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

I dunno about you guys..

[Anonymous Coward]

But I'm gonna do a write-in vote for Alan Cox.. somehow.

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

Damn...

[Korgan]

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 :-)

Re:Damn...

[SquierStrat]

I agree. Commercial software has a place, and RMS needs to understand that. The lack of commercial software for linux is what keeps it a niche (server and special use I mean) operating system rather than a desktop OS.

I'm not going to be one of the voters, but if I were, he would not get my vote. He has no business being there, and even his paragraph long biography shows his egotism.

He needs to get a grip on the reality that commercialism can be good, and that he isn't the king of open-source and needs to lay off stupid stuff like Linux should be referred to as GNU/Linux...I mean really, Linux is the kernel, that fact that gnu tools are used for the kernel's compilation means very little in the naming scheme.

Anyhow...off my soapbox.

Re:Damn...

[dvdeug]

> I strongly believe RMS has gone from evangelist to extremist.

I don't think he's changed behaviors; he's doing the same things he's always done.

> Claiming to be the father of OpenSource

When did he say that? From the way you use the word OpenSource, I'd you don't really understand anything that RMS has done, or why he objects to OpenSource.

> true or not

If it is true, then how can you fault him for saying it? What, "I don't like you because you know who you are"?

> just wants to be in the lime-light

There aren't that many times you can really say RMS wants to be in the lime-light. It's not RMS/Linux he's pushing for, for example, it's GNU/Linux. He wants you to assign the copyrights on GNU projects to the Free Software Foundation, not himself. He wants his project, his beliefs to be in the limelight.

> if he wasn't so anti commercial products and accepted that they do have a place and are necessary

Then there would probably be little free software. The only thing that enabled free Linux was free shells, free utilities and a free compiler from the GNU project. Some could have been rewritten; some could have been taken from the BSD projects when they were released and the lawsuits were over. But it would have taken a lot of time to remake the compiler, and the work needed to replace the shells and utilities would have made early work on Linux much harder. He could have used commercial software; but then why replace all the little pieces that permitted complete Open Source operating systems, if they come with Unix already?

Re:Damn...

[Ian Bicking]

For God's sake, someone mod this down as ignorant and uninformed. RMS is the undisputed father of GNU, and everyone should agree that he has been an extremely important figure in the Free Software movement. He's never claimed to be the father of Open Source, and in fact he goes to pains to distinguish himself from that philosophy whenever necessary. Had this guy ever read or heard anything from RMS, he'd know that.

Also, the idea that RMS is doing this for his personal glorification is absurd -- people may (perhaps rightly) criticize him for portraying himself as a martyr, but he's not starved for attention (*coughESRcough*).

If people want to start a debate on the place of proprietary software and the philosophies that RMS presents, can't it at least be hung off a slightly informed comment? Somebody who doesn't know any better will read this comment and think it's based in some sort of fact.

My 2c on RMS

[Kiro]

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)

.

Re:My 2c on RMS

[dvdeug]

> The KDE controversy, the takeover attempt on GLIBC etc, makes him look more like a raving lunatic,

Why? The KDE controversy was because he saw massive license violation, and wanted to at least make sure others weren't deluded into following their example. The glibc takeover is like complaining about Bill Gates' takeover of Microsoft Windows; glibc is a FSF project, subject to FSF whims. If Ulrich Drepper doesn't want to work with the FSF, he's free to fork.

Neither of these show insanity, however much you might disagree with them.

Re:My 2c on RMS

[dvdeug]

> No, there was no license violation.

Whatever. The point was, that he believed (and many others agreed with him) that there was a license violation. Coming to an opinion based on facts and taking action based on that opinion is not an act of lunacy, even if that opinion is wrong.

It would be interesting, however, to find that a contract written by a lawyer, and found to be solid by other lawyers (NeXT's, for example), doesn't work the way those lawyers believed, and people without legal training. Almost like those lawyers with no computer training pointing out a security hole in OpenBSD's base install.

Re:Strange...

[murrayc]

Note that RMS doesn't use any desktop or GUI. He doesn't even use GNOME.

Another way of looking at things

[AirLace]

You say RMS shoud accept "that [commercial products] do have a place."

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.

Re:Another way of looking at things

[geomcbay]

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.


The problem with RMS's view of embracing the same development methods and openess that FS does is that with such a method you can not make money on software. If you have to give the source code away for free to others, how can you make money from it in a practical sense?

The only known ways are service and support. Service and support is fine for large enterprise software or webservers, the kind of thing OSS is good at now, but its not so good for desktop applications which should just work without being supported or serviced. This is the fundamental problem holding OSS back from the desktop, and the reason why Linux will never be a mainstream desktop OS unless there is some major shift in attitude by its users/developers.

