Slashdot Mirror
RMS Running For GNOME Board Of Directors
An anonymous reader points to this story at Newsforge which says that "RMS is throwing his hat in the ring as a candidate for the GNOME foundation board of directors. Speculation is that he's pissed because the GNOME summary keeps mentioning non-free software; now he's going to (try to) do something about it."
RMS has ideas and though some may argue that they are extreme, he isn't afraid to do something about them. Him running for a position on the GNOME Foundation's board of directors is a perfect example.
The Moo went "Cow!"
Sheesh... Talk about getting all bent out of shape...
On my debian 2.2 laptop, i do not run any non-free software. It is my choice... i personally feel that running non-free software on a free operating system is weird. People should be allowed to choose what kind of sw they want installed.
Gnome was built using GNU tools so my guess is, if elected to the board, RMS will be pulling hard for a new naming scheme...GNU/Gnome [running on GNU/Linux].
"The compiler is more important than the kernel."
--RMS on OS components, importance of
It seems like virtually all of the Gnome news deals with pure GPL software. Is there a problem with non-free (as in speech) software?
æeee!
Oh no! I'm really worried, not really.
Does anyone even like RMS? Seriously . . .
It's just like when people get riled up when someone somewhat controversial runs for a political office, don't even waste your time, just don't give them any attention and they will walk away just like any Ritalin prescribed child.
And yes, I think RMS should stop smoking so much pot.
Of course, keeping it free will obviously be a concern of his, but it might not be his main concern.
It isn't enough for RMS to promote his ideas of what "free software" should be about. Now he has to censor everyone else and become the thought police?
I agree with the mailing list poster who said if RMS doesn't like it, let him publish his own "pure" list, sanitized and "approved" for reading by the ignorant masses.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
The GNOME mail archives have a post which shows what RMS is pissed about. There's even a Hall of Shame which lists some non-free packages, most GNOME-based.
Tired of free ipod spam sigs? Opt ou
Agreed.
And even if this crackpot somehow does get some sort of power, what's the worst he could do?
the recent Microsoft stockholder meeting. Maybe he could have made board of directors there.
I bet he secretly has thousands of shares of MS stock, so he could have been a good candidate.
To me this just smacks of him trying to get his name assosiated with another project, so when Hurd does become ready for prime time, he can say GNU accomplished the creation of a free Kernel/tool and desktop environment.
Gnome seems to be dropping off of the map in developmental terms. It feels fragmented and just plain messy. IMO Gnome is going to seffer a very slow, but very definite demise.
Gnome was born not out of technical need but a conflict of ideology.
If RMS is chosen it will show that Gnome has continued with it's root cause - creating Free software.
If RMS is not chosen it will show that Gnome has moved on from a base cause of creating free software and is perhaps a bit more open minded about mere open source.
This will be interesting to watch. Imagine the diminished relevance of GNU if he doesn't get it!
Whether or not you like RMS' political views ...
Having an experienced advocate of free/open source as a member of the GNOME Foundation will be a much needed shot in the arm towards GPL, (et. al.) acceptance across the business community. His philosophies aside, he could leverage this position and the visibility to showcase the benefits of free/open source.
GNOME, and to a lesser degree - the GNOME Foundation - is certainly being discussed more and more across the industry. Especially in light of Sun's choice to adopt GNOME for future Solaris versions.
His membership would be a welcomed aid to combat the negative rhetoric we are seeing ala Bill Gate's grossly negligent comments at the recent stock holder's meeting.
is the Bill Gates of free software.
It uses an arrogance that let me think about the famous Seattle's guy.
Freedom is freedom to chose not an obligation to chose Free Software.
The is the best news for KDE ever!
and do I mean __EVER__!
Since KDE has made leaps that GNOME hasn't (I don't know this myself, since I use Window Maker, but it's what I keep hearing), RMS might want to help make GNOME better.
FYI, both have made incredible leaps in the past year and are continuing to grow. I use GNOME, but have used KDE accasionally and am simply prefer a familiar environment (as a GNOME user).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Instead of posting gripes to chat groups, RMS does the right thing: he gets involved. It is a good example about how democracy should work. Roll up your sleeves and participate. Whether or not you agree with RMS, it is a good example about how to constructively effect change.
When I first started running linux, I checked out the various wordprocessor available. Abiword, kword, emacs, wp and staroffice. For awhile I used different ones for different projects. I've now settled on staroffice for heavy duty work and kword for light duty work. I've now started using Open Office. While I'm not convinced of the wisdom of Java as a development language, I'm quite pleased with the results. Now you tell me that Richard Stallman doesn't like StarOffice, so what??? The cool thing about open source is we don't all have to be clones of each other. The open source community has benefited from both Richard and Linus. Even the current $100 million "open courseware" project at MIT is in some ways of legacy of Richard Stallman. I believe he'd make a good board member even if I disagree with him on StarOffice. RMS has enough karma to last several lifetimes!!!
Okay...so in 1983 when he started thinking about his OS, and that it should have a GUI interface, therefore he is the grand-father of GNOME?
Gnome was built using GNU tools so my guess is, if elected to the board, RMS will be pulling hard for a new naming scheme...GNU/Gnome [running on GNU/Linux].
Since the G in Gnome stands for GNU, then wou could have GNU/GNU or GNU/GNU/GNU, etc...
If the GNOME folks are not going to listen to RMS and he doesn't get on the board, what is he going to do?
Start the movement for ANOTHER desktop environment?
If he was crazy enough to do it once, don't think he wouldn't consider it twice.
So RMS wanted an alternative to KDE bacause it was not "Free Enough" and created GNOME. They build the proyect on GTK Toolkit which is LGPL. LGPL allows to be used by non-Free products (see why LPGL is bad)
But now KDE is completely GPL and Free (Qt Toolkit now is GPL). So it is the perfect Free Desktop. Meanwhile GNOME have walk the oposite path and now is commercial.
I think RMS should join KDE team :-)
MOD THE CHILD UP!
On GNOME's homepage they claim "GNOME is part of the GNU project, and is free software (some times referred to as open source software.)".
If they want to participate in the GNU project then they are giving away their choice to the Free Software Foundation.
