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."

Comments

This is why I envy RMS

[errorlevel]

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.

Re:This is why I envy RMS

[Peter Dyck]

But if you believe in non-free software

I don't know if you're a troll, but I'll bite...

I'm a pragmatist. I believe in functional software in particular when it comes to software at my workplace.

If non-free software does the task better for MY purposes than free software, then non-free software it will be (xv versus kview, for instance) and vice versa.

If replacing "placeholder" non-free software with a free version means that I have to filter existing data or spend valuable time learning or re-learning a GUI then I will not switch. A good example would be StarOffice/Abiword vs. MS Office. If it's not broken, don't change anything. You might say that non-free software is, in a sense, "broken" but I disagree.

You're free to follow your ideology as religiously as you like. Just don't force your belief in software monoculture on the moderate majority of free software users.

Re:This is why I envy RMS

[renehollan]

Ok, troll, I'll bite.

Jesus Christ (substitute prophet of your choice)

Martin Luther

Cristopher Columbus

Frederic Bastiat

Founding Fathers of the United States

Martin Luther King

Rosa Parks

Charles Lindburg

Nelson Mandela

and, of course, our favorite

Linus Torvalds.

Granted, some of their opinions would be considered common sense today, and not extreme, but in their time, they were definately not the norm.

Re:This is why I envy RMS

[jmccay]

It's not that his ideas are extreme. It is just that he lacks the understand of middle ground, and the need for a middle ground for people to get used of the idea of Free Software. I see free software as a long term goal with several middle steps.
I admire his idealism, but sometimes he makes me cringe. I am not that him being in charge would be a good thing.

A matter of choice...

[segfaultdot]

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.

Re:A matter of choice...

[niccademous]

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.

And in the end, this is the way it's always going to be. Let's face it, having only free software or only proprietary software is comparable to having a completely socialist or completely capitalist system. On one side you have no incentive for inovation from profit (which, as much as I hate to admit it, is as much a driving force as need at times, quality not withstanding), while on the other you have a Pol Pot style advocacy for any means necesary to create profits (read: monopolistic practices).

In the end, standards should be open, allowing for competition in proprietary and/or open software form quality and features as opposed to the cornering of a market.

(Yes, I know this is simplistic and probably has alot of holes, but I don't quite feel like re-writing my college thesis).

Re:A matter of choice...

[thesupraman]

And they CAN choose to run what they want, no one is forcing anyone to run anything here.

What RMS is trying to do is block people from even being TOLD about software which is not part of his empire.

The software he is trying to block (StarOffice, and by association OpenOffice) is certainly what I think most level headed people would consider 'free', however he doesn't want people to know about it, possibly the knowledge would poison their brains, turning them into rabid M%@#&soft zombies or something.

Perhaps he needs to do a little more reading w.r.t. his 'free as in speach' concept, and stop trying to block people from finding out about what is VERY useful software.

I use OpenOffice, it works well, and it's free, I'm very happy about that, it saves me rebooting to read the one or two Msoft office documents I get per week.

Re:A matter of choice...

[Greg Lindahl]

How about accusing RMS of what he's done, instead of what you think he's done? Quote anything where RMS says you shouldn't "even be TOLD" about software which is not GPL?

Re:A matter of choice...

[zangdesign]

Hearsay evidence is given by the following quote: "RMS replied telling us that he disagreed with my argument and saying the we are legitimatizing the use of non-free software by mentioning it. I left it at that, but today RMS remailed us today asking us to confirm that we will not mention non-free software anymore."

The message that sparked this email is unknown, but circumstantial evidence would seem to point to the idea that RMS wants no mention of non-free software in some projects.

Re:A matter of choice...

[Greg Lindahl]

Thank you. I was looking for a real quote; you say there isn't one.

Given that RMS has frequently been abused over hearsay evidence in the past, one might think you would have learned to hold your fire until you have an actual target.

Re:A matter of choice...

[Anonymous Coward]

The worst thing about this is that OpenOffice is GPLed, and therefore "Free Software".

Basically RMS is complaining about a spellchecker.

Re:A matter of choice...

[Glytch]

Same thing with Opera. If I had to switch to Mozilla, I'd fucking kill someone. Konquerer is much better than Mozilla in terms of resource usage and reliability, but I don't want to install QT and the entire KDE system just to run a single application.

Re:A matter of choice...

[thesupraman]

Did you actually bother to check the link or look into any of the background to this?

if you look at
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2 00 1-October/msg00049.html
you will see a more direct quote (although not the most damaging by a long way).

The 'hearsay evidence' is a public disclusure of discussions between RMS and Christian Schaller, who authors the GNOME summaries (and has done for some time, doing a fantastic job). He has been strongly backed in this particular event by people such as Alan Cox and Miguel de Icaza. This is not a case of anonymous rumour-mongering.

Perhaps you should learn to investigate issues rather than just defending people 'on principle'.

Re:A matter of choice...

[Greg Lindahl]

I read the link before I posted. It is not a statement from RMS. When people paraphrase others, important information often gets left off.

I hope you treat RMS with more courtesy than you are currently treating me.

Re:A matter of choice...

[maxpublic]

What a load of crap. You're accusing an actual participant in the conversation with RMS of misrepresentation of what was actually said. You have no factual evidence to the contrary (you weren't involved in any way) and despite the fact that this was made quite public (linuxtoday.com) RMS *never once* refuted the claims.

Max

Re:A matter of choice...

[Greg Lindahl]

I am not accusing anyone of misrepresentation, except maybe you. I am saying that a paraphrase is not the same as an actual statement.

Re:A matter of choice...

[maxpublic]

Then go ask for a copy of the original email. That should clear up any problem with 'paraphrasing' you seem to have.

Max

Re:A matter of choice...

[Greg Lindahl]

My point is that a paraphrase isn't the same as RMS' statement. That point will still be true if I read RMS' statement.

I'm sorry you can't separate this point from the overall argument, but that's your problem, not mine.

Re:A matter of choice...

[Ellen Ripley]

There appears to be some sort of bug/feature that places a space in the link

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-list/2 00 1-October/msg00049.html

which quotes the actual mail from RMS:

From: Richard Stallman
To: uraeus linuxpower org
Cc: gnome-summary gnome org
Subject: Re: Discussion dropped
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 07:44:38 -0600 (MDT)

As GNOME is a part of the GNU Project, it is supposed to follow the GNU Project policies--and none of them is more important than the policy towards non-free software. Our reason for existence is that non-free software is a bad thing. To promote its use, to assert it is a good thing, is to deny our goal.

Please stop promoting non-free software in these summaries.

This hardly appears to be authoritarian censorship of some sort. RMS is suggesting that GNOME simply follow its own policies. This suggestion isn't about some fine and obscure point; it's about GNOME violating the most fundamental element of its own policy.

Ellen

Non-free?

[Rayban]

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?

Re:Non-free?

[gstoddart]

Some would tell you that *everything* is wrong with non-free (as in speech) software.

Reading some of the far-GPLeft posters, you'd start to think people believed all non emancipated software is having its constitutional rights violated or something.

Or maybe he just wants to work on GNOME?

[Dwonis]

RMS is a programmer, so it's not unreasonable to believe that since he was partly behind the creation of GNOME (even if the reasons are no longer there), he might want GNOME to succeed. 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.

Of course, keeping it free will obviously be a concern of his, but it might not be his main concern.

Re:Or maybe he just wants to work on GNOME?

[dillon_rinker]

Of course, keeping it free will obviously be a concern of his, but it might not be his main concern.

AAACK! Here, sir, is a credit card, with no limit on it. I invite you to visit the clue store and purchase all you can. Alternatively, go to gnu.org and READ a bit of what RMS has written. I cannot believe that his concern will be anything BUT keeping it free. Freedom is more important than good, fast, or cheap to him...

Re:Or maybe he just wants to work on GNOME?

[dillon_rinker]

Of course, keeping it free will obviously be a concern of his, but it might not be his main concern.

You don't appear to have read his writings. Check out the philosophy section of GNU.

Re:Or maybe he just wants to work on GNOME?

[shanek]

Freedom is more important than good, fast, or cheap to him...

The bastard! How unAmerican can you get??? :^/

Re:Or maybe he just wants to work on GNOME?

[jgerman]

Yeah I have to agree, over the years from what I've read RMS definitly puts the technology second to his socail and political views. Not that that is either good or bad, it's just the person he is.

Re:Or maybe he just wants to work on GNOME?

[Dwonis]

Maybe, but GNOME's backend is relatively slow, and we know how integrated Emacs is (and relatively fast in comparison), so his experience there could be of some use.

I agree that RMS is probably running for the board because of his philosophy, but it annoys me when people on /. just assume that is definitely the case, and give zero credit to the guy who was really responsible for the "Linux revolution".

Sheesh

[Reality Master 101]

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.

Re:Sheesh

[Brontosaurus Jim]

So you're trying to censor him? Let the guy give it a shot. If they vote him in, that's apprently what they wanted.

A agree though, that his call for censorship is pretty lame, but he still has a right to promote his ideals as he sees fit, so long as he doesn't screw with us.

Re:Sheesh

[jmv]

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?

Who's censoring who here? Has he talked about censoring everyone? AFAIK this election is supposed to be democratic so you can vote against him if you like, but he's got the right to apply. Although I often disagree with him, I think it would probably good to have the two ends of the spectrum on the board: Stallman AND people from corporations (RedHat, Compaq, IBM?, ...).

Re:Sheesh

[Anonymous Coward]

When a company doesn't want to put paedophilia topics in it's weekly memo it's not censorship. It's an organisation deciding what's relevant to itself. Gnome was born entirely out of GNU Ideology so let them soak in it and reveal their true offensive nature that does not want to be friends with non-Free software even if it is open source.

Re:Sheesh

[Reality Master 101]

Who's censoring who here? Has he talked about censoring everyone?

Yes. That post was what I was specifically referring to. RMS is whining that non-free (by his definition) software is being mentioned in the context of "free" software.

You know, I've always resisted comparing RMS to a communist, but this sounds like what the Soviet Union would do. "We must expunge all references to evil Capitalism from our literature so the people are not poisoned with impure thoughts. They will only be exposed to the beauty that is the communist ideal."

Sorry for pulling out the "instant flamebait" of the C-word, but I find this unbelievably appalling.

Re:Sheesh

[The_egghead]

You can't compare the actions of any individual to those of the communist state. Once you start putting guns behind your words, the game changes completely. If RMS believes that the GNOME foundation should be one that promotes exclusively free software, that's a perfectly valid belief. Calling his idea censorship is like saying that the NAACP is censoring the KKK because they don't publicize their meetings. RMS was simply saying that GNOME should only post about relevant software, for his values of relavant. You can disagree with his idea of relevance, but don't say that it is invalid to have any view at all.

Re:Sheesh

[hearingaid]

RMS is complaining about non-free software being mentioned in the GNOME summaries.

I don't agree with him, but he has a point: the GNOME summaries are news about GNOME. It's arguable that talking about things like StarOffice is off-topic.

RMS is not trying to say that you should never discuss StarOffice, just not on this particular mailing list. Now, I still don't agree with him, but it's not because he's trying to act as a petty, McCarthy-esque censor (to avoid the Communist/Nazi reference): I think what he's trying to say is that you should promote free software by talking about how great it is, not about how well it interoperates with non-free software.

I disagree because I think that talking about interoperability helps people focus on one of the major strengths of OSS. But it's a reasonable argument to make.

And, FWIW, RMS is not a control freak: he's a fanatic. Control freaks do not come up with things like the GPL, something designed to reduce central control. He's an extremely skilled programmer and, given his pretty significant contribution not only to OSS but to computing at large, should at least be allowed to run.

Dunno if I'd vote for him. I don't use GNOME though, so I can't say I'll lose sleep over it either way. :)

Re:Sheesh

[Reality Master 101]

And, FWIW, RMS is not a control freak: he's a fanatic. Control freaks do not come up with things like the GPL, something designed to reduce central control.

I disagree -- I think he's both (fanatic/control freak). The GPL is not designed to reduce central control, but to transfer control. Normally I would be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt about who he wants to transfer control to, but look at his modus operandi. He would say that he wants to give power to the "people" (the rallying cry of all fanatics). But his actions speak otherwise: from the "GNU/Linux" nonsense to the sniping at KDE to this latest insanity.

I don't have any links off-hand, but I've read many accounts of people who have worked with RMS and came away hating the man because he would couldn't stand to let go of control.

Re:Sheesh

[eschasi]

I've got news for you -- rms is a control freak and a fanatic. And the GPL is one of the most controlling licences in the world. It's not a licence written by someone who wants freedom, it's a licence written by someone who wants to ram his definition of freedom down peoples throats.

But aside from that I have no strong opinions on the GPL.:-)

If folks here are correct in implying he's running for the board so he can shut off discussion of non-GPL software (IMHO non-GPL != non-free), well, that's the actions of both a fanatic and a control freak. If the GNOME developers want to mention non-free software, they've already shown by their actions that's what they want to do. If someone thinks that discussion is a bad thing, then the right thing to do is to get in there as an equal and try to convince them.

Running for the board so you can override others' will is, IMHO, a violation of freedom. But thus far all I've heard is rumor of his reasons. Sourceforge reports it as "speculation" (tho they offer some reasons as to why that speculation is being made). Until I hear a statement from Stallman as to his reasons, I'll withhold judgement on this particular issue.

Re:Sheesh

[nukebuddy]

hearingaid wrote:
And, FWIW, RMS is not a control freak: he's a fanatic. Control freaks do not come up with things like the GPL, something designed to reduce central control.

Yes, they do. This is typical behavior of authoritarians. Authoritarians can't stand to be told what to do, so, often, they will form or work strongly within anti-oppression movements. Look at Frank Zappa. Look at Karl Marx.

All activists, of any stripe, are authoritarians. If they weren't authoritarians, they wouldn't care about changing the world. You have to look past their arguments about how morally wrong a situation is (and therefore deserves to be forcefully changed), and see that they use this supposed moral wrongness as a pretext for authoritarian intervention.

Non-authoritarians take the world at face value. Therefore, you don't see them forming or active within liberation movements. This is not a paradox. It's perfectly logical.

You can see right through Marx; you can see right through Zappa; and you can see right through RMS. You can also see right through authoritarian Eric Hoffer, author of _True Believer_, a treatise on authoritarians' attractions to mass movements. It takes one to know one, and he must have realized this soon after the book was published because he never wrote on the subject again (even though he later authored many other books).

