity i beleive lincoln was also a lunatic communist.
Is that funny, or what?
The GPL uses force (the force of copyright laws and the government) to coerce someone who creates enhancements -- perhaps very valuable enhancements -- to publicly available code to give those enhancements away without any hope of being rewarded for their true value. (Yes, it is occasionally possible to secure a job in which one is paid, by the hour, for enhancing GPLed code. But the few authors who are able to get such jobs -- and there will never be many, because financing the creation of GPLed code has not proven to be a viable business strategy -- author is not compensated according to the value of his work, but rather by the hour. Usually as an employee of a large, faceless corporation.
Richard Stallman notes, in The GNU Manifesto, that one of the explicit purposes of the GPL is to reduce programmers to, at best, the status of wage slaves. There's no prospect of being well rewarded for a "truly righteous hack." At best, there's a paycheck -- and, according to the same document, a key goal of the GPL is to reduce the size of that paycheck.
Is this freedom? Common sense dictates that it is not.
--Brett Glass
A new promising entrant into the world of Free JVMs: http://www.intel.com/research/mrl/orp/
I would love to see someone ask RMS whether he would favor a law making it illegal to release software under anything other than a GNU license. Also, I agree that comparing non-free software to slavery is almost obscenely ridiculous.
Freed software has the same problem as "liberated software". It refers to
software that wasn't Free, but now is. GNU Emacs isn't Freed Software; it
was always Free Software.
The leader during the revolution, is not necessarily the leader _after_ the revolution. Each stage demands different skills/convictions. RMS drove this movement for a long time. It is not at all surprising (nor necessarily valid) to me that he'd be increasingly ignored. Though he may remain the conscience of the movement, his role may increasingly become a symbolic one -- at best!
But I hope that such a possibility, will not discourage/detract us from the larger goal. Ulrich is right that free s/w is a burden, but it's one that I hope extremely talented individuals -- such as yourself, Miguel, and Drepper -- will not abandon.
People who share software with their friends risk high fines and jailterms. People who reverse engineer software to get the source code face lawsuits, and, if UCITA passes, high fines and jailterms. These things may then also be viewed as acts of civil disobedience.
The existence of software does not take it away. The existence of copyrights, liscenses and a government to enforce them does.
I think the DMCA is useful because it shows something close to the ultimate end of blindly enforcing copyright laws past the time they make sense. They no longer make sense. The freedoms they traded away were once rather pointless, and are now vital.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
That's nothing. Keep at it and they'll ban your ip.
Don't believe me? I've had it happen before. I had 50 karma and went straight to -25, but I've clawed my way back. My user info contains all the details. But I still have to use proxies to access slashdot.
Enjoy!
Proprietary software is an exercise of power, and it harms the users by denying their freedom.
If I use program X, I have the freedom to do what program X allows me to do. "Free" software that lags in features actually conveys *less* freedom, not more. Furthermore, Joe cannot oppress me simply by offering a product for sale. Suggesting otherwise is inherently elitist, tantamount to suggesting that we simpletons are capable of being held up by sending a letter that says "i have a gun".
When users lack the freedoms that define Free Software, they can't tell what the software is doing, can't check for back doors, can't monitor possible viruses and worms, can't find out what personal information is being reported (or stop the reports, even if they do find out).
In order to exercise these freedoms, you need only have access to the source, not the right to distribute it without compensating the developer. MFC meets these requirements, as do products under the SCSL and other licenses that reveal the source without stripping developers of their copyright priveleges.
If it breaks, they can't fix it; they have to wait for the developer to exercise its power to do so.
With Open Source/Free Software, you still have to wait for a developer to fix it, unless you yourself are a developer. While it's true that turnaround times for critical security fixes are often faster in OSS than closed source; new features often lag by months, even years. Why? As you said yourself, few people are software developers. People still have to wait for developers to add features, but because those developers aren't directly compensated for their work, the wait is often longer. The best example is Linux drivers.
If the software simply isn't quite what they need, they are stuck with it. They can't help each other improve it.
They can buy some other product. If they are developers, they can compete and win. It's called the Free Enterprise system. It's my system. It's America's system, and God willing it will continue to be our system.
That's my little bit to help "the people". I know, I could have done more, but you have a responsability too. You have to think for yourself. Don't let yourself be swayed by rhetoric; not leftist rhetoric, not my rhetoric, not anybody's.
Wake up and smell the coffee! The FSF is just another "special interest" that falls under the umbrella of the Democratic Party. When the time is right, they will push for government intervention, regulation, and the expansion of beurocracy to serve their cause. They will make things *worse* in the long run, not better.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
= virus!
GPL = cure for shared source!
i guess Free Software is officially a religion now. Trying to convert people like fundamentalists do, and if you don't believe in their God (Free Software) you are condemned to hell.
If his answers had been filtered out this garbage, this interview would have been a little enjoyable to read but his testifying is really too much to take.
But now Bradley Kuhn wants to make it illegal for me to distribute binaries without sources for my own software, written from scratch. Note that I do not need any government IP law to enable me to do this. In fact, the FSF would need new IP law to forbid me from doing this.
Fuck that. I'm with Linus Torvalds, Tim O'Reilly, and Microsoft (!), who recognize my right to choose my own license. "He who writes the code chooses the license." -- Linus Torvalds
I'm not sure about "ideological" - it's not really very clear what the concrete issues are here.
Female Prison Rape in NY
What is it to be human?
One of the primary abilities that we humans have is the extension of self beyond our cells. This ability to extend our physical self to more abstract patterns of information and relationships around us makes us quite different than animals and other living things. This extended self includes our ideas and the tools we use to express them. More and more, these tools are being extended from a simple set of words to ones that enable more sophisticated forms of dialogue. When I think of my extended self, I tend to include my expressions that take the form of my creative expressions that end up in digital form on my home and office computer.
Centuries ago, free speech was illegal. Ensuring it as a human right for all has taken centuries, and it still isn't always available. With the advent of more sophisticated communications tools, we have entered a world in which our rights to free speech may need to be extended to more sophisticated forms of self expression. Free speech for me is a human right. I couldn't imagine a world without it.
I began expressing myself in the software that I wrote when I was 14 years old. I began by learning software languages that others had written, and by learning to use tools that others controlled. Once I incorporated those tools into my own forms of self expression, I found that I could only fully express myself by conforming to the laws of those previous authors. In effect, my freedom to extend myself through the software that I created was limited by the original authors choice of a license. If the license restricted me from the freedom to redistribute my work, then my ability to free expression was limited.
Today, thanks to RMS, the FSF, and more importantly, the GPL, I have an institution that fights for my rights to extend myself in the form of software. Now, thanks to a group of idealists, I have a good set of tools that protects me and my liberty and you and yours.
If my software ends up being used by others to extend their self...do I have any ethical right to control them by restricting their redistribution? According to copyright law and our societies current interpretation of it I do. This is the ethical question that haunts me. I understand the need to make income in a world where money puts food on the plate and shelter over the heads of myself, my wife and my two sons, but I'm concerned that the license that I choose may end up hurting another person by restricting their ability to extend their self to their fullest potential.
For this reason, I fully support the FSF and the GPL. I would suggest that we each seriously consider that our code can end up being an important component in another human beings image of self. I would suggest that we each seriously consider that the license we choose is the law we are imposing on these others. We cannot escape responsiblity.
Henri Poole
"The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves." - William Hazlitt
They had the choice of death. And they had the choice of refusing to work and being whipped or starved. Those sound like choices to me, even if they seem rather unpleasant.
They could even have refused to have children so that no children would've been born slaves. Some even made that choice.
I think the choices that users have in an environment dominated by proprietary software are similarily unpalatable.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
It's Microsoft Windows. I hate to be a stickler about this, but please show some respect to the armies of developers slaving away to produce the system you call "Windows".
Heh... I remember that... "incident" Bradley put
a lot of effort into trying to get someone fired
over a harmless prank.
Details:
Bradley Kuhn did a lot of preaching about how you
should never refer to Linux but only to GNU/Linux.
Apparently in a very "in-your-face" manner.