As a user, you still have choice in what you do. But as developers they bought into something, and they need to follow through in their goals, or adjust their participation in the Free Software Foundation.
Joseph Elwell.
Pray tell what should we all be using for a GUI in stead of X?
Everybody hates free stuff but loves socialism... wait... reverse that
.
-pyrrho
The reality of the situation is that there are some programs in this world that are not, by RMS's definition, "free," yet have value to many people. Examples of such programs are VMWare, commercial game ports, Word Perfect, and maybe StarOffice (forgot what the license is on that these days).
RMS represents pretty much the extreme of trying to prevent people from using what he considers "non-free" software. He routinely uses both license and PR to try to discourage "non-free" software. If he were in a position to do so, I'd expect him to work to work hard to prevent or at least strongly discourage "non-free" software from being able to use GNOME, for example by trying to force changes in the licensing. Look at the GNU libc LGPL isssue recently for a fine example of him trying to push the libc in that direction.
Why is this bad? Because there's some software that has value to many people that will be forced to use a different UI kit than the rest of your GNOME environment, and thus have a different look and feel and not play nicely with other apps. Who loses here? The user. And thus all of us who want to see *IX become a rational desktop choice over completely commercial systems. The long, LONG standing problem with *IX GUIs is that there is not enough consistency and interoperation between apps, and for GNOME to be successful in solving that problem it needs to not be discriminatory against programs that RMS doesn't want you to use.
On a more straightforward level, and again look at the recent GNU libc license issue, RMS is basically a nut-case and a control freak. If he has any real control over the GNOME board, it will NOT cause the GNOME board to make better or even more rational choices. I think it would be downright sad to watch a lot of good work from a lot of dedicated people become hijacked by a nut-case and made irrelevant.
just stop modding those GNU/xxx jokes up please! Please! Please! It's Natalie Portman, hot grits, and beowulf clusters all over again!
"Per the GNOME Foundation's charter, any contributor to GNOME is eligible for membership. Although it is difficult to specify a precise definition, a contributor generally must have contributed to a non-trivial improvement of the GNOME Project. Contributions may be code, documentation, translations, maintenance of project-wide resources, or other non-trivial activities which benefit the GNOME Project. While large amounts of advocacy or bug reporting may qualify one as a member, such contributions must be significantly above the level expected of an ordinary user." from the GNOME foundation membership qualification page.
I don't think RMS fits these qualifications. The GNOME foundation membership, and all the more the board (almost all GNOME contributors are foundation members) should be active members of the GNOME community. Simply "being RMS" does not qualify one; the foundation is intended to represent the interest of those who make it happen, that is contributors.
As a minor side niggly, the candidacy period is over and I didn't see a message from RMS, so technically he isn't qualified to run this year anyway.
Perhaps he'd like to contribute to the GNOME project and re-apply next year?
-seth (GNOME Usability Project Lead)I wonder if anyone has ever considered that actually. I'm not a window manager developer or anything, and know little about the detailes, but it does seem like alot of the visual weaknesses I notice in Linux deskops (bad redraw, ugly outlining and fonts, etc.) are common througout X-based GUIs. Is there a development project to redo the system from the ground up, and perhaps port a popular windowing toolkit to it so apps could be easily ported?
taking years to release GTK 2. Still we are waiting for this relatively minor upgrade. If Gnome does fail, the GTK devs will be one of the main reasons
a request to Ban all distro news from /. except GNU/debian ? i mean the others are not truly open are they now ?
and while we are at it we might as well write
a kernel patch that will only let you run RMS-certified software and a browser that wil only let you see RMS-certified websites.
Would that make the man happy or does he realy want world domination ?
42
Why is there a board anyway? Isn't the whole point to have an open system with a developer in charge, and not a part-timer (or commitee) who occasionally chirps in with orders for the developer. Think back to the darkest days of Emacs development, when RMS replaced the Emacs developer with someone that took many months before any development happened.
RMS has plenty to do without sitting on a gnome board. He may actually be good, as long as he doesn't reject features purely on the basis of their lack of relevance to hurd (eg. his rejection of X windows support in Emacs due to the fact hurd would not be capable of using X for some time).
Now that gnome has some real goals and has long discarded the "replacement of the evil KDE desktop" goal, it is probably a good time to let the developers continue with developement and not have things imposed on them by a bunch of uninvolved people that consider the project for a few hours each year.
Check out http://www.berlin-consortium.org/ Although I doubt it's useable yet.
Free Software is like sex. Its better when RMS isn't involved.
Bowie J. Poag
Gnome has a very poor system for bug tracking and quality control. Any crack smoking fool can make CVS commits that fuck things up. It is a real mess.
Yep he is a weirdo, I could not have said it better.
Shoot em and let god sort em out (open source programmers)
to build a modern desktop environment using C. Trying to emulate a OO paradigm using C has cretaed a great deal of needless complexity for Gnome developers. Had they simply either adopted a programming style suitable for coding in C, or used C++, they might not be in the mess they are in.
I use Linux to run an engineering business. Sorry RMS, but that means lot's of expensive software ($24K for just one program). There simply are no free as in beer alternatives, and likely never will be.
I did not choose Linux because it is free (and after all I went to Fry's and purchased a distro). Linux it is an excellent platform for engineering, and seems to be quickly gaining popularity in this field. And the reason of course is that, next to games, engineering tools really push raw processing horsepower to the limit. And using Linux allows us to keep up with the latest and fastest processors, without breaking the bank on high end Sparcs.
I mean, you need to use a python implementation to achieve a matrix hash of the opengl sub class and have iterate the pipe so that you can achieve direct frame buffer execution sets in minimal obfuscated machine code so as to not burn cycles on re parsed OO concepts.
right?
GNU/I GNU/once GNU/read GNU/a GNU/comment GNU/saying GNU/that GNU/RMS GNU/won't GNU/rest GNU/until "GNU" GNU/is GNU/in GNU/front GNU/of GNU/every GNU/word GNU/in GNU/the GNU/English GNU/language. GNU/Doesnt GNU/he GNU/realize GNU/that GNU/would GNU/leave GNU/him GNU/joyless GNU/having "GNU" GNU/all GNU/over GNU/the GNU/place, GNU/not GNU/to GNU/mention GNU/weird?