-nukebuddy

Re:Sheesh

[Jason Earl]

It's not censorship unless you have the power to force people to follow your edicts. RMS believes that Free Software shouldn't promote proprietary software. That's all. He isn't saying that we should shut down www.staroffice.com, or that people who use WordPerfect should have their hands cut off. He is simply saying that the GNU project shouldn't be telling it's users, "Hey, look at this neat proprietary software. Who cares if it is not free it runs on Linux so it must be good."

Personally, I am much more of a pragmatist than RMS, but I can understand where he is coming from. It is much harder to get a community together to build a truly free piece of software if all of the end users and developers simply give in and use a proprietary one. It's only common sense if you are the head of the FSF to only want to promote Free Software.

Microsoft doesn't go out of it's way to promote the GPLed software that they distribute (yes they do distribute some GPLed software). After all, they don't really want you to use those particular tools. Likewise RMS doesn't want GNU to promote the proprietary software that just happens to work with Gnome. He would rather promote the Free Software equivalent even if it wasn't as good. This is no different than Microsoft promoting SQL Server even though Oracle and DB2 both run on Windows (and are better databases).

Basically it is ludicrous to think that the average Gnome user doesn't know about StarOffice. RMS knows that all of us are aware of Sun's proprietary version of OpenOffice. He just feels that the Gnome Foundation should use their resources to promote StarOffice.

Re:Sheesh

[Glytch]

He isn't saying that we should shut down www.staroffice.com, or that people who use WordPerfect should have their hands cut off.

Yet.

I'm still waiting for him to announce a need for "breathing room".

Re:Sheesh

[Anonymous Coward]

(Non-)Authoritarians?? What you are talking about is just acceptance and activism. Authoritarianism has nothing to do with what you are discussing - the two concepts here are not interchangable.

What you're said is essentially right -- it's the people who don't accept the status quo who end up changing the world. However, what you are trying to say is different -- trying to change something does not make you an authoritarian. In fact, it's been done on some occassions by sheer unyielding passivity.

Re:Sheesh

[marmoset]

I don't have any links off-hand, but I've read many accounts of people who have worked with RMS and came away hating the man because he would couldn't stand to let go of control.

Howza bout this?

Re:Sheesh

[hearingaid]

Can't say I know much about Zappa, except as a musician. Also, I can't say I know much about Hoffer (as in, never heard of. :)

Marx, though? There... I've actually read a lot of Marx's stuff. He's not an authoritarian. The man's an anarchist. It's true that some of his ideas were used by authoritarians such as Stalin, but that doesn't make him an authoritarian any more than it makes Nietzsche an anti-Semite because some of his writings were used by the Nazis.

In any case, your argument seems to be that anyone who cares about the world is an authoritarian. I guess that would make Tom Paine an authoritarian too.

Re:Sheesh

[hearingaid]

Well, I read the reactions to RMS on the GNOME list. Most of them could be summarized as "no, RMS is wrong, keep on doing it like you're doing it." None of them were "RMS is The Definition of All Evil, fear him," which is more like what I'm seeing on /. :)

IMO the fact that he's running for the board is by definition respecting the democratic process. Even if he's only doing it because of this rather minor issue, then - if he wins - it'll be a validation of his viewpoint, to some extent.

And remember: There are a bunch of board members. RMS is not running for Potentate.

Secondly, control freaks just don't engage in this kind of activity. RMS doesn't want to be In Charge: he wants people to do it His Way. It's a fine line but the difference is clear. If he really was a control freak, he would have been running for the board for some time now. He's presumably running because for some reason there's a bee under his bonnet and he sees some Injustice he can fix if he gets on the board.

Control freaks, on the other hand, like to be in charge all the time. You see them constantly campaigning. No, RMS is more the missionary than the bishop type.

As for the GPL: The GPL was designed to solve a problem that RMS had on a few occasions. I doubt he thought through in detail all of its implications then, and I doubt he has has thought it through all that well now. He's taken it up, and since he's a fanatic... well. :)

And finally, I guess I disagree on one major point. Not everybody is equal in the OSS world. Some people have made greater contributions than others. For example, if Torvalds says something, a lot of people pay attention. Note the firestorm about Cox's DMCA protest of a week or so ago.

RMS is one of those people. He's not an equal to an ordinary OSS developer. He's made extremely significant contributions, even if you only count emacs.

Re:Sheesh

[Bongo]

All activists, of any stripe, are authoritarians. ... Non-authoritarians take the world at face value. Therefore, you don't see them forming or active within liberation movements. This is not a paradox. It's perfectly logical.

Hm. Have you by any chance read some Krishnamurti? I recall him saying something about people wanting to Revolt against the system, only to create a new system for others to revolt against... (which is not to say that some systems aren't better than others... it's just that some people are more keen on revolting than they are on rethinking.)

Mod. me 'Offtopic', you anal nerd who can't connect two simple ideas...

Re:Sheesh

[magi]

This is typical behavior of authoritarians. Authoritarians can't stand to be told what to do, so, often, they will form or work strongly within anti-oppression movements.

So what? This whole topic is useless. What does it matter why people do what they do, if they do something that is considered good for the society?

One might say: "Computer geeks usually do programming because they can show their intellectual superiority through it. Their (unrealistic) fantasy is that this helps them get women, because intelligence is often appreciated. Therefore, programmers program to get sex."

So what? Does this animal motivation lessen the value of programming somehow?

Only situation where motivations might be useful to know, is knowing if there is motivation for deception, a hidden agenda. This applies to some politicians (such as Stallman) poorly, because they would not win much with deception.

Stallman'sagenda is perfectly well known and he follows it rather consistently. He is respected because his ideas and arguments about freedom of software are considered mostly good by many people. His motivations don't matter, as long as they don't direct him to act against his public agenda.

Now, if Stallman is against non-free software in Gnome (or whatever is the issue), he speaks with the voice of rather many.

If you disagree with him, use good arguments, not ad hominem attacks.

Re:Sheesh

[hereticmessiah]

If it was a simple matter of RMS wanting Free software to be listed seperately from Nonfree software, I wouldn't mind as much. However, he seems to want to block Nonfree software full-stop.

Does he not realise that this goes against the whole `freedom' thing?

Re:Sheesh

[Anonymous Coward]

>One might say: "Computer geeks usually do
>programming because they can show their
>intellectual superiority through it. Their
>(unrealistic) fantasy is that this helps them
>get women, because intelligence is often
>appreciated. Therefore, programmers program to
>get sex."

Damn, I must be a lot worse at programming than I thought.

Re:Sheesh

[nukebuddy]

AC wrote:
Karl Marx was an authoritarian?... Marx several times dissolved organisations he was head of because he didn't like the way they were going or because he thought they were becoming too centralised around himself.

"the purpose of philosophy is not to interpret the world but to change it" --Karl Marx

The specific instruments by which the authoritarian changes the world and the ultimate state he wants to change it to are secondary to the point that what makes him an authoritarian is the fact that he wants to change it at all. Karl Marx was an authoritarian because, in his case, he wanted to make the world non-authoritarian.

-nukebuddy

Re:Sheesh

[nukebuddy]

hearingaid wrote:
I've actually read a lot of Marx's stuff. He's not an authoritarian. The man's an anarchist.
He was opposed to the anarchists, but just like them he was an anti-oppressionist. The fact that the Marxists and anarchists took a distaste to the oppression they observed makes them de-facto authoritarians. These anti-oppressionists felt a desire to exert some influence on the world to allow it to, in their eyes, right itself -- and they would not take "no" for answers. Why? Because they were authoritarians. There was a right way for the world to be, and they were going to make it that way or bust.

The fact that they didn't want the people of the world to allow them to rule like dictators didn't make them authoritarians any less. The point is, they wanted the world to fit a standard they would personally find beautiful. The particular world taste of an authoritarian, whether oppressive or non-oppressive, is beside the point. It's important that they simply had a world taste at all.

The first word in authoritarian is "author". These folks wanted to be the authors of the world. Not everyone views the world as wrong and needing fixing when they are born. Authors (authoritarians) do.

In any case, your argument seems to be that anyone who cares about the world is an authoritarian.
Yes.

I guess that would make Tom Paine an authoritarian too.
Yes.

-nukebuddy

Re:Sheesh

[Watts Martin]

If they weren't authoritarians, they wouldn't care about changing the world.

This is essentially an assertion that one can't desire to improve the world without being an authoritarian. Given thet any expression of a strongly-held opinion about how a given subject should be dealt with could be considered "a desire to improve the world," this essentially leaves us with a choice between inaction--more than inaction, a virtual silence--and oppression.

You're not just dismissing Marx and Zappa (a curious combination, if I may say so) but everyone who's urged one approach to anything in preference to another. You dismiss disparate icons such as Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi in one fell swoop.

That's a pretty dismal view of the world, honestly. It's also implicitly founded on the false premise that arguing a point is the same as forcing a point. Obviously, anyyone who favors one approach to a problem over another approach will be at odds with people who don't, and when someone in a position of power favors a given approach he will impose it on others. This is a hardly a sign of bias or authoritarianism; choosing to leave something alone (whether that means to the whims of nature, the whims of market forces or whatever) is just as much a moral choice as intervention is, and thus just as subject to controversy.

Re:Sheesh

[jschrod]

Authoritarians can't stand to be told what to do, so, often, they will form or work strongly within anti-oppression movements. Look at Frank Zappa. Look at Karl Marx.

A implies B.

All activists, of any stripe, are authoritarians. If they weren't authoritarians, they wouldn't care about changing the world.

Therefore, B implies A.

This is not a paradox. It's perfectly logical.

You should visit a course on Logic 101. There the difference between implication and equivalence is taught. Seems to be time for you to learn that.

Re:Sheesh

[nukebuddy]

AC wrote:
(Non-)Authoritarians?? What you are talking about is just acceptance and activism.
Yes. Authoritarians cannot accept the world as it is presented to them. They want it their way -- so they become activists.

Authoritarianism has nothing to do with what you are discussing - the two concepts here are not interchangable.
I'm boiling authoritarianism down to a propensity for non-acceptance. I'm boiling activism down to a propensity for non-acceptance. Therefore, these two concepts are unity.

What you're said is essentially right -- it's the people who don't accept the status quo who end up changing the world. However, what you are trying to say is different -- trying to change something does not make you an authoritarian.

Authoritarians have a low propensity for acceptance and therefore are wont to change things. Now, according to set-logic this would not necessarily make every world-changer an authoritarian, but I am saying that, in fact, every world-changer does have authoritarian tendencies because, in fact, there is no way to distinuish what authoritarianism boils down to, a propensity for non-acceptance, and what activism boils down to, a propensity for non-acceptance.

-nukebuddy

Re:Sheesh

[scrytch]

RMS believes that Free Software shouldn't promote proprietary software. That's all. He isn't saying that we should shut down www.staroffice.com, or that people who use WordPerfect should have their hands cut off

What would you say if he advocated that free software development be subsidized by compelling manufacturers and purchasers under the force of law to fund its development? All right here in black and white. I have no problem with Free Software, I just have a problem with him speaking for my views.

Re:Sheesh

[sheldon]

There are at least two ways to change the world.

One is through motivation and persuasion. i.e. I run for Congress and then debate and argue and vote. Or I go around making speeches... Or the best example yet, civil disobedience.

The other is through revolution. i.e. I decide that my desire to change the world is very important and since everybody is a moron whom I can't persuade... I must crush the infidels and establish a new world order.

Rand, Friedman, King, Ghandi fit into the first category.

Lenin, Hitler, bin Laden, all fit into the second category.

RMS fits somewhere in between. He pretends to be in the first category, but oftentimes finds himself into the second and liking it very much.

Re:Sheesh

[hawk]

> RMS doesn't want to be In Charge: he wants people to do it His Way.

IOW, he wants to be In Charge without the work involved :)

hawk

Re:Sheesh

[nukebuddy]

Watts Martin wrote:
This is essentially an assertion that one can't desire to improve the world without being an authoritarian.
Yes.

Given thet any expression of a strongly-held opinion...
Every opinionable person is an authoritarian. An old saying goes, "The opiniable are not worth persuading." You would have a hard time convincing an authoritarian of this (and I just said it wouldn't be worth trying) because it would force him to see his own authoritarianism once he saw authoritarianism in others.

...about how a given subject should be dealt with could be considered "a desire to improve the world,"...
A desire to exert control over the world.

...this essentially leaves us with a choice between inaction--more than inaction, a virtual silence--...
"The silence was deafening," i.e. inactions are actions too and within the proper context can be disruptive of the normal flow of things, i.e. potential activist tactics.

...and oppression.
I guess you mean the oppression of the world by your own action. Oppression isn't a problem for non-A/A's, but it sure is for the other A/A's in the world. So, what would happen is the other A/A's would be oppressed and the non-A/A's really wouldn't because they'd just go along with it.

You're not just dismissing Marx and Zappa (a curious combination, if I may say so) but everyone who's urged one approach to anything in preference to another.
The supposed differences between authoritarianism and liberation (or any kind of) activism can be boiled down to logical absurdities and, therefore, authoritarianism and activism are unity. Individual actions like urging particular approaches are correlated with authoritarianism/activism, but the person is not truly an authoritarian/activist unless he feels deep within himself about "the way the world _is_ and the way it _ought to be_." Evidence of more and more instances of authoritarian/activist behavior correlates increasingly strongly with authoritarianism/activism and an observor can then say with increasing confidence that the particular subject under observation is, in fact, an authoritarian/activist. But an observor can never know for sure -- just with really high confidence, as is the case with the celebrities we are naming.

You dismiss disparate icons such as Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi in one fell swoop.
Can I help it if these fine folks display behavior correlated with A/A personality? They are, deep down inside, the same person.

That's a pretty dismal view of the world, honestly.
:(

It's also implicitly founded on the false premise that arguing a point is the same as forcing a point.
Arguing a point is not the same as forcing a point, but it is correlated with an A/A worldview.

Obviously, anyyone who favors one approach to a problem over another approach will be at odds with people who don't,
The people who don't favor any particular approach might not be inclined to put up a fight. I mean, you know, since they don't care and all...

and when someone in a position of power favors a given approach he will impose it on others.
I guess that's why they call them positions of power.

This is a hardly a sign of bias or authoritarianism;
It's not conclusive, but there is always a correlation, no matter how small, between disruptive behavior and A/A personality. A totally non-A/A person could occupy a position of power and hand out dicatorial rulings left and right. The deciding factor ultimately is not _what_ a subject has done, but _why_ he did it.

choosing to leave something alone (whether that means to the whims of nature, the whims of market forces or whatever) is just as much a moral choice as intervention is,
A/A's always make moral choices and non-A/A's never do. This is because A/A's are moral and non-A/A's are amoral. Related to this: A/A's always speak the truth and non-A/A's never speak the truth. This is because A/A's know what the truth is and non-A/A's have no idea what the truth is.

and thus just as subject to controversy.
Non A/A's can certainly rouse controversy. The question is, "Do they get their rocks off doing it?"

