Slashdot Mirror
GNOME Foundation Elections - Final Candidate List
Motor writes: "The list of candidates for the forthcoming GNOME foundation election is now available. And yes, RMS is on there..." Note for voters, the email will be sent out the 13th. Please note the Election Rules and Director Overview Good luck to all the candidates!
But I'm gonna do a write-in vote for Alan Cox.. somehow.
I truly hope that RMS is not voted on. While he has done great things in the past, his more recent attitude towards the community as a whole as done nothing but annoy me.
:-)
Maybe, just maybe, I'm wrong, but I strongly believe RMS has gone from evangelist to extremist. Claiming to be the father of OpenSource, true or not, I feel rather strongly that he has grown too egotistical for his own good and just wants to be in the lime-light more than he wants to promote the over-all success and benefits of OpenSource and the Free Software Foundation.
Maybe if he wasn't so anti commercial products and accepted that they do have a place and are necessary things would be a lot easier to swallow, but I've just had enough of him.
Bill Gates and him should have a Celebrity Deathmatch to see who really is the father of OpenSource
RMS claiming that he is the father of open source is like Linus Torvalds claiming he is the father of Linux. Sure, they've made contributions, but claiming that you are the father of anything diminishes the hard work of lots and lots of people who have written code. Of course, Linus has gone out of his way to acknowledge the thousands of people who have contributed to Linux - some in small ways, others in larger ways - but he hasn't tried to take all the credit himself -- just the opposite.
On the other hand, RMS seems to want to claim all the credit himself...
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG erc@pobox.com PGP KeyID: 0x0BD32C9B What I'm up to: http://intuitives.mine.nu
Very passionate about what he does.
If everyone was like that for their respective jobs, how much of an increase in productivity would we see?
So even without knowing much about what he could do for GNOME, I don't know who else could be better for the job.
I have 3656.9 Bogomips. How many Bogomips do you have?
I really admire RMS, but I have to say, he does go off the deep end to the point that he may be doing more to HURT the FSF than help it.
I understand that free software is as much a political movement as it is an idea for better software. However, RMS seems to be HOSTILE to those who don't make the same choices he does. Freedom to me, means, that, freedom. It's about having the freedom to make good or bad choices.
The KDE controversy, the takeover attempt on GLIBC etc, makes him look more like a raving lunatic, and by extension, makes ALL of us who support the principle of the GPL and open source look the same. Why? Because Stallman proclaims himself the leader of the whole movement whenever asked, or not asked.
While I have tremendous respect for the man, and his philospohy, his despotic style runs contrary to the whole anarchistic nature of free software. RMS needs to realize that not EVERYTHING needs to be called "GNU/"
===
(The price of freedom is eternal vigilance)
.
From the candidates list:
[...]RMS [...] In 1983, while formulating plans for the GNU operating system, I decided it should include a window system.
This sounds awful. It's like "God said there shall be light" -- I'm sure there can be better
reasons than this to be in the Gnome board.
My vote goes to Miguel (I know it's not a vote, I'm just making a statement).
-- No sig today
In all actuality Linus is the father of Linux, he created it, he nurtured it for it's first years of life.
My father was my creator (at least half of it) and he nutured me for many years, although other people have shaped my opinions and such. Does this remove his fatherly status, the fact that he hasn't done everything that makes me who I am?
Lose your virginity to reply.....
First of all, commercial products and proprietary products are not the same thing. GNU has a clear set diagram that categorises software and makes this clear. RMS has always accepted that commercial products have a place -- he is not a communist. However he believes that these commercial products should embrace the same development methods and openness that the Free Software community does. He has no qualms with CyGNUs Software for example, since all of its work is released under the GNU GPL.
With this in mind, try to name one single case where proprietary software is valid or acceptable. Now you will begin to see what RMS is getting at. Even if you don't, you shouldn't be misrepresenting his ideas like this.
...RMS's name is listed 23rd on a list that appears to have no particular order.
Somehow i fear a bearded man with lots of hair going after the guy who put that page together........
The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
How about "May the Source be with you, always".
Who ever is elected, just don't count the ballots down in Florida, please.
If it is not on fire, it is a software problem.
quoth RMS:
"I've been working for GNOME since years before there was a GNOME."
RMS would make Orwell proud or scared, I can't tell.
