Slashdot Mirror
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?"
I think using Free Software with Proprietary software is a way to reach people who are not yet informed about Free Software. I dont think this hurts Free Software in any way, it helps promote it.
--
FearLinux.com
It is not required to divorce free software from non free software. One of the main strengths that open source has is its portability. Stallman needs to recognize this and embrace it. Take away my right to run software where and how I see fit and it is no longer FREE. Stallman is extremely hypocritical in this respect. I can understand his goal of creating a completely free system that is accessible to users, but this freedom he talks about must be applied, even when he doesn't like it.
EX. I may not like Microsoft bashing Linux, but I will defend their right to do so.
Now, that is somewhat of a contrived example of free speech at work, but, it is vital to defend all aspects of freedom. If you take away one person's freedom (the freedom to run Gnome with proprietary software) then what good is the rest of the freedom that is associated with Gnome? How long until other freedoms are taken away in the interest of "the greater good"?
A little healthy competition is good. People have to eat, you know, and proprietary software, if kept in a decent price range, can actually be complimentary to free software. Darwin, for example, could actually give back to the BSD community. I think the only problem w/ Linux is that here arent enough programs, because Linux geeks expect everything for free. If we start to show that you can sell things for linux, then more stuff will be developed, and BAM!, there you go.
Might sound a tad tough but it is just pure bigotry. His definition of "pure" and his insistance that his way is right is down-right insulting. For me the whole point of Open Source is that I can do what I want with it, thats why I like the BSD license. Which basically trusts me to be a nice person and put stuff back, but also says "hell if you want to wrap it with summat else fine".
Open Source is about freedom of choice, if I choose to use proprietary stuff then so be it, that is my choice.
Anyone who mutters on about purity and ethos like this has me worried, I don't care how people use the Open Source stuff I've written, hell its nice that they have used it.
Freedom isn't about purity its about flexibility and choice.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
Isn't there a version of the Mac OS X kernel that can be downloaded for free? I know all about the whole "but Apple is just taking without giving back to the community" deal, and I'm not about to argue that fact now. But what about the users who use it, along with Xfree and Gnome? I know that there are people who want to have rootless X along with the Mac OS Finder in order to use Gimp, or whatever. While some of them aren't actually replacing their systems completely with free software, they have to start somewhere, right? For most professionals with some pretty demanding needs, Photoshop is still the only way to go. But there are also those who either buy, or pirate Photoshop, to be used in simple taks that can be easily accomplished with Gimp. In a sense, that is slowly displacing the proprietary software, isn't it?
This is not flaim.
Stallman is NOT about Freedom. He wants you to be forced to use software in a manner that HE dictates. True freedom, freedom that is embodied by such licenses as the BSD licenses, allows you to use software in whatever manner you see fit. Forcing people to use free software is denying them the RIGHT TO CHOOSE software that is proprietary and potentially better that what is freely available. Having proprietary software available for use creates competition for free software, and can only make it better.
Stallman is not unlike a communist in his views (and I'm sure he is anyway)... they claim that subjecting yourself to communism will "free you" from the yoke of "bourgeois oppression", only to replace is with the yoke of mass exploitation.
To use the word "Free Software" when referring to the GPL and GNU software, is to be disingenuous to the point of lying outright.
Many people disagree with RMS. Many people hate him, many people flame him, many people have honest and sincere disagreements with him, many people have sterotypical understanding of who he is and many have an understanding of who he is based on extensive personal contact.
In all of this, RMS has been a constant - he promotes Free Software.
is presence on teh GNOME board would be a case of Tough Medicine. Without an avowed extremist to act as a "conscience" of sorts, it is easy to imagine that GNOME might be tempted to compromise a little here and a little there. As long as you have RMS standing in the corner, reminding everyone (obstinately, ruthlessly, pick your adjective) exactly when we are moving towards the many slippery slopes that can be stumbled across, the concept of Free Software will benefit.