Somebody who was running the mailing list some of
these discussions happened on decided it would
be funny to set up a script that would prefix GNU/
onto the word Linux whenever it appeared on the list.
Unfortunately, he screwed up and it appended GNU/
onto EVERY word in the messages.
Bradley then proceeded to attempt to convince the ISP that the guy worked for to fire him for
being an evil/unethical sysadmin. and was persistant about it.
Feh.
So does that mean that everyone in your company still thinks /. is down?
They're beginning to catch on, mainly because they can connect from home. At this point it's being blamed on "some sort of firewall problem". Thank god they're not application-software level people, or someone might actual wonder what was going on.
None of them (to my knowledge) posted to slashdot, but a lot of them used to read it. My bet is that my getting IP-banned has boosted their productivity.
--slort.
Bradley, black people owned slaves, too. And some of those slaves were white. Slavery wasn't originally a black/white thing. That doesn't make it any better, but you should be factual when you talk about it.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
But you still can't roll back the odometer..
If it's the same chain of La Haciendas we had in Charleston, SC then I wouldn't be surprised if they got raided by immigration. They claimed to have 'authentic mexican cuisine' and they had the best mexican food I've ever found in the states. But they got raided because their employees were illegal immigrants, which explained why the food was so good :). Fortunately they have reopened and I'm assuming they're legal now, but they still have really good food, so I gotta wonder...
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
Ah, yes, of course... I take that sort of thing for granted, since I often develop on Solaris. I have to install my fat GNU package before Solaris is useable at all (by then it is almost indistinguishable from GNU/Linux).
Are there any plans to fix the massive linking hole in the GPL? See "is this a problem with the GPL?". IANAL but IMHO this is the biggest threat to the GPL. With .net and Mono
we are finally going to get neat reusable software components on linux (please don't flame .net, read some of Miguel Icazas writings on it, its really quite nice), and cross
compatibility between operating systems at the application binary and component levels. This is a very powerful development technique that relies on dynamic linking that
bypasses the GPL limitations on linking. For example, if I have a 'gcc' .net component I could put in a front end, maybe using my .net 'xemacs' editor widget, and keep it closed
source. This is all totally legal under the GPL. Lets consider an analogy, I have a remote host running GPL'ed software (eg. a web server), in that case you clearly want closed
source clients to be able to call functions of the server (albeit with some indirection, just like .net or CORBA). How can we reconcile these two opposing desires and fix the GPL so
that it remains relevant in the .net (or bonobo, com) age?
For those of you that don't know, my current approach to perljvm has been to use Per's very nice GNU Kawa system to make it happen. perljvm needs a lot of work, but Kawa provides wonderful infrastructure to port dynamic languages to the JVM.
Yes. I remember reading about one in Luisiana. He was treated the same as the white slave owners when the north army invaded, farm burned and slaves set free. The book was one american history brick, from the 20's.
Ya, you wouldn't be the first property-rights revolutionary asassinated in that town ...
Just to be pedantic, it was not legal for "white people to own slaves." It was legal (in some states) for anyone to own slaves.
I think the way I found out about FSF and GNU and Linux and all that jazz was best. I heard about it from my nextdoor neighbor in my college dorm. But he did more than just show me it, he got me to install it and practive with it. While I am still in college, Linux has sparked interest in my girlfriend, a hotel management major and total computer illiterate. It's because I use it in front of her, and she sees that I can use the free software for non-technical courses. Now she sometimes uses MY machine for HER work! While it pisses me off sometimes that I cant do my work whie she's there, it means that another person has been exposed to free software and sees you can still reach your bottom line: getting work done and being productive.
Point is, my neighbor got me using linux and other gnu stuff by showing me it. My girlfriend has started using the apps open-source has produced for actual real life uses, because she saw me doing the same.
Ideas for others: Teach your spouse on how to use free software, even if the software runs on proprietary OSs. Teach co-workers and friends the same. By teaching others real life uses for FSF/Gnu/OSS/etc software, word will spread to get others on the bandwagon. The story from Largo, FL, can be used as an excellent start.
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
Their list of free-as-in-speech books is pretty short. A much bigger catalog is here
Find free books.
You always have the right not to release your own code or modifications. Indeed, the FSF objects to software licenses that require people to release private modifications. However, once you release your software to other people, the FSF asserts that it is not ethical to restrict the freedom of other people to use that software.
The problem I have with the FSF's position is that their goal is to rid the world of proprietary software -- it's not enough that people have the opportunity to use free software, but proprietary software is off-limits. If they had their way, I wouldn't even be able to let someone have a binary-only release of software for free ... I'd be required to provide sources for it as well. Exactly why should I be forced to provide source for something that I want to give away?
Sure, we'll have a few companies selling and developing free software (After all, it's certainly proven itself as an effective business model so far. Right.) And everyone else ... goes into support for free software? Maybe everyone in the software industry can get jobs flipping burgers, and develop free software on their off-hours, just like they do now. (Quick check ... can I have a show of hands of how many people here are employed making or otherwise involved in the creation of proprietary software? At the moment, how easy will it be for you to find another job?)
I like using free software, and I write it as well, but peoples' "rights" aren't infringed by proprietary software. The slavery analogy is terminally flawed, because I can always choose not to use proprietary software. Unless the day comes when that isn't true (and we seem to be moving farther away from it all the time, as Linux becomes better and better), those who create the content are perfectly within their rights to enforce software licenses.
How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
That said, I recently installed the full suite of Cygwin tools on my Win2K development machine, and it gave me a slightly different perspective on the Linux vs. GNU/Linux debate.
How so? Are you referring to the similarities between Cygwin and GNU/Linux or something else?
The GPL allows me to make private modifications without having to distribute the source but what does that mean?
I saw the "Website loophole" but is that only private websites run by one person. What if two people are involved in running the website?
Basically I see a bigger loophole. I seems to me that his idea of *private* is meant for companies. In other words if I work at IBM, I can make a mod to some GPL source and give it out to other IBM employees without giving them the source but if it goes outside of IBM then I have to distribute the source.
The loophole then is that if I wanted to use GPL code as proprietary software, All I have to do is get each person that buys my software to sign an agreement making them my employee / contractor. I'll pay them $0.01 salary (which I get from the $95 they paid for the software) at which point I can give my new employee this software without supplying the source.
If this is NOT the case then this idea of *private modifications* has no meaning.
Has this issue been covered already?
-The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. - Again, I agree. I have no opposition to a law requiring all software to be sold in source-code form, or requiring source to be made available upon request.
A law requiring you to give away your source code. I see you have bought into the cult mentality when it comes to the word "free."
How about a law requiring you give everyone in your apartment building a copy of your key so in case you aren't there they mught be able to put out a fire before it spreads?
The ultimate solution is to change USA political sensibilities, so that USAmericans don't immediately label someone as a "lunatic" or "pinko" simply because (s)he puts freedom, community and goodwill as higher goals than the profits of shareholders.
American capitalism, whatever it once was, is now a religion. If you aren't prepared to be a full-on atheist in response to it, you won't change the mindsets of its faithful (implicit or explicit) adherents. What he calls political sensibilities are more correctly described as religious sensibilities. It's not politics, but human psychology that requires attention.
People who can't counter that arguement choose to be offended instead.
The movements differ greatly because their fundamental philosophies and motivations are different.
This is complete, total, and utter nonsense, as I've told you repeatedly. Freedom is just as important to the Open Source Initiative as it is to the Free Software Foundation. It's just that we don't clobber people over the head with the insistance that all code must be free, that anyone who doesn't free code their immediately is an unethical software hoarder. That is NOT HOW YOU CHANGE THE WORLD.
Speaking of slaves, you would do well to follow the instruction of John Woolman. He was a Quaker who convinced, practically single-handedly, the entire Religious Society of Friends to stop owning slaves decades before the rest of America came around to that idea. How did he do it? Not by pounding everyone on the idea with the idea that slavery is immoral, unethical, people-hoarding.
He did it by convincing Quaker slave owners that slavery was bad for THEM. We have a model for success, and we're pursing it, by quietly talking to software users about the benefits to THEM of the open source process. You, on the other hand, have a model for failure. And as much as I've tried to talk you out of it, you continue down the same path that kept the FSF mired in obscurity (except among programmers, natch) for a decade and a half.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
So thank you, whomever you are, for saving not only my company, but also my self-image in that I will no longer support a dying technology.