1. DANIEL VEILLARD " I am French...
buh bye, now.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
The role of someone on the GNOME Board of Directors is to represent the best interests of the GNOME project not the interests of any other third party. Can RMS make this distinction?
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Everyone knows that all the slashdot losers are going to vote for Miguel or RMS since those are the only two "high profile" nerds on the list.
Nah, there's several other high-profile people on the list. I'm not going to name names, for fear of offending anyone. Check out the achievements of the candidates though - you may be suprised.
HH
I thought RMS doesn't use a GUI at all? Isn't he a strictly command-line only guy?
If so, shouldn't one of the prerequesites to being on the board of a GUI desktop initiative that you actually use the freaking product? Why would he think that he's the right person for this job?
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
It seems pretty likely RMS will be voted in. He's a huge "name" in the Open Source community (for good reason).
However, I still think in the long run having him on the board will be bad for GNOME. He's way too anti-commercial-software, totally unwilling to compromise, and not really at all good in political situations since he just always says what he means. These are may be good traits in a technical project leader, but IMO not-so-great for people on boards of OSS projects.
While OSS has made great strides thus far, its not quite at a point where it can live in a vacuum. If RMS scares off all the commercial entities, I can easily see KDE coming in and sweeping up, gaining more developers (commercial developers with vested interest in products but willing to share code back to main trees are very valuable), and just stomping GNOME.
I used to be a huge KDE fan until I thought about things recently. I was labeled a troll for making this post earlier. I will likely be labeled a Troll again and be ripped again for this post if its even moderated high enough.
If KDE continues to capture "desktop share" among the Linux community, how will this affect Linux software development? Consider if KDE is on 80% of all Linux desktops 5 years from now. Do you think some small commercial software company will want to purchase a $2000 Trolltech license to develop software for the "Linux Desktop"? Some will, but many won't. This is not good for Linux. I realize they could still develop using other alternatives, but it wouldn't interoperate well with the commonplace "Linux Desktop" being KDE.
Sure, Trolltech does great work and deserves to be compensated. However, I believe that desktop application development for Linux needs LGPL libraries. Commercial software really is important for the future of Linux. The small shops who don't want to open-source their software won't bring applications to a KDE desktop.
And if KDE becomes the dominant Linux desktop and a commercial company wants to develop a Linux desktop application, why should Trolltech get compensated? What about Linus? What about the XFree86 developers? What about the hundreds of other people who pour hard work into Linux for free? This is what Linux is all about.
KDE is dangerous...its too good. There is nothing wrong with Trolltech and I don't mean to bash them. However, the prominent Linux desktop can't depend on KDE. Gnome needs to succeed.
5. All candidates should mail a summary of their candicacy announcement (see previous rule) to elections@gnome.org. Summaries should be no more than 75 words of continuous text (i.e. no bullet lists or multiple paragraphs) and must be received by the nomination deadline given above. A compilation of the summaries will be mailed to all registered voters several days prior to the election.
I see what they're worried about, but who would vote for the following?
Name: Al Gore
HI
I INVENTED
THE
INTERNET
AND
I AM
GOOD
AT
USING
IT.
SINCE
I
INVENTED THESE THINGS:
1 THE INTERNET
2 COMERSE
3 BILL GATES
4 NON-BUTTERFLY BALLOTS
I SHOULD BE THE PRESI -- ON THE GNOME BOARD.
Ok, you, with you hand up saying "I'll vote!" Sit down and stop trolling.
There are exactly 42,935,718 letter sized sheets in a square mile.
If I were voting for GNOME directors, I should think RMS would make a fine choice. He's an experienced developer himself, he knows a lot about licencing issues, and his committment to free software development is unquestioned. Sure, he'll bring some politics into it, but the whole point of the GNOME Foundation is surely to do the politics, public relations, marketing, and so forth so the developers don't have to.
Danny.
I have written over 900 book reviews
Politics and good gossip in the software world is much more entertaining when there is a fundelmentalist which takes the upright approach, ie.. in your face Free Speech or was it free Beer?;-)
I have no ideas on Stallmans political views, but i picture him as a strict constructionist and a liberiterian.
I can't imagine a better way to ensure that KDE continues to widen its lead over GNOME.