IMHO, RMS deserves a place on that board solely because of his constancy and vision. I personally may disagree with any number of his ideals or issues, but IMHO you need the full spectrum to ensure that the integrity of the project is maintained.
Only be listening to the extremes can you triangulate the middle ground.
Don't blame me - I voted for Howard Dean. http://dean2004.blogspot.com
He says that GNOME will have only part-way met its goals if it is used mainly in conjunction with proprietary software. The mere existence of projects that put GNOME in a proprietary environment does not constitute failure according to what RMS said.
I haven't talked to Stallman personally in 6 or 7 years, but unless he's changed his tune of late, his goal is not to change the world, so there is no notion of "small victories" for him.
I think his goal is (and I think this because my recollection is that he's told me, not because of some analysis I've done) to make the world work for him personally in the way he wants. I've never heard him say he really wants to change the world for its own sake. On that point, he's said the world is full of people he doesn't really necessarily like and has no interest in helping. So doing things "for the world" doesn't seem to matter to him.
People attribute all kinds of ethics and high moral principles to him, but I've never heard him say this was his motive. From all I can tell, and all I've ever heard him say, he's just single-mindedly selfish in a way that happens to have some positive community benefit. So people attribute all kinds of other attributes to him to explain the outcome.
If I'm right about this, it should help you see why things that only partly address an issue don't really make him happy. He wants things to work for him today, not for people generally some day. And so a partial solution is not a solution.
I'm 50-50 on the whole free software thing. I think it's got some pluses, but it also has some minuses. And definitely one of the minuses is having Richard at the helm. Because when I want to discuss social policy, I want to discuss it with someone who understands that compromise is not always evil, that partial solutions can sometimes be better than no solutions, and that there are ways of doing good for the world that don't fit into the narrow definition of free software. I get none of this from Richard.
I think it leads to confusion when the community looks to him for leadership, becuase I don't think he is offering what some see him as offering, and so it never comes out looking like what they expect. Maybe this continued sense of "unexpectedness" makes him look "mysterious", and maybe that's why people have such a continued interest, never being able to predict him because the model they have for him is never aligned with the reality of him. Just guessing.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Really. If you have meet a sociopolitical standard to use free software, how free is it?
AHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!! Ooh! ouch Oooohhhh... ...ooh my sides...
Among other things question 9 stands out:
Gnome: Will you represent the interests of GNOME and the GNOME Foundation over all other personal or corporate interests you may represent?
Stallman: All personal and corporate interests, certainly. But there are two higher interests that rightfully apply to GNOME: the GNU system, and free software.
Translation: No. I will use the BOD position to surreptitiously hijack the goals of this project and subvert them until I alone control all your projects and they are under my license. MUWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Moderators, realise that if the comment was made about anyone else, it would be +1 Funny, so watch it.
This begs the question: is RMS at all similar to Osama bin Laden?
Comparing RMS to Bin Laden is nothing short of snotty. Sure, RMS can be abrasive, and I often disagree with him on all manner of issues, but to the best of my knowledge he's never threatened anyone with violence in his life.
You owe him an apology.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
There are always 2 sides to every story, and just because he admits his arrogrance doesn't me he has the right to ignore the other "story".
He has to be the most un-interesting person to have on a board of directors, while a brilliant person, i couldn't imagine him having anything but a philispohical word on how things SHOULD be when in all reality someone just needs to give direction on HOW THINGS ALREADY ARE.
And that includes software that makes money, manages money, manages business, manages computers, enables people to work effeciently and effortlessly.
And if that costs a few bucks or ends up being proprietary everyone wins. Freedom is the choice of software, not the limitations of it. I don't want to be limited to only running free software and microsoft doesn't limit me to only running Commercial software.
Let freedom speak for itself and let the people chose what they want.
