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

I think

[nll8802]

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.

Re:I think

[harryk]

I agree. Especially since the end user doesn't really care what OS they are using. If a group of people are using GNOME on (example) a Windows based platform (I know, its not a reality), it would be transparent to move them to a linux, or other *Nix base when the interface is the same

on another note, the trolls today are apparently wide awake with a dick in their mouth.

harryk

Re:I think

[Oo.et.oO]

i second that!
RMS has great ideals and i admire his strife.
But i think there are commercial softwares that realistically can't be replaced with free (as in beer) ones in a tight time frame. It is necessary to therefore try as best we can to integrate the free with the necessary ($$ softs). CAD tools for instance. I'd love to run cadence and/or Pro/E on my gnome desktop linux cluster and get stuff done faster than my collegues on ultra 10s!

free love/beer/software forever!
:-)
-eric

Re:I think

[gregRowe]

Exactly! How many Linux users that used to use Windows made the switch all at once? It took me over a year before I stopped booting NT.

Re:I think

[MSBob]

Yes. But guess what, it doesn't matter. Just like most muslim moderates believe that Islam can coexist with other religions, most of FS advocates believe different software licencing modules can coexist and compliment one another. However, every social movement (provided it's strong enough) tends to breed fanatics. Fanatics don't care about the cost of enforcing their viewpoint upon the rest of the society. Because they see their viewpoint as the only right way they will attack opposing views with full force of a blind zeal.

This begs the question: is RMS at all similar to Osama bin Laden?

Well, at first I thought, no. Osama bin Laden is a destructive force for the most part (terrorism) while RMS's actions have been mostly constructive (writing free software). But then I thought about the way he treated the KDE project and realised that RMS has a fair amount of "software terrorism" behind his belt. On the other hand OBL has indeed done some good in some parts of the world, such as building the highway network in Sudan. In other words RMS and OBL fight for completely different ideals but the methods they use are very alike. Both will trample on anything they don't fully agree with and both will show some compassion towards what they feel is a just and noble cause. We must ask ourselves however, whether we would like to have someone so strikingly similar in his behavioural patterns to OBL at the helm of the Free Software Foundation... Food for thought.

Re:I think

[mrcparker]

I think that you should think pretty hard before making any comparisons between a violent fanatic like OBL with a guy like RMS. That is like comparing Jimmy Swaggart and with Jim Jones because they both used religion to spread their messages.

Re:I think

[cyclist1200]

A lesser light spake to cyclist1200, "Is this a valid comparison?"

Cyclist1200 spake to the lesser light, "Take a logic class and learn the errors of your ways."

Re:I think

[JCCyC]

He didn't say he is against porting GNOME to proprietary systems. He explicitly said, lots of times, there can be Free Software running on proprietary systems and it'll still be Free.

On the other hand, I can see him disapproving of efforts like Wine, which have the potential of turning systems that already are 100% Free into less-than-100% Free. "Hey, MS Office runs in Linux now? Let's stop using KOffice!"

GNOME on the Mac, on the other hand, is exactly the opposite - it takes a 100% proprietary system and turns it into something part Free, part proprietary. This is a good thing, and I'll bet RMS would agree. A beachhead if you will.

Another interesting tidbit from RMS's responses is:

From time to time I face the ticklish task of asking a complete stranger to change the license of his software package. Making this request is like waking up a dragon to ask to borrow its hoard: the developer is likely to find the request impertinent and could easily get angry. Nonetheless, I succeed most of the time.

I wonder if he's had the opportunity to tackle Dan J. Bernstein yet. Although his terms seem to meet the Free Software criteria for me, I hear all the time that Qmail isn't free software.

Re:I think

[afairch]

This comparison is nothing short of a personal attack on Mr. Stallman.
While I don't always (or even often) agree with his viewpoints, I find your comparison to be ignorant, illogical, mean spirited, and highly offensive. I can only hope that this was a troll.
That being said, I personally feel that RMS being elected would be bad for the GNOME project since he appears to be too narrow minded to be anything other than a hindrance. The ability to create and sell closed source software should also be viewed as a freedom worthy of being protected since it harms no one. Really, when was the last time someone held you at gunpoint and forced you to buy software. For people who do not now, nor will ever want to see source code, much less modify it, what is the harm. For those that do, choose/create an alternative. I personally choose whatever works best for me, which is quite often, but not always GNU software.

Re:I think

[radixhelen]

Can people stop swearing at MSBob and think a bit? The question is worth asking, if not necessarily worth answering "yes" to.

Some qualities of Osama bin Laden: ruthlessness, fanaticism, and a tendency to think big.

A dangerous, even apocalyptic, combination. But many people who aren't remotely near to being terrorists share some or all of these qualities. People we respect as leaders. Even our friends. Even ourselves. (I include myself in that. And I'm perfectly harmless.)

What I'm saying is that it doesn't take much more to tip a person over the edge of decent behaviour.

Re:I think

[aozilla]

I wonder if he's had the opportunity to tackle Dan J. Bernstein [cr.yp.to] yet. Although his terms seem to meet the Free Software criteria for me, I hear all the time that Qmail isn't free software.

According to RMS, free software must have "The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits." DJB doesn't give that freedom, and that is why Qmail isn't considered "free software".

Personally, I still use tinydns, despite the fact that it is not free software, but I wish there was a comparible alternative to bind which was free software.

Re:I think

[Ass Licking Cunt Eat]

Yeah. God forbid someone make a valid comparison of the fatest most useless piece of trash in the free software world with the stupidest most worthless piece of trash in the meat world. Yep. Big differences between the two gasbags.

Re:I think

[Seth Cohn]

You can patch the program, just not release the patches applied. It's darn close to 'free', with a hitch that DJB can change the license at any time if he wishes. That alone is the problem.

Re:I think

[Zico]

but the truth of the matter is that RMS has sacrificed a great deal of his personal time producing Free software

Yeah, and we all know how valuable his "personal time" is. The mind boggles thinking about how many hot dates the guy must've passed up. :)

On a > side note, it's > reassuring to see that > horrible editing isn't > just limited to Slashdot > but apparently > is the > standard at all > OSDN sites.

Re:I think

[jgerman]

He probbly doesn't see the need to gor after Bernstein. Qmail is written pretty poorly. If you look through the code you'll find an amazing number of poor choices that adversely affect performance. Free, poor quality software is useless to the movement.

On the other hand, now that I think of it, if qmail were under GNu anyone could go in and fix those problems for redistribution. I must admit though, I've never read the license for qmail, so I don't know what rights it provides.

Re:I think

[abe ferlman]

On the other hand, I can see him disapproving of efforts like Wine, which have the potential of turning systems that already are 100% Free into less-than-100% Free. "Hey, MS Office runs in Linux now? Let's stop using KOffice!"

I once thought this very thing, then I saw him speak in January at ArsDigita University, and I asked him about this very thing. His answer, iirc and may paraphrase, was that projects that bridge proprietary and free operating systems and proprietary software are very important, and that GNU at first required and was developed with proprietary unices- but that as these requirements fall away (and we must make progress in making them fall away), they become unnecessary. But he approves of the WINE project specifically. Personally I think if there's a distinction to be made, it's that we should focus on making non-free apps run on free os's more than we should focus on making free apps run on non-free os's (and in non-free languages), but that's just my opinion.

Bryguy

Re:I think