==========
Richard Stallman in his statement of candidacy for the GNOME Board of Directors.Hmmm...
sPh
5. RHETT CREIGHTON " The future is now, and that future is: Bowling Balls. Do you realize that if GNOME starts making bowling balls, we stand to net profit $11,000?! That's right, eleven big ones. Net profit, mind you. " No affiliation. Full statement at
Name: Rhett Creighton
Affiliation: none
I haven't done doodly squat for GNOME. There is absolutely no reason to vote for me. I ran last year and got the least number of votes (3, including my own).
I believe that free software is overrated. If elected, I will try to adopt a for-profit software model to the GNOME foundation. Actually, GNOME will stop making software altogether. Instead, it will make bowling balls.
Anyone who votes for me probably should have all of their votes thrown out.
Hi ho!
Rhett
Well, it's good to have someone with a sense of humor on the board. Or is it?
umm
why shouldn't the person who created gnome be on the board? I mean had miguel done nothing there would be no gnome so I think he has a right to help decide the future direction of the project.
It sounds so strange to me when RMS states that "gnome is the only one that succeeded". He takes pleasure bashing KDE without a reason or what do you think about this quote from:
n ce /2001-November/msg00028.html
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-annou
-snip-
I became aware of another desktop project based on a non-free library (**), and spoke to the community about the problem posed by that dependency. This inspired Miguel to launch our third desktop project, the one that succeeded: GNOME.
-snip-
-- -Sk (coe.) uuh. yasp.
No kidding... In the flerbage article, ESR asked this question of both RMS and Tim O'Reilly (when the latter two were having their debate): if you two could get a law passed making proprietary licenses illegal, would you do it?
Did RMS ever answer? Because if Mr. It's All About the Freedom To Choose wants to forbid the existence of proprietary software -- not just discourage it through discussion, but to forbid it beyond discussion -- then he's clearly unfit for any kind of leadership position.
You cannot apply a technological solution to a sociological problem. (Edwards' Law)
There is no contrast there. They say the same thing, just with different words.
TELSA GWYNNE " I do docs, bugs, and hassling developers. I don't code. I also make last minute decisions. "
In house projects _don't_ have to have their source code released, according the the GNU license. If you use/extend GNU software in house for your own use, you don't even have to tell anyone you've done so. It's not until you _distribute_ the binaries to others that GNU obligates you to _distribute_ the source
GPL advocates keep mentioning this but until I see it tested in a court of law this is a very gray area. For example, what if I work for a company that uses a modified version of some GNU software internally that completely outperforms the version used in the main development tree. Now let's say my NDA forbids me from revealing source code I've obtained from work or written while working as an employee as most NDAs do. Yet the GPL specifies that I can redisribute any GPL code I receive with source, not just that but if I redistribute it I must deliver source and also that there should be no restrictions on how I can distribute it. Now if I decide to redistribute it, what has precedence my NDA or the GPL? If it's the GPL then I've done nothing wrong but it then means that people claiming that you can use GPLed software internally and not have to reveal your modifications are not absolutely correct since any body who receives the code internally can redistribute it to the outside world. On the other hand, if it's the NDA then this means that the GPL can be overriden by contractual obligations which may open up a hole from which exploitations of the GPL can begin.
I am not a lawyer so I cannot answer this but I can see it being argued both ways. Until some legal precedence is set as to whether in-house modifications of GPLed software can be redistributed by those who receive it internally within the company or not, I don't think anyone can state authoritatively that using modified GPLed software in-house doesn't have any pitfalls.
Would someone please use this man's/woman's name in a sentance for me? I've forgotten what his/her real birth name is!!!!!!! There are alot of little coding and routing numbers and letters on the ballet and I'm worried I might accidentally punch one if everyone starts going by thier initials.
In his speeches he has mentioned he uses Debian on his laptop, along with XFree86 and GNOME or WindowMaker.
If I were a voting member (which, sadly, I'm not), he'd definitely get my vote. So instead, I'll just lobby for him here. :)
Microsoft software is also software that is better in enterprise settings than for individual normal users (VBA comes to mind). But look at the real reason why: The Office Suite is the #1 enterprise application. So office suites can be developed like any other application. I say, within a year, there will be a complete open-source answer to MS Office (OpenOffice is not quite there yet, nor is KOffice, etc. for enterprise users).
I don't know about RMS. I think that he has written some important documents, stories, tools, etc. But I wonder how much he should be a spokesman for many of these large projects. RMS's presence risks politicizing the tools.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
live and learn, eh?
Lose your virginity to reply.....
