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!

Comments

Did RMS ever answer ESR's question?

[devphil]

my definition of freedom will probably always conflict with his. This is my right. I fear that if his vision were the dominant one, I would no longer have this right.

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.

Re:Did RMS ever answer ESR's question?

[greggman]

As I've posted several times before but it NEVER GETS MODed up, I'm assuming because GPL advocates don't want to know the truth, RMS ALREADY ANSWERED THIS QUESTION LONG AGO.

From: www.gnu.org

What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if the high-paying ones are banned.

Also from the same page his solution for funding development once commercial software is banned

All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax:

Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent of the price as a software tax. The government gives this to an agency like the NSF to spend on software development.

But if the computer buyer makes a donation to software development himself, he can take a credit against the tax. He can donate to the project of his own choosing--often, chosen because he hopes to use the results when it is done. He can take a credit for any amount of donation up to the total tax he had to pay.

The total tax rate could be decided by a vote of the payers of the tax, weighted according to the amount they will be taxed on.

The consequences:

The computer-using community supports software development.
This community decides what level of support is needed.
Users who care which projects their share is spent on can choose this for themselves

Re:Why is RMS so upset with KDE?

[10Ghz]

I think he means that Gnome is the only GNU-Desktop that succeeded. KDE is (thank god!) not part of the GNU-project.

Re:I dunno about you guys..

[reynaert]

His wife is already a candidate:

25. TELSA GWYNNE " I do docs, bugs, and hassling developers. I don't code. I also make last minute decisions. " No affiliation. Full statement at http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-announce /2001-November/msg00030.html

Re:Jim Gettys

[Oggust]

Couldn't agree more. Mr Gettys is an X Consortium veteran. He saw that die, and from his postings, he's learned a bit from it; he has strong opinions on how the gnome foundation ought to be run.

Also, he has all kinds of technical stuff going for him. He was one of the original authors behind X, for example.

He also has a lot of (IMHO) good opinions on design. A short piece on that.

I believe he can (continue to) do a lot of good for Gnome.

/August.

Re:GPL isn't clear cut about in-house development.

[RelliK]

I can answer this. You can distribute only the code that you either own (the one that you wrote yourself) or when you have an explicit permission to distribute it (such as GPL, BSD, etc.). 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 company you did the work for -- and only the company -- can decide whether to distribute the code or not. You can of course distribute the original, unmodified version.

No grey area there. Move along.

Re:GPL gives permission to distribute

[RelliK]

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).

1. False. I am not claiming that at all. Read my post again. And again. As long as it takes for you to understand. What I said was: you are still allowed to distribute the original (unmodified) version; you are not allowed to distribute the code that you wrote by contract because you don't own it -- the company does. If the comany decides to distribute this code then they must do so according to the terms of GPL. If they decide not to distribute it then they can do whatever they want. Point is: the company owns the code, not you -- therefore the company makes decisions about the code, not you.

2. GPL has absolutely nothing to do with contract law. It is based entirely in copyright law. Therefore, it is actually stronger than most proprietary licenses (well, until all states pass UCITA anyway ;-)

Re:Another way of looking at things

[hearingaid]

It depends on your definition of open source.

The way I understand open source, what it means is that when you give somebody your binaries, you give them the source as well.

You just don't glom onto the binaries the way M$ does and refuse to hand over the source.

This is the normal way of doing in-house code at many establishments. The exception is when the in-house company hires a consultant firm to write the code.

The definition you seem to be going by is that open source means that you give the source to anybody who asks. This is "free as in beer," and is different from the kind of "free" that RMS talks about all the time.

Re:GPL gives permission to distribute

[RelliK]

The only way this paragraph makes sense is if somewhere along the line internal use of software by a company has been explicitly declared as not being distribution.

Oh, I see what you mean. The only thing I can think of off the top of my head is the 1854 (?) supreme court ruling that corporations are individuals and thus have all the rights mere mortals have. (Their vast resourses in effect make them super-people). But in any case, companies are generally treated as one entity in matters such as this. The secretary receiving the peice of software is an employee of the company and, therefore, a part of the same entity. She uses the software for the benefit of the company while doing her job (i.e. she does not get a copy for her home machine). Also, as I mentioned earlier, any work you do for the company is the property of the company (this mystical entity). If the secretary were able to legally get the copy of the software while off work and off the copany's property, then she would be treated as individual if the matter went to cort, and she would not be under contractual obligations to the company. But that implies that the software is distributed outside the company.

So I guess basically what I'm saying is that an employee is not an individual; an employee is a number in the HR database ;-) When you become an employee, you voluntarily choose to give up some rights in exchange for a paycheque.

By no means do I claim to be an expert on the subject, but it just wouldn't make sense to me otherwise.