I'm not sure why people have a problem understanding this. Forget about RMS and GNU for a minute, and consider the point of view of any other software developer, say, Apple. Obviously, Apple wants to serve its customers as well as possible, so it wants to make software that can run on and interoperate with Microsoft systems. At the same time, Apple certainly does not want to suggest to users that they ought to rush out and buy the latest version of Windows XP. Like any other software developer, RMS wants to try to promote his own systems as much as possible, while providing compatibility as a convenience to its users. (Of course, that is probably where the similarities between RMS and proprietary software developers end ...)
I don't think this is necessarily true. Let's use the pharmaceutical (sp?) world as an example. In that case, it is certainly not the case that what the customers want is what's best for them.
RMS is saying, I think, that the software producing world should have the same responsibility to the public as the pharmaceutical world has. Computers are becoming more and more a critical piece of our infrastructure, and as such, we as a society should demand that our software producers are making software the complies with all of our better interests. RMS is saying that the only way to do that is to hold the software industry to the openness that the pharmaceutical industry is held. Before a drug can be sold to the public it must undergo incredible public scrutiny for the impacts it has on public health. Basically, this is scientific peer review. RMS would say that the same should be true for software and its impact on the overall well being of our critical infrastructure.
Do I agree with this? Dunno, but it can't be easily dismissed. Code Red, ILOVEYOU, the Morris worm, et al, are prime examples of how software can cause actual damage, and these are just the tip of the iceberg. They didn't really cause any direct damage. Had the authors of these worms been bent on destruction, the impact could have been tremendously bad.
I'd love to see the industry come up with a solution to this on its own, but so far our solution includes producing Microsoft. I don't see them volunteering to undergo the kind of scrutiny that Merck and Glaxo have to take on.
Key to financial independence: Spend less than you earn. Save and invest the difference. Do it for a long time.
Agreed. Who cares if users use free software in conjunction with non-free software? But when the developers of free software put interoperability with non-free software above providing a free alternative/equivilent we are defeating our goals.
License choice is entirely up to the author of the code, and that's that.
That is simply not true, and it breaks me when I hear it because it so widely accepted inspite of the fact that it is very conceputally dishonest. Copyrights by their very nature are a government imposed monopoly that give a person the power to impose on millions of people. This is not a moral right, and when a person is deprived of this power, they are not violated even if they feel violated. Even the people who put them in the US constitution realised that - which is why copyrights have an expiration date. Perhaps the CEO of Ford would feel violated if I bought a car made in Japan - well sorry, no un-natural monopoly is a right.
Why do none of our other rights have an expiration date? In fact, they didn't even look at copyrights like a property at all back then. Copyrights in the USA were primairly designed to get away from the english system of copyrights which said "if you don't publish anything bad about the king, I'll give you a copyright". By giving copyrights to anybody unconditionally - it got away from this censorship. Unfortunately, those who believe that copyrights are some form of property ruin this, it can only lead to more DMCA rules that take away everyones freedoms.
The only non-free software that I own are my Linux and console games... Maybe some day I will be able to dump non-free software altogether.
If you count consoles, you must also count washing machines, home security systems, and your automobile. Software has become as ubiqitous as screws. And in appliances, it is almost all non-Free.
So I think more than just creating another Free copy of a non-Free package, the ideal should be to inform people's understanding of the issue. Show managers the advantages of Free software. Encourage thought on new definitions of ownership.
Lies about crimes
Microsoft just happens to have been a giant exception to this so far.
Sony, Merck, General Motors, Major League Baseball, Coca-Cola, Disney, Nike, Wal-Mart, Exxon, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Monsanto, McDonald's, Nestle, Allstate, Macy's, Bloomingdales, Levi Strauss, Abercrombie & Fitch, British American Tobacco, Doubleclick, Ford, Glaxo Wellcome, Tyson Foods, Titan International, The Gap.
I'm sure if you really cared you could add more names to the list once you remove your anti-Microsoft blinders.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
One could say that to support freedom, they must support the freedom to oppress. Then I guess it could be said that the government is free to outlaw this, and people are free to rebel against the government, but the government is free to lock them up, just as these people are free to run.