The fact of the matter is most software developers just can't afford to develop software that will be given away. I think the recent economic downturn is both good and bad for OSS, its good in that companies are more likely to adopt existing OSS software to reduce costs, its bad in that a large number of developers won't have time to further develop OSS because they'll be losing (or already have lost) their cushy day jobs which supported their efforts.

Re:Another way of looking at things

[Z4rd0Z]

I'll bite on this.

With this in mind, try to name one single case where proprietary software is valid or acceptable.

Wow, I'm amazed you can't think of one case where proprietary software is valid or acceptable. That takes a determined lack of imagination.Here's a quick example off the top of my head of a company who could never survive by making free software. For highly specialized applications that have a very small market, it really doesn't make sense to be pushing free software.

Now you will begin to see what RMS is getting at.

Well, I understand what RMS is getting at, because I have read his writings: he wants there to be no such thing as proprietary software. That's fine for him, but not everyone shares his vision. No matter how much philosophizing he does on the subject, 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.

Re:Another way of looking at things

[johnnyb]

I think you're ignoring the people who do just this and make money.

You're also ignoring the fact that most development is done for in-house projects, which has no business reason for being closed. 90% of programmers are employed in this fashion.

Re:Another way of looking at things

[Syberghost]

You're also ignoring the fact that most development is done for in-house projects, which has no business reason for being closed.

Actually, most in-house code has the strongest reason for being closed. If you have to pay a bunch of programmers to write your business software, and your competition then uses your code for free, you are at a disadvantage. It looks great to say "gee, we'll get our development for free, we'll just use the community's code", but that pyramid scheme rolls up on somebody who's getting paid to write that stuff.

And the last thing you want is for there to no longer be a market for all those programmers; Open Source wouldn't exist without people to write it, and most of them are also coding to put food on the table.

Re:Another way of looking at things

[MSG]

If you have to give the source code away for free to others, how can you make money from it in a practical sense?

By selling the software, the same as proprietary vendors do. Duh! Nothing in the GPL states that you can't sell the software that you create. It only requires that you provide the source code to your customers (on request).

If your customers want to peruse the source to your product (which they've paid for) to confirm or fix bugs that they encounter, what justification have you for disallowing this?

It's irresponsible to sell software that's "black box" as it's irresponsible to *use* software that's "black box".

Re:Another way of looking at things

[mj6798]

The problem with RMS's view of embracing the same development methods and openess that FS does is that with such a method you can not make money on software. If you have to give the source code away for free to others, how can you make money from it in a practical sense?

Sure you can: with consulting, contract work, training, and documentation. Such a software economy has many advantages: it encourages innovation because the same software isn't created and marketed by zillions of companies, it speeds up innovation because people can build on existing software, it increases efficiency because end users pay for a feature only once rather than over and over again with each upgrade, and it means that programmers get to do more interesting work and offers them a chance to work much more as independent economic agents.

Of course, you cannot built Microsoft or Oracle-style empires in such a software economy. You also cannot have stock prices that go through the roof. Instead, you reward an hour of work with an hour's worth of pay. Opening up software brings it back from being a plaything of corporate megalomaniacs and monopolists to individual craftsmenship. That is, it brings individual skill and free enterprise back into the equation.

Re:Another way of looking at things

[geomcbay]

You are glossing over the fact that with the GPL your customers can take your source code and resell it themselves (or give it away free, in binary or source form) as long as they also distribute any changes they make. So while in theory you could sell the software, in practice it doesnt work.

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:Another way of looking at things

[johnnyb]

Perhaps I am, can you name any names? Who makes money writing Free Software FROM the software? Not from support, speaking engagements, writing books, but from sales of the software?

*************

Why is this an issue? If the reason you are making money is because of the software, even if its not from direct sales, what's the problem?

Think about radio. You never have to pay the radio station anything for listening, but they still manage to make money off of the broadcasts. How? By selling advertising. So, who makes money from radio? Not from advertisements, sponsorships, or anything else, but by selling shows to individuals? Answer - nobody. It doesn't matter how the transaction comes about - if you make money because you write software, that's the whole point.

Re:Another way of looking at things

[Lunastorm]

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have people make quality software that didn't need support. I also don't feel programmers must be public speakers or writers of cheesy books.

Re:Another way of looking at things

[Error27]

What you say is really insightful. (+4 insightful) but you ignore the fact that a lot of times companies don't program just so they can hire programmers.

Sometimes they hire their kid nephews or whatever just for the sake of giving them a job... And that's cool.

But sometimes (most of the time even?) they aren't interested in supporting programmers so much as getting various programs for internal use.

