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

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?

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?

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[hearingaid]

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

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

[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.

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

[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

[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: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).

???

[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).

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!!!

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?

[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: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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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.

[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.

Free stuff and Socialism

[pyrrho]

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

.

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

[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: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.

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.).

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

[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

[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

[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

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

[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...

[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.

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: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?

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?

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: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.

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.

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

[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: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: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.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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: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: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'.

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.

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: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...

[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: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.

"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?

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.. :)

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.

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.

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: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!

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 .