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
and credit all the Linux system contributers
so it would be GNU/Xfree/GNU_Gnome/_names of all the people who ever contributed code to the kernel_Linux
it consumes any GTK+ apps it can and relabels them Gnome apps, despite the fact that they do not use the Gnome libs. It does this because the Gnome devs are too lazy smoking crack to writw their own applications. Gimp for instance is not a Gnome app, despite what some Gnome folk seem to think.
to see which is the more vital and active project. KDE has a number of sites dedicated to various aspects of development. Gnome has one central site that has not been properly updated in ages, and any mention of Gnome 2 has slipped past my radar.
mozilla which as I recall should not conform to RMS's strict rules. why is he not blasting Galeon devs.
While I usually disagree with you on many usability design issues, Mr Nickell, I totally agree with you on this issue. I seem to remember hearing some time ago about Richard Stallman not using GUI's, at all. Assuming this is true, would you really want such a person on board that is involved in some way in making GUI design decisions? Would a person who knows nothing about web servers, who has never set up a web server, who really doesn't know what HTML is or what it does really be a good choice as a board member of the Apache Foundation?
Nobody can, let's get serious as nice as gnome can be, it has lost mindshare among users and is stagnating in development as compared to KDE. Gnome had the potential and really could have be a great desktop, and I like the ability to skin, and it is pretty neat. It's major issues are a lack of organization by the Gnome team, the environment is not as consistent as KDE, and not even close to windows, it is in a different universe than the Mac OS. Also the desktop is only the half of the battle, one of the main reasons for these environments was to create an OO framework system for free UNIXes. KDE definitely was wise to use Qt and made the correct decision whereas Gnome used gtk. This was unwise first of all why copy the windows mantra and use a C++ set of libraries, face it C++ is not a great OO language and gtk is not shining example of C++, at least KDE used Qt which imho is a best of breed library set. I think Gnome should try to bring GNUSTeP into their environment and at least if copying ideas, you should copy the best not the garbage. Given an increase in competent developers, GNUSTeP would be the best Dev IDE anywhere. It takes the excellent NeXT ideas and implementations and then improves on them. If we are looking for the ultimate geek os we might as well go the NeXT road and create a free version of what is new and exciting technology. Hell while were at make a free version of webobjects and address all the unresolved issues in it. I do not understand the competing with MS when we could concentrate on the technology to make a better experiance for programmers and users while doing something new and revolutionary. Hell apple is basically shelfing OPENSTEP, I say we introduce the world to the correct implementation of OO concepts, not the halfassed way we do so today. GNU software can succeed if the users and developers stop emulating MS efforts and do what is best for our software of choice. I say Gnome should dump GTK and C++ with it's half baked simula object model, multiple inheritance, clumsy object design, and it's fragile base class issue a major problem in big development. Long live C and hopefully C++ will see it use in places where it is appropriate as opposed to today where it is used everywhere.
What you (and many others) fail to see is that you can sell things even giving away the source...
Sure, you might have a compiled version stuck up on your web site. But do you have it nicely packaged, with notes on what hardware it's been tested and certified? If I download the free version from your site instead of paying for the Free version on mine, will you get support or a manual (if you want one).Furthermore, imagine you come up with a great program that you manage to get into Best Buy near the registres for $5. Then it really doesn't matter if a million people have copies up on web sites, you're probably still going to sell as many copies as you would have otherwise.
Just as in CS, business should optimize for the common case - which in this case is where a customer wants to buy something that is well packaged and works, not where they download source and compile it or get some potentially virus-ridden version off of a seedy remote site.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The root cause IS creating free software, that's what the Gnome Project is about. But software that interoperates and is build ontop of the architecture that the Gnome Project provides can be free/costly, open/closed. Imagine if libc was straight gpl'd. You could have no commercial application written for Linux. An LGPL'd Gnome library set allows commercial apps to be written for Gnome, and sit side by side with free (beer and/or speech) applications. And the commercial developers don't have to pay anything extra to make use of these technologies.
KDE, with QT, your apps are stuck being GPL'd, or you have to pay trolltech for QT. Yah, it's their project, they have the right too, blah blah blah.
For something that's as "essential" as desktop gui apps and related services, lgpl is the way to go. You make it cheap for *everybody* to develop apps, and it's a win win situation.
As far as RMS goes, he wrote emacs, created the FSF, the GPL, and the FSF has created so much great GNU software (especially for developers), it's not funny. I'd say he's provided a rather significant contribution to just about any project that uses GNU software, including the Gnome project. As such, by the rules, he should be able to run. Would he be a right fit? Will he be voted in? That's a whole other story.
And as to the speculation as to why he's running? I haven't seen any links to any vitriolic GNU/Gnome (lol, sorry, couldn't resist) oriented emails. RMS is not a man who's known for hiding his opinions.
The world is a better place because of him, but RMS is too fanatical for a job like this. Such a position requires a politician- not a guy who might cut off his organization's nose to spite its face.
GNOME is already GNU as in Gnu Network Object ModEl, but I do get your joke :)
Am I the only one who looks at the initials "RMS" and consistently sees Root Mean Square? Rrgh, that's frustrating.
The coolest voice ever.
The X Windows free edition is under a QPL/GPL dual licence. Therefore, you can use it under the terms of either the QPL or the GPL.
They restrict the usage by the linking restrictions included in both licenses. A library under the GPL can only be linked with GPL applications. I believe the QPL allows linking with other open source licences (BSD, etc.).
I just wanted to say that it's about time someone pointed this out. Thanks for doing it.
They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- C. Sagan
Yes, RMS doesn't have any experience in developing GUI's. Sure, he hasn't contributed to GNOME development in any way, shape, manner or form.
But he did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.
It's better if RMS isn't involved.
Nerd: Derogatory term typically directed at anybody with a lower Slashdot ID than you.
This is interesting because there is now major heat between RMS of GNU and Miguel of Ximian. Miguel has even attacked RMS in public once or twice, this was around the glibc flamewar. Miguel even stated he regretted having ever made GNOME part of the GNU project.
Apparently RMS has long been politically maneovering around GNOME. Miguel didn't approve. My guess is this was part of the reason the GNOME Foundation was created.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
Your killer app is just going to have to be open source isn't it?