HTH

Re:Another way of looking at things

[mj6798]

If MS gave away office, then they would make zero bucks off of ford for office.

And what exactly is wrong with that? Assuming for the sake of argument that Word was the only game in town, you would have paid handsomely for upgrades from Word 3.0 to Word 97 give how lousy early versions of Word were. But between Office 97 and Office 2000, there were almost no enhancements anybody wanted. Microsoft manages to force companies to pay excessive amounts of money for upgrades they don't need and they don't want--this is not an efficient free market at work.

Dunno if my point comes accross, but 'small apps' don't net money in the service/support arena, only in initial sales. If the 'small app' is free, then...

People who need a small app pay for it initially, and then it becomes free. The programmer who created it gets paid, and that's it--there are no further profits. Why should there be? In an efficient market, the price of a product represents the cost necessary to produce it. If the small app doesn't quite do what you want, you can hire another programmer to enhance it and pay for it; the amount of money involved is so small that this doesn't really fall prey to the tragedy of the commons, as real-world experience with open source software shows.

Re:Another way of looking at things

[Trepidity]

The problem with RMS's view of embracing the same development methods and openess that FS does is that with such a method you can not make money on software. If you have to give the source code away for free to others, how can you make money from it in a practical sense?

Yet somehow I keep seeing Red Hat boxes sold at the local Best Buy, and somehow it keeps selling rather well.

Re:Another way of looking at things

[mj6798]

I don't care if it's Oracle or RedHat -- the pay-for-support model sucks. It encourages the vendors to ship obscured and difficult products and to not publically release information.

I agree that if free software is created by the same people intending to support it, that is a problem.

But free software doesn't disable free market mechanisms. If RedHat ships software that sucks in order to drive up support costs, you don't have to use their software--you can pay someone to create the kind of software you like (perhaps as part of a collective bidding process).

So, overall, that's not an argument against free software in general, or against the ability to have an efficient market built around free software, it's an argument about one particular broken way of creating free software.

Re:Another way of looking at things

[Ian Bicking]

You can make money like Troll Tech does (as well as Cygnus and a few others) -- release your code under the GPL, and force those who want to use your code in proprietary programs to pay you for the code under a different license.

I can't remember where I saw this brought up, but I'm pretty sure I've read RMS say that he sees nothing wrong with this. And there isn't anything wrong with this -- you are providing good code to anyone Free program and programmer, and still making money off the traditional system. In many ways you do more for Free Software than if you released your code under the LGPL. You aren't locking proprietary software out, but you are giving a stronger incentive for them to release their software under the GPL or BSD license.

It's a real shame that Troll Tech didn't switch to the GPL earlier, because I think we'd all be united behind KDE (and TT would probably be making more money). But they had every chance at the time -- too bad, really.

Re:Another way of looking at things

[Nate Eldredge]

In a free market, you can't sell GPL software as a commodity for any more than the cost of distribution (including copying). For if your markup is significant, I'll buy one copy, make copies of it (which the GPL lets me do), distribute your markup over all my copies, and sell them for the cost of copying plus my smaller markup. My copies will cost less than yours, so I'll take away all your business, and if I sell enough I'll make a profit. If my markup is still significant, someone will do the same to me, and so on. So unless the market is very small, nobody can charge a significant markup and still sell a significant number of copies.

You can only make money on it if you provide some extra value. This might be support, the promise of further development (which the FSF does), or good feelings (if people think your organization is worth donating money to).

Re:Another way of looking at things

[Syberghost]

But sometimes (most of the time even?) they aren't interested in supporting programmers so much as getting various programs for internal use.

The code has to come from somewhere. Somebody has to write it, and unless it's "sexy" or of general necessity, that's not going to be hobbiests.

Again, there are reasons why the vast majority of code is written by in-house programmers or consultants for in-house use. There are also reasons why most of the folks who write Open Source work for a living, and most people who are good enough coders to be contributing to real projects want to make their living at what they do best; coding.

Folks who get paid just to write Open Source are very much the exception. That is never going to change, ever. It is not in our best interest that it change, because the only way it will change involves there being a hell of a lot less market for programmers. If the Fortune 500 doesn't need 500 programs, but instead shares just one Open Source program, 499 out of every 500 programmers in the Fortune 500 will be out of a job.

Re:Another way of looking at things

[Error27]

>>It is not in our best interest that it change, because the only way it will change involves there being a hell of a lot less market for programmers.

I don't know why you think I would care about other programmers. And I'm fairly confident I can get a job regardless. Probably those other programmers should get a different job if they can't keep up.

Re:Another way of looking at things

[Syberghost]

I don't know why you think I would care about other programmers.

