Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GNOME Foundation Elections - Final Candidate List

Posted by chrisd on from the mc-begat-gnome dept.

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!

17 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. I dunno about you guys.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:I dunno about you guys.. by reynaert · · Score: 4, Informative
      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
  2. Another way of looking at things by AirLace · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    1. Re:Another way of looking at things by geomcbay · · Score: 4, Insightful


      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.

    2. Re:Another way of looking at things by Z4rd0Z · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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.

      --
      You had me at "dicks fuck assholes".
    3. Re:Another way of looking at things by johnnyb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Engineering and the Ultimate
    4. Re:Another way of looking at things by Syberghost · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  3. talk about your newspeak by pnatural · · Score: 5, Funny

    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. Re:talk about your newspeak by Arandir · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      --
      A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  4. Could RMS fulfill the required role? by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  5. Hold the phone... by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  6. Interesting Contrast... by sphealey · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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

  7. Re:Gnome needs to succeed by Arandir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
  8. Vote for Rhett Creighton by KidSock · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

  9. Re:GPL gives permission to distribute by RelliK · · Score: 4, Informative
    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 ;-)

    --
    ___
    If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
  10. Pagent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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!"

  11. Re:Damn... by Ian+Bicking · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.