Somehow I think all of the people that want to get rich on open source software without giving anything back (Trolltech has given a lot back) are missing the point entirely.
Dude, I bet you haven't even tried it!
Ok the guy wrote or worked on most of the utilities that make up unix. He helped release the most used and best compiler suite in the GNU collection. I'll give him that... hes a brilliant programmer. But, i'm getting just a little sick of him trying to dictate what software the world should use and who should own it. Gnome is in for a fight now with kde, they don't need rms screwing it up. Again, this is not a flame its just my venting because i'm getting sick of rms's attitude. For free software views... I'd take O'Reilly or hell... Linus's (Linux is free... i don't care what anything else is). RMS, i'm scared to admitt gives Open Source a bad name. Its the fanantics like that that lead to us being declared zealot communist, etc... insert latest FUD here. I'm not saying he should disappear, I'm just saying maybe we can give him some kind of figure head job in Gnome where we just nod and say "Thats nice Mr. Stallman, will you please put down mouse". Haha... that would be funny... theres a question, when do CS people retire? I mean RMS has been around awhile... can't we roast him and send him to flordia? Oh well...
can't sleep slashdot will eat me
You can create an LGPL library on top of a GPL library. You can also create BSD or X-style licensed programs as well. The KDE libraries are indeed LGPL, and see the license to mosfet's Pixie.
This means your second statement is false. You can buy a Qt license and develop closed-source KDE apps. Want an example? Try Kapital, from TheKompany.
On one side there will be a group of people who believe in freedom in the pragmatic,, That you can use non-free tools on either the development, or application side. That it is the hack, be it the kernel, qt or wine that is important above all things. I spose Linus, Cox etc etc are the ones that fall into this catorgorie. We are all in this for the fun of it after all.
On the other that only tools which fall into a certain type of license are valid. Such as GTK etc etc. That it is the ideology you are trying to promote as most important thing. Some of this is based on the quiet rational fear that like BSD your work may be taken over and used in ways beyoud your control.
Personally,, I fall in the former but still see a great deal of value in the later. After all the worst that can happen is that these people try to create their own OS, like, hurd has only been in development forever plus they can always use debian. Hell dis RMS if you must but gcc is still a pretty good effort. I admit he is a looney but he is our looney
Liberial things like linux often fall into these types of ideological wars, visa viz life of brain. where the "freedom fighters" (I dont think Ill be able to use the T word ever again) spend more time fighting each other then the Romans
I must be an idealist at heart since why else would I post as a Anonymous Coward.
KDE has focused more on the 'home/small office desktop' market, but it is going to compete with Windows (and maybe MacOS X) there. Once GNOME 2.0 has reached the same integration of CDE (and this will happen soon), it will easily win the competion with CDE.
I have a lot of respect for RMS on the whole, but he's getting a little over the top on non-free stuff being mentioned in the GNOME summary. Simple fact is there is non-free software out there, we'd prefer that that was not the case, but it is. Some of it is of interest to GNOME users, and deserves to be mentioned.
Not to mention the fact that RMS's definition of Free is far too rigid.
Also, he doesn't half sound full of himself in his submission for election (I did this, and Idecided that...)
Listening for the sound of the coming rain...
Don't get me wrong ... I admire Richard and his determination to attain free software's rightful position in the world ... but ...
... Richard, grow up ... Sun, HP and IBM are pouring HUGE resources into free software ... if you were a wee bit less political, they might pour a few resources into the FSF
Sun paid something like $80MM to acquire Star Division and then, almost immediately, turned the codebase over to the newly-chartered Open Office project. Still, Star Office isn't "purely free" enough to be RMS-approvable? Give me a break!
Hint
Besides, WTF made you the King of Open Platforms?
utter rubbish
you fucking rock! right down to the expanded cvs id!
WIPO trolls > linux
He's turned to alcohol because of Gnome ?
The swines.
It's probably too late for this to be seen by anyone, but I thought I'd post for posterity. I think that it is imperative that *somebody* take a hardline against non-free software. That person is RMS. I don't think it's hard to understand why promoting proprietary software is in bad taste for a free software project. There's a fairly basic principle for free software: they don't collect money, they collect mindshare. Mindshare is the free software world's currency. The more mindshare a project has, the better it does (modulus poor management). So, it's not so much that proprietary software is "bad," but by using it, you aren't helping out the community (in that application area). If enough people do this, it can seriously hamper a free project's ability to attain critical mass. And, personally, as a user, I would prefer that all of my software be free. This in turn means that I would prefer that you use free software. Now, I'm not real vocal about it. But I'm damn glad that RMS is.
No, you can develop KDE/Qt programs using any Open Source licence there is without paying TrollTech! The QPL-part of the dual QPL/GPL licensing allows this.
My other account has a 3-digit UID.
Suits me. And GNU is good as well.
______________
OTTERS RULE.
Need I say more? If RMS does for GNOME what he has for Linux (oops, sorry, "GNU/Linux"), he will use his "position" to help foster further development of KDE.
Well, rms sais HE MADE gcc, gdb, emacs, bash, and zillions of a few others. The damm liar has already enough to care about. Show him the door.
RMS is obsolete.
I can't see why it would be necessary to pay for creating a program to run on an OS. Not even M$ does this. I think that this is far different from other libraries (where you have a choice to use them).
I think this is very bad to shareware and other small developers that do want to earn a living with software (or at least cover their expenses a bit).
The freedom fighters may flame me for this, but I believe in a world were you can choose whether to give away your work. If so, fine. If people are willing to pay, fine as well. Why do people like RMS feel they have the right to take away your freedom? Copylefts say you will have more freedom, but I can only see them taking away rights.
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi
Seriously, it wasn't!
What the USSR practiced was a system called State Capitalism. In state capitalism, control of enterprised is centralised and is controlled and owned by the state. In Communism, everything might be owned by the state as a whole but control is held by the workers. There's quite a difference.
The USSR's system is closer to that practiced in the USA and further from true Communism than most people will admit.
I don't like trolls and mod against me if you like, but I'd prefer if you'd reply.