Because if 499 out of every 500 programmers are out of work, you'll be competing against 499 times as many people for every job that exists.

And I'm fairly confident I can get a job regardless.

Well, if you're that much better than everybody else, you probably have nothing to worry about.

Unless, of course, you use Open Source software; which also won't get written if most of the industry is out of work. Ex-programmers who switch to being K-Mart managers don't tend to contribute a lot to the important projects.

You do use software written by other people, don't you? You didn't write your web browser yourself? Your OS? The tools used to build your web browser and OS?

uh oh.....

[jeffy124]

...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........

talk about your newspeak

[pnatural]

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.

Re:talk about your newspeak

[Arandir]

It's pronounced "newspeak", but it's spelled "GNUspeak".

Re:talk about your newspeak

[RPoet]

That's GNU/Speak thank you very much.

Re:RMS

[DrXym]

You're right, RMS is passionate about what he does but unfortunately that is not necessarily in the best interests of GNOME. If GNOME intends succeed it does not help it to be encumbered by politics with RMS foaming about this or that and generally killing the fun of working on the project. KDE will have no such encumberances and is likely to storm even further ahead.

If this sounds like an odd stance, consider what state Linux be in if Linus had given RMS control of it. I suspect it would be wallowing in obscurity much like GNU HURD is nowadays.

Could RMS fulfill the required role?

[Chuck Chunder]

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?

Re:Could RMS fulfill the required role?

[wfrp01]

GNOME's original purpose was to support the principle of software freedom. From GNOME's own website: GNOME is part of the GNU project, and is free software .

Daniel Veillard's message is interesting. "...act on behalf of all GNOME contributors in the best interest of GNOME." Nowhere, however, does he attempt to clarify what this means. What is "in the best interest of GNOME?" That could mean a lot of things. For those infected by shareholder syndrome, it simply means making as much money as possible. I'm not saying that's the case here, but Daniel's silence doesn't reassure me otherwise.

Who's eating who's lunch here? RMS for doing what he can to steer the project back to its founding principles, or those who would hijack the code and run?

Re:Could RMS fulfill the required role?

[Trepidity]

Since GNOME is part of the GNU project, I don't see how one could accurately represent the interests of the GNOME project as stated without being partial to the GNU project itself.

Re:Could RMS fulfill the required role?

[Chuck Chunder]

I guess the (small) difference I'm seeing is the difference between "to create an entirely free desktop environment for free systems" and "to support the principle of software freedom". One of these seems practical, the other political.

Currently the only disagreement that I'm aware of between RMS and the GNOME foundation is the mentioning of the (non-free, but free software related) Star Office application suite some time back. This caused RMS to ask for a policy decision to never mention non-free software. (Does this mean that it would be no longer possible to announce that Sun have released GNOME packages for non-free Solaris?) Does this help in any way the goal of creating an entirely free desktop environment for free systems? I sincerely doubt it.

The GNOME Foundation board should focus on facilitating interested parties (individual or corporate) create free software for the GNOME desktop. They should not be making it more onerous for these interested parties by creating policy for the sake of policy.

Re:The father of open source?

[bugg]

RMS claiming that he is the father of open source is like Linus Torvalds claiming he is the father of Linux.

No, it's much worse than that.
There was no Linux before Linus. There was most certainly open source software before RMS. Fast forward 7 years before there was a FSF and you have free development of UNIX extensions at Berkeley. Fast forward back an additional 10+ years to the first computers owned by individual hobbyists, and all software was free and open source. Open source is a concept much older than the FSF. Now, you could go into the whole "Free" Software thing, but frankly, I don't like people who redefine understood words such as free.

Re:The father of open source?

[Hieronymus Howard]

Linus has a very strong claim to being 'The father of Linux'. RMS would never claim to be the father of Open Source, since he hates the term. He's certainly the father of free software though.

I disagree with your statement that "claiming that you are the father of anything diminishes the hard work of lots and lots of people". These people are responsible for starting their respective projects and therefore should be classed as the 'fathers' of them. This does not in any way diminish the incredible effort made by thousands of other individuals.

HH
--

Re:Heh

[Hieronymus Howard]

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

Hold the phone...

[Reality Master 101]

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?

Re:Hold the phone...

[Trepidity]

Since Emacs is his principle coding project, and Emacs has several thousand lines of GUI code (for use under X), I don't see how this could be the case.

RMS

[geomcbay]

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.

Gnome needs to succeed

[mrm677]

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.

Re:Gnome needs to succeed

[Arandir]

Commercial software companies DO NOT need to purchase the Trolltech license. Only *proprietary* developers do. Huge difference.