--Mike
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
I'm sticking with software libre. It rolls off the tongue and it implies a certain political aspect.
Other options:
Does the use of the term "fuck-ass" imply a "fucking" in the "ass"?
OK, how was that flamebait? I fully expected to be Offtopic or Redundant with that post (not that I would agree with that, but I expect it), but remember, even when you really really really want to moderate someone down, you will look slightly less stupid if you pick a moderation type that's actually germane to the post at hand.
Gah, why do I even bother...
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
It's closed now! Anyone know if the one in Oxford is still open?
There is still a market for straight development. If someone wants a program that does some specific task, and that program does not exist anywhere, they have to write it. That usually involves hiring a programmer. Tada, work!
This mostly involves custom, highly specific, vertical tasks. But, today, a majority of software developed is like this.
We see lots of general software out there, like OS, editors, compilers, databases, whatever. But hidden inside most companies is a warehouse of custom code developed in house for very specific tasks. These are the dark matter of the software world. There is a lot of it, but few people ever see it.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
How about Freedom Software?
> For example, in the USA, white people used to have the right to own slaves.
Actually, everyone had the right to own slaves. Blacks owned black slaves. Whites owned white slaves. Slavery wasn't abolished until the tensions between north and south flared up; in the absence of those, who knows where we'd be today?
Not a question of race, it's a question of wealth. Rich people owned poor people. Same as it is now, except it was literal then.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
I like freedom too, but this is a bit of a stretch. People have rights, including their own freedom. Software does not have its own freedom, it is a tool used by people. Controlling software is like controlling your own car or your own bank account. It won't do anything by itself. It needs someone to use it. This is not even in the same conversation as slavery!
Stating arbitrarily that noone should be allowed to determine the outcome of their own work is nuts. Patents are abused heavily, but copyright has its place. Copyright cannot prevent competition by alternative implementation, patents can.
The best action for Free and OS is to compete with a better implementation, not to take away what the competition (Closed source) has. Taking away their basis for existance is as bad as them trying to take ours through IP, patents and crazy restrictive laws. Its no more right for us than it is for them. Open competition on features/licence terms is good. Restriction on what licence terms/implementation restrictions/legal activities are available is no good for either side.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
Right now I depend on the patronage of the corporation which employs me to develop software for their own internal use. Nowhere does the FSF claim that in house software should be free.
There's really nothing wrong with it, it's just a kind of operator overloading that's built into the English language (as well as others).
"Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
He's referring to the fact that once you have Cygwin installed on MS-Windows, you can clearly see how much of the power, functionality, and ease of use of "Linux" comes from the GNU tools, not from the Linux kernel itself. Granted, Windows runs the GNU tools much more poorly than Linux does, but the basic functionality is there.
My M stands for "Michael," which sadly has no pun variant that I can think of
How about "My Call"
I didn't realize that this was the same Bradley Kuhn that posted to the one.net newsgroups. It's a small, small world.
LaRosa's is a close second, but they actually HAVE a LaRosa's in my town. I guess that makes it the best pizza within an 30 minute drive. :)
riiight...you know the kkk website is not the best source for american history.
But then he came out with that whack analogy between commercial software and slaveholding. This may take the all time record for stupidest statement on /.
/. could have found someone better.
What's scary is he seems to believe it. It's as if at some level he thought Intuit would track him down and lynch him for switching to GnuCash.
How can anyone take him seriously after that remark? Both the Open Source and Free Software movements have so many articulate advocates. Surely
What makes it wrong? These are his beliefs and opinions. I agree more with you Russ, but I don't think you're right and he's wrong.
--rc
A car is hardware, not software, when you buy a PC it's not sealed, you can play around with it and make repairs and upgrades.
I apologize for missing that point. 24 hours ago, I was under the
impression that in most states, when slavery was legal, only white people
could own slaves. Now it appears I was mistaken. My apologies.
If people's freedoms are limited by the fact that they do not have access to the source code of my proprietary software, they are in no way harmed. They are certainly no worse off than they were before I wrote it, are they? In fact, the only people whose lives were affected in any way by the fact that I released a proprietary software package are those who benefitted enough from using it that they were willing to pay for it.
In spending my own available time, energy, and resources to help other people by writing some proprietary software, yes it's true that I am taking some power over the people I help when I limit the way they use my creation. But that is not morally wrong in itself. Comparing proprietary software developers to slave owners is obviously just designed to dramatize the issue, but it's extremely offensive to many of us developers who write both Free and proprietary software. Apparently the FSF has decided that rational argument is not as effective as hyperbole. Well, hyperbole cuts both ways, guys. Here's a little bit of my own:
If I ran a halfway house for homeless teenagers, you're damn right I would exert power over them and limit their freedoms, in the interest of ensuring that I could continue to provide a service to help as many of them as possible. If I didn't limit their freedoms, the police would shut the place down and all the kids would be completely free again - but without a place to sleep. Is it morally wrong to run a halfway house?
Limiting other people's freedoms is not inherently wrong - that's what laws are for. Taking away someone's freedom to steal, rape, and kill is a very good idea. The FSF has made a golden calf of "preserving peoples freedoms" without looking any deeper than that. No wonder they are commonly viewed as extremists. They have turned a blind eye to common sense.
I applaud the FSF and all Free Software developers who have donated their time to the community and have worked to create the wonderful variety of Free software that is available today. But don't tell me that the way I feed my kids is morally wrong.
include $sig;
1;
If you take out glibc, gcc and gdb (because the sources are not primarily from the GNU project, even though they were donated to it) you find that GNU software actually plays only a minor part in a normal Linux system.
Even Slashdot wants to hide some things
There is no point in which Bradley Kuhn tried to make an anaolgy between the severity and repercussions of slavery's freedom lost and the severity and repercussions of people who have no choice but to use non-free software. The analogy was given in order to assist the reader in finding an objective comparison between which freedoms are the rights of citizens and which freedoms impose on others. (The right to swing your fist stops where my face starts.)
I love the benefits of free software(linux, etc) but there is a place for closed proprietary software and there is nothing wrong with using them.
Right now there is a place for free software and proprietary software in the same world. However, in many cases, the philosophies of the two cannot naturally coincide, and there is conflict. If, in the future, we are left with one of the two, it will be because of the efforts of the people fighting(working) for the philosophy that they choose. Advocacy starts now.
endless preaching about why software should be free, how it harms people, blah blah blah. very few people in their right mind would believe this crap. I don't want to drag this into the old tired debate, but why should these guys impose what freedoms a software publisher should give??
I love the benefits of free software(linux, etc) but there is a place for closed proprietary software and there is nothing wrong with using them. It is not worse than slavery.
I'm there, it's easy if you have a wife who's a good cook and is a vegan. So I suggest you find one ;)
Hey, Richard, wanna know how easy it is in Windows?
I don't know Ulrich Drepper personally, though I am aware he is a well-intentioned man and a uber-hacker. I am glad that he is working on glibc, and that I can enjoy the fruits of his efforts.
Having said that, I have to say that his anger seems to stem from not anything specific that RMS has done, but the connotations that he assigns to RMS' actions. Reading Mr. Drepper's article, it appears that RMS has acted democratically and ethically at every turn. Mr. Drepper himself admits that there was no effort to displace him from his position. Also, I see no issue with the new license wording: in fact, like Mr. Drepper admits, it seems more "commerce-friendly" than the previous one, thus refuting RMS' anti-commerce image. It seems, at least to me, that Mr. Drepper is guilty in no little way of the same fault he attributes to RMS... the obsessive need to control his environment.
Magnus.Remember, if the posted story looks wrong, you should have used Preview :)
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
then on the very next sentence:
The FSF doesn't help its credibility with these sort of tactics.
This $&%$& demands everything to be labeled in a way which credits him
and he does not stop before making completely wrong statements like
"its variant".
A, the old conflicts just never die, do they?