-nukebuddy

Re:Sheesh

[nukebuddy]

jschrod wrote:
You should visit a course on Logic 101. There the difference between implication and equivalence is taught.

Logic professors teach deductive reasoning, so, no thanks. Inductive reasoning (the creation of new knowledge) is better.

-nukebuddy

Re:Sheesh

[nukebuddy]

AC wrote:
The anarachists are not free from being governed and ruled over so they want to abolish government and other forms of oppression and authoritarianism. You claim they are authoritarians for forcing some kind of change on the world. What we have now is authoritarianism. To achieve a anarchist goals or the goals RMS wants you do not have to force your will on others.
You have to exert your will on the world to change it. It doesn't matter what you are changing it to.

Your usage of the word authoritarian is inconsistent with that of most definitions of the word.
Within the tyrant's world are his subjects, and he wishes to make them do as he pleases. Within the activists world is the world, and he wishes to make it do as he pleases. The superficial differences between these two men can be discarded and they can be seen to be unity.

They are not asking for a blind obedience to authority or attempting to attain powers such as those held by a dictator.
People who write these dictionary definitions are not charged with identifying the essential similarities between commonly perceived as disparate things. If people falsely perceive similar things as disparate, that's how it gets recorded in a dictionary.

They are trying to abolish these things.
Possessors of dictatorial personalities long to be in a position wherin they can abolish things. Ditto with possessors of activist personalities. "It's the same difference," as the old shampoo commercial went.

The problem is your circulating your own private definition of authoritarian.
There is a definition of authoritarianism which is logically consistant with its usage. This is not necessarily the definition you will find in a dictionary.

-nukebuddy

Re:Sheesh

[hearingaid]

I guess that would make Tom Paine an authoritarian too.

Yes.

Zounds, you have a funky definition of authoritarian then. My definition of authoritarian is somebody who uses force to force individuals to toe the line. I think I'm closer to the O.E.D. than you are. ;)

Re:Sheesh

[hearingaid]

One can be more than one -ist at a time. For example, capitalist and fascist, an overlapping category through much of the 1930s.

Re:Sheesh

[hearingaid]

Well, that's one interpretation.

Usually though with fanatics, the reason they don't want to be In Charge is because they only care about one aspect of how things are done. In RMS' case, he cares about a specific kind of community of programmers which he wants to foster.

He doesn't want to make decisions about good code/bad code and all the other things that come along with being In Charge.

I say this mostly because I've met RMS and I'd never describe him as lazy. :)

Re:Sheesh

[drinkypoo]

Secondly, control freaks just don't engage in this kind of activity. RMS doesn't want to be In Charge: he wants people to do it His Way. It's a fine line but the difference is clear.

Yes, the difference is, if you're In Charge, you're controlling the group you're in charge of. If you can talk people at large into doing things Your Way(tm) then you're controlling everyone.

The question isn't whether you're paranoid, Lenny, the question is whether you're paranoid enough.

Re:Sheesh

[hearingaid]

Mod this up! Moderators, you've modded me up twice on this thread. Why can't I give my spare karma to this poster?

It's not like I'm using it, karmacap boy that I am :)

This is Insightful, Informative and funny. ;)

Re:Sheesh

[hearingaid]

There is a definition of authoritarianism which is logically consistant with its usage. This is not necessarily the definition you will find in a dictionary.

Aha!

Words have no meaning. Please read Bertrand Russell, especially the essay where he talks about the phrase "The King of France is dead."

Words only have the meaning ascribed to them by human beings. That's why private definitions are not useful. If you wish to claim that, fundamentally, activists ("people who care about a cause") and authoritarians ("people willing to use force to maintain their control") are coextensive groups, you need to prove it either by showing a large number of examples of people belonging to both groups, or by some form of logic.

Your logic skills are a bit weak, though. Go read some Russell. He's good for that too :)

Re:Sheesh

[nukebuddy]

hearingaid wrote:
Zounds, you have a funky definition of authoritarian then. My definition of authoritarian is somebody who uses force to force individuals to toe the line. I think I'm closer to the O.E.D. than you are. ;).

The inconsistency is between a definition of authoritarian based on popular usage and a definition of authoritarian based on a logical interpretation of the worldview driving the actions of a subject acting in the way an authoritarian is popularly said to act. If not enough people to warrant a definition in the OED notice that _both activists and traditionally thought-of authoritarians must, by force of logic, have the same non-acceptance worldview that drives their often disparate actions_ , it ain't my fault.

There is, on the one hand, going for popular accuracy; and there is, on the other hand, going for a logically consistent definition that has wide explanatory power. If it can be seen that the world can't be explained with given tools, new tools can be made -- not arbitrarily, but according to logical consistency -- that will explain the world.

-nukebuddy

Re:Sheesh

[hearingaid]

True, but normally you make new words when you do that. ;)

Re:Sheesh

[igaborf]

[RMS] is simply saying that the GNU project shouldn't be telling it's users, "Hey, look at this neat proprietary software. Who cares if it is not free it runs on Linux so it must be good."

That's right, they should be saying "...it runs on GNU/Linux..."!

Re:Sheesh

[nukebuddy]

hearingaid wrote:
"There is a definition of authoritarianism which is logically consistant with its usage. This is not necessarily the definition you will find in a dictionary."

Aha!

Words have no meaning.

Words have popular meaning and words have logical meaning which can be inducted from their popular meanings. It can be seen that defining "authoritarian" and "activist" as distinct from each other reduces to an absurdity, whether or not the words are popularly used in this logical way.

Words only have the meaning ascribed to them by human beings. That's why private definitions are not useful.
This is sixth-grade playground talk...but go on.

If you wish to claim that, fundamentally, activists ("people who care about a cause") and authoritarians ("people willing to use force to maintain their control") are coextensive groups, you need to prove it either by showing a large number of examples of people belonging to both groups, or by some form of logic.
It has wider explanatory power to assume that _people popularly termed "activists" share a fundmental motivation below their caring about a cause; that people popularly termed "authoritarians" share a fundamental motivation below their willingness to use force to maintain their control; and that these fundamental motivations are one and the same_ than to assume that activists and authoritarians have distinct motivations. It has wide explanatory power to call that shared fundamental motivation "propensity for non-acceptance."

This explains why the grown-up hippies who have children and try to raise them in a fundamentally different way than drill sargeant parents would, end up with the same result -- children who show the signs of having been subjected to the abuses of indoctrinaires.

To go further, an activist is an abuser. An authoritarian is an abuser. The activist uses his cause. The authoritarian uses his subjects. Abusers use things to get emotional satisfaction. Hippy-dippy summer-of-love parents abuse / drill-sargeant parents abuse. "It's the same difference," says the model with shampoo in her hair.

Your logic skills are a bit weak, though. Go read some Russell. He's good for that too :)
Logic, because it is based on g-loaded IQ, cannot be taught. Either one is either stuck thinking logically, or one is stuck thinking like Bertrand Russell.

Bertrand Russel was an activist, BTW. Or an authoritarian. Take your pick.

Of course, all philosophers are activists/authoritarians, and they tend to miss that fundamental point. One would think fundamental points would be important in a discipline like philosophy. You know, seeing how disparate things relate and correlate. Seeing the common threads. IOW, Bertrand Russell, because he was incapable of making inferences with wide explanatory power, was mentally retarded.

-nukebuddy

Re:Sheesh

[hearingaid]

One can discuss Russell quite apart from his politics; we can agree that he was an activist at least though.

All philosophers?

Huh. Surely you jest. Even under your definition of the term authoritarian, there are definitely philosophers who do not qualify. The solipsists, for example.

However, I think I have to conclude that under your definition, you're an authoritarian. You appear to care whether I believe you or not. This makes you just as much an authoritarian as Tom Paine... by your rules.

Re:Sheesh

[decade_null]

Words have popular meaning and words have logical meaning which can be inducted from their popular meanings.

Your induction of the logical meaning of the word goes so far that it renders the whole word meaningless. You seem to be saying that the word authoritarian means "people who have a desire to change the world", and in some level that includes every living person on the earth. That kind of definition of the word simply is of no use for anyone.

Furthermore, I think that your whole rationale for that definition is bullshit. Other people have already ripped your logic apart, so I won't repeat that.

Of course, all philosophers are activists/authoritarians

Even using your logic, I really don't see how you can make such a statement. Are you saying that even a desire to observe and understand the world makes a person authoritarian?

Re:Sheesh

[landaker]

Microsoft doesn't go out of it's way to promote the GPLed software that they distribute (yes they do distribute some GPLed software)

Wait, are you saying Microsoft distributes GPL'd software? Somehow I can't help but think that you're making it up. But maybe I'm all wrong:

Any concrete pointers to where I can get some of this Microsoft GPL'd code?

Re:Sheesh

[randomgeek]

Interix, parts from SFU, there was an IPv6 web server they were using too. I saw it on their research website once, but I don't have the link.

Re:Sheesh

[nukebuddy]

hearingaid wrote:
All philosophers?

Huh. Surely you jest. Even under your definition of the term authoritarian, there are definitely philosophers who do not qualify. The solipsists, for example.
The solipsists qualify because, like all philosophers, they find other world views unacceptable. Like all philosophers, they are activists -- they seek to modify their relationships with the world. Like all philosophers, they abuse. They seek to forcefully wring emotional satisfaction, just like despots and activists, from their relationships with the world around them -- a world the solipsists, ironically, profess to believe does not exist.

Solipsists refuse to accept the world at face value -- they refuse to accept the world as it is presented to them.

Solipsism is an example of running faster into the arms of that which you run _from_, the faster you run from it. See _Fight Club_ for another example of this.

However, I think I have to conclude...
It isn't necessary to endlessly discuss yourself. A simple statement would suffice. When you include discussions of yourself in your statements, it is impossible to discern whether a simple answer refers to your discussion of yourself or to the statement you made.

For example, if I answered "Yes" to the statement as phrased, an observer would be unable to tell if I meant, "Yes. You do think that," or, "Yes. That makes sense."

...that under your definition, you're an authoritarian.
Yes.

You appear to care whether I believe you or not.
There is a correlation between a subject appearing to have a motivation and that subject actually having that motivation. The correlation is always less than 100%.

This makes you just as much an authoritarian as Tom Paine...
Yes. Both Tom Paines's and my actions correlate highly with authoritarianism.

...by your rules
By the force of reason. Any other conclusion reduces to an absurdity.

-nukebuddy

Re:Sheesh

[nukebuddy]

decade_null wrote:
Your induction of the logical meaning of the word goes so far that it renders the whole word meaningless.
It's an eduction of the essential factor common to all authoritarians that would explain their behavior in other circumstances. This is similar to the concept of the single g factor of intelligence having wider explanatory value than the concept of disparate multiple intelligences.

You seem to be saying that the word authoritarian means "people who have a desire to change the world", and in some level that includes every living person on the earth.
Yes, but, how about instead, "people who desire to be in a position to exert control over the world." The relationship between the authoritarian and his world seems to be important, so how about assuming that changing a world you have a relationship with also changes your relationship. Then we could say, "Authoritarians are people who have a desire to exert control over their relationship with their environment." This would then neatly include solipsists, followers of a particular doctrine declaring one always and only exists in absense of any environment.

That kind of definition of the word simply is of no use for anyone.
It has wide explanatory power and so it serves the purposes of those who wish to explain relationships and corellations between otherwise-observed-to-be-disparate phenomena.

"Of course, all philosophers are activists/authoritarians"
Are you saying that even a desire to observe and understand the world makes a person authoritarian?
Since gaining a greater understanding of the world would change a subject's relationship with it, an authoritarian subject, one that derives or seeks to derive emotional satisfaction from controlling his relationship with his environment, could use observation and understanding of the world to further his fundamental agenda. Therefore, exhibition of desire to observe and understand the world is correlated with authoritarianism.

A non-A/A can exhibit desire to observe and understand the world if he does not seek to gain emotional satisfaction from the change in his relationship with his environment this would lead to.

It should be noted that there are degrees of authoritarianism. A subject could be a bit authoritarian, but still be able to largely accept constrictive conditions on his relationship with his environment. Hyper authoritarians tend to make names for themselves -- Stephen J. Gould, Carl Sagan, Madonna, Ernest Hemingway, Aristotle -- and rabid cults to automatically form around their ideas, because of the tantrums they throw when they don't receive complete satisfaction from their relationships with their environments.

RMS should rightly be called a hyper-authoritarian to distinguish him from the bulk of humanity.

-nukebuddy

Re:Sheesh

[erikdalen]

> If they weren't authoritarians, they wouldn't care about changing the world.

why wouldn't they? So you mean that everyone that votes is an authoritarian because they care (to some small extent) about changing the world..

And, btw. Marx was not an authoritarian.

/Erik

Re:Sheesh

[hearingaid]

I prefer not to talk to people willing to exert force on me to force me to comply.

You think there's no difference between that sort of person and yourself: therefore, you are willing to use force on me.

End of discussion.

Re:Sheesh

[nukebuddy]

erikdalen wrote:
> If they weren't authoritarians, they wouldn't care about changing the world.

why wouldn't they?
Because the essential characteristic of an authoritarian/activist is his need to derive emotional satisfaction from his relationship with his environment. Therefore, this is about being emotionally needy vs. being emotionally self-resourceful. The emotionally self-resourceful have no need to change the world -- to alter their relationships with the world -- in order to feel secure and satisfied.

Now, does anyone (or could anyone) actually inhabit either of these two extremes -- _zero_ capacity for emotional self-resourcefulness vs. _total_ capacity for emotional self-resourcefulness?

So you mean that everyone that votes is an authoritarian because they care (to some small extent) about changing the world..

a) A non-authoritarian might be voting to humbly go along with the status quo.

b) An individual's vote has no effect on the world. If an authoritarian votes, it may be because he doesn't realize this.

c) An authoritarian might vote to derive emotional satisfaction from carrying out his duty to his community/country.

d) Many people who vote might do so with some feeling of repulsion at how the world is going and either want to do their part to change it, or don't want to be blamed ["Don't blame me! I voted for {insert losing candidate here}"]. These average voters are moderately authoritarian. BTW, this brings up another important characteristic of the A/A personality: propensity for feeling repulsion. The world needs to be a certain way for the authoritarian and so when confronted with what he perceives to be proof of a heinous crime (say, "proof" that the NAZIs were bad, bad people who did bad, bad things to Jews and _wanted_ to do something even worse), he feels repulsion toward the guilty party.