The Qt license may be one of the most "fair" licenses in history. It's Free if you write Free Software (GPL), Open if you write Open Source Software (QPL) and need to make that distinction, and proprietary if you write proprietary software.

If a company is going to profit $20,000 next year off of a KDE application, then they can afford a $2000 license. If you're only going to make $2000 in profit, however, I would strongly suggest going into another line of work.

What about the hundreds of other people who pour hard work into Linux for free?

KDE is not Linux. It is a desktop that runs on Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD, IRIX, etc. Nothing Linux specific about it.

Re:Gnome needs to succeed

[be-fan]

Umm, that's what competition is all about. If you want GNOME to succeed, go in, help the developers, and make it suck less than KDE.

PS> No offense to the GNOME devels, of course, but currently KDE 2.2.1 is significantly more advanced than GNOME 1.4. Only you can make that different in 2.0.

Re:Gnome needs to succeed

[fault0]

You were labeled a troll because you were WRONG.

You do not need to buy a commercial Qt license in order to sell KDE applications. Are you saying that all the Linux distros who include KDE software are illegally doing it and that they need buy a commercial license?

Nope. They don't need to. Qt is under the GPL. As long as you make open software, you can sell it as much as you want.

What you said might have been true a few years ago, but not anyone.

Re:Gnome needs to succeed

[fault0]

> QT uses a modified version of the C++ language. You cannot compile QT code without first running it through the moc preprocessor.

Not technically. If you don't use signals/slots, you don't have to run it through moc.

> Are those alarm bells ringing for you yet?

Not really.. Qt is quite an elegant toolkit. Anyone who has used MFC, Qt, and gtk-- will usually tell you this.

That being said, libsig++ (used by gtk--), is pretty cool. However, it is not as portable as moc is. And, I don't think TrollTech will use a templated-system like libsig++ anytime soon because they want to maintain quite a bit of source comptability between minor/major versions. Breaking the tens of millions of code based upon Qt is not such a good thing unless it's easy to fix.

Re:Gnome needs to succeed

[fault0]

> Of course....I can sell software that's under GPL. But then I have to provide the source-code. That is not viable for most businesses.

And you are saying that $2000 is not viable for most buisinesses? That's utterly BS, even for small shops.

Re:Gnome needs to succeed

[fault0]

> Well, you wouldn't get far with QT without using signals, so your point isn't very relevant.

Not relevant, but your point was wrong.

> The QT api is far from elegant.

Wrong.

> I believe that's because it wasn't developed in the open.

And that has to do with what?

> Even now there's no public mailing list on which the developers discuss its development.

If you wanted to make your own version of Qt, you could. And you could have your own mailing list too.

> Also, because the licencing seems (I'm not 100% sure of this) to protect them from any threat of forking,

Wrong.

> they will never make any major changes such as ditching their language extensions.

They won't make any major changes that cause millions of code to be hard to rewrite. Their "language extentions" simply work. And it's quite portable compared to the alternatives. If you are a cross platform toolkit that has to support a variety of compilers (old compilers, non-standard compilers, working compilers), moc is a very good way to go.

> Regarding MFC, anything would be better than that.

There has been worse, but that's Qt's main competitor. The long term survival of TrollTech depends on their competition with MFC. Other things (such as gtk--), as simply not big enough in the non-X11 market to be even relavant.

Re:Gnome needs to succeed

[mandolin]

Look man.

1) The great RMS (trying to stay on topic here) would disagree with your entire post, say "screw the proprietary developers", and kick your ass for not calling it GNU/linux.

2) If a commercial company is too cheap to shell out $$$ for a license from Trolltech, exactly how is it supposed to expect customers to pay for its software?

3) Small commercial software companies, if they have an eye on being profitable, are going to develop for the largest market out there. Right now that means ponying up $$$ for MSVC++ and an MSDN subscription, and not developing for a fragmented desktop. If/when a linux desktop becomes a major consumer platform, said commercial company will develop for that platform, regardless of cost of entry, because that's where the money is.

4) You seem to think that linux is all about doing work for free. "Linux" is an amalgam of many different parts, driven by many different motivations. Some of them, such as your small-time commercial developers, are in it for the money, and that won't change. (I have to agree about XFree86 though. Those guys work hard and their main reward is idjits screaming "X sucks")

5) You seem to be convinced that "commercial software is really important for the future of linux". I flat-out disagree and note that free software is what got Linux where it is today; can you back your statement up?

6) As long as you're trying to drum up small company support, there are already companies developing for KDE. Have you purchased one of their products yet?

Re:Gnome needs to succeed

[Mandelbrute]

However, is there a way to develop a desktop application that interacts with the KDE desktop without using KDE?