That said, I recently installed the full suite of Cygwin tools on my Win2K development machine, and it gave me a slightly different perspective on the Linux vs. GNU/Linux debate. If I could only get rid of my Windows desktop altogether I'd be happy indeed.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
And now for some not so nice things.
Stallman recently tried what I would call a hostile takeover of the
glibc development. He tried to conspire behind my back and persuade
the other main developers to take control so that in the end he is in
control and can dictate whatever pleases him. This attempt failed but
he kept on pressuring people everywhere and it got really ugly. In
the end I agreed to the creation of a so-called "steering committee"
(SC). The SC is different from the SC in projects like gcc in that it
does not make decisions. On this front nothing changed. The only
difference is that Stallman now has no right to complain anymore since
the SC he wanted acknowledged the status quo. I hope he will now shut
up forever.
The morale of this is that people will hopefully realize what a
control freak and raging manic Stallman is. Don't trust him. As soon
as something isn't in line with his view he'll stab you in the back.
NEVER voluntarily put a project you work on under the GNU umbrella
since this means in Stallman's opinion that he has the right to make
decisions for the project.
The glibc situation is even more frightening if one realizes the story
behind it. When I started porting glibc 1.09 to Linux (which
eventually became glibc 2.0) Stallman threatened me and tried to force
me to contribute rather to the work on the Hurd. Work on Linux would
be counter-productive to the Free Software course. Then came, what
would be called embrace-and-extend if performed by the Evil of the
North-West, and his claim for everything which lead to Linux's
success.
Which brings us to the second point. One change the SC forced to
happen against my will was to use LGPL 2.1 instead of LGPL 2. The
argument was that the poor lawyers cannot see that LGPL 2 is
sufficient. Guess who were the driving forces behind this.
The most remarkable thing is that Stallman was all for this despite
the clear motivation of commercialization. The reason: he finally got
the provocative changes he made to the license through. In case you
forgot or haven't heard, here's an excerpt:
[...] For example, permission to use the GNU C Library in non-free
programs enables many more people to use the whole GNU operating
system, as well as its variant, the GNU/Linux operating system.
This $&%$& demands everything to be labeled in a way which credits him
and he does not stop before making completely wrong statements like
"its variant". I find this completely unacceptable and can assure
everybody that I consider none of the code I contributed to glibc
(which is quite a lot) to be as part of the GNU project and so a major
part of what Stallman claims credit for is simply going away.
This part has a morale, too, and it is almost the same: don't trust
this person. Read the licenses carefully and rip out parts which give
Stallman any possibility to influence your future. Phrases like
[...] GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free
Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your
option) any later version.
just invites him to screw you when it pleases him. Rip out the "any
later version" part and make your own decisions when to use a
different license since otherwise he can potentially do you or your
work harm.
In case you are interested why the SC could make this decision I'll
give a bit more background. When this SC idea came up I wanted to
fork glibc (out of Stallman's control) or resign from any work. The
former was not welcome this it was feared to cause fragmentation. I
didn't agree but if nobody would use a fork it's of no use. There
also wasn't much interest in me resigning so we ended up with the SC
arrangement where the SC does nothing except the things I am not doing
myself at all: handling political issues. All technical discussions
happens as before on the mailing list of the core developers and I
reserve the right of the final decision.
The LGPL 2.1 issue was declared political and therefore in scope of
the SC. I didn't feel this was reason enough to leave the project for
good so I tolerated the changes. Especially since I didn't realize
the mistake with the wording of the copyright statements which allow
applying later license versions before.
I cannot see this repeating, though. Despite what Stallman believes,
maintaining a GNU project is NOT a privilege. It's a burden, and
the bigger the project the bigger the burden. I have no interest to
allow somebody else to tell me what to do and not to do if this is
part of my free time. There are plenty of others interesting things to
do and I'll immediately walk away from glibc if I see a situation like
this coming up again. I will always be able to fix my own system (and
if the company I work for wants it, their systems).
I was just gonna originally reply saying that Apple is only doing this because they are losing support, and by switching themselves to a UNIX standard, they strengthen their software base.
But I didn't want to reply like this because I would seem like an idiot without proof. However this article, about the FSF, comments about Apple and it proves my point:
Note he also believes that "it's likely only a pragmatic necessity that leads them to support some Free Software projects."
If you read more into it, they say they more specifically support Linux/GNU. And why are they more positive to it? Because it does shapes the future, not apple! So does GNU shape the future of apple?
It seems that the worm is turning against RMS. In spite of his insistance on prepending GNU to everyone elses work, and being the self-crowned emperor of the free-as-in-speech software movement, he seems to have trouble making friends. There's a bit of an ideaological split going on in the community.
If I were you Miguel, on my next visit to Mexico City I'd be on the lookout for suspicious looking strangers bearing ice-picks.
Please tell me how laying waste to countless acres of forest to make room for agriculture is better than killing a cow and eating it?
I like some of what the FSF has done but most of the leaders come across as ideologues and a tad bit arrogant/condescending. Their instance on calling GNU/Linux is bunch of crap. I know it's been argued before (and most likely better), but the truth is my linux desktop is made possible by many vendors: FSF, Intel, Compaq, KDE, Netscape, the many authors of different packages I use (e.g., xmms, etc), and the letter L. They need to get over it. glibc is not a GNU project according to its maintainer.
And the thought that the FSF's creation was the genesis of this community is a load of crap. It merely formalized and focused certain portions of efforts and philosophies that had been around for years. They do good things, but they aren't the final word in community development whether it's called free/Free or Open.
--
http://cheeser.blog-city.com
The original questioner talked about Kaffe as "the only free JVM". This is a common misconception. Bradley in his reply mentioned GCJ, but does not make clear that GCJ does come with a fully-functional JVM, and has for some time. Many people think GCJ is only good for ahead-of-time compilation, but its goal is to be a complete Java system. (When I run Kawa, my Scheme-to-JVM compiler, under GCJ, I depend on the JVM, because when the user types in a lambda expression on the command line, it gets compiled on the fly to a new Java class.)
If RMS and crew want their own software to be free, that's fine by me. Just don't try to usurp my rights to my intellectual property. And don't cry about how unfair IP laws are, either.
As much as I'd like to toil day in and and day out for a company that can't seem to get a grasp on how to effectively sell software (read: most open-source or "free" developers), I won't. The line at the soup kitchen is already too long.
Here's my advice to these FSF folks: stop being fucking idealist hippies. Realize that we live in a capatalist, property-oriented, money-driven society. You guys (well RMS excluded, possibly) live off donations, for Christ's sake. I'll bet some of the individuals that gave you money to live and work made their millions on closed software (Carmack is one). Just ask Carmack to fully open and GPL the source to his next engine. Yeah, right - he'd be living out of his F50 by this time next year.
I can purchase a movie to view, but they don't have to show me how to film and edit one, or how to make the cassette. I can buy a book to read, but I'm not allowed to change a couple pages and distribute it. It's IP laws, fellas. Copyright. Get fucking used to capitalism.
One more thing: we all might be able to handle the FSF and listen effectively to the message they are trying to spread if it weren't for Stallman. He's got severe issues dealing with other humans; from what I've read and seen, there are 4-year-olds out there with better social skills.
-aaron (barspin, too lazy to look up the pw, boo hoo)
Problem is most car dealers can spot what stupid thing you did to the car when you finally come in to while about it breaking.
Take a 100,000+ project that has 10+ difference releases and attempt to not only debug the end-users problem but also debug what programming mistakes they did.
"Development support" contracts work fine, but it's the idiots that think "I can do this better" and end up costing you money fixing/finding their mistakes.
I liked this interview and wish Bradley all the best in his FSF work. However, I must take issue with a couple of his remarks.
No, they differ in a lot more than just that. The two situations are incomparable. Slavery results in the removal of freedoms from people. Developing proprietary software does not. Users still have the choice of whether or not to actually purchase and/or use the software. Victims of slavery have no choice in their situation.
Bradley is confusing the actions of the developer with those of the user. Developers can code under whatever license they choose. This does not mean users must make use of the product.
I still can't believe this analogy was made.
I've always liked this term and its counterpart, "Gratis Software." Using them in combination makes a clear distinction for the receiver. "Free" is just too loaded a term, at least in the US.