When you write code for a company, you do not own it. Repeat: it doesn't matter that you wrote the code -- whoever pays you to write the code owns it. Therefore, if the contract you signed prevents you from distributing the code, you cannot distribute it because 1) it's not yours; 2) you don't have permission.
The GPL gives anyone who receives the code permission to redistribute it. This is the entire point of the GPL. You are claiming that an NDA (an artifact of contract law) can override the GPL (another artifact of contract law). Unless you are a lawyer or even better can show me the court case that shows the precedence for this I'm sorry I but I'll have to dismiss your opinions as just another uninformed opinion just like mine.
PS: Your post is the same as claiming that an NDA allows you to violate software licenses since the GPL is a software license.
RMS. Do we want gnome-dev milestoens releases to be
kept secret like EMACS 21 beta was?
I am aware of that clause. The question is whether a company can place such a pertinent obligation on you without itself violating the GPL and if so what part of the GPL or legal precedent allows this.
Is it just me or does the candidate list read just like a Miss America pagent.
"Hello Internet.. I'm Mr. G.G. Allen from the widget project! I've been hacking since 1986 and enjoy horseback riding and swimming. I really think that Gnome is the best thing since those little sprinkles on pop tarts!"
Hi, you are an illiterate fool. Thanks for your dopey comments.
The GPL was created to advance a political ideology. The GNU project was an OS that sat within that framework.
Most of the significant projects were CREATED by University projects. Somehow it is easier to create great "free" software when your developers are reasonably paid University professors, grad students, and a bunch of undergrads on "research" projects.
If your core developers are all well educated, formally trained, engineers, it is easier to avoid the differing levels of experience/documentation that amateur development gets.
Corporate development needs to produce revenue. Sure your admin/IT staff may find that adapted Free software is cheaper than either developing internal apps or buying "off-the-shelf" software, and maybe even submitting the patches.
A large majority of the "open source" software is produced by individuals that are in high school or college producing solo projects. It is wonderful that they release their software, it doesn't lend itself towards a large coordinated project. A tenured professor overseeing 15-20 students working on a project provides continuity that a student coding (who will find himself in a job in a few years, maybe even with friends or family taking up his free time) doesn't have.
University research projects are HARD to reconcile with the GPL. The BSD license (and similar licenses, like the MIT license) are great for universities. Universities producing money with corporate or government grants should produce truly "free" software, that are free for all to use as they see fit.
All Slashdot bull aside about keeping it free, BSD licensed code is FREE. Anyone can use it, nobody can lock it up. It's there, forever. If it is a university project, it will likely be always hosted, as opposed to small shops that can change direction/go under at any time.
GNU set out to create a Unix-like OS. The kernel got little attention, as the Linux kernel took off. Producing BIG applications isn't within the GNU project (and its programming offices at the MIT LCS (or AI lab, I forget where they are stuck).
End user applications require a different set of requirements.
The other problem with some of the tasks is that they are hard to divide the costs. Apache was spread among people that needed a web server, now the rest of us users leach off their work.
MS Office's costs are spread among all corporate America, with a juicy profit flowing to Microsoft. Creating a competing office suite is hard to manage, because spreading the costs is HARD. Licensing fees "spreads" the costs, but there is a free rider problem. Each Fortune 1000 would probably benefit by sending 10% of their Office licensing amount to an Open Office consortium as a long term 3-5 year investment in reducing their costs significantly, but each corporate board would prefer that every OTHER company send the money and they keep it.
Its the prisoner's dilemma, and its hard to fight.
Figure out a way to divide the costs, and you'll get quality GPL software.
Niche markets are easier, get all the vendors to line up for one solution. Mainstream markets are where "shrink wrap" software excels... there is a reason for that.
Alex
I still don't understand why you want to be paid, and want to use qt, but don't want the Trolltech people to be paid?
Gnome has grown up from the KDE replacement idea (to a MS windows replacement - no it's a lot more than that), and at least one window manager supports both systems. The CDE didn't take off, no-one wanted to standardise. Why do we need only the one desktop shell? There's more than one shell and more than one window manager on most *nix boxes, people can always drop back to twm if they prefer - or one user may prefer fvwm and have E with a win* style theme for their significant one. As for dependancies etc in commercial products I have two words for you. Static binaries. I think with the rapid pace of change in gtk that is probably essential anyway.