Yes.

I don't have any links to RTFM (perhaps try the KDE home page), but the enlightenment window manager source should give you some ideas.

Re:Gnome needs to succeed

[fault0]

Well, I think that it is still MFC. TrollTech's revenue comes from it's commercial (primarily Windows) licenses. Motif frankly doesn't function well (at all without cygwin?) in Windows.

Re:Gnome needs to succeed

[Mandelbrute]

I believe that's because it wasn't developed in the open. Even now there's no public mailing list on which the developers discuss its development.

I remember a friend working for a local University contributing a patch to qt in 1996 - development seemed to be pretty open back then, and I suspect it's a lot more so now.

Re:Gnome needs to succeed

[Elwood P Dowd]

Um, I don't follow. Someone please correct me:

mrm677 is carping that KDE is bad because they charge $2000 for some product. He is saying that Gnome is good because they do not offer this product at all. Is that it? Gnome is ok because you *can't* buy a proprietary license, but KDE is bad because the proprietary license costs money?

Have I been trolled?

Re:Gnome needs to succeed

[Rentar]

KDE is not Linux. It is a desktop that runs on Linux, Solaris, FreeBSD, IRIX, etc. Nothing Linux specific about it.

... apart from the fact that most developers and most users run it on Linux (No, I don't have any URLs to prove that, but I'd be very, very surprised if anyone could prove me wrong).

Re:Gnome needs to succeed

[spitzak]

You don't need Qt to "develop for KDE". Lots of other Xlib toolkits work just fine (I can plug the one I am working on, fltk which is LGPL and totally free for commercial use). Yes they lack some of the stuff that Qt has, so you need to decide if it is worth $2K to get those extra features...

Re:Gnome needs to succeed

[spitzak]

I think those Motif companies use wxWindows and other cross-platform toolkits to write for Windows, so Motif is the main competition.

MFC can only be counted as their competitor if Qt has some inroads in Windows-only software development. It is hard to tell, as Qt looks percisely like MFC, but I would guess that Windows code is 50% MFC (or Qt or other things that clone MFC so closely that you cannot tell). The rest is Visual Basic, in-house toolkits (all 3D apps seem to use these), java things, and maybe some OSS toolkits.

Anybody know if Qt is being used to develop Windows-only software? (it is ok if the reason is that the company hopes to port to Linux, but that is not their main goal right now).

Re:Gnome needs to succeed

[Arandir]

Most users of Mozilla run it on Windows. So what?

Re:Gnome needs to succeed

[Arandir]

proprietary developers can not use the Qt/Free edition to develope their products and then switch to Qt/Professional

A) This is an evaluation. What the hell are you doing developing your primary application on an evaluation product?

B) It doesn't matter what their FAQ says, it matters what the license says. You may develop any software with the Qt/Free edition so long as you don't distribute it. Remember, your application isn't proprietary UNTIL you distribute it.

Re:Gnome needs to succeed

[Arandir]

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.

I believe that this is merely a holdover from the old non-free Qt of yore. The new free Qt is under the QPL and GPL, neither of which make any distinction between the development, distribution and deployment stages. Neither of these licenses compels the user to distribute their software. The old non-free license did forbid this, because Trolltech didn't want people using the 'free' edition for internal commercial use.

Consider the evidence: "The Free Edition license" mentioned above is the dual QPL/GPL. There is nothing else it can be. Trolltech is asserting that the QPL or GPL is saying something which they do not. Trolltech is NOT claiming that the professional license is saying this. I can only conclude that this is a holdover from a FAQ explaing the old non-free 1.x license.

Re:Gnome needs to succeed

[n8willis]

Well, how's this for starters:

Freshmeat.net, Browse: Environment: X11 Applications:

• GNOME (316 projects)
• GTK (137 projects)
• KDE (168 projects)
• Qt (47 projects)

Check it yourself if you don't believe my cut-n-paste. This generally agrees with my experience monitoring developer's sites -- there is far more activity on the GNOME front than on the KDE front. Who gives a Krap how Kool your drap-and-drop support is, if all of your appliKations are Krummy and derivative? And don't get me started on that naming Konvention.

Nate

PS - Oh yeah, one more example I thought of a moment ago:

Sourceforge.net: Software Map: Environment: X11 Applications:

• GNOME (1037 projects)
• KDE (645 projects)

Again, feel free to check it again on your own. As for me, I'll keep using GNOME because it offers a far superior computing experience. Even if it's not the default install option on Mandrake (my home distro -- so beware any KDE/GNOME counting based solely on who's running what distro).