Its ironic that Bradley makes this statement given his wonderful explanation of how to connect with non-hackers about Free Software. This is exactly the sort of statement that turns people off and creates the impression of a raving lunatic rebellious dangerous hacker culture.
Not everyone who develops or supports the option to develop proprietary software is working in the interests of corporations. Moreover, I'd bet that most people in the USA are quite concerned about excessive corporate power and have been for quite some time, something that Bradley has obviously missed given the above statement.
Please don't stereotype and generalize. Stereotyping and generalizing is what made Archie Bunker, and makes us, raving lunatics.
Now, now, Philip. Let's not get angry now, okay?
I really don't think it's an editor that does this. This it how I see it happening:
Someone posts an EXTREMELY off-topic response to a popular thread, very early in the game. Any moderator coming along would mod it down, but many who read it respond. Eventually, the original post get to -1 teritory, and everyone who responded to the off-topic post looks like they responded to the original topic. While I think any post that respond to the parent is on topic, others believe that responces to an off-topic post are off-topic as well, and I can't argue with that. For whatever reason, those get modded down as well. It's no bitchslapping editor - it's normal folks with mod points, perhaps acting in a less than ideal way.
Why are you doing this? The only thing I can think of is some game, where you try to go from 50 to -25 as fast as possible (pretty easy with this tactic), then go back the way you came. Hard, but not impossible, especially when you have friends / other accounts with mod points.
So, I think Slashdot is right in banning your IP address. There's a good chance that you are using multiple account to play this game, or have co-conspirators. I think it's a good thing that the Slashdot crew has made it harder for you to play the game - doesn't that make it more challenging?
However, I don't agree with automatic promotion. If a parent gets modded down below my filter, then all responces should be invisible as well. You should have to select -1 comments to see the trolls AND the biters.
So there. Moderators, be aware of this "automatic promotion", click on the Parent links, and do what you think best.
"Freedom software" has the same problem someone mentioned for "liberty
software". Freedom is a noun, not an adjective.
As for Ulrich's comments, I don't agree about the remarks he made on the license thing. The addition made to the 2.1 version of the LGPL compared to the 2.0 version is only a clarification, just as RMS said. Also, the upwards compatibility clause is very important, if it wasn't for that a program's license could never be changed (unless every single contributor granted written permission). Upgrading would of course be necessary if a bug was found in the GPL2 or for those cases where the GPL2 isn't clear enough (say Java linking, Bonobo components, etc.).
As for Ulrich's statements of the hostile takeover, Stallman threatening him as well as for Stallman's so called embrace-and-extend tactics, I'm unsure what is meant. Those whole paragraphs are way to vague to me.
Monkey sense
Ha ha. Say that to my face you goat bringer!
You're nuts. Skyline is by far the best cuisine edible on this planet.
For non-Cincinnatians... Skyline and Gold Star are two competing chili franchises. Skyline's the hometown classic and Gold Star is the upstart. Their main ingredient is Cincinnati-style (less thick, more flavorful and spicy) chili, and they put it on everything. Skyline pioneered the cheese coney, a hot dog with Cincinnati-style chili and cheese, and it's probably the best food ever dreamed up by a person. For more information, check out their website. Gold Star.. ugh.
I do live in Clifton, though, and I must agree that Adriatico's is the best pizza in the city. LaRosa's is of course a close second. And how can ANYTHING compete with Graeter's?
On a side note, I used to work for the ISP young Bradley here used when he lived in Cincinnati, and I remember some of the more interesting discussions he was involved in on our local newsgroups. He was just about as... uh.. passionate.. then about free software. One of our systems admins actually wrote a script to place the prefix "GNU/" before random words in his newsgroup posts... Bradley wasn't thrilled, but it was one of the funnier things I've ever seen.
Feeling good and hungry? It's Skyline time.
---
"how can the same street intersect with itself? i must be at the nexus of the universe!" - cosmo kramer
You seem to be glossing over a lot here. First, didn't RMS write the original gcc? And for that matter, didn't GNU lay down the foundations (at least) for gdb and glibc?
Second, you seem to be using GNU to mean just the people on the GNU project payroll. When I hear GNU, I think of all of the people who are philosophically aligned with the FSF and have produced (or otherwise contributed to) Free Software. In that sense, the people that are part of Cygnus, Debian, Red Hat, Linux, etc., are credited by that GNU moniker. That's how I look at it anyway.
I don't especially care whether or not Linux is called GNU/Linux or GNU/Linux is called Linux, but I think it's very important to understand the value of Free Software.
Without the people who value Free Software, Linux as we know it simply wouldn't exist.
--Mike
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
Is any one else tired of community members bickering for attention? Linux is a large operating system with lots of contributing groups. XFree86, KDE, GNOME, the Apache Group, ISC, BSD, and many others all contributed equally important pieces to this operating system. Wining about who's project gets exposure in the project's name seems petty. I mean are we here to make an awsome Free operating system, or are we here to promote our own brands?
I think Linus is doing a great job as a poster-boy for the community, and I think `Linux' is easier to say and much catchier than `GNU' or `GNU/Linux'. Can't we just accept `Linux' as a reasonable name for our efforts?
Is that funny, or what?
I think I'm going to crap my pants! Help me force the turds out, matron!??
Did you forget:
1) gzip (small but important)
2) bash (OK, ksh93 is an alternative)
3) emacs
4) autotools (autoconf/automake/libtool)
5) fileutils (yes there are other sources for these but when you get used to "cp -a" etc., well...)
...and so on. Believe me, I thought when I first tried to GNU-ify Solaris I'd only be porting a few packages.
Anyway, the Cygwin runtime really consists of both the Cygwin DLL and newlib. The latter isn't Red Hat software, nor is it GPL. The real role of Cygwin is to provide a POSIX interface, something that's done by Linux elsewhere.
Read this:
3 /1 198.html
3 /1 200.html
http://uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0009.
Then read this:
http://uwsg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0009.
Ulrich is a fucking asshole!
Like many others here, I like Linux and I sincerely and deeply appreciate what many have done in the areas of open source and free software. But the FSF is so far out of the mainstream, particularly with nonsense like the very offensive slavery analogy, that they're doing more harm than good.
You ignore many important facts, but since that might shrink your moral high horse you would just choose to disregard them anyways.
The colonel's secret recipe is an exercise of power
Salt. Pepper. Eggs. Flour. Go cook.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
You have it competely backwards...think of all of the room currently being used for agriculture to feed livestock that could be reclaimed if more people did not eat meat.
Some counterarguments to your claim, taken from Beyond Beef:
Energy efficiency isn't normally associated with reasons for becoming a vegan, but it was one of the more influential in convincing me.
Frogs are primitive animals - so the occasional extra toe is not that unusual. But this is very unusual.
If you scroll down to the bottom of that page (or just search for the words "not so nice things") you'll see Ulrich Drepper, a Red Hat programmer, discussing his own personal involvement with Stallman.
I submitted this as an article and it got rejected, but I really think that it's a good glimpse into the behind-the-scenes power struggles that go on.
Thoughts?
> In other words, he wants programmers to become
> the Janitors of this world (not that there is
> anything wrong with being a janitor.)
> If all software can be distributed freely, then
> there is no money to be had writing software.
> None. Nada. All you can make money on
> is support/service, which isn't working so
> well for Redhat right now.
Actually, what he (and most computer scientists) want is for programmers to become software engineers, in the same sense as civil engineers. Software is infastructure now, but most of it's awful, mostly because of propietary software. There are still pleny of civil engineers, even though they're required to disclose the plans for the bridges they build. The vast majority of software development today is custom jobs for use inside a corporation anyway. But when the CE builds the bridge, if it needs repairs, or expansion, whatever, later, the CE doesn't have to do them himself; any other CE can read the plans and do them. This is a Public Good, and infastructure software shouldn't be any different.
As for free redistribution: as long as the other freedoms are preserved, I have no objection to limiting (re)distribution to patches. Forbidding the user to distribute their fixes and changes too severely limits the utility of the source, IMHO.
-_Quinn
Reality Maintenance Group, Silver City Construction Co., Ltd.