Surely highly specialized applications with a very small marketplace are fine being open and free. If the market is small then the players in that market must be happy to pay the price of development (ie employing people to write it) if they want the software. As the market is small and thus easily organised (eg one or two companies or groups, maybe larger if they are still happy to do the development) it is should be quite possible for the software to get built. Also if it is so small who really cares if it is open and free, no one else to sell it too or copy. It might as well be GPL.
I'm sure he works for Troll Tech.
I'm sure RMS is a great guy, but he is not what Gnome needs.
Gnome already has a (somewhat well deserved) reputation of beeing more about politics, and less about technical brilliance. Putting RMS on the board unfortunately reinforces that view.
Gnome needs to focus on consistency, stability and usability (and interoperability with kde) to be a serious contender. Gnome needs to focus on making good, solid software, rather than on improving the bragging possibilities of its board members.
Just my HO.
I actually think that RMS is a great guy, but should not be nominiated to the board of directors for GNOME. GNOME requires someone who can devote a significant amount of time to it, and I believe RMS has his fingers in enough pies already and would be pushed to dedicate the time that GNOME requires.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
Granted he's been a cornerstone for GNOME. But what one needs to realize is that his priorities may be elsewhere. He works for Ximian, and his new crusade is Mono. Is it possible that those interests could clash with GNOME's priorities? Already one can see problems with GNOME following through on its original gameplan, and its losing mindshare & desktops to KDE. Perhaps there is a deserving candidate that may better serve GNOME's interests than Miguel?
Don't take this as a condemnation of Miguel. I don't follow any of this stuff closely. I do see possibilities for a conflict of interest. Perhaps someone more familiar with the GNOME politics and history might want to risk some karma and give a more detailed analysis.
Hell, its looks like RMS will be swept in, and he's a lot more controversial candidate. I'd suggest not to vote candidates only on their past accomplishments, but on what course they would steer GNOME in the future.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
That Gates bullshits according to convenience, while in the other hand Stallman is convinced about what he bullshits (and is consistent about it).
I prefer Stallman all the way.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
'Cuz he will really fuck things up for GNOME.
KDE ROOOOLZ
From the GNOME membership page: http://foundation.gnome.org/membership-form.html
Membership in the GNOME Foundation requires that the candidate has contributed to a non-trivial improvement in the GNOME Project. Please use the following sections to explain how you have contributed to the project, providing enough detail to allow the committee to verify your application.
Please provide a short list of areas of GNOME to which you have made a non-trivial contribution (for entry into the public membership list). For example, "Documentation, gnomecal, Debian packaging.":
Does that mean that if he has not contributed anything significant, he cannot be a GNOME member and thus not eligible for membership. Talking about open source does not qualify as a contribution.
Also, is there a time limit or expiration limit on contributions? If RMS did something 10 years ago and nothing since, is he still qualified to be a member of GNOME?
Open source software should be truely open source/public domain and not handicaped by GNU type licenses.
There is enough critical mass of open source developers to support public domain open source.
See title
Or at least he did when I chatted with him at GUADEC in Copenhagen this spring, and I happened to see his laptop screen. It seemed he had just gotten the laptop, it was a fairly recent model, and not the same as the old one he's travelled with for years.
Just because I suggested that the prior poster to read licences and use what fits and not to expect to be able to produce commercial software without obligation?
I'll bite: I've spent most of my working life in heavy engineering or peering through microscopes, usually only working with software that applies only to those things. What use would I be to troll? I'm a hobbist with my degree and work experience in a totally different area to software and I've never produced a piece of commercial software in my life. I use linux because I'm used to unix and it was better than xenix (and open source) at the time when I started to use it.
A friend of mine works as an independant software-developer. He uses Qt for all his applications.
Okay so he had to buy a license (2000$), but it allowed him to write good software easily and he earned the money back by selling his applications...
Therefore, Qt is not a cost, it's an INVESTMENT.
...You are over-qualified and under-paid. If we give you a raise, we will break the cosmic balance of the universe.
The only way proprietary licenses work is that men with gun from the governemnt are required by law to enforce them by gunpoint.
If one is against the proprietary license, the solution is simply that the state should *stop* sending men with guns to enforce them, i.e. *remove* the laws that make such licenses possible.
So ESR is the man who should defend why sending men with guns against civilians to enforce his ideas of interlectuel property is a proper task for the state.
RMS is in this issue the one who might want less interfering by the state in the matters of the citizens.