By that reasoning, Linus Torvalds would be eligible. I mean, he only wrote a bit of that kernel thing it runs on, right? Why not let him apply too?
Anyone who would shake hands and deal with Microsoft and not look for the knife in the back should be thrown out. Migual is a perfect example
GNOME stands for [G]NU [N]etwork [O]bject [M]odel [E]nvironment. Tsk!
I don't like trolls and mod against me if you like, but I'd prefer if you'd reply.
On a more straightforward level, and again look at the recent GNU libc license issue, RMS is basically a nut-case and a control freak. If he has any real control over the GNOME board, it will NOT cause the GNOME board to make better or even more rational choices. I think it would be downright sad to watch a lot of good work from a lot of dedicated people become hijacked by a nut-case and made irrelevant.
It is impossible for anyone to "hijack" free code. The source is free and anyone can fix it to their liking. It's called a fork, it's happened many times before and we are all better off for it. Look at all the choices free software has given you. Window managers are a good example, there are dozens if not hundreds of good window managers that all work on top of XFree86. Advocating that kind of freedom hardly makes someone a "nut case and a control freak".
RMS represents pretty much the extreme of trying to prevent people from using what he considers "non-free" software. He routinely uses both license and PR to try to discourage "non-free" software. If he were in a position to do so, I'd expect him to work to work hard to prevent or at least strongly discourage "non-free" software from being able to use GNOME, for example by trying to force changes in the licensing.
What bullshit. Free software was started on non free platforms and no one wants to prevent anyone from using whatever they want. No one has a beef with functionality. While it's hard to understand why anyone would surrender their rights to use software for any purpose they chose, modify that code to suit themselves and share those modifications, no one will keep you from doing it. Free software is all about user freedom and NOT telling other people what to do with their computers. RMS's license is grounded in sound thought and will not change. The concerns you have are all legacies of comercial software.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
I really fail to see all the fuss; *any* GNU project should know that refering to proprietary software is a no-no; I'm not arguing here that in same situation one can let it slide, but it's a knwon fact that a GNU program can't refer to a proprietary software.
It's preety explicit. For example:
A GNU program should not recommend use of any non-free program, and it should not refer the user to any non-free documentation for free software. The need for free documentation to go with free software is now a major focus of the GNU project; to show that we are serious about the need for free documentation, we must not contradict our position by recommending use of documentation that isn't free.
and
A GNU program should not recommend use of any non-free program. We can't stop some people from writing proprietary programs, or stop other people from using them. But we can and should avoid helping to advertise them to new customers. Sometimes it is important to mention how to build your package on top of some non-free operating system or other non-free base package. In such cases, please mention the name of the non-free package or system in the briefest possible way. Don't include any references for where to find more information about the proprietary program. The goal should be that people already using the proprietary program will get the advice they need about how to use your free program, while people who don't already use the proprietary program will not see anything to encourage them to take an interest in it. Likewise, a GNU package should not refer the user to any non-free documentation for free software. The need for free documentation to go with free software is now a major focus of the GNU project; to show that we are serious about the need for free documentation, we must not undermine our position by recommending use of documentation that isn't free.
Anyway, ppl are always judging what RMS 'real intention' is, etc. Nobody really checks what he really said or did. Most of the times RMS name is vented the comments are all a FUD feast.
Best Regards,
fsmunoz
I have a long-held suspicion that RMS and Osama Bin Laden are actually one and the same person. The Al Qu'aeda movement and the FSF exhibit similar properties -- revolutionary destructive conspiratorial cells in most major western democracies, leader seems to live in a distant cave, isolated from normal society, leader exhibits paranoid and psychotic tendencies, group members infiltrate and subvert, occasionally exploding and endangering the general populace, with much raging against American capitalist culture etc, etc.
Are they, in fact, the same person? I think we should be told.
We, the members of th FZWCC, have deemed your filthy lies to be a grave insult to the memory of our Glorious Leader, Frank Zappa. Enjoy your "freedom of speech" while you can, for once we achieve our goal of conquoring the earth in the name of Frank Zappa, sniveling worms such as you will writhe beneath our merciless boot-heels for spouting such insolence.
All Hail Frank Zappa! All Hail! All Hail!
What delicious, terrific irony! Not to mention breathtaking hypocrisy!
Stallman/Richard refers to the kind of software he advocates as Free Software, and illustrates the idea with the phrase "free as in speech" as opposed to "free as in beer".
And yet his problem with the GNOME project is apparently the fact that somebody has mentioned propietary software!
What'll it be, Stallman/Richard? Do you wish to promote software that is "free as in speech" by restricting freedom of speech?
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
Call it embrace and extend if you will, but he'd like nothing better than to get everybody used to using libc, and then relicense it under the GPL.
To RMS, all commercial software, all software not licensed under the GPL, is evil and must be destroyed.
And what point is that you ask?
Why I use KDE!
For all you "all software wants to be free" dorks out there... if I create a piece of software then I am entitled to do with it what I please, so long as it doesn't violate the law. If I was to distribute it freely to anyone who wants it then that is my business (or lack there of). But on the same token, if I want to charge $99.95 for that piece of software then that is also my business. Not yours! Don't like it? Then don't fucking buy it!
FSF/GNU all controlled by RMS... if you look at it closely it resembles communism. No, really... it does.
Have a day, slashdolts.
Mk.
Personally, I am writing my congressman to have RMS elected to the Microsoft Watchdog committee.
It's just the normal noises in here.
Gnustep? I've been pretty happy with Gnome so far, but I must say I'm getting annoyed with Ximian's shenanigans. I understand they need to turn a profit and because of this require some sort of business model. However, picking apart the various bug-you-for-money "features" of ximian Gnome -- such as doorman -- in order to support a couple hundred gnome desktops, combined with the outrageously poor documentation in Gnome, makes for some serious headaches. Enough for me to simply dump Ximian Gnome when we migrate to RH7.2.
All that said, I really wish RMS would help the GnuStep project with more funds and programming staff rather than trying to push the Gnome group around. Gnome is doing fine on it's own and doesn't need the guidance or help. It's Miguel's baby, let him manage the project. GnuStep was around long before Gnome and I believe was at one point an official part of the GNU project. I honestly think GnuStep offers better potential as a free desktop environment than either KDE or Gnome, and GnuStep seems to be really coming along lately. Never mind that a free Display Postscript X Server extension in XFree86 would be of great benefit to us all.
JMO,
--Maynard
>Later, around 1988, we
>obtained X, but we found out that X only did the lower-level half
>of the job,
Excuse me??? X is part of the mythical GNU operating system, too, now. Is he *trying* to become a parody of himself (OK, so it worked for John Madden . .
hawk
Honestly, does anyone with even a hint of how the real world works think that anything RMS does or says makes any difference? I sure don't. By comparison, Perens is in a position of influence at HP, and he seems to be having a very positive effect there. But RMS is nothing more than 10 pounds of ego in a 5 pound bag, coupled with (luckily for everyone) no real leverage.
Just kidding...
This is another example of how a well-intentioned cause can turn into zealot-ism. Richard has (mostly) good intentions for OS, but the last thing the movement needs is a totalitarian dictator, no matter how 'pure' the intentions.
Do you think RMS needs a hobby to keep him occupied? I'm sure the glibc guys think so. Would anyone give $ to www.buy-rms-some-golf-clubs.org?
My debut novel AMITY now available: http://jeremydbrooks.c
If you can fGNUord see this, please report to the Discordian Embassy for debriefinGNU!
Why?
Becuase such efforts have useful side effects.
I don't think that all software will ever be free simply because that will require force against those who disagree and are willing to spend money for non-free software. History has shown that using force against people who conspire to engage in mutually-beneficial (to them) activities fails in the long term: you can't effectively separate the addict from his drug, the prostitute from her client, or willing purchasers from Windows.
Now, RMS might try to use some form of political influence to discourage mention or use of non-free applications, but that's as likely to stop a real die-hard as it is to shove the original DeCSS key back up Xing's wazoo. Still, I do think that discouraging use of non-free software is a good thing and there needs to be more such discouragement.
You see, people have a choice -- they can choose free software (or support the writing of a free app that they need), or thay can shackle theselves to the restrictions that non-free, but potentially useful code, provides. It's a question of what matters more. And, as a libertarian, I fully support that freedom of choice. But, I fear that too many people do not choose wisely and don't properly understand the tradeoffs. An ill-informed choice is not a good one.
We've seen this ignorance manifest itself in the proliferation of trust-my-securityware (M.S. Passport), spyware, and just plain good-enoughware. We've seen people surprised that they can't just hand over the O/S when they sell their PC because of licenseware and lose fair use right they didn't know they had because of DMCAware, not to mention control of how they use things they buy.
Free software makes all such things transparent, and thus relatively impotent and without effect. Fair use? No problem. Security? See for yourself. Buggy? Well, have a hand at it then. Expensive? No, you can share a copy with your friends. Doesn't work quite the way you want? See "buggy".
Now, I'm fairly sure that RMS would agree these points are important but not as important as the freedom to help one another. That's his political agenda, and opposing anything that might conflict with that view is a logical consequence of such a view. Personally, I rank "freedom to cooperate" along with those points, though how much that matters depends on the circumstances.
But matter it does. All those points matter. It may be that people won't realize how much they all matter until they are required to watch a minimum amount of "media" that is acceptable to their "indoctrinating" employer, and tracked through their TVs. An Orwellian horror? Sure, but a whole damn more possible today than even 20 years ago. You can be sure that "the powers that be" certainly lust for that kind of control that modern technology can provide, if people accept it.
Free software, of course, renders these things ineffective against those people who don't want them -- rip the fscking spyware out, damnit. More free software is therefore better. Anything that encourages more free software is better.
So, in the end, RMS's inflexible, unwavering position has some very desirable effects. Could those effects be better had with a different kind of advocate? Maybe, but instead of attacking RMS, why not try to be that advocate?
You could've hired me.
Interesting you would mention this, seeing as the vast majority of "free" software falls precisely into this category.
FSF isn't the "cool kids club" anymore...so little Richie wants to be in the limelight again.
If freedom and liberty are so important, why is RMS attempting to restrict free speech, and restrict the information that I receive from the GNOME Foundation? Does the importance of freedom in software override the importance of freedom in other areas, such as speech?
The mark of a fanatic is when the fanatic's cause overrides all other considerations.
I was being sarcastic. "Good enough" as in early Windows releases not supporting multiple network interfaces cleanly, i.e. a local LAN, and a dial-up modem. But your point is noted, perhaps I should have said "frustratingware": purporting to do a job, but doing so poorly, or inflexibly.
You could've hired me.
...who thinks that RMS is trying to do for Free Software what Bill Gates has done for proprietary/commercial software?
Don't get me wrong - I have tremendous respect for RMS as a programmer. GCC and Emacs alone should be enough to qualify him as a charter member in the Hacker's Elite, and I feel that the GPL is one of the best things to ever happen to software. Besides, they say that one should never criticize a person unless they know they can do better. Not being a programmer myself (just your average end-(l)user), I keep my mouth tightly sealed on such matters.
However, as much as I respect RMS's ability, I *do* feel that he needs a few pointers on how to conduct himself as a representative of the "community." Whatever else RMS may be, he is most certainly not one who plays politics; he wears his opinions firmly on his sleeve, and be damned with what anyone else says about it. While this is an admirable trait in most cases, it does tend to make one... difficult... to deal with.
I'm remembering several months ago (closer to a year now?), when RMS was making noises about how KDE, despite having recently become fully compliant with the GPL in every respect, needed to "apologize"(?) to him before he would consider adding KDE to his list of "approved" Free Software. Granted, I may be misremembering a few details, but that was the gist of the situation as I was able to grasp it then. That, to me, is the height of arrogance, every bit as much as Gates's infamous "NT will be a better Unix than Unix" comment. It's almost as if RMS feels that he, and he alone, is the only person capable of determining what is Free Software and what isn't.
This latest stunt, running for a seat on the GNOME Foundation's Board of Directors, smells to me like something born of desperation. Having seen a project built largely on his own ideals veer away from its original goals (the advent of Ximian, a commercial entity, becoming almost the de facto standard GNOME for newbies and even some power users), as well as becoming borderline irrelevant (the recent "freeing-up" of KDE, which is now Free Software in every sense of the word), it seems as if RMS wants more than anything to steer GNOME "back on track," as he sees it.
If all Free Software must have RMS"s official stamp of approval, how is this any better, fundamentally, than Microsoft having the final say-so on what will work with their proprietary OS and what won't? Note that any argument that boils down to "because WE are RIGHT and THEY are WRONG" will be immediately discredited.
I applaud RMS for being a man who stands up for his beliefs and for everything he has done for the Free Software movement, but there are times when he can act very much like a spoiled child who screams and pounds the floor until Mommy and Daddy cave in and buy him that cool new toy. And, based on what I see, the "toy" in this instance appears to be a "monopoly" on Free Software.
A dictatorship built on peace and understanding is still a dictatorship. Think about it...
Like Don Quixote running for head of the millers' union.
How sleepless is the egg, knowing that which throws the stone forsees the bone.
I just installed Gnome yesterday to give it a whirl. Big bloody package, I must say and the only server that seemed to be working at the time was Ximian, but it was extremely slow. Actually, I started to download the packages on Wednesday night, cancelled it when I went to bed and continued the download on Thursday morning before I left for work.
Abi seems to work. Mozilla doesn't, no error of any sort given. After about 30 minutes of playing with it, I switched back to KDE. I've decided I'll use whatever package RMS isn't associated with because he's such an asshole.
Hey, Stallman! Linux != GNU.
Hehe, he hates when you remind him of that.
-- Will program for bandwidth
See title
Why can't you build & develop your app using QT/Free and only lay out the money for the license when the project is complete and you want to sell it?
:)
Seems to me, as long as you don't distribute your app using Qt/free you should be able to buy a license for the Pro version and sell your finished app. Am I missing something?
This stuff about the GPL "infecting" your software as soon as it touches something GPL'd reeks of MS FUD. The GPL only affects distribution of software.. I'm fully free to create a closed source OS based on Linux if I wanted to, as long as I don't give or sell it to anyone else, which is when the GPL restrictions would kick in. At least, that's how I understand it. I've been known to be wrong in the past..
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
So you can't get rich on the efforts of others without giving them something back? Tough.
If you distribute a Qt application to Windows users that uses at least one GNU GPL licensed library (such as LZO, UCL, readline, and the like), you must use Qt Free Edition, and you also have to distribute the binaries and sources of Cygwin and XFree86 because Qt Free requires POSIX and X11 and cannot work with Win32. Yes, I know there's a straight Win32 version, but it requires Visual Studio 6 or later ($400), and its license does not allow developers to modify Qt and is thus incompatible with GPL'd libraries.
Will I retire or break 10K?
Stating on Slashdot that I like cheese since 1997.
Gnome after several years of utter failure finally began to interest me again. After all, companies such as Sun, Ximian and the now defunct Eazel put a great deal of effort and skills into developing, testing and forwarding the project.
Now we can put a guy that truly believes that anyone involved with GNU should be an artist and starve for their beliefs. Well, I guess it will be good for the idealists that insist on starting projects and never finishing them. I think it's great that if you're GNUish then you shouldn't mix GNU with commercial or closed... wait I mean Open Source with a license that could make the authors some money some how.
Well I know the argument has been done to death, but I'm an idealist too. I like paying for software if it is good. If Gnome keeps going well and someone asks for money for it, then I'll pay. I buy everything else there is that I like, even paid for Winamp back when Nullsoft didn't own them and all a serial number did was change the About dialog.
I like Wordperfect Office. I like Visual Slickedit for Linux. I like Intel's compiler. I like Qt (I own a license for commecial use). I like OSS. I like IglooFTP. I like Borland Kylix. I like Opera. I like all these programs that I spent oodles of money on. Most of all I like that they work well with KDE. I like that they work well with Gnome.
Well I guess I must be a fool since paying programmers to program is truly unfashionable. Actually, I think Gnome should be free, in fact, if Gnome get's ruled by RMS, then we can count on a product with little or no commecial support. College kids can charge $975.99 per incident when calculator doesn't function right. Then the programmers can starve because they don't get even a single dime for the hundreds of hours of work they put into something that could have been good if they finished it.
GO RMS!!! YOU CAN DO IT!!! SAVE GNOME FOR US!!!
did you try it with him on top, or with you on top? If it was the former then I can see why you mighn't have enjoyed it! I have to make the disclosure that IHNHSWR (I Have Not Had Sex With Richard), so feel free to over-rule my intuitive guess!
If you are American and you LICENSE (as in GPL) your software to people you don't know and do not take reasonable precautions to prevent DISTRIBUTION and PROMOTION of your software from occurring in countries that are hostile to America, then you can be held criminally liable for what those people do with your software.
For example, if some hostile government accepts your LICENSE agreement, downloads your software from America and configures it to help kill thousands of American people or soldiers, the American government can put you away for a million years (or worse, in Texas) because you did not take legally adaquate precautions (such as charging a credit card or PAYPAL-like account or shipping to a legal address) before distributing your product. You cannot even prove that you made any Good Faith effort at all to prevent YOUR software from falling into enemy hands. If you expect a US Judge to interpet the GPL and the Internet as some kind of free-for-all that allows you to ship any software you want to Saddam, you can kiss your American ass goodbye.
If you are NOT ready to accept the awesome DISTRIBUTION responsibilities for your software, then you should NOT try to retain OWNERSHIP of it by LICENSING it to others (even under GPL). If you really must make your software freely available, then your only reasonable option is to abandon it into the Public Domain.
Not necessarily. All we have to do is refuse to penalize people who reverse-engineer, modify, and redistribute proprietary software.
As corporations gradually realize the inevitability of any product being remade to do its new owner's rightful bidding, they're demanding ever greater legal powers to control their customers' behavior. We need to establish once and for all that learning from and improving our tools are some of the most important of our inalienable rights as sentient tool-using beings.
He just took over maintenance of GNU Emacs again by default, and I doubt he is seeking any additional programming challenges. Maintaining GNU Emacs is a full time job, it is one of the largest free software packages out there, much larger than the Gnome core, libs and applets combined according to this study.
The point is not can or can not Jasc software afford the $2000 barrier to commercial software. Instead, my point is there are PLENTY of small software shops that would consider porting to Linux, but can't afford this high cost.
Any idea what a Windows developer seat (including something like visual studio) costs?
Porting to another environment is actually easier when starting with QT, since it runs on all platforms, now thats power! And yes you pay a little for that. $2000 is not much for a (even small) company...
Do you buy it on release? Obviously not because that will stop shareware writers, since they can't afford it at that point.
Do you buy it after you've sold 1000 copies? Two dollars a unit for a development library is a bit steep people will say.
Do you buy it after 1,000,000 copies are sold? Obviouly not, since you can afford a good lawyer, and after all no-one will ever know that you didn't buy a licence - how are trolltech going to find out that you stole their evaluation version?
After all, the above wants a FULL version for evaluation, and any time limit locks would be trivial to get around on a *nix system ("You idiot!" screams the IT manager, "you fixed the date on the qt dev machine, now we have to explain why we've sold these packages for three years without buying a licence!").
What you would get is a Qt library that is free as in beer and dead as in dodo - it would be a good library, but the pace of furthur development would slow to a stop or crawl.
Consider two types of software - OPEN, where you can use it for nothing as long as you keep to the licence, and COMMERCIAL, where if you want it you have to pay cash for it. To stay alive troll embrace both systems (by selling the commercial version), while RedHat et al stay alive by selling convenience and documentation.
Commercial software companies work on the assumption that they are going to get an income from somewhere to pay all of the developers. They also work on the assumption that all of that hardware costs money, and that software that saves time (and wages) is worth money. If you can't justify the cost then you use something else.
Most people live with the assumption that if they can't afford something that is no-essential then they can't have it. It would be nice to have the hope diamond, but I don't expect that anyone will ever let me have it. Shareware writers don't need qt, they can do things in other ways. I've always thought the qt licences were very simple - if you want to make money give troll some, if you don't here's all the source to the free version.
Do you buy it on release? Obviously not because that will stop shareware writers, since they can't afford it at that point.
Actually, yes, IF I had the oppurtunity to evaluate it, and decided to use it for a commercial product, I would pay for my license before or at release.
After all, the above wants a FULL version for evaluation,
Actually, NO, thats not really what I want at all, what I would LIKE is that trolltech remove the 'if you've used Qt/Free version at any point of development, your product MUST be GPLed' requirement. Ie, if I decide to release a project based on Qt, commercially, as long as I've paid for the license before release, there should be no issues.
and any time limit locks would be trivial to get around on a *nix system
Just because it would be trivial protection to break, doesn't mean it would not be illegal. Likewise, right now its only law stopping people writing commercial apps with Qt/Free. If it happens, its illegal, if Trolltech want to prosecute, they can. The same situation is perfectly valid even if the developer has a 'cracked' version of the Qt/Evaluation version. Whether a compiled app is watermarked with a QT_FREE_ symbol, QT_EVAL_, or QT_LICENSED_ symbol is going to be irrelevant in the end, because for trolltech to put effort into looking at a binary to see which version the developer targetted against, is going to require MORE effort than just looking in their customer database to see if the company in particular has licensed Qt.
It's probably time for me to shut up and let someone that's actually used both versions speak up .
As long as you don't 'evaluate' it with any code that will be in your final product, you're ok. This may be ok if all you're writing is a UI driven app, where one dialog is much the same as another. If however, you're interfacing directly with specific hardware IO, and/or dealing with tasks such as runtime loading of C++ classes, writing simple 'eval' programs may not give you the full picture.
Once again, the Trolltech FAQ specifically says that if you use Qt/free at any point of development, you are locked into releasing under the GPL. No exceptions, and no, buying a pro license doesn't remove that lock - in fact, its specifically addressed that you CANNOT develop any of your product using Qt/Free, then re-license.
As to enforcement, my point was that whether you illegally use a cracked evaluation version, illegally use a pirated Qt-X11/Pro (I'll bet its pirated out there somewhere, IF in fact Qt-X11/Pro isn't just a piece of paper that says you can release commercial binaries from the regular Qt/Free headers/libs), or use Qt/Free and illegally release a commercial app. It makes no difference, you're breaking the license under any of those situations, and not releasing an eval version isn't adequate protection against someone breaking the license if they so wish.
In fact, the easiest route of breaking the license for someone so inclined, is the obvious: use Qt/Free and ignore the GPL license. Going to all the trouble of downloading and cracking (some mythical) Qt-X11/Eval version, makes little sense.
On the other hand, how many developers use APIs, Compilers, etc without a license? Sure some developers will use a cracked/pirated version in preference to hardware-protected version (3D Studio Max for example, lots of game dev houses use cracked versions because of limitations with the dongle), but few (if any) use totally unlicensed tools or APIs, its just too much potential liability to use in a commercial environment. Shareware devs are perhaps a different case, but I don't see how that really applies to Qt anyway, the license is too expensive for the majority of shareware developers, and if they want to rip-off trolltech, they'll just use Qt/Free illegally.
you don't have to "pay" to create a program and run it on an OS. just some of your own time.
Time is money. Organisations pay people to produce software. Sometimes their own people and sometimes they buy a product from others. I would also like to note that I need money to keep myself fed and housed, my time is the resource that I can offer others in return for money.
Why should I be unable to fill both our needs (software in return for money)? Perhaps I will have to pay a sum to M$ for the use of an extra widget, but they should always allow me to use their standard-API's for free. And with free I mean that they may not put any constraint on my work. Forcing a big fee is the end of many small commercial developers, does the Linux-community really want to hurt them?
Again, you can choose the extra widgets you use, but you need the basic API's to create an app for the OS. There is no choice. A small developer will have to create apps for the platform that his customers are using. He has got much less freedom to develop his apps if he has to spend big bucks on a license. He can no longer just donate spare time to his project, but he has to make a serious financial commitment. This is an enormous barrier and seems to contradict the 'American dream'. You can no longer become a millionaire from scratch with just a computer and your spare time. There now exists a big entrance fee.
AFAIK you've got freedom to develop under Windows and MacOS, but not under KDE. And yes, I do consider the GUI to be part of the OS and not an extra.
The Drowned and the Saved - Primo Levi