Wasn't thrilled? I'd say threw a screaming hissy fit would be a more accurate statement.
Andrew
By the way, I don't think about the "Open Source community" as a distinct entity. There are two movements afoot: the Free Software Movement, whose focus is the political and ethical issues of software freedom, and the Open Source Movement, whose focus is to avoid political issues of freedom, and to talk about the technological benefits of "Open Source". The movements differ greatly because their fundamental philosophies and motivations are different.
However, together we form one community---the same community that started in 1984 when the Free Software Movement started. In 1998, within that community, we had another movement start up with a different focus, but we've always been together in one community. Thus, I hope you'll think of the community as including both the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement, and remember that it originally started as the Free Software community. At the very least, please call it the "Free Software and Open Source community", so that Free Software isn't left completely out of the picture.
One of the reasons I have been hesitant to put my software under the GPL is that increasingly, the FSF seems intent on drawing battle lines between the ``true believers'' and the ``unbelievers'' of the Giving Away Software (GAS) movement[*]. In support of this goal, RMS, BMK, and others seem to be attempting to rewrite history in two important ways.
First, they claim that the genesis of the GAS movement was the Free Software movement. As someone who was there, I assure you that this is just silly. I suspect I gave away as much software before there was an FSF as I have given away since. In those days, we didn't worry much about software licenses: recall that it's only been since Apple v. Franklin in 1983 that has even been clear that copyright applies to binary-format software!
The second myth being propagated is that the GAS software we use today is mostly FSF, or originated with FSF software. In particular, the FSF would like you to forget that GNU stands for ``GNU's Not UNIX,'' and that this was as much a protest against the UNIX philosophy as it was against AT&T's proprietary kernels (which were in any case distributed to educational institutions under an essentially GAS license). I know the authors of a few of the GNU utilities, and can assure you that their contributions had as much to do with the existence of a supporting umbrella for their work as any deep philosophical ideas about Software Freedom.
I am unsure what I believe about the idea that ``software should be free.'' But I am sure that those who claim the work of others as their own deserve no respect in an intellectual community. IMHO, RMS and his followers have recently verged dangerously upon the margin of this tactic.
---
* Another unfortunate tactic of the FSF is to take words like ``free'' that are potentially ambiguous but have accepted meanings within the software community, adapt them to their own ends, and then claim that those who ``misuse'' them are in error. The ``Open Source'' movement was in large part an attempt to give a name to the GAS concept inclusive of Free software. Of course, now BMK wants us to distinguish between these two (and give ``Free Software'' the pride of first place, no less), forcing me to change terminology yet again...
How about "My Kale?"
You swine! Swine! Swine! Swine! Eating squirrels is doubleplus ungood!
There were several wealthly black plantation owners in the south. There were also many more blacks who participated and profited from the slave trade business.
I hate to break the news to you, fella, but the vast majority of hard-working people in this great capitalist society are wage slaves.
If you are really against wage slavery, I think you should lend your support to the many anarchist and libertarian socialist movements who have long worked to oppose it.
However, I suspect that you are not opposed to wage slavery in general, but rather are opposed to yourself being in thrall, while you are quite content to let the rest of the population be wage slaves contributing their tax dollars to the enforcement of the IP laws which keep you free and prosperous. If this is the case, let me give you some tactical advice: Most intellectual property holders argue for IP by claiming they will bring economic and technological benefits to the population as a whole (perhaps true). I think this argument has a better chance of succeeding than yours, in which you somewhat pathetically suggest that proprietary software will save a miniscule proportion of the population (which just coincidentally includes yourself) from wage slavery.
Ya tons of blacks, asians and native americans owned slaves back then. In fact all the black presidents back then owned many slaves.
phew, that took a load of white guilt off.
Why is demanding the freedom to always know what you are eating so absurd? In fact:
Your argument is doubly poor, because the FDA already requires food producers to divulge most of their recipe. The concession the FDA has made to food producers is that they can keep secret the "essential" parts of flavorings.
Are you saying you prefer the name "Linux" rather than "GNU/Linux" ?
Is that what this basically boils down to? (I'm just guessing here)
In all of Ulrich's rant he doesn't explicitly say what issue it is he finds objectionable, or what decision he would like to see made that would satisfy him. (you are similarly ambiguous)
Its hard to agree or disagree with someone if its not clear what they think.
In other words, he wants programmers to become the Janitors of this world (not that there is anything wrong with being a janitor.)
If all software can be distributed freely, then there is no money to be had writing software. None. Nada. All you can make money on is support/service, which isn't working so well for Redhat right now.
I agree with some of what the FSF proposes, but I must also say that individuals deserve the right to dictate how their works are used. If that means under a GNU license, great. If that means for-sale, that's great too.
Here are the freedoms they propose:
-The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).- Great! I agree.
-The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. - Again, I agree. I have no opposition to a law requiring all software to be sold in source-code form, or requiring source to be made available upon request.
-The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). - Here is where the problem comes. I'm supposed to spend three weeks developing an application, only to have someone give it away? No thanks -- I've got rent to pay and food to buy. If I choose to program on my spare time and give that away, great. But I shouldn't be forced to.
-The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. - Again, we have an issue here. This so-called "freedom" actually restricts my right to control what I have created.
I also thought his comparisons to slavery were a poor attempt to evoke an emotional response. If anything, allowing anyone to distribute any software freely is more akin to slavery... Forcing all programmers to give their work away for free, much as the slaves were forced to work for free. And despite RMS' desire to distance himself from communism, what the FSF proposes is exactly that... except only applied to programmers. It requires all programmers to program only for the good of all of our society, allowing them no personal benefit, and thus removing the incentive to program.
Corporations will always need some things done, so they will hire programmers on staff to do them. But that puts us back at the mercy of big corporations, who's business is NOT software, which means they do NOT have to answer to my software needs. That leaves my only option to writing it myself and gaining nothing from it, or waiting for someone else on a project funded by people's personal time to develop it, from which they gain nothing.
Perhaps in an ideal world... but in reality, if all software were of the FSF's vision, or all software were closed/commercial, then it just wouldn't work. The only system that works is the one we have now: a healthy mix of everything from closed-source, commercial to open-source GNU/FSF.
Natural != (nontoxic || beneficial)
Actually, although the GNU project encourages people to point out their role in the development of the GNU/Linux system (a point I think they have made far too big a deal of, because I think it's not worth fighting over), the GPL specifically FORBIDS anyone to REQUIRE attribution of any software. This was the reason for the modification of the BSD license: it required all derivative software to attribute part of the software to the University of California, and most distros have a long list of other parties who also developed part of the software. This is viewed by the FSF as an unreasonable requirement for software distribution, because although it is feasible for an entire operating system it's just silly and excessive if you want to redistribute a program of a few hundred lines that you derived from BSD-licensed software. Note that the "modified BSD license" has fixed this problem.
The rest of this post is not directed at the parent post specifically, but at other previous posts.
Asking people to acknowledge the contributions of the GNU project to modern Linux distros is an appeal to people's sensibilities, but it also serves an important purpose: to point out that "Linux" systems would not exist were it not for the contributions of the GNU project and the existence of Free Software. Linus himself said that he chose the GPL for Linux becuase it was the license of GCC, which was the primary GNU tool that made Linux possible. The fact that GCC was already available for various platforms made it possible to port Linux. Also, note that RMS personally coded much of GCC.
And for those of you bashing the GPL in favor the BSD licence, tell me this: what "freedom" does the BSD license give you beyond the power to take someone else's FREE work and use it in NON-FREE software? This is not a "freedom," it is a POWER, as Bradley said. Freedoms imply lack of restriction. Being allowed to use code that you get a hold of and integrate it into your own code is a freedom. Having the POWER to restrict other people's freedom to use the resulting application is not a "freedom," it is a special right granted to you by the government. The government sometimes grants special rights (such as copyright), not because you are in any way, shape, or form ENTITLED to them, but because they deem it beneficial to society as a whole. I really don't see any benefit to society coming from the power to distribute proprietary software, thus I think that this power should be dismantled. This has nothing to do with restricting anyone's freedom.
But if you look at my past posts (if I get bitchslapped) then they'll all be at -1, regardless of how good they were.