-nukebuddy

Example of complaining about non-free software

[Black Acid]

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.

Re:Example of complaining about non-free software

[jacobito]

Huh? That "Hall of Shame" is a list of packages that failed to build on a version of Linux for a particular architecture, some of which happen to be non-free. What does this have to do with GNOME? With just a cursory glance at the list, I spotted a few free GNOME applications (Balsa, Skipstone, etc.).

Re:Example of complaining about non-free software

[dangermouse]

No, that post shows an example of what some people think he might (probably) be pissed about. His name isn't anywhere near it.

This post, on the other hand (which was linked from the article), is actually relevant.

Re:Example of complaining about non-free software

[AbsoluteRelativity]

This is kind of deceptive, I passed reading the link and took your word for it because I was busy and I thought because you actually linked to something that it was probably true, and when I came back and finaly read it, RMS is no where in there, there is not even real indication that he has even read it, or if it even bothers him enough to want to go to the trouble of being elected to the board.

And I am not sure how exactly the hall of shame fits in this either, except show that there are a number of commercial GNOME (or are they GTK+) software out there.

If he was so dead set against commercial software he would have removed the LGPL license all together rather then support it at the FSF. The LGPL is what allows closed source developers to use libraries like GTK+.

Re:Example of complaining about non-free software

[hereticmessiah]

You're right, it's not relevant - Black Acid focused on the wrong thing (Nonfree packages not porting well to another architecture is a strawman argument anyway).

good thing

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I'll get flamed to all hell for this, but I think this move is a good thing (and don't worry, I'll keep it short).

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!

Re:good thing

[hereticmessiah]

On GNOME, I'll say one thing:

Whilst I can appreciate the conflict of ideology that caused it to develop, what I don't like is that if focused on the wrong thing. It lead to the development of a new desktop rather than creating an alternative to what was causing the ideological difficulty: the toolkit.

Had the GNOME project simply worked on a free alternative to Qt, things would be fine but instead we saw a wasteful (IMO) fork with the development of a needlessly redundant and incompatible (with the existing solution - KDE) infrastructural package.

Re:good thing

[wfrp01]

You make a good point: namely that Gnome was created as free alternative to non-free desktops. But you don't really explain how you come to your conclusion. If Gnome exists because people want a free desktop, it would seem more probable that Gnome would suffer, not GNU, if their focus changes. There are plenty of non-free desktops already. I don't think Gnome ranks very high among those who select their desktop applications for purely pragmatic reasons.

Re:GNU

[wrinkledshirt]

>GNU/Gnome

Gnome itself has GNU in the acronym.

Experienced Advocate

[dgrage]

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.

Re:Experienced Advocate

[Wiwi Jumbo]

No he will fuck this up and most everyone who might be thinking of any kind of free software that he comes in contact with will be poisioned to the idea....

I'm not sayin I'm an expert on any of this but the more I read about the GPL, free-software and RMS the more I think he needs to be pushed to the sidelines...

Re:Experienced Advocate

[Asic Eng]

I like his political views, I do however think he does a very bad job as an advocate.

Being impolite, rude and easily sidetracked don't make you liked by other people. If other people don't like you, then you have a hard time convincing them of your ideas, they'll be less likely to want to listen to you. RMS seems convinced that his personality should not have any bearing on his views, and he expects others to filter that out, when evaluating his ideas.

Well he's right, that's what *should* happen, but it's equally clear that it does not.

I think, just looking at the reactions of the slashdot crowd to his actions shows that he is not doing terribly well as an advocate. There seem to be quite a number of people who have nearly identical views to his, and still dislike him.

Imagine a manager who listens to a speech by RMS, hears about "freedom more important than features", "President Bush not really elected" and then gets rebuked for calling Linux "Linux".

Imagine the same manager asking his IT department to switch their webservers to Apache. Imagine it if you can, because honestly, I can't.

Re:Experienced Advocate

[ikickass]

Above is not troll.
For the sake of free s/w and GPL, RMS needs to be pushed aside.

Hahaa

[Anonymous Coward]

The is the best news for KDE ever!
and do I mean __EVER__!

???

[einhverfr]

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).

He sets a good example.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Isn't this what open source is all about?

[DaoudaW]

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!!!

Re:Isn't this what open source is all about?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do people keep thinking OpenOffice is written in Java? It's not.

ego?

[Sabalon]

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?

Re:ego?

[Greg Lindahl]

No, that's not it. How about reading up about RMS and the beginnings of GNOME before you attack RMS?

Re:ego?

[Arandir]

Al Gore invents internet
Bill Gates invents Open Source
Richard Stallman invents GNOME

Now just where are your sources that show that RMS started, created, founded, or invented GNOME?

Re:ego?

[Greg Lindahl]

*I* didn't say that RMS invented GNOME. I just said that he wasn't claiming to have invented GNOME on the basis of having wanted a window system for GNU.

I also remember that Al Gore sponsored the bill that created the NSF backbone.

The level of discussion on Slashdot keeps on declining.

Re:ego?

[Sabalon]

I've been working for GNOME since years before there was a GNOME. In 1983, while formulating plans for the GNU operating system, I decided it ought to include a window system.

C'mon - when he puts these two sentances together. What do you think he is trying to imply?

Re:ego?

[Greg Lindahl]

RMS is frequently flamed for what people think he is implying. Why not flame him for what he actually says?

By the way, he played a much more direct role in founding GNOME than you think he implied. Ditto for Al Gore and the Internet. But what happens is that Slashdot lusers (and the press) flame about what wasn't said, instead of what was said.

Flamewars are lame, and flamewars about what you think RMS is implying are even lamer. Grow up. Or go to work for the real press, which you seem quite qualified for.

Re:ego?

[Arandir]

All throughout this forum you challenge other people to come up with quotes and references. The one time some asks the same of you, you weasel out.

Here's major snippets from the thread so far:

Sabolon: 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?

Sabolon is implying through normal Slashdot sarcasm that RMS is not the grand-father of GNOME. Note the title of the post "ego?"

Then you reply: No, that's not it. How about reading up about RMS and the beginnings of GNOME before you attack RMS?

It's clear from context that you don't consider RMS to be the grand-father of GNOME for the reason Sabolon postulated, but for *another* reason. "No, that's not it" implies that there is an "it". So I asked you what the "it" was:

Now just where are your sources that show that RMS started, created, founded, or invented GNOME?

Now we get to your current reply:

I just said that he wasn't claiming to have invented GNOME on the basis of having wanted a window system for GNU.

So on what basis did he claim to have invented GNOME?

Re:ego?

[Greg Lindahl]

If YOU want to know what he claimed, YOU should look it up. I was just pointing out that the claim ascribed to RMS was not something RMS said. (The same is true for Al Gore, btw.)

I am not the one attacking RMS. I have no opinion about whether or not RMS is one of the godfathers of GNOME. I am not a weasel for pointing out that others are making up words and putting them in his mouth. It is not my job to represent RMS' opinions.

Have a nice day.

Re:ego?

[donutello]

Al Gore said "I took the initiative in inventing the internet". The common English interpretation of that statement is that he played a major development role in creating the internet. Yes, there is a weasly Clinton-esque interpretation - just like Clinton didn't "have sex" with Monica, but that is not the common interpretation. Therefore, Al Gore is a liar when he made that statement just like Clinton was.

Now let's get this post remotely back on topic: RMS's statement implies that he is taking credit for inventing/starting GNOME. Yes, there is a corporate-drone/politician interpretation of that statement so in a legal sense he has his ass covered but by any common-sense interpretation of that sentence, he is claiming responsibility for GNOME.

Re:ego?

[Greg Lindahl]

Well, if you want to call Al Gore a liar for that, then that's settled; I call you "a person who makes things up." I still appreciate Al Gore's efforts.

RMS has reasoning behind his statement. Why not ask him about it? Or you can flame on slashdot. Your call.

Heh

[fault0]

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.

Re:Heh

[Steve Bergman]

>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.

Too late. Read the article. You should have said:

If he was crazy enough to do it three times, don't think that he wouldn't consider it a fourth time.

Re:Heh

[Glytch]

NO! Keep that maniac away from Windowmaker. I don't want to have to switch to Afterstep.

Let me see if I undestand

[DVega]

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 :-)

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[fault0]

I think it's pretty trollish to call GNOME non-free, however I think RMS should admit/apologize for another event: the day when he basically lambasted KDE in his comment/response to the announcement that Qt had gone GPL. Although this was over a year ago, I think a GREAT deal of people still remember it.

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[mrm677]

KDE is not the perfect desktop. I can't create a KDE application and sell it without buying a QT license for over $2000. Since my budget is tight, I plan on developing my killer application in GTK/Gnome. Then I will be rich enough to buy a QT license.

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[castlan]

It may have been a troll, but it wasn't as inaccurate as you think. Free can be "gratis", as in monetarily free, or "libre", as in freedom from restriction.

If that whole "free as in speech, not free as in beer" phrase sounds like nonsense to you, perhaps you might find enlightenment at http://www.gnu.org in the philosophy section.

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[fault0]

Why can't you sell it?
Qt is under the GPL.
kdelibs is under the LGPL.

Are you saying that RedHat, Mandrake, SuSE, Caldera, TurboLinux, Ximian, etc.. are breaking the law?

Or do you not have a understanding for what the GPL is?

I think the latter, personally, ;-)

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[fault0]

sure you can do that with GTK+.

the LGPL/GPL have nothing to do with wether you have to contribute back to the parent project. you could, for example, fork GTK+, or make changes and simply not contribute back to GTK+.

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[be-fan]

Because the moment you sell it, Qt isn't under the GPL anymore, its under the commercial use license. Qt/Free is GPL'ed only for non-profit products.

From the TrollTech FAQ:

Can we use the Free Edition while developing our non-free application and then purchase commercial licenses when we start to sell it?
No. The Free Edition license applies to the development phase - anything developed without Professional or Enterprise Edition licenses must be released as free/open source software.

And...

I don't want to give away my source code. What do I do?
Then you need a Professional or Enterprise Edition license.

And...

Can I charge for my application?
If you have the Professional Edition: Yes, of course. If you use the Free Edition your software must be freely redistributable and you must include the source.
The Free Edition is intended for free software. We realize that CD-ROMs cost money to produce, for example, so you may charge a copying fee.

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[Anonymous Coward]

I think RMS should join KDE team :-)

Why, what harm have they ever done you? :-)

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[fault0]

you could fork it and release it. that's still not contribution.

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[Anonymous Coward]

by non-free, they mean, non-"free software" as in non-free speech. they need to clarify that.

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[Arandir]

Qt is dual licensed. The QPL part allows kdelibs to be LGPL.

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[Arandir]

All I'm saying is he was trying to do the legally right thing.

And he did it out of ignorance (no FSF code is in KDE) in the most arrogant way possible (I forgive you).

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[Isldeur]

KDE is not the perfect desktop. I can't create a KDE application and sell it without buying a QT license for over $2000.

I'm sorry. I just find this whole cyclical argument continuously hypocritical. You want to use GNOME because it is "completely" free or something like that, but then you try and knock down KDE because it makes you go through an extra loop when you want NOT to write software as edquivalently free as itself???

I'm sorry, I just find that really hypocritical and I hope it at least makes sense to some people

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[Elwood P Dowd]

Uh, this doesn't make any sense. Either it is GPLed, or you cannot sell the product. But if it is GPLed, then it's still GPLed for commercial products. *All* GPL apps can be sold by any license holder. They just have to license it under the GPL. That is the point. That is why people call it "viral." I realize that their answers are confusing... but "The Free Edition is intended for free software" does not mean free of charge. It means GPLed software. You can use the free edition and release things under the GPL.

The point to the commercial license is that you can distribute your product without releasing source code. Two different issues.

Gee, were you trolling?

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[AbsoluteRelativity]

Yup they need to, I would have never known (I read it 3 times and not once did I think about it) if you hadn't responded.

And that makes sense why the Linux distros are not in violation.

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[sithlord2]

So you like GTK because you can make money from it without paying the GTK developers anything ??!

Do you actually have a clue what free software is about ??

you create free software -> you can use Qt for free

you create commercial software-> you have to pay Trolltech.

This is a completely healthy economic system :-)

Too bad that stupid hypocrits like you don't understand that...

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[Communomancer]

"Let me see if I understand".

You don't.

"RMS wanted an alternative to KDE bacause it was not "Free Enough" and created GNOME"

He did not. Someone else did. Look it up.

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[leandrod]

You are not precise enough.

GNOME is not commercial, it just has corporate sponsors. Most GTK libraries are LGPL, that allows for proprietary applications but keep the libraries free.

As for KDE, Qt is GPL but is also sold commercially as proprietary software. That is better than nothing but potentially allows for applications to use closed versions incorporating modifications not available to the free software.

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[nevets]

Actually, you still can sell it. Nothing says that you can't sell free software. If you try to sell it as a closed source solution, or your own version of some open source license then you have to buy their license.

Although the FAQ is a little confusing. But its not what they mean the license says, its what the license actually does say. The GPL was an added addition to Qt to help simmer the flames. I don't know if the FAQ was written before the GPL was added, but that might explain it.

If you take the Qt under GPL, then you have all the rights as is stated under the GPL. So yes you can sell it, but what you sell must also be under the GPL.

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[ichimunki]

What a crock!

You can sell KDE applications all day long without buying a Qt commercial license, as long as your applications use a GPL compatible license (i.e. comply with the terms of the GPL as set forth in the KDE and Qt packages) and you provide the source code to your application (or access to the source code) along with your binaries.

If TrollTech is saying otherwise then they are deliberately obscuring the legal details of the GPL (as I understand them and as they appear to explicated in the FAQ at fsf.org).

If, however, you'd like to sell Qt-based software that is proprietary in nature (i.e. you distribute only binaries under a non-Free license), then yes, you rightfully must purchase a Qt developers license. I'm sorry that you find $2000 a severe barrier to entry, but I think if you are serious about developing software that $2000 for a library license is not that large of an expense.

However, if you are hoping to develop a shareware app in the hopes that your amateur development work catches on and brings you riches and fame, then maybe Qt is not for you. What I suggest is that if you really want to use Qt, start with a project that is small and that it won't bother you to GPL. Once that works out well, and you're established as a respected Qt developer you can probably get a client who will gladly help you purchase a commercial Qt license for proprietary development. Although, unless they are planning to resell your software, there is really no need. The GPL allows for in-house development using GPL libraries. You don't *have* to distribute your software, you know.