Wait a minute... we are 'free.' We are restricted only by limit of power we have in society.
I suppose what we really need is not absolute freedom, but we need to impose our free will on the development of software such that the person who consumes the software faces as little hindrance as possible to the empowerment which software brings them.
Whereas Microsoft et al. is imposing their will on the development of software such that the person who comsumes the software is minimally satisfied while driving maximum profits.
At the same time, the government imposes its will on corporate citizen Microsoft such that their power in society is bolstered. They must balance the power they gain from Microsoft, against the power of Microsoft to bring them more power.
Power is not directly in the form of money. But money can buy power. For Microsoft, thousands of people around the world depend on them to put food on their table. Which the government sees it in its best interest to not exercise its freedom to impede them... today. But the government can control software, it can control these tools of communication.
Free software may put food on some people's tables, but no amount of government control over corporations can influence its development.
If the software is free, and the people are free, the tools to communicate will be free.
People will have the choice whether or not to put commercial software on their machines.
The government will still be free to oppose the freedom of citizens, but they have one less covert way to do it.
Your problem doesn't stem from Stallman, your
problem stems from what you want from Stallman.
The man has nothing to say about making money
from "free speech" software, or at least nothing
in a general means that has anything to do with his philosophy. His goal is plain and simple really, it's simply to try to make it so that all software comes with source code that is freely modifiable and extendable. How, this is accomplished and what someone does to put food in their mouth are totally seperate issues.
The problem most people have with Stallman is that they resent him for having ideals that he sticks to. Generally everyone else is prepared to sell their ideals to the highest bidder, Stallman isn't and in a world that only respects money this rankles most people very much.
I have been really impressed with the software, education, and solutions this community has delivered over the last decade!!! Over the years I've used quite a bit of GNU licensed software. Recently I really began to think about what it means to both license software under GNU and use GNU software
... what is the Vision, who does it benefit? Is GNU all about overthrowing business? Is
developing GNU software a means to disrupt and/or eliminate business?
I really started to struggle with the RMS agenda and my own values, as I am not anti-business. In my expierences I've not encountered any software engineers that are anti-business... we make our living building software solutions. If a person wants to contribute their own software to a community then great, if not, they should have the opportunity to charge for that software and thats great too!
I don't see the RMS agenda of all-software being free, succeeding, as we can see that businesses are leveraging off of GNU software. IBM is a great example of a company leveraging the GNU software. IBM sells iron that runs Linux... $$, and then sells the support... $$, and then sells proprietary software that runs on Linux... $$
What I think would be more productive for contributors to the Linux community is to establish a non-profit organization, where contributions can be made for the work being done, and to work with the business community to partner in developing future solutions.
Many of the GNU and Unix world is focused on competing with Microsoft? So what is occuring, Linux is eating away at Unix market share, and Microsoft is still growing. Some years from know Linux will begin to eat into Microsoft Desktop/Server market... then what?
Go after Oracle, IBM,
I think it is time for the community to rethink their experiences over the last 10 years and ask themselves what they are really trying to accomplish. Competition is great, i.e Linux vs Microsoft, and doing that in both a non-business and business approach is great. I think its time to clartify the grey areas of current agendas, ie. anti-business, educational, business, hobbiest. GNU is currently all of these, but the FSF is not! I think now is the time for the community and their license to reflect their values.
Regards, Kramer
They want a desktop environment. He wants a GNU project.
I think it's safe to say that "they" want a GNU project as well. If they didn't, they wouldn't have named their project the "GNU Network Object Model Environment."
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Did I miss something. Isn't free software intended to give users more options? If I chose to use a proprietary operating system because I want to and then use some free software with it, hasn't this given me more choices? The other way around should be no problem either. Just because there are free and proprietary alternatives does not make either one better just because of the philosophy behind it. In the real world the bottom line is performance and if I can get that with a combination ... So be it.
If Darwin was right, you'd be dead by now.