Re:Gnome needs to succeed

[Rentar]

I didn't mean that most ppl using Linux use KDE, but that most ppl who use KDE run it on Linux (as opposed to *BSD/Solaris/...)

what's with the RMS-bashing?

[danny]

RMS has never tried to claim "all the credit" for free software for himself - he does ask for more recognition for the GNU Project, but that's not just RMS, that's thousands of developers. If you check out the partial "GNU's Who" on the web site, you'll find RMS in alphabetical position, not promoted over the others.

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.

Re:Strange...

[Hieronymus Howard]

My vote (though I'm not actually voting) would go to the guy who originally developed the windowing system in question - Jim Gettys.

RMS does not understand compromise, which makes him totally unsuitable for this role.

Jim Gettys, as well as being one of the principle authors of the X Window System
HH is also the editor of the HTTP/1.1 specification. I think that he'd be a good chice.

HH
--

--

Interesting Contrast...

[sphealey]

MR. GATES: Let me start out, really the reason that you see open source there at all is because we came in and said there should be a platform that's identical with millions and millions of machines, and the bios of that should be open to everybody to use, and all the extensibility should be there. And so it was very predictable that once we had gotten the PC going, and going and gotten hundreds of millions of machines out there, that it had always been sort of free software and the universities would flourish and there would be more of that. We certainly accept free software as part of the software ecosystem. In fact, there's a very virtuous cycle where people do free things, some people find that adequate, sometimes companies will take that work and turn it into commercial products, those companies will hire people, pay taxes. And so you see the free software and the commercial software existing together.

Bill Gates speaking at Microsoft's 2001 shareholders' meeting

==========

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. Later, around 1988, we obtained X, but we found out that X only did the lower-level half of the job, so I decided we needed to develop a free software desktop to do the rest of the job. After our desktop initiatives in 1990 and 1994/5 didn't produce a working desktop (*), 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.

Richard Stallman in his statement of candidacy for the GNOME Board of Directors.

Hmmm...

sPh

Re:Interesting Contrast...

[mandolin]

After our desktop initiatives in 1990 and 1994/5 didn't produce a working desktop (*),

This qualifies him to have meaningful control in a third initiative?

This inspired Miguel to launch our third desktop project, the one that succeeded: GNOME.

This is an endorsement for Miguel, not RMS.

Although the rest of RMS's statement (the part you didn't include) looks better, I think its safe to say the man hasn't written a resume in awhile...

Vote for Rhett Creighton

[KidSock]

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?

Why is RMS so upset with KDE?

[coe]

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:

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-announ ce /2001-November/msg00028.html

-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-

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:Why is RMS so upset with KDE?

[Korgan]

RMS is against the KDE project because it is based on Qt which is not a GPL application. Because Qt is not fully Free or OpenSource software, RMS refuses to acknowledge it for what it is. As a result, he excludes KDE and anything else that relies on Qt libs as well.

Things changed when Trolltech changed the licensing policy for the Qt libs so that there were essentially 3 different licensing models... Free, Open and Proprietry. However, even with this change, RMS still refuses to acknowledge it.

I find it funning that Miguel was inspired to launch "OUR" third desktop project... I didn't know RMS had any part in the code base at all.. Much less that he used a Graphical GUI of any kind.

Besides, while I use Gnome and haven't even looked at KDE since 2.0 was released, Gnome hasn't succeeded yet. Like Edward Scissorhands, its not finished yet.

Re:Why is RMS so upset with KDE?

[Dr. Sp0ng]

RMS is against the KDE project because it is based on Qt which is not a GPL application.

Yes it is.

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:The father of open source?

[mandolin]

He's certainly the father of free software though.

Disagree; as many have pointed out, BSD (and other)-licensed projects were going on years before RMS got his start; and bsd-licensed software is free software.

Now, he's certainly the father of copyleft, the FSF, GNU, (L)GPL, gcc, and emacs... that oughta be enough for anybody.

Vote for Alan Cox's wife!

[thule]

TELSA GWYNNE " I do docs, bugs, and hassling developers. I don't code. I also make last minute decisions. "

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

[Carnage4Life]

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.

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.

Jim Gettys

[Pemdas]

I don't know the guy personally, but having worked for Compaq in the past and being familiar with some of his past work, I'm glad to see his name on the list. Something he was involved in that many ./ readers may remember is the Itsy project, which can be found here.

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. :)

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.

Nonsense

[einhverfr]

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.

GPL gives permission to distribute

[Carnage4Life]

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.

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:GPL gives permission to distribute

[Carnage4Life]

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.

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. If this is the case please provide a citation or a link to where this is defined. I'm not trying to be combative simply curious about what I and a few people I've spoken to consider a gray area in the GPL.

This is the way I currently interprete the GPL from what I've read online and in the GPL; the only reason the company is allowed to distribute modified versions of the GPLed software is if they agree to abide by the rules of the GNU Public License which includes allowing recipients to have access to the source and redistribute it. Thus if a secretary received an internal build of Mozilla she is not only supposed to have access to the source but she can give this to whoever she sees fit. The only thing I see making this line of reasoning invalid is if some precedent has been set that specifically excludes distributing software within a company or organization from the GPL's concept of distribution. Again, if this is the case I'd be rather grateful if you could provide a link or further citation to back up this argument.

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 ;-)

That was an oversight, I actually meant to write that the GPL is an artifact of copyright law (which should make my original statement make more sense).

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.

Section 7 of the GPL doesn't answer the question

[Carnage4Life]

7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues), conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not excuse you from the conditions of this License. If you cannot distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you may not distribute the Program at all.

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.

Re:RMS

[frank_adrian314159]

If RMS scares off all the commercial entities, I can easily see KDE coming in... and just stomping GNOME.

If all the commercial entities could be scared off by RMS, I'd be more concerned about their comitment to Open Source. RMS was the founder of FSF which, for better or worse, was the original Open Source organization. Whether you agree with his positions or not, it is undeniable that Linux would not have been here without the FSF software. Most commercial organizations participating in the Open Source community are aware of RMS's participation, his views, and the nature of the same. Throwing up the fantasy that these organizations are somehow unaware of RMS and will flee at the very sight of him and his opinions is simply spreading FUD. Even if he is elected, there would be ten other members of the board who would moderate his views. Why is it I get the distinct impression that some people are so scared of his opinions that they're willing to go to almost any length to shut him up? Pretty damned unappreciative of them, in my opinion...

Pagent?

[Anonymous Coward]

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!"

Re:RMS

[wfrp01]

...I still think in the long run having him on the board will be bad for GNOME.

Another way of putting this would be to say "If GNOME moves to support proprietary software, that would be bad for GNU." Does anyone happen to recall that GNOME began as free alternative to proprietary desktops?

Incorrect, it's not the license, its the producer

[alexhmit01]

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

Re:I hope RMS gets on board

[renehollan]

RMS has stated to me that he considers himself "liberal".

I thought this was a gnome article?

[Mandelbrute]

I was labeled a troll for making this post earlier.

I read your post as saying that you wanted to be able to make money from a "killer app" and use other people's work without releasing the source code or paying any money for the privelage of not releasing the source code - that it was OK for you to make money but not anyone else. It appears that you were just complaining about the price, but as I said before, if you can't afford it you can't buy it - use something else.

Do you think some small commercial software company will want to purchase a $2000 Trolltech license

If they don't want to the don't have to, they could always use Xt, Motif, the free Motif clone, gtk, or something in-house. If troll's target market was shareware on *nix people would still complain about $10 and refuse to pay. I'd be surprised if anyone that reads this has paid anything for *nix shareware.

why should Trolltech get compensated

I'm sure a lot of work and expense has gone into making qt what it is today on all platforms, and if they stop getting compensated all of that stops immediately. Linux, gcc and others all started in a different way.

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.

Re:RMS

[Ian Bicking]

I believe nearly 50% of current Open Source-licensed software is GPLed. I think you underestimate it.

Also, while copyleft licenses, and the GPL in particular, is a subset of licenses classified as Open Source, the Free Software movement is distinct from the Open Source movement -- neither is a subset of the other.

Lastly, RMS's politics have not gotten kookier -- they've stayed pretty much the same all along. That's a record of consistency that no Open Source advocate can claim, since the OSS movement didn't exist back when the GNU Manifesto was written -- and OSS wouldn't come to exist until all the hard work had been finished, and there was a fast-moving wagon to hop onto.

Re:Surely this makes it easier

[super-flex-o-matic]

Surely highly specialized applications with a very small marketplace are fine being open and free.

this to some extent does only apply to scientific applications. things like digital video or sound editing tools are just too hard to code and to implement by open-source initiatives.
sure gimp stands out of this. but remember that gimp is the ONLY program on linux which is to some use to design professionals.
but when it comes to making website-designs, catalogues or cd-covers most design companies want to stick with fast reliable software like from adobe or macromedia.

i talk about end-user application, sadly only less than 10% of linux graphic apps are in end-user state.
their are neither usefull for design-professional, nor for your mom or dad.

Not convinced about RMS

[maroberts]

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.

You can flame me - I am full of asbestos

[Mandelbrute]

I'm sure he works for Troll Tech.

I'm sure I don't!

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.

ESR's question is stupid.

[Per Abrahamsen]

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.