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[bero-rh]

Because the moment you sell it, Qt isn't under the GPL anymore, its under the commercial use license. Qt/Free is GPL'ed only for non-profit products.

This is not true.
Qt/Free is GPLed, period. You may not link proprietary software to GPLed libraries, so if you want to make proprietary software, you need to buy different licensing.

If your software is GPLed and for-profit, there's no problem.

Can we use the Free Edition while developing our non-free application [...] The Free Edition is intended for free software.

This refers to free as in software/speech, not price. Ask RMS for the definition of free. ;)

Can I charge for my application?
If you have the Professional Edition: Yes, of course. If you use the Free Edition your software must be freely redistributable and you must include the source.

freely redistributable != available from you at $0.

It's perfectly legal to GPL an application and sell it at $500,000 per unit.

Anyone who buys it can freely redistribute it, of course - but it doesn't have to be $0...

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[Tackhead]

> 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 [fsf.org])
>
>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.

And you tell your CTO that this is why you have to write two versions of any GUI-based application if you want to get into the Linux market, and make sure you compile each version with the right libraries, and that the end user somehow know what libraries they need, he says "two versions? and what the fuck user knows about libraries?", nixes the project, and people wonder why there's such a dearth of graphical applications for Linux.

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[Sleepy]

>I'm sorry, I just find that really hypocritical and I hope it at least makes sense to some people

It's equally easy to spin your arguement as "TrollTech wants the commercial software market all to themselves".

Sorry, what Troll Tech is doing is MANIPULATION. I wouldn't be surprised if The Kompany makes some money, and TT makes a *direct* investment in them...

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[Suppafly]

forgive my ignorance, but what did he say? is there a transcript some place?

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[mrm677]

Well, that's why Sun won't be using KDE anytime soon.

Re:Let me see if I undestand

[mrm677]

I can't believe the response to this. I'm not a Troll. Trolltech has done great work, and they deserve financial compensation.

If I were able to "develop" my killer app using the free edition, and then buy the license when I am ready to sell, I would be happy. However I can't do this. Hell, I can purchase tools to develop Windows applications for less than $500.

This type of reaction is very disappointing to me. There are clearly quite a few KDE/QT zealots out there.

Re:GNU

[The Pim]

RMS will be pulling hard for a new naming scheme...GNU/Gnome

I damn sure hope the people who keep modding these up aren't the same people who complain about CowboyNeal in the polls.

Not A matter of choice for GNOME though.

[jelwell]

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.

Re:Not A matter of choice for GNOME though.

[thesupraman]

What utter rubish, 'GNOME' is not an entity, nor are many of it's developers, or people helping with such things as maining lists, etc. The 'GNOME Foundation' may be, but that certainly does not cover all that is gnome.

The people who are being *very* *damb* *generous* in working on the GNOME project have *NOT* bought into anything, they are just people who should be appreciated, not trampled upon due to differing ideologies.

If RMS, and the FSF, require absolute censure over everything that is related to the GNU project, then they had better make that *VERY* clear, include it in their licenses, and then see how many people are willing to continue to so generously help them.

I personally think RMS needs to get back to considering the workers who have put him in such a strong position, rather than trying to pressure them into doing his bidding over small idealogical details.

As a developer I find it harder and harder to place my work under the GPL, *purely* because of RMS's attempts to control all things related to it. Visionary or dictator? time and actions will tell.

Re:Not A matter of choice for GNOME though.

[ajcpi]

I find this quite astonishing. I have read this point of view here on Slashdot and elsewhere, and I just can't see where it comes from.

Reading RMS's words, it is clear he has an ideology that he follows, and promotes. It is based on freedom and promoting freedom. He explains, frequently, how that concept of freedom pertains to software. It is a different concept of freedom than many others have, surely. However, I never see him trying to control, forbid, require, insist that others do things his way. Stating an opinion of how you would like to see things work is not the same as asserting authority to control them.

What about the viral nature of GPL? Authors of software have no more and no less control over their output/product then any other author owning a copyright. GPL'd software permits a broader range of rights to a user then most commercial licenses, but it does forbid certain uses of that software which are permitted under other licencing schemes. Why is that a problem for anyone?

a.

Re:Not A matter of choice for GNOME though.

[mandolin]

Visionary or dictator?

Both, dude. Whether this is good or bad is left as an exercise for the reader.

Time and actions will tell.

I think they already have.

Re:who give a flying...

[Baalam]

Pray tell what should we all be using for a GUI in stead of X?

Free stuff and Socialism

[pyrrho]

Everybody hates free stuff but loves socialism... wait... reverse that

.

Re:Free stuff and Socialism

[hereticmessiah]

Nowt wrong with socialism - it's just that it's never been implemented :-)

Re:Free stuff and Socialism

[hereticmessiah]

Tuché!

No "non-free" apps == limited relevance

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:No "non-free" apps == limited relevance

[maw]

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.

It is true that RMS discourages everyone to avoid using free software. It is also true that he sometimes tries to prevent people from creating non-free software. However, it is incorrect to state that he tries to prevent people from using 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.

I don't think that's likely at all. He has made no moves towards such changes with glibc.

Look at the GNU libc LGPL isssue recently for a fine example of him trying to push the libc in that direction.

Either I missed something big, or you misunderstood what happened. glibc has always been available under the LGPL. Changing to a newer version of the same license was a wholly political move. The terms and conditions of the license are the same.

I'm not sure where all of the anti-RMS vitriol comes from. Certainly people who post here sans clue don't help a lot. :( As at least one other poster has suggested (not to you), go have a look at [gnu.org] to get an accurate picture of his views - you won't often see them here on slashdot, I'm afraid.

Just bear in mind that what RMS claims to want most is freedom, and his actions are consistent with that. He doesn't support stuff that limits other people's freedom, but he never denies the right of people to voluntarily do stupid stuff (which is how he regards using non-free software).

Re:No "non-free" apps == limited relevance

[Ian Bicking]

RMS's leadership in the GNU project has been largely constructive -- the GNU project has written a lot of software. It could have been different -- they could have spent their time just bitching about copyright law and philosophy. They didn't. I would hope (and expect) that it would be the same in GNOME.

What RMS absolutely wouldn't accept is the idea that a proprietary program is good enough to fill a niche. If people have a real need for an application and they can't do it with free software, to RMS that is as good as if they can't do it at all.

I think this is good. GNU has written a lot of boring, unfilling software because it was needed -- not because it was fun to program, not because it earned them praise, not because it was even scratching a personal itch -- and they wrote it in spite of commercial equivalents. They wrote it because of a long-term vision. That they did this is why GNU/Linux exists.

I think that sort of vision could be a damned good way to aproach GNOME development. I don't think RMS is the only one with that vision -- but his consistency provides a kind of anchor.

Re:No "non-free" apps == limited relevance

[maxpublic]

I'm not sure where all of the anti-RMS vitriol comes from.

I think it springs from annoyance. RMS is a hardliner with zero ability to bend; some people admire that, others get quite irked. A few things that make me dislike the man:

• his insistence that Linux be called GNU/Linux. Enough already!
• his utter arrogance concerning KDE when the libraries went GPL. I mean, wtf? "I forgive you"? Is he a friggin' religious figure? Who the hell does he think he is, that KDE would need his goddamn forgiveness?
• his consistent interference in the development of non-free software for Linux, and his insistence that only free software is morally righteous.
• in interviews, the man sounds more and more like a religious zealot as time goes on. Maybe this doesn't bother you, but zealots make me reach for my .38. I don't trust them, I don't like them, and I don't want them anywhere near me, either in a literal or figurative sense (stay away from my software!).
• his disapproval of Linux developers who aren't political about free software (e.g., his comments concerning Linus's complete lack of interest in most things political in this arena).

I'll be the first to admit that the man did a good thing with GPL. But more and more he sounds like an authoritarian dictator trying to remake the world as he sees fit, and insisting that others follow his lead. I think he does more damage than good, now, and wish he'd just damn well retire and write a book or something. Maybe get in some fishing.

Max

Re:No "non-free" apps == limited relevance

[SWroclawski]

You've expressed a very short term, limited view of the situation.

I'm going to rephrase what you've said "There are non-free programs which some people find useful, therefore non-free applications are allright"

RMS (and I) would say that the applications are useful, and if there are no free versions of them, ones should be made.

From the position of Free Software vs Non-Free Software, the issue is not about price but about liberty. If a given peice of software takes away your liberty, then it has harm.

By advertising non-free software, you are in a way saying that it's okay to harm others.

Now, RMS has not said that we should not discuss non-free software which is popular already. By discussing it he means contrasting free software with it. I can, for example, contrast Open Office with Microsoft Word. But the GNOME project site was showing software in a way that made it difficult to tell what was Free and what wasn't.

In that way, the GNOME developers were advertising the non-free software, and he simply requested that they stop.

Utility, that is finding a program useful, does not change the fact that it's not free.

I may really like a peice of software that does whatever, but if there's no Free version, that should be incentive to write a Free version, not to say "Oh well, I'll forget about freedom when using this program."

That, I believe would be RMS's counter to your argument, and is the same position I take.

- Serge Wroclawski

Re:No "non-free" apps == limited relevance

[Guignol]

hmm, I'm not an RMS fan nor I even know him but...
his insistence that Linux be called GNU/Linux
Hmm I think it's more like marking the difference between the kernel (linux) and the OS GNU/Linux. a monolithic OS like GNU/Linux isn't completely described by its sole kernel (even if it's the central piece). It needs at the very least its libc which is the glibc. less necessary for the strict OS description but still very wellcome are the very basic tools and interfaces (binutils shells and de facto compiler).
RMS wants to have "his own" GNU OS since a lot of time and instead of starting from the kernel, he started all around the kernel. Linux provided a suitable kernel, but "Linux" isn't the OS any more than "GNU". We could complain rightfuly if he were insisting on having it called GNU OS alone but it wouldn't be less of a "rip-off" then than it is when you say "Linux" for the OS instead of GNU/Linux.
But of course it's annoying I agree on that one. I do however understand that for him, as he did a very big part of the work, it feels much more of a rip-off than it feels annoying not to do so.
his utter arrogance...Who the hell does he think he is
Yes this is arrogance, but i disagree with "who the hell does he think he is". I'm sory but he is not just the first coming guy. the guy *is* a figure (though not a religious one).It's too bad he isn't as free of his ego as most of us would like him to be to be worshipable as a true valuable icon of "the great guy model". But he is still a figure.It's so pathetic when someone possesses a disturbingly inflated ego without anything to justify it. Now an inflated ego is always a bit disturbing, but at least, in RMS case he did earn it. But I'd sure prefer him to be zen and modest and wise and blind and all :)
his consistent interference in ..
I don't see what you're talking about so I won't argue it, but I'd like to see some examples to know.
zealots make me reach for my .38...
Hmm I hope you were being self-ironic here (??)
zealous people are by definition fanatical partisan people.Although your extremism here doesn't directly make you part of some declared group of anti-zealous, you do pertain to the group of persons who hate people who pertain to groups and are fannatics about it. funny...
his disapproval...
So you disaprove his disaproval of some other people behavior....
So do I :)
...

Re:My guess is that Stallman....

[fault0]

I agree with you pretty much. I've been going between KDE, GNOME, and various window managers (usually used blackbox, E, or wmaker), in the last 4-5 years.

What I've noticed in the last year is that GNOME has lost much of it's momentum. I think this was pretty much because of two things.

1). Qt going GPL
2). KDE 2.x's (technical) improvements

Number 1) especially hurt the momentum that GNOME had. If you look at where the momentum started, you can primarily trace it to RMS and FSF's huge ideological starting of GNOME.

Now, I do see one way RMS could help GNOME. To bring back some of the momentum the it once had. It would be some kind of ideological movement once again.

Not sure RMS can run according to charter

[nullity]

"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)

Re:Not sure RMS can run according to charter

[fault0]

he made the license(s) that (most) things in GNOME is under. i'd call that involvement enough.

if he were to run, I think he'd have quite a possiblity to be elected. I think that there are pretty much enough of the zealots who go "GNU LINUX RMS RULEZ!!".

Re:Not sure RMS can run according to charter

[wadetemp]

Maybe he did send a message in but as "Richard Stallman." No one saw a message from "RMS" so they just assumed he had decided to duck out.

Re:Not sure RMS can run according to charter

[Vic Metcalfe]

RMS is not only responsible for the licsense that most GNOME software falls under, but also for a very large chunk of the compiler that builds it. I think I can appreciate where you're coming from, but to say that RMS hasn't made a significant contribution to GNOME seems absurd to me. I don't call it GNU/Linux either, but the man deserves a lot more recognition than he gets. Very few of us hard core Linux types would be where we are without the contributions of RMS. GNOME is symbolic of the fight against propriatary software, and RMS deserves a position on that board just as much as Miguel does, even if for different reasons. I do not believe that GNOME would exist without RMS.

Re:Not sure RMS can run according to charter

[bruthasj]

I disagree with you.

He provided the license that the entire mess of GNOME sits on. I believe he has been a great contributor to this project. Not only did he influence Miguel to start it up during the KDE/Qt-bashing, but he has established years of a cultural environment that enables large open projects like GNOME to exist instead of being engulfed by proprietary companies.

Just my two bits. Probably redundant, but nonetheless -- valid.

Re:Not sure RMS can run according to charter

[fault0]

They mostly shuttup with most of RMS's recent folly actions. Just look at slashdot postings in RMS's quibbles from a few years ago (especially all the Qt licensing stuff).

Re:Not sure RMS can run according to charter

[Arandir]

What about the guy who designed the CPU that the compiler runs on? Is he eligible? What about the companies that host GNOME mirrors? Are they eligible? Or what about IDG who provides the GNOME team with new wardrobes twice a year? What about the makers of Jolt Cola?

Re:Not sure RMS can run according to charter

[AbsoluteRelativity]

I dont know, I saw a lot of rational arguements reguarding RMSs positions about the Qt license which was resolved by Troll Tech adding a clause for special programs that dont have compatible licenses with GPL. Zealots as defined in any dictionary is usually indicative by irrational arguements, the incompatibility of the licenses was not that small of an issue, especially as it applies to law and the way lawyers work, they use what ever they can have for an advantage to weaken the application of a license. The problem is that some many applications are affected by the legal standing of the GPL and LGPL licenses so it is by far not a small issue. I dont recall any irrational arguements during those times, anything that would indicate to me that someone was a zealot, more so then concerned about their own software license legal standing. I guess its a matter of point of view, there is probably some people out there talking about "KDE zealots" or something down those lines, although I dont recall seeing any of those either... hmmm...

