Stallman Responds To GNOME Questionaire

proclus writes: "Stallman's response to the GNOME board election process is a lesson in the application of free software principles. For Stallman, GNOME is a GNU project, and the main goal is to promote free software. His consistancy and ethics are admirable, but one wonders if GNOME has grown beyond its roots in the free software community. Is Stallman's view of GNOME too narrow? The GNU-Darwin Distribution and The Fink projects are a case in point. It is simply amazing how many people want to use GNOME together with Mac OSX, and yet in Stallman's view, this would be an example of GNOME falling short of its goals. If free software is used together with proprietary, then the movement has failed to displace proprietary software, and free the users. Is it possible to reach such users with free software ideals, and is it necessary to divorce free software from proprietary in order to accomplish that goal?"

Comments

Re:Mod me down!

[nomadic]

He said "we". Considering there are thousands of free software programmers who use the same "we" in referring to the free software community, I don't think he went overboard there.

his definition of success

[hopeless case]

He gives an interesting definition of success. He says that if, years down the road, GNOME is widely used, but is used in conjunction with proprietary tools, then it will have only been partly successful. If, on the other hand, it is obselete and forgotten, but users largely are using free software then it will have been successful.

I must admit this is a clever way of looking at it. However, how would he compare these two worlds:

A) propreitary software rules, but it is well within the budget of the average peasant. Hardware is cheap and powerful.

B) free software rules, but hardware is expensive and not as powerful as A.

I'm guessing Stallman would rather live in B than A, which is where he looses his sanity.

The whole point, or bottom line, of freedom is that it works. Free soceities are rich, effective soceities. Libertarians sometimes forget this, thinking that freedom is the bottom line. It isn't, material welfare is.

The same goes for software. Free software is better than propreitary software (as we know those terms today) because it allows more people to partake of greater computing power.

To the extent that propreitary software mutates so as to serve this purpose as well as or better than free software, it looses its "badness" as we should embrace it.

I can't imagine what such a mutation might be, mind you, and until I see such a thing, free software is that way to go.

A fanatic is one who, forgetting his purpose, redoubles his effort.

A lot of people

[jd]

condemn Richard Stallman, without bothering to make the effort to understand the perspective or the philosophy. IMHO, if there are bigots in the world, it is those who condemn that which they do not understand. However, if a guy nailed to a tree can forgive them, I guess the rest of us have no excuse not to.

I don't pretend to understand all of RMS' ideas, but I do grasp the following concepts:

• Boundaries are what define and distinguish freedom from chaos. They are why Free Software organizations can even exist. Nothing that exists can survive without boundaries. The important distinction with Free Software is that those boundaries are extensive, flexible and empowering.
  
• Richard Stallman is NOT a "socialist" in the classic sense. Classic "socialism" is still a heirarchical model, although the heirarchy is intended to prevent extreme situations. RMS' GNU concept has no heirarchy. There is no leader. There is a "facilitator" (the FSF), but that is it.
  
• Richard Stallman is not "anti-non-Free". He has said, repeatedly, that he accepts that there are certain things for which the non-Free model is the better solution. This means that he implicitly accepts that there will be links between the Free and Non-Free.
  
• GNU is NOT about "Open Source". Open Source is a super-set of an amalgam of ideas, of which Free Software is but one tiny sub-set. Open Source has no clear definition, as it is an attempt to associate unrelated ideals & philosophies. At least one early Open Source advocate (Bruce Perens) has "repented" and accepted that such a strategy is too open to abuse.
  
• RMS -cannot- be "extreme" in his views, any more than he can be purple in them. Rating someone's views, on some imagined continuum, is pure fantasy. No two people have exactly the same background, so no two people will have exactly the same continuum in mind. In consequence, no abstract, universal standard exists for such a comparison to be made. ALL you can do is say is how his views relate to your own. And even that is difficult, as no two people will even agree on what RMS' views even are. The only person who can say with any certainty is RMS himself.
  

If a person is truly interested in freedom, then why not let RMS have the freedom to express his philosophies, without hinderence or abuse? Why claim a lust for "freedom", provided it is obtained by gagging or limiting someone else's? Is that -really- freedom? And if you would argue that you don't, then how are you differing from RMS in the first place?

(After all, the entire GNU philosophy is based on the single tennent of: "You have the freedom to do anything, bar restricting the freedom of others". If you would claim that that is what you actually live up to, then what's you're problem?)

Free vs. Open

[DaoudaW]

This essay is probably the best explanation of the philosophic difference between Free Software and Open Source Software. This difference is real and significant; RMS is not just making this up or being obstinate. Criterion 9 of the Open Source Definition is the main point of contention.

My reading of the debate is that at this point it is healthy and indicates the continued evolution and dynamism of OS/Free software. The danger is that the current popularity of the Open Source model would sideline advocates of the Free Software model and lead to a destructive schism. All voices need to be heard and understood.

Re:RMS supports KDE?

[sl956]

Does this paragraph indicate that RMS would support KDE, if KDE meets his definition of free software?

He stated clearly last week in Paris (during the questions after his standard evangelisation conference in front of 400 attendants) that :

1. KDE meets his definition of free software
2. his primary reason to apply to the board is to support cooperation between GNOME and KDE

As I wrote before, I was so surprised I asked him again during the dinner after the conference. He confirmed twice.

Re:No!

[trcooper]

Stallman believes software should be free -- as in speech -- as in Taliban ruled Afghanistan.

RMS preaches percieved freedom of software not actual free software. I write software for several reasons, because I'm paid, because I'm curious, because there's a need, because I'm generous, because I can. When I release this software to the public I choose to do so because I feel it's right to do. I don't do it to promote a free software agenda, I do it to give people access to what I have done, do with it as you want, change it, correct it, rearrange it, buy it, sell it. That's free software. If I say you can use it, you can.

RMS attatches conditions, and IMNSHO those conditions severely limit the freedom that we associate with free software. Most commercial software you cannot give away, GNU software you cannot truely sell. From most people's points of view GNU software looks like the better deal, but when you really look at it, GNU software while free as in beer, is not free as in speech. Both have licenses that restrict your use of the software in ways that may not be acceptable to you.