I don't see any -1 posts in your User Info. There are some 0s, but IMHO you deserved them.
--
Mod up a post Rob doesn't like and you'll never mod again
While I'm sure that most of us here would agree with some of what the FSF stands for (right to source being one), we also probably agree that our basic right to protect that which we create far overshadows our desire for all software to be free.
Everybody needs to put food on the table. I don't see Stallman sending me any checks for the work I do. Yeah, it gives me warm fuzzies and all that to give shit away for free, but I've got to live in reality, and not off the income from keynotes and super-duper goverment grants, which means I need to sell my software, not simply distribute it.
Help my neighbor? Sure, as long as that neighbor will put my kids through college, feed us and make my mortgage payments.
The User has the right to enter into a private agreement with the developer with regards to the terms with which the user can use the software in exchange for receiving the software. In other words, the right of contract.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
He was persistent, indeed... and what's funny is how totally futile his efforts were, as OneNet would have probably fallen apart without Brent there at the time. Brent could have stolen his credit card number and bought a yacht, and OneNet wouldn't have fired him.
:) (I certainly hope he reads this).
Brent's still useless, though. That'll never change.
---
"how can the same street intersect with itself? i must be at the nexus of the universe!" - cosmo kramer
Kuhn's quote: However, programmers don't deserve any "rights" that infringe on the freedoms of others. Often in society, we decide that the right to act a certain way should be limited because it infringes on the freedom of others.
invenustus' quote: This is a path that leads to less freedom, not more, I fear. Yes, most of us believe that the government should intervene in acts of violence or acts that violate other people's rights to life or property. But Kuhn is implying here that proprietary software should be illegal, and that's dangerous....
You misunderstand. Making a license that puts *everyone* (users, creators, learners) on equal footing is the only way to be fair. This leads to more cooperation and more software and code that is free(as in bear and freedom) for everyone.
This "fear" of the GPL taking freedom and rights away from authors of code is bizare and unfounded. Why do authors instinctively want and think they deserve "more rights" than everyone else when it comes to the stuff they create to freely distribute? Trying to get more rights for a group of people takes away rights from all the rest.
The idea that one group can have more rights and more freedom over a thing that is Free is silly. That is more dangerous than you think. Its what keeps all of the players in close software like Microsoft in power.
The problem with "liberty software" is that "liberty" is not an adjective. "Liberal software" would be more correct, but USians have twisted the meaning of the word "liberal" beyond recognition, unfortunately. If only the English language had the word "freedomful".
How about 'Freed' Software?
The FSF crowd abuses the concept of freedom; this interview shows that rather well. There is a big difference between freedom from coercion, and the "freedom" to another man's work. By Kuhn's line of reasoning, my owning property is limiting the "freedom" of others to it. I wonder how Kuhn would like it if I "liberated" his home, computer, and other possessions. Comparing software licensing to slavery is an insult both to those who toiled in bondage, and software developers everywhere. Intellectual property is just as valid as physical property. It recognizes one's right to live and profit from his work. The same capitalist system that protects Microsoft's or any other company's/individual's IP also protects the GPL. Show it some respect.
Proprietary software is an exercise of power, and it harms the users by denying their freedom. When users lack the freedoms that define Free Software, they can't tell what the software is doing, can't check for back doors, can't monitor possible viruses and worms, can't find out what personal information is being reported (or stop the reports, even if they do find out). If it breaks, they can't fix it; they have to wait for the developer to exercise its power to do so. If the software simply isn't quite what they need, they are stuck with it. They can't help each other improve it.
This could just as easily read in the following manner, which hopefully illustrates the fallacy of this position.
The colonel's secret recipe is an exercise of power, and it harms consumers by denying their freedom. When consumers lack the freedoms that define Free Recipe, they can't tell if the chicken was cooked correctly, can't check for inappropriate ingredients, can't monitor quality control, can't monitor fat content (or lower the fat content, if it's too high). If it gets lost, they can't cook more themselves; they have to wait for the restaurant to exercise its power to cook more. If the chicken simply isn't quite what they need, they are stuck with it. They can't help each other improve it.
Proprietary software does not limit our freedom. When you purchase and use proprietary software, you, the user, are making an informed decision. You implicitly agree to the limitiations of using such software, and can always uninstall it, and choose an alternative. If no alternatives exist, you are free to develop your own alternative.
Free (speech) software just makes more sense to users. More and more, the decision to use proprietary software becomes untenable, because of the lack of features, namely, the ability to enhance the product, to find bugs, to sniff out backdoors.
Let's not confuse features with freedom.
My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!
1. Bradley is being annoyingly PC when he mentions that "white people" used to have the right to own slaves. In truth, blacks and hispanics had the same right and they did own slaves as whites did, although of course hispanics probably did so more than blacks and whites put together, looking at all the Americas put together. 2. I notice the use of the word "rights" rather a lot, which is inappropriate: it's a matter of societal responsibility that programmers write free code, because it rescues users from the clutches of for-profit companies. Just as if you see a person being mugged, it is your responsibility to call the police (and possibly intercede but that's legally a bad idea these days). However programmers can certainly intercede and they (including myself) are doing so vigorously.
...this was just touched on yesterday in a slashdot post... anyhow.
Ulrich is only one of the maintainers of glibc; there are many others. All of them (including Ulrich) are very very skilled programmers, and all of them (including Ulrich) are basically decent people.
I've worked with Ulrich a very little bit before, for the GNU C++ library. Personally, I found him to be a bit abrupt and condescending, but there's no question that he knew what he was talking about.
I am a little surprised that he would post his rant as part of the glibc release notes, rather than as a separate message. That does seem rather unprofessional.
Enh... none of us are perfect. I too have ranted in public inappropriately, and I didn't contribute a kernel or system library to make up for it. :-) Those members of the OSS community who perform great service are entitled to some leeway.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
being vegan isn't really that bad. Actually, that's wrong. it's not bad at all - it's a good thing. You should definitely try it.
(BTW, I encourage you to thank the GNU project by reminding people that the system so often called "Linux" is actually the GNU system with Linux as its kernel).
If it is not appropriate for people to own or control software, is it appropriate for people to own or control (or even suggest) attribution of software? Or is that just another restriction being placed on software that shouldn't be allowed.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
Sure, I can change my local copy to remove the annoying continuous italics, but I can't really share my improvements with others...
Ribalah Ribalah Ribalah TIMMAH!
You don't like the license on a DVD? Don't buy it.
Don't like closed source software? Don't buy it.
You have a choice - you either buy or don't buy someone's product. If enough people buy it, that person makes money. If too few do, he or she goes out of business. Taking away that choice will just result in other ways for basic economics to regulate the market.
No matter what RMS says or does, the basic economic principles that drive commerce will not change. Those that have tried failed.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Hahahaha. Remember the hissy-fit he threw when I called RMS a psychopath? He boycotted the CLUG mailing list until they agreed to ban me. (They never did.)
Bradly Kuhn as VP for the FSF is enough to make Afanassy Thompson roll over in his grave.
Speaking of which...it's been over a year since Afanassy passed away, I still think about him all the time, and I still miss him. He was a great guy.
-Randy
- Kate
"DNA is life. The rest is just translation."
A guy in your exact situation solved that problem very nicely:
http://cambuca.ldhs.cetuc.puc-rio.br/multiuser/
No X terminal required.
Democracy. Whiskey. Sexy. Pick any two.
And how can ANYTHING compete with Graeter's?
You poor sheltered soul. Get yourself to Aglmesis and learn the truth. Greaters may seem all fancy with those big soft chocolate chips but the only reason they're soft is because they're 50% vegetable oil. Greaters is all made in a factory - I'd take UDF over Greaters. For a real treat get yourself to Oakley and experience ice cream the way it was meant to be. You can't beat Aglamesis for atmosphere or quality.
No brain, no pain!
Been there, done that. It's a personal opinion thing, of course... but Aglmesis just doesn't do it for me. It's pretty tasty, but once you've had Black Raspberry Chip or Coconut Chip from Graeters, why ever eat anything else?
:)
Atmosphere I may agree with you on, though. Graeters doesn't feel as homey. But I can deal with that for some chocolate chips the size of Sweden.
---
"how can the same street intersect with itself? i must be at the nexus of the universe!" - cosmo kramer
I'm not really sure he's joking here, despite the smiley... :-)
This is significant how exactly?
This is just a flat-out lie. I know patents aren't popular here... (blah, blah)... etc.
He never said patents were bad. He said (let me emphasize this for you) SOFTWARE PATENTS ARE BAD. I tend to agree simply because every software patent I have ever seen has been completely ridiculous(which doesn't rule out the possibility of there being an acceptable case). Most patents can be applied for on a mathematical or algorithmic basis which might be ok (subject to approval), but all evidence so far indicates that patents on software are stupid and harmful.
This is true for most distributions, but many of us prefer real Unix-flavored (usually derived from BSD) versions of the utilities for good reasons
Then by all means, go on preferring them and using them. Do you want applause? What is GNU doing, forcing their utils down your throat? I don't see how this is supposed to strengthen your argument that I should think the FSF is evil. As a matter of fact, very little in your post accomplishes much to this end. Quite the opposite actually. Try reason next time. It helps when trying to get through to rational people.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
This is a pretty brash statement, considering there's published evidence to the contrary (see the fuzz papers).
Earth to FUD-guy! Guess what? Microsoft does have total domination. And software patents are a tool they'll use to keep it.
So, if I decide I want to release my software under the GPL, thus requiring a compensation (in a behavioral form) from those who want to benefit from my work, I'm a Commie, too? Ugh.
--Mike
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
This is complete, total, and utter nonsense, as I've told you repeatedly.
If the OS people don't substantially disagree, why do they spend so much time flaming the crap out of the FSF camp?
Only on slashdot would a complete moron like this be moderated up to +5 insightful.
Really man wake up red baiting went out a long time ago.
War is necrophilia.
Huh? The GPL is quite capitalist--it's explicitly an agreement about compensating the person who writes the software. The compensation is not in dollars, but rather in a bit of control regarding what happens to the software going forward.
If you need to label something Communist, it should be the BSD license, which explicitly gives without compensation, right?
--Mike
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
The faq is on sllort's user info page.
The problem is that he's describing my philosophy. Seems to me that my philosophy is my philosophy, and if somebody says "your philosophy is X", I have the sole right to say "No, you're wrong," and be right when I say that. Confused yet? :)
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Hey Russ,
Sorry...I missed your point entirely. After re-reading your comment and quotation, I get it now. :-)
Kuhn says the both the motivations *and* philosophies are different, which is accurate. In terms of philosophy, both OSI and FSF/GNU are about software freedom. In terms of motivations, there's a big difference: OSI is about making open source software more attractive to commercial settings, FSF/GNU is about making all software "libre software" (as Kuhn suggests), a good term given the FSF's philosophical underpinnings I think.
I have found myself turned off on more than one occasion by Richard's defense of what "free" means - sometimes I grok his definition, and sometimes I don't (especially since the world is still based on a market economy). Still, I admire him for sticking to his guns in the face of many critics of software freedom. Without the idealism of the FSF, we'd not be where we are today.
But, as we all know: you definitely catch more flies with honey than with vinegar....that, to me, is the essence of OSI.
I think at this point in the evolution of software, both paradigms/perspectives are still needed. Heck, if nothing else, the GPL keeps Microsoft distracted somewhat. :-)
Cheers!
--rc
How about IgGNUramus?
The man is so dead set against allowing programmers to make any kind of living from their work that the name would be very apt.
The OSI should not continue its attempts to "force fit" the GPL, and the FSF, into the category of "open source." They don't fit, and it is time to quit trying to pretend that they can.
"Open source" is pro-business. But Richard Stallman's mission is to destroy all commercial software businesses. It has been ever since he developed a grudge against them, and began raving that they were "evil," many years ago. (The story of how this happened is well documented in Steven Levy's book Hackers.)
The GPL also violates at least two and probably three points of the Open Source Definition, because it discriminates against a group of people (commercial programmers) and against a field of endeavor (the production of commercial software). It is also viral. Attempting to deny that it violates the definition, and labeling the GPL as an "open source" license, hurts the Open Source Initiative's credibility. It appears to be violating its own principles so as to hitch a ride on the Linux bandwagon (Linux is, after all, GPLed.) To be true to its written principles, the OSI must quit attempting to call the GPL an "open source" license.
Richard Stallman, Bradley Kuhn, and the FSF itself say that the GPL is not an "open source" license. What better people to make this decision than the author of the license and the head of the group that attempts to foist it upon others? By attempting to include a license whose authors explicitly do not want it included, the OSI again weakens its ethical position.
The OSI has, at this juncture, the opportunity to be ethical and to oppose discriminatory licenses such as the GPL. Only by doing so will it stay true to its claimed principles. A split will not weaken that movement; there is still a great deal of truly free software, such as the BSDs, which is unencumbered by the GPL and is truly business-friendly. Only by attempting to include the GPL -- against the author's wishes and the OSI's own principles -- can it lose.
--Brett Glass
continue reading the pedantic and vitrolic responses. Generally, anyone who does not care to identify themselves. . . well their comments are totaly worthless and I just pass them by and dismiss them outright. What are people afraid of when they don't identify themselves? Oh, answered my own question, they are afraid.
Gee, i hope i am identifed here. I had a hell of time trying to get a login on slashdot and respond to this thread.
After a very long time in dealing with proprietary stuff, (Like IBM 360/OS and VM software on non-IBM computers. Ha, they got what they deserved after the shit I had to put with) I can tell you that there has to be a better way. Man, they even wanted to send me for free once to Armonk for a indoctrination weekend to tell me why buying a non-ibm processor might not be a good idea.
Much aggravation, delay and frustration has come from dealing with proprietary issues involving companies that sell a product and then make tons of excuses of why YOUR problem can't be fixed.
I don't think that I will ever be in a position to develope and sell that gillion dollar software product. I think that I will be just like the 99% of the rest of the programming population that will be programming and making a living just like lawyers, doctors, artists, bricklayer, carpenter, teachers, gee this list could go on forever, I am in good company.
That being the case I would suggest to the rest of the people reading this that you are in the same boat I am in. So, why don't you just figure out how to do the best job you can for the client that you are working for and if it means using free software to do that then DO IT. If it means suffering through the proprietary software shit, then do that and feel good about it.
If you have trouble with this, flame the proprietary software people with a vengenance and try to get them to help you do your job.
Because, asking nice and paying subscription fees and maintenace fees and buying upgrades has not worked in the 30 years that I have been doing this.
I can't recall ever talking to a company were I have used their proprietary stuff. And them saying , "Oh, we would be delighted to fix that for you, will get that upgrade out to you next week."
It has always been a shut-up, take-it or leave-it way of doing business.
My opinion is that this way of doing business is far worse then what many claim about the FSF.
You young people get back to me in 30 years and let me know what your experience has been with MS. Ya hear.
M Kuhn
Ok, why did this post say "Anonymous Coward", I never checked that box. Is slashdot proprietary?
Can I fix their code.
This thread was started by M Kuhn
Him and Stallman are the biggest fucking hypocrits around today it would seem. I agree with everything they say about why free software is better. But I am not arrogant, illogical or hypocritical (there's the key) enough to turn a 180 on my own platform and FORCE PROGRAMMERS to do what I want them to do?
Geez, people. I believe in using my money to help others (not just money, time and other resources) How the hell would I get off by then forcing others to give their money to help others? Oh wait, that's been tried and NEVER WORKS!
When will you people learn to adopt some ethics. When will you learn to learn from history, before you burn and censor the books (and all the while you are chanting 'For the People/Children') When will you learn that education is the most effective method of improving society, not violence and aggression. And, when will you learn that violence and aggression are the ONLY way to enforce you little Utopian societies. And when will you learn that if you empower others to enforce your morals and ideals that soon you will be killed, maimed, harmed, jailed or forced to do things against your will because some other asshole now has 'the say'.
Also, remember that big words are NOT intelligence. Stop posturing and trying to appear as enlightened folk while you act like a bunch of monkeys throwing their feces at each other.