Re:Not sure RMS can run according to charter

[Khelder]

So by extension, RMS should be considered a significant contributor to any program that's typically (or solely) compiled with gcc? That's absurd. It's like saying Leslie Lamport and Don Knuth are significant contributors to documents I compile with LaTeX.

Should the authors of theses great tools be given recognition for their efforts? Of course! That doesn't automatically make them "contributors" to projects that use their tools.

Re:Not sure RMS can run according to charter

[hawk]

> What about the guy who designed the CPU that the compiler runs on? Is
> he eligible?

Only if he put it under the Holy GPL :)

hawk

Re:Not sure RMS can run according to charter

[bruthasj]

Let's see, he was also a major contributor and part of establishing the COMPILER that the whole project uses to build! Plus, hey, when people edit code in emacs/xemacs they're also leveraging a tool that he wrote. No matter how you look at it, RMS has made a contribution.

Hmmm

[wadetemp]

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?

Re:Hmmm

[fault0]

http://www.directfb.org is what you are looking for. there is a gtk+ port, and a Qt port will probably need to be done as a necessity.

that being said, X isn't the problem. We just need X extention development to go faster :-)

Re:Hmmm

[be-fan]

I'm rather wary of extension mechanisms. Take Xft for example. While it has worked pretty well for KDE (which is a really top-down, organized project), it hasn't worked as well for GNOME (gdkxft doesn't AA everything quite yet). It seems that unless there is a single team of developers behind all of the applications one uses, extensions won't get taken advantage off in all one's applications (there is nothing I hate more than non-homogeneity). For core stuff like fonts and rendering models, you really have to make changes to the core of the architecture, not tack them on as extensions.

Re:Hmmm

[Rob Kaper]

While it has worked pretty well for KDE (which is a really top-down, organized project)

That's not true. KDE (nor GNOME) have a top-down organization. Join any of the mailinglists to find out.

Both projects are made by all of the developers. Offer a good idea, some patches or plain new code. If it servers a purpose, it *will* be used. There is no small group of elite coders who make decisions, everything is discussed on the lists beforehand and the voice of reason usually wins.

Of course once some policies (release features, schedules) have been made, there will be a top-down wave to make sure the policies are enforced. A large concensus can still change these policies though, such as delaying a release for one week because one or two critical applications required a bugfix.

Both projects do have some key contributors who have a larger say in some things (not officialy, but their opinion is simply weighted more by the rest) but I have not ever seen anyone (on the KDE lists, at least) force the project in a certain direction.

And that's how it should be. It works. RMS in the board of directors of GNOME might severly disrupt that harmony. I for one wouldn't like to contribute code because RMS thinks I should, I'd like to contribute code because I concur with the decisions of the majority of developers (and vocal users).

By they way, Xft works for KDE because it's implemented within Qt. Any Qt application has support for anti-aliasing under Linux (try Opera). The reason it works is because it's implemented well by the Qt developers, probably not because of top-down decisions.

Re:GNU

[Guillaume Ross]

So your joke wasn't OpenSource ? Or was it GPL and he forgot to provide the source?
Going to sleep...gee

GNU Gnome on LiGNuX

[Mandelbrute]

a new naming scheme...GNU/Gnome [running on GNU/Linux]

Shouldn't that be on LiGNux? After all, we should respect RMS's first choice.

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.

Re:GNU Gnome on LiGNuX

[Pretender]

eg. his rejection of X windows support in Emacs due to the fact hurd would not be capable of using X for some time

Do you have a link for this? I haven't heard about this. Emacs has supported X11 since at least, what, 17 or 18? Does your information predate this?

Re:GNU Gnome on LiGNuX

[olau]

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.

Funny you should say that. Do you have any idea of what the Board is supposed to be doing, or are you just one of the "uninvolved people that consider the project for a few hours each year"?

The Board isn't ordering anyone or trying to decide on technical issues - most of the messages they send out specifically say that.

Re:GNU Gnome on LiGNuX

[Mandelbrute]

The Board isn't ordering anyone or trying to decide on technical issues - most of the messages they send out specifically say that.

Then what do they do, or why have them as a supervising body if they don't supervise?

or are you just one of the "uninvolved people that consider the project for a few hours each year"?

Guilty as charged: The whole flamewar at the start of the project scared me off (plus lack of time and talent).

Re:GNU Gnome on LiGNuX

[Mandelbrute]

There's a bit about the gnu Emacs fork here.

XEmacs supported things like multiple windows on X , hence the name XEmacs (previouly Lucid Emacs). Gnu Emacs can do that now as well. Here's a great little quote from RMS in 1993:

Lucid Emacs is set up to use and require an X toolkit; our version does not use one. I think it is too expensive to require a toolkit. Especially since we have already got most of the features we want, without a toolkit.

To sum up, Lucid wanted to use gnu emacs in their product suite, so they gave the emacs developer some hardware and paid him to update emacs. The pace of development sped up enormously, and RMS didn't have the time to check all of the code line by line, and appointed a new developer to keep control, and to not implement features that were not supported by the gnu tools and hurd.

So why is this relevant? RMS did asked Lucid to do a rewrite of the same features for him, but under his complete micromanaged control - his emails at the time (link above) tell the story. The question remains as to whether his attitude has matured and whether he will treat the gnome project as its own entity and not just as a tool for his other projects. His recent words about gcc, about everthing else taking second place to hurd support is probably more relevant.

This is all just the opinion of an outsider that has been flamed a few too many times for not putting gnu in front of linux - gnome confuses me when things break and it shows up weird dependancies (if thai language support is broken in pango you can forget about compiling the gimp) so it's up to the real gnome people to do what they do and increase the functionality of the Gimp Tool Kit and port it to more platforms.

Re:GNU

[jeremy f]

Gnome itself has GNU in the acronym.

So does GNU ;)

It's been said before, numerous times..

[Bowie J. Poag]

Free Software is like sex. Its better when RMS isn't involved.

If the Gnome team spent...

[Anonymous Coward]

less time fretting about organisational issues and more time developing Gnome, maybe it would not be 2 years behind KDE now. People seem to brush this aside, but it is a major issue. Gnome is very far behind KDE and many parts of GNome are currently either horribly broken or simply unimplemented. Worse still, major API stuff is largely undocumented.

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.

Re:If the Gnome team spent...

[fault0]

> Any crack smoking fool can make CVS commits that fuck things up. It is a real mess.

This could be a problem with KDE too, however, it hasn't been so far.

> less time fretting about organisational issues and more time developing Gnome, maybe it would not be 2 years behind KDE now. People seem to brush this aside, but it is a major issue. Gnome is very far behind KDE and many parts of GNome are currently either horribly broken or simply unimplemented. Worse still, major API stuff is largely undocumented.

Yeah, GNOME seems to have too much of a bureaucracy. But this is what you get when you have a hodgepodge of companies/groups/interests working on a project. With KDE, in comparison, there seems to be more of a mentality that developers implement features that they want/will use, although a few developers do get paid by companies.

A lot of this is detailed in ESR's book, "The Cathedral and the Bazaar".

Re:If the Gnome team spent...

[slashdot_commentator]

less time fretting about organisational issues and more time developing Gnome, maybe it would not be 2 years behind KDE now.

And you think making RMS a Gnome board member will fix this??? The father of HURD...?

Re:If the Gnome team spent...

[timerider]

And you think making RMS a Gnome board member will fix this??? The father of HURD...?
Not very likely...
To be honest, after several tries (and finding that almost any given gnome app I'd like to use is in some sort of pre-alpha stage, with lots of 'not yet implemented' popups and lot of 'yet to bre written' pages in the docs) I don't really care much for GNOME anymore...

I don't want to see it go down the HURD path. But IMHO, with RMS in a leading position of any sorts, GNOME is doomed.

Re:If the Gnome team spent...

[jonathan_ingram]

It's a pity, because there are some very nice things in GNOME development.

One is Glade: because it's so mind-numbingly boring to hard code the UI, most people use GLADE, and as a result the UI is abstracted into XML files, which can be altered to change the UI without recompiling... which is nice.

Another is Nautilus. For all the critics (THIS took $30 million?!), and the bad experiences running the bloated hippo that was Nautilus 1.0.0, it's now quite a nice file manager, although still very lacking in depth (do they still not have a .tar.gz reading component?).

Another is the attempt to actually use CORBA. Of course, this is also a problem: I don't know of any system which has actually used CORBA successfully that hasn't come in over time and over budget.

I need GNOME to do well, because I use KDE, and the two environments feed off each other very well: KDE developers are more concerned with features than prettiness, so they pick up some graphical ideas from GNOME. Of course, this could also be solved by some of the GNOME graphical artists moving over and helping KDE (there's a good opportunity in the KDE 2 to KDE 3 transition to completely rework the KDE theming system).

Re:If the Gnome team spent...

[timerider]

there's a good opportunity in the KDE 2 to KDE 3 transition to completely rework the KDE theming system

Oh no, not again!! The Themes engine WAS completely rewritten during the 1.x->2.0 transition... that was ugly enough...

Re:If the Gnome team spent...

[andy_from_nc]

I'd say the "parts of gnome are currently either horribly broken or simply unimplemented" is a mischaracterization. I use gnome everyday and rarely have problems provided I use the ximian distribution.

I think a score 4 for the above post is probably due to moderator bias. It made an unqualified criticism for a very successful project. I don't know a single opensource project that doesn't have this political infighting going on.

In my opinion RMS is merely a political type these days. If he wants to contribute to the project he should do so at the keyboard with vi onscreen.

Please also keep in mind that your beloved KDE started before Gnome, and the QT liscense is still not universally "free"; however, the gtk IS.

Please reconsider the rating on the above posting, its obvious that the poster has not used a distribution of gnome in some time and didn't even have the courage to post under his own identity.

Re:If the Gnome team spent...

[andy_from_nc]

Let me just second that one! One must ask that if RMS spent half the time he spends ranting about some pedantic linguistic intricacy that few care about and more time coding we'd all be using a far better kernel by now.

Re:If the Gnome team spent...

[jonathan_ingram]

Well, with each major version QT has been given more and more ability to theme itself. So, given that the QT styling system has changed for QT 3, the KDE styling system is going to have to change as well -- but hopefully for the better! Their main aim is to have a coherent way to theme all the different aspects of the desktop (at the moment you have to insert things in random directories to theme the startup splash screen, for example).

The ideal would be to have a theming system that, as far as possible, was compatible between Gnome and KDE (plus anything else that wanted to join in) -- this would certainly be possible for pixmap window/widget themes, colour schemes, background pictures, and non-SVG icons.

Re:If the Gnome team spent...

[andy_from_nc]

Thats just wrong. Two articles above this someone makes the exact same kind of post basing gnome for KDE..he gets a 2??? This guy makes the exact same post in the other direction and he's a troll? A little more evenhandedness is in order!

Free means free to choose

[leeward]

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.

Re:Free means free to choose

[ctid]

Nobody is moaning at you for using commercial software when there is no alternative. We're moaning at the commercial software vendors for exploiting you.

Re:My guess is that Stallman....

[XBL]

Yeah, but users have tasted blood, and want a good/fast/complete UI to run on Linux, etc. All of these newbies grabbing Mandrake,for example, don't give a hoot about licenses. They just want something that works.

Unfortunately, GNOME is not up to that level where a newbie will feel comfortable with using it. I can only see its "marketshare" slipping even further behind KDE as the "market" grows.

I think that about the only thing GNOME can do now is become the ideal desktop for the experienced power user. In some ways it is already, but I'm an experienced power use and like KDE better anyway. So what are they going to do to attract users? I really have no idea.

GNU/Re:GNU

[jeffy124]

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?

Re:GNU/Re:GNU

[Rentar]

Well, 'though I don't agree with what you said, I like the "GNU/RMS". Additionally, wouldn't that have to be "GNU/GNU"?

Re:GNU/Re:GNU

[hereticmessiah]

Which becomes GNU/GNU/GNU/GNU which becomes GNU/GNU/GNU/GNU/GNU/GNU/GNU/GNU which becomes... oh shit, we're all doomed!

Re:GNU

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell is this marked insightful? It is pure bullshit.

You know what the G in GNOME stands for? That's right, GNU.

I'd say writing the compiler, development tools (emacs, make, etc) that GNOME is developed with is a pretty damn large contribution, even forgetting the fact that he wrote the license that it's under.

And, on the contrary, the GNU OS -- aka HURD -- does exist, is actively developed, and is very cool.

Get your facts straight before you throw out trolls, boy.

Only people who use GUI's should be on board

[Ukab the Great]

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?

But why would I do that...

[SuperKendall]

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.

Why LGPL is good. Why RMS is OK.

[Hallow]

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.

RMS is too much of a maniac...

[aquarian]

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.

Re:Why LGPL is good. Why RMS is OK.

[AYEq]

GNOME is already GNU as in Gnu Network Object ModEl, but I do get your joke :)

Math on the brain

[Faust7]

Am I the only one who looks at the initials "RMS" and consistently sees Root Mean Square? Rrgh, that's frustrating.

Re:Math on the brain

[papa248]

Nah... 4 years of college and a degree in EE makes me see that, too. Maybe this is an excuse for us to turn Stallman into a phasor...

Re:Math on the brain

[geomon]

Nah, you're not the only one.

I saw those initials for the first time and thought the same thing.

I found it odd that people kept saying "RMS said this.." and "RMS said that...".

I just assumed it was geek-speak.

Re:Math on the brain

[ElectricToothbrush]

he's Mean, he's Square, he's got Root. Figures...

No, you're wrong

[mgw1181]

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.).

Re:No, you're wrong

[J. Random Software]

The GPL can't impose restrictions beyond copyright law. However, copyright law restrictions do apply to derived works. It's not entirely clear just when reusing others' software does or does not make your software a derived work (there hasn't been much precedent), but unlike most of us the FSF hired a lawyer to tell them what courts will probably (or at least ought to) decide.

Thank you for saying it!

[raistlinne]

I just wanted to say that it's about time someone pointed this out. Thanks for doing it.

Re:Gnome is a parasitic monster....

[Glytch]

I don't know. I can't really compare the two. Sylpheed will actually compile on a stock Slack 8 setup like mine. Balsa on the other hand...

RMS vs Miguel

[Karma Sucks]

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.

Re:RMS vs Miguel

[ClarkEvans]

Miguel even stated he regretted having ever made GNOME part of the GNU project.

If he didn't make it part of the GNU project, there is a good chance that it would not be anywhere close to where it is today; licensing matters. GNU carries alot of weight and familarity with programmers.

Re:RMS vs Miguel

[gorilla]

You can adopt the GPL without being part of the GNU project. In fact, the majority of GPL'd programs are not part of the GNU project.

Re:RMS vs Miguel

[DrXym]

GNU carries some weight, but there are plenty of examples of projects that are just GPL'd (not owned by the FSF) or use an alternative licence altogther. In fact, GNOME's "arch-rival" KDE is GPL and if anything is even more popular than GNOME.

There is even a case that being GNU anything puts a major dampener on any project, precisely because it drags a whole bunch of political baggage with it.
I know I would have serious concerns about working on any project owned by the FSF.

O.B.E. = Other Bugger's Efforts

[Mandelbrute]

I can't create a KDE application and sell it without buying a QT license for over $2000

So you can't get rich on the efforts of others without giving them something back? Tough.

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.

Re:O.B.E. = Other Bugger's Efforts

[AbsoluteRelativity]

I believe I get both of your points, which makes sense if you look at it this way. The previous poster seems more concerned about the price, not so much about whether they have to pay for it or not as you seem to think. But at the same time your comments about them developing it as open source still stand, and if the price is truly really high there are 2 possible reasons why : 1) less commercial proprietary customer base (results in increase in price, but this is less likely the reason) 2) like government, manipulate the population through taxation, and so they manipulate the commercial proprietiary software developers to go open source rather then proprietary. I think 2 is more likely seeing as they are advocates of open source, and you can still sell software (with out license fee) if you are open source.

Either way it seems that the previous poster is reasonably upset as that appears to be the intention of the price, to get them to release their work as open source rather then proprietary, and it seems aparent that they dont like it.

I could be mistaken on the pricing scheme, as I'm basing it on that posters comments, but it does seem steep, I might think diffrently if I understood it more (what that 2k is for).

Re:O.B.E. = Other Bugger's Efforts

[Sleepy]

>>I can't create a KDE application and sell it without buying a QT license for over $2000

>So you can't get rich on the efforts of others without giving them something back? Tough.
Your killer app is just going to have to be open source isn't it?

Yeah, it's all about giving NOTHING back... that's what he said right? NO. This is a favorite KDE strawman tactic (or maybe you miss the point)... to deflect all license criticism as "you must be a freeloader".

The above poster did not say he did not want or believe that *NOTHING* should be given back. He SAID it costs $2000 to develop a non-free application for KDE.

How many non-free applications do you own (or "use") on different platforms? I use quite a few that simply DON'T EXIST in the GPL world and you will only find them on Windows. Open source apps are not good at all at filling in small "niche" applications, and giving said applications a polished user interface.

Don't believe me? Go into ANY Linux #irc channel, and ask what application is closest to the batch image processing of "Paint Shop Pro". The answer you will hear is "write a perl script to loop around Image Magick". In #linux, often the answer to "What program does this" is usually "write a script". But that's OK, all this innovative shareware will probably be cloned as free software someday. Um, maybe. In the meantime, that lack of flexibility of Linux means it's yet another place I can't sneak Linux into the corporate world. Good job, you.

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.

What you might call "scummy shareware", *I* would call "mom and pop software". It's where most great ideas get their start. In Windows, Shareware tends to be TOO commonplace... but that's Microsoft's fault (I mean, shipping Windows without a ZIP-capable program?? Please!!). Shareware would be less of a disease on Linux than it has with Windows.

I guess KDE is SO FREE SOFTWARE PURE that they don't mind polarizing the software world into the big Borlands and the Microsofts on one side, and the free software purists on the other. No small wanna-be software developers at all in the middle.

Guess where "innovation" comes from? The small software company. I wish I could say Microsoft's licensing took away more freedom than Troll Tech's, but it's just not true. We'll always be stuck copying other people's ideas, or taking the big-software crap that is given to us.

And I really get a kick out of people saying BECAUSE Troll Tech disallows development by small software companies, they must be MORE FREE than GNOME. Please. These are the same people who said "fuck the GPL" when it was convenient to violate the license.

Re:O.B.E. = Other Bugger's Efforts

[protonman]

I can't create a KDE application and sell it without buying a QT license for over $2000

So you can't get rich on the efforts of others
without giving them something back? Tough.

And of course it is the KDE community who'll all get a fair share of that $2000...

You can't defend a commericial company (horrible tautology) with "good for the community"-arguments. Their prime interest is money.

Re:O.B.E. = Other Bugger's Efforts

[Dan Kelly]

You don't dictate what someone "shouldn't" or "should" do. Let him have the freedom to get rich any way he likes as long as he doesn't hurt anyone.

With GTK, he can do that. He can appreciate the effort of others and contribute back, or not. That's what freedom is all about.

He doesn't have to "give back" because you think he should. Let him decide. The GTK people are obviously fine with it.

Re:O.B.E. = Other Bugger's Efforts

[SuzanneA]

The biggest problem for me, and I suspect others, is that you can't even evaluate whether Qt is suitable for your app, without paying $1550 or $2000 (the professional license is $1550). The reason being, that the moment any of your project touches Qt/free, your app is committed to being open-source/free. This might be ok for the bigger app vendors, where laying out $1550 to evaluate the prospect of porting your app to Qt is ok. But for a small software company, its rather crippling. I'm not quite sure why Trolltech act this way, what is so wrong about allowing Qt/Free to evaluate a product before purchasing a license for the pro/enterprise products ? Surely making life easier for smaller dev. houses to use their product would be in their interests ? Oh well, I'll stick with gnome/gtk/gtkmm for my framework. At least until RMS insists that they are all GPL instead of LGPL and hence no longer usable in a non-oss model.

Re:O.B.E. = Other Bugger's Efforts

[drinkypoo]

So you can't get rich on the efforts of others without giving them something back? Tough.

Your killer app is just going to have to be open source isn't it?

Speaking of Troll*, here's a troll now. You're missing the point of open source software, which has been around a lot longer than this whole "free as in *" thing. The idea is that other people can benefit from your work, period. Various other licenses applied to open source work determine what you can do with it. The poster says he doesn't want to use Qt, quit bitching. If you want the software written, you write it.

It's stupid of TrollTech to require people to pay money up front to develop a commercial application with Qt. All it does is push the smaller developers (mostly individuals) to another environment, in this case, GNOME/GTK.

The only widely used license which prevents commercial use of the code is the GPL. Other licenses do not restrict you in this way. I'm not saying one license is better than the other, you use what you're comfortable with and what makes you feel like your code will go to the places it is meant to go, but don't diss on other peoples' choice of licensing scheme. We have several of them for a reason.

Re:O.B.E. = Other Bugger's Efforts

[big.ears]

Technically, the GPL doesn't prohibit commercial use of code. You can charge whatever you want, if someone is willing to pay for it. The thing that it requires if that if those people ask you for your source code, you have to give it, for some fair price. Consequently, it discourages commercial use, and prevents closed-source use.

The problem is that here on /., you have to be very careful about precisely what terms you use, especially with respect to licenses, or someone will jump down you throat. I've had people jump down my throat before because I said the QT open license (i.e., the gpl) prohibits proprietary software. ("Does not...you can write proprietary software that's open source").

Re:O.B.E. = Other Bugger's Efforts

[mrm677]

Please mod this up. Where are the moderators and how is this done? Slashdot, please do not be impartial.

Re:O.B.E. = Other Bugger's Efforts

[Mandelbrute]

It's stupid of TrollTech to require people to pay money up front to develop a commercial application with Qt. All it does is push the smaller developers (mostly individuals) to another environment

So they lose the business of the people that won't pay them anyway?

Also, if they don't get the money up front how are they going to collect it? How may readers here who use *nix systems have ever paid a cent for the almost ubiquitous shareware image viewing program "XV". Shareware on *nix hasn't worked (and I suspect it only worked on M$ systems because it provided missing major functionality, like a TCP/IP stack - the only non-game shareware I've found useful enough to pay for) It's simple; if you want to write open software you have a variety of choices. Once you want to make money from the efforts of others you are expected to respect their conditions - otherwise you are not being a good citizen. Say if I took the published results of a university research project on streaming video, added an ecryption key to the file format, gave it a crappy GUI knocked up over a weekend and used that to get rich (without acknowledging the authors) then I would not be a good citizen.

An attitude seems to be emerging that you can use everyone elses work for nothing with full access to the source, but you can sell your own fully derivative work without source in violation of the licence. That is what I meant by "other buggers efforts."

open source != warez

It is a completly different idea where it is expected that something will be given back, even if it just helping newbies with problems on a linux newsgroup.

Re:O.B.E. = Other Bugger's Efforts

[drinkypoo]

open source != warez

Well, at least that statement will evaluate true.

I never paid for XV because I was poor back when I used it. Now I don't pay for XV because it turned out to be a pretty crappy image viewing program after all (It takes an awfully long time to switch images compared to other viewers.) And of course, I also don't pay for XV because I only use UNIX or unixlike operating systems as a server, now.

The very reason I use a BSD-style license (where I use any license other than "This code can not be included in a GPL'd work, nor can any code which this code is included in be GPL'd") is so that people are not obligated to me in any way. That includes sending me their modifications. I'd be delighted if they did, but I don't want control of the code, that's why I open-sourced it. If I wanted control I'd write my own license.

Re:GNU

[nomadic]

All he's really done is spawned the important acronyms..GNU, GPL, under which actual contributors of work have made thousands of worthwhile and creative contributions.

And he wrote GCC. You think Linux would be around without it?

Re:GNU

[slashdot_commentator]

> GNU/Gnome

Oh Lord, another reason to keep RMS off the board. GNU/Gnome, GNU/Linux, GNU/OpenOffice, GNU/GCC, GNU/nethack, GNU/emacs, GNU/vi, GNU/rsync, GNU/SAMBA, GNU/Perl...

Its enough to drive me to KDE and Java. At least the owners don't demand them to be referred as TrollTech/KDE or SUN/Java...

Really?

[MrYotsuya]

Dude, I bet you haven't even tried it!

Re:Really?

[AbsoluteRelativity]

For some reason hearing the word "lover" and "RMS" sounds strange. I would think "girl friend" "wife" or something like that would sound right, but "lover" makes him sound like some kind of suave romancer or something. But oh well I'm not really surprised (assuming an anonymous coward actually tells the truth), even Albert Einstein had trouble with relationships. Not that RMS is an Eistein :p, but that most people deeply into their art hobbies or professions have trouble in relationships.

Wrong!

[infiniti99]

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.

Re:Wrong!

[AbsoluteRelativity]

> You can create an LGPL library on top of a GPL library.

Assuming I understand what you mean by "on top of", are you sure about that? Isnt that a way for proprietary applications to defeat the GPL? Like having an LGPL library act as a buffer between a proprietary application and a GPL library? Maybe I am mistaken about that.

Re:Wrong!

[IntlHarvester]

You can create an LGPL library on top of a GPL library.

Doing that essentially re-licences the LPGL code as GPL (KDE as "modified work as a whole" would include QT, which is GPL and therefore the rest of it is GPL) -- That is unless you use the Operating System exception, and I think most Linux distros ship with Qt now.

Now if you wanted to run a commercial K* app on top of that, on the face of it the licence would prevent you! (Kapital is a derived work of KDE which is a derived work of QT which is GPL.) That is, unless KDE has a Linux-like "API exemption".

Now if you are using the commercial or 'free' Qt, then KDE stays LGPL and you are cool with running Kaptial.

All very very confusing, eh? It's by design.

Re:GNU

[Ozx]

Indeed... Afterall, RMS is the sole author of GCC and emacs...

I like RMS for who he is

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to me that Linux may fork not in the technical sense but in the ideological sense...

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.

Don't forget the corporate market

[valkadesh]

I think that they are going to attract users in the 'corporate desktop' market. Sun is going to replace CDE with GNOME 2.0. HP will be shipping GNOME 2.0 with HP-UX, too. I feel that focusing on this market niche is The Right Thing To Do.

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.

Re:Don't forget the corporate market

[mark_lybarger]

couldn't agree with you more. the cde market and the like is probably MUCH smaller than the home/small office desktop. i think even corporate desktops will prefer and choose kde , that is if this linux thing ever gets off the ground :). people will choose kde because it rocks, others will be stuck with gnome because of some old licensing issues.

Oi, RMS, NO!

[riggwelter]

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...)

RMS strikes again ... at the wrong target

[ninewands]

Don't get me wrong ... I admire Richard and his determination to attain free software's rightful position in the world ... but ...

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 ... 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

Besides, WTF made you the King of Open Platforms?

Re:RMS strikes again ... at the wrong target

[Karn]

I can't believe you're expecting the man to sell out. That's just lame.

If RMS budges an inch, then he may as well hang it up b/c everything he has worked for up until now will be lost.

On a side note, I wonder what it's like to have complete freedom of speech as it was meant by the founders of the US govt.? (DMCA anyone?) Too bad we don't have more RMS types in government.

Re:RMS strikes again ... at the wrong target

[perle]

Open Office is free; Star Office is not. Star Office 6 Beta is available under the Sun Binary Software Evaluation Agreement which is certainly not a free software license.

Re:Why LGPL is good. Why RMS is OK.

[Per Wigren]

with QT, your apps are stuck being GPL'd, or you have to pay trolltech for QT

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.

Socialism == free stuff == hell yeah!

[santeri]

From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Suits me. And GNU is good as well.

Commercial app on GPL OS isn't unfair

[Aapje]

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.

Re:Commercial app on GPL OS isn't unfair

[mark_lybarger]

i'm not really a freedom fighter, and i hope it's not a flame, though with the current state of the mod system could be modded as such.

at any rate, you don't have to "pay" to create a program and run it on an OS. just some of your own time. you do give up some of your rights when you start to use libraries that others have created. you're bound by their terms. say someone makes some kick-ass widgets for M$ and then i end up using it in my applicaion. if their license prohibits me from giving away their OCX, DLL or whatever it is these days (maybe THEY want $$ per seat), then i can't go around giving their binary widget away. point being, when you use others "stuff" you're bound by their terms. suppose my M$ widget license reads that if you use my widget and want to release your stuff to others, you have to give them the code for it. well, either you open the code, or don't use the widget.

USSR wasn't communist

[hereticmessiah]

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.

Re:Why LGPL is good. Why RMS is OK.

[hereticmessiah]

GNOME stands for [G]NU [N]etwork [O]bject [M]odel [E]nvironment. Tsk!

clueless coward, troll be gone!

[Erris]

What a classic troll. Long winded, running from opinions that seem reasonable to the ignorant through outrageous logical errors to insult. Let's start with the outrageous and work backward.

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.

Exact Conditions of GNU software

[fsmunoz]

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

Re:GNU

[hereticmessiah]

Trolltech don't own KDE! Still, your point's fully valid.

Are RMS and OBL the same person?

[MightyMicro]

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.

Re:Are RMS and OBL the same person?

[MightyMicro]

Ah well, the American sense of irony is still weak: I got modded down as a Troll.

Re:Are RMS and OBL the same person?

[fredbsd]

Excellent. I think you may have stumbled upon the old 'cult of personality' thing by cracking a joke.

I had a long and detailed 'discussion' with Mr. Stallman not too long ago. It started by his now infamous 'unelected president' comment. The man simply cannot and will not see the merit of anyone elses opinion (or the lack of logic in his own arguments). It is absolutely amazing that he is an idol for some. But, everyone needs a hero and there are many insecure people out there.

I should someday post our email conversations to illustrate the lack of reason shown by Mr. Stallman. His blatant anti-everything-that-may-resemble-conservatism attitude is funny at best, shocking at worst. If we are to be free, should we be able to do what we want with our computers? Nope, I guess not.

Mr. Stallman is wonderful at advocating his own, warped sense of how the world should be and if given the opportunity, he would without a doubt be a proponent of limiting other peoples rights/freedoms in order to get his way. He is in essense no different than those he so vehemently opposes. He is just coming from a different side.

a reply from the Frank Zappa World Conquest Cabal

[Eugene O'Neil]

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!

Re:My guess is that Stallman....

[digitect]

I don't get it. I've never hacked anything (complete none programmer) and I love GNOME. It is very easy to use and as fast/faster than Windows on the same box.

And it's much more beautiful and usable than KDE, which to me is the most important aspect anyway.

"Free as in speech"?

[Get Behind the Mule]

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?

RMS has a motive...

[sheldon]

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.

RMS Election

[NullProg]

Personally, I am writing my congressman to have RMS elected to the Microsoft Watchdog committee.

Maybe RMS should support that *OTHER* GNU Desktop?

[maynard]

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

Hubris, even by RMS's standards

[hawk]

He's outdone imselve this time:

>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

do you think...

[skuzzlebutt]

if we can get RMS and Larry Ellison engaged in debate, they will loop ad infinitum?

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?

fGNUord!

[alienmole]

If you can fGNUord see this, please report to the Discordian Embassy for debriefinGNU!

Re:This is why I DEFEND RMS

[renehollan]

O.K. I'll go out on a limb here... I support RMS's efforts to make all software free even as I disagree that this should happen.

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?

Re:This is why I DEFEND RMS

[Score Whore]

...just plain good-enoughware.

Interesting you would mention this, seeing as the vast majority of "free" software falls precisely into this category.

RMS is anti-freedom - free speech is important too

[alienmole]

From the position of Free Software vs Non-Free Software, the issue is not about price but about liberty. If a given peice of software takes away your liberty, then it has harm.

By advertising non-free software, you are in a way saying that it's okay to harm others.

That's a completely subjective position. As a user of both free and non-free software, by choice, I don't feel that my liberty has been taken away by my choice to use some non-free software. Therefore your statements don't apply. As a user of GNOME, I find it useful, relevant, and interesting to be told about applications that are available for it, whether free or not.

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.

Re:This is why I DEFEND RMS

[renehollan]

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.

Am I the only one...

[TheKid965]

...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...

Re:Am I the only one...

[skuzzlebutt]

I agree with alot of this...I also think rms has made some important contributions to the industry/movement (whatever you want to call it).

and I feel that the GPL is one of the best things to ever happen to software

Did you read Ulrich Drepper's account of his dealings with Richard and the GPL? I thought it was a bit emotional, but enlightening:

Re:Am I the only one...

[TheKid965]

Ouch... I hadn't seen that one.

It does seem perfectly in line with what I say about Stallman, however. Based on this, I now believe more strongly than ever that he does indeed want to be the "Bill" of our little corner of the computing world.

Think about it. Isn't one of the major complaints about Gates that he (or, at the very least, Microsoft) claims full responsibility for "re-inventing" the personal computer to make it easy for everyone's Great-Aunt Edna to use?

RMS's power play as described in this glibc case - which I again stress, I knew nothing of before now - smacks of his trying to do exactly the same thing.

Again I ask, how precisely is this any less "wrong" than what Microsoft does? It isn't, at least not in my view. The only possible justification I can see is "the ends justify the means," which is a lousy argument for anything.

Is the cause of Free Software really worth the risk of harboring another power-hungry egomaniac, which RMS certainly can seem to be on occassion? For all the good Stallman has done, he is at a real risk of squandering it all thanks to what seems to be his inherent inability to acknowledge that there are others who can do what he does, and perhaps even better, than he.

quixotic

[cnmill]

Like Don Quixote running for head of the millers' union.

Just installed Gnome

[rossz]

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.

The GPL affects distribution

[PaxTech]

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.. :)

Re:The GPL affects distribution

[SuzanneA]

Because Trolltech's license expressly forbids that. Its in the FAQ *twice*. The license you choose to DEVELOP against determines the license your product can be distributed as. Ie, use the QT/Free license ANYWHERE in the development of a product, and it HAS to be GPL when finally released.

This isn't the 'GPL is viral', personally, I respect the GPL and feel that it has a very valid and important place in the market, as does LGPL. The problem here is Trolltech's thought that whatever you use on your development sources 'infects' the final distribution license.

If they allowed you to develop with QT/Free, then say 'ok, here's my $1550', get QT/Pro and relink. it would be ideal. But as it stands, you cannot do that. I suppose the chances that they would sue you over it, or be able to prove in court that you used QT/Free on internal company builds would be difficult, but its a risk I don't want to take.

This isn't a bashing of GPL (its not even a GPL issue, as far as I can tell), its a bashing of Trolltech's shortsightedness - not being able to evaluate QT for a commercial/non-OSS project without outlaying cash before-hand HAS to be costing them customers.

Most likely they just don't care, and the political statement is more important than marketshare for their product. After all, whether a potential customer pays up front, or before release, makes no real difference to them, they'd still have a customer either way.

Re:The GPL affects distribution

[AbsoluteRelativity]

I sort of see what you mean, but I think you may be concerned about the wrong thing. The GPL covers distribution mostly, and does not force you to release internally developed source code that is GPLed, but (as I understand the GPL) I dont think you can have an NDA that prevents employed or contracted programmers from distributing the source code that is GPL. So even if you plan to release it commercially, those you hire to develope the source code can take the code and distribute it for free (or charge for it) on the internet (I may be wrong). At least if the free edition of QT works like GPL, then what can an employer do to prevent the distribution of the source code of a commercial project. So I can see where there is legitimate concern reguarding the license of the free version, what they need to do is have a seperate license or triple license for an evaluation version of their product for commercial businesses to try out their product. That is assuming they are really interested in commercial developers and are not more interested in getting commercial developers to go open source.

Re:The GPL affects distribution

[SuzanneA]

As I said, the problem isn't GPL. Its trolltech's license.

To illustrate, the following is from their FAQ:

Q: Can we use the Free Edition while developing our non-free application and then purchase commercial licenses when we start to sell it?

A: No. The Free Edition license applies to the development phase - anything developed without Professional or Enterprise Edition licenses must be released as free/open source software.

As you can see, its their license that forbids anyone from using QT/Free on a project that MAY be commercial at some point.

This not only restricts small dev houses that can't afford to buy $2000 license's 'on a whim' to test, but it also affects hobbyists. There have been several projects that started out as small freeware/open-source projects, and later gained a level of functionality that made the authors think 'Maybe I should charge (a shareware fee) for this'

Qt/Free (or KDE) programmers in that situation will find themselves staring at a nightmare, they either start rewriting fresh code, without using any of the original source - if that is even a legal defense against such a license (I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know), or they take the chance and risk Trolltech suing them.

Now, they DO have a 'Qt/Windows Evaluation version' which doesn't appear to lock you into the open-source license model, and is in fact a fair product - you get a 30 day trial of the software, a little short for evaluating an API, but fair enough. There is no QT/X11 evaluation though, only QT/Free and the Professional/Enterprise versions.

Re:The GPL affects distribution

[AbsoluteRelativity]

For some reason this does not sound right (not what you are saying but what the FAQ says)... from the FAQ they mention that the Free Edition is licensed under both the GPL and QPL.

There may be a way to do this if your application during developement was licensed as GPL (assuming you are not afraid of one of your programmers taking the code and running with it), and then later versions change your license (remember you are in control of your own license) and switch to professional. They make the license a dual license in order to be compatible with more licenses like GPL, so making your developement version GPL may negate those parts of their license (assuming the restictions are in the free version license and not the professional). I dont see how they can lock your code to always be open source reguardless if you use their library or not, especially if you are the copyright holder of your own code (I have never heard of a copyright which takes away the rights of a copyright holder for every version of their own software). But even as far as I know the GPL does not apply to the copyright holder it applys to those who uses the copyright holders GPLed work, that is a copyright holder can change the license of their code from GPL to BSD or some proprietary license. GPL for example only applies if you use a GPL library, if you stop using a GPL library then it does not apply to your code anymore (this is how a lot of conflict ends when a commericial program tries to use GPL code, they either remove the code or GPL their software). The only way I can see this scheme of theres as working is if the profession versions license prohibits compilation with source code developed with the free version, that is if you develope with their free one and decide to switch to professional the professional license prohibits this, but you can still stop using the free version and move to an alternate library like GTK+ and then sell the software with no restrictions.

Or you can just be decietfull and this will work if you are a small enough developer. Develope with the free version anyway, see if you like it (evalute it), then if you like how it feels buy the full version, wait a while and refine and intergrate your code with the new professional version, work out some bugs and then finaly sell it as a product. I find it kind of strange though how they are sort of punishing commerical X11 developers by not having an evaluation version, or maybe they are just trying to gain more windows developers then unix developers. Troll Tech is definetly all around a strange company.

But I agree this probably is too risky to do and IAANAL, so most X11 developers are better off with GTK+, plus from a programming perspective I prefer GTK+ over Qt, they are 2 diffrent ways to program, one is constructive OOP, and the other is self-constructing OOP. That is one you inherit the widgets you wish to create, and the other is you put the widgets together like a construction set (my preference).

Oh well enough ranting.

Qt Free Edition requires hundreds of MB of Cygwin

[yerricde]

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.

Re:Maybe RMS should support that *OTHER* GNU Deskt

[Enahs]

And let's not forget that MacOS X is the successor of *step. Developing for GNUstep could lead toward code that'd be runnable on a Mac box.

I have to ask:

[crush]

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!

Re:GNU

[slashdot_commentator]

Doesn't Trolltech own Qt, from which KDE is based on? (Granted its some GPLish license...)

Re:This is why I DEFEND RMS

[J. Random Software]

I don't think that all software will ever be free simply because that will require force against those who disagree

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.

RMS is busy maintaining Emacs

[Per Abrahamsen]

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.

Re:GNU

[hereticmessiah]

Yeah, but that only means that KDE is built on Trolltech's work as opposed to being owned by Trolltech. If you compile a program using somebody else's libraries, that doesn't mean that they own copyright on it.

freeloading, no...

[zander]

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...

Re:freeloading, no...

[Sleepy]

Any idea what a Windows developer seat (including something like visual studio) costs?

Yes, I do... somewhere in the range of $400-$700 per seat for MS Dev Studio. That's quite high considering the "economics of scale". Microsoft can get away with this pricing, since any commercial shrink-wrapped software publisher knows they are "asking for trouble" if they use non-Microsoft tools to develop on.

That does not mean Troll Tech can fall back on "economics of scale"... this "crossplatform feature" is laughable in the real world. Nobody can name 5 major commercial applications on Windows, that are using Qt. I can at least note that MusicMatch Jukebox and a handful of other Windows applications were ported to Windows, using winelib.

The point is, to make a SERIOUS challenge to the hearts and minds of small developers, something HAS TO CHANGE.

That something has to be one of:

GTK+ usability and performance improvements

"Qt for Shareware Edition", or other price/licensing adjustments not seen yet.

Linux really doesn't have something as "accessible" as Visual Basic, or MS Visual C++. KDE Developer Studio looks appealing, but, again, it has the same runtime licensing problems as Qt.

I'm pleased that TT has released a "GPL Edition" binary for Windows -- allowing GPL ports to and from Win32.

However, this still does not address the shareware problem. Shareware has pioneered lots of great ideas, many of which were stolen by Microsoft and then folded into Windows. On Linux, Shareware is derided (unless it is Quake) and I have no doubts that any popular Linux shareware would be "cloned" in GPL form. Perhaps. But as long as Troll Tech has a "one size fits all" commercial licensing plan, only the 600 pound gorillas like Microsoft and Borland can afford to use it.

Too bad.. because shareware authors are typically MORE anti-Microsoft than most developers!

So when do you buy the licence? Obvious & offt

[Mandelbrute]

OK - say troll let you have the full version for evalution (as if the free version is not enough for evalution), when do you buy the licence? Do you buy it at the start of development of your commercial app? Obviously not from the above comments.

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.

Re:So when do you buy the licence? Obvious & o

[SuzanneA]

OK - say troll let you have the full version for evalution (as if the free version is not enough for evalution), when do you buy the licence? Do you buy it at the start of development of your commercial app? Obviously not from the above comments.

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.

Re:So when do you buy the licence? Obvious & o

[Mandelbrute]

Actually, yes, IF I had the oppurtunity to evaluate it,

For instance, using the free version for evalution, and if it can do what you want it to, buying the full version? If it can't then it's a matter of either using something that does fit your requirements, or finding out if the full version has the different features you need. This applies to any aspect of engineering.

if you've used Qt/Free version at any point of development

Does that include evaluation as well? I suspect that it doesn't - othwise they wouldn't be able to sell anything. Playing with something to see if it can do what you want it to do is not development - since the immediate goal is testing and not a usable product.

Just because it would be trivial protection to break, doesn't mean it would not be illegal.

My point is simply that it would be very difficult to enforce, and things like the DMCA would stop them from bringing up any evidence. If it can be argued for a few days in court that it is criminal offence for them to examine binaries of companies that have obviously ripped them off, then it is not worth taking the time to even look (plus the ridiculous expense of going out and buying suspect software - we are not talking about M$ or Adobe with money to burn here).

It's probably time for me to shut up and let someone that's actually used both versions speak up .

Re:So when do you buy the licence? Obvious & o

[SuzanneA]

Does that include evaluation as well? I suspect that it doesn't - othwise they wouldn't be able to sell anything. Playing with something to see if it can do what you want it to do is not development - since the immediate goal is testing and not a usable product.

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.

My time ain't free

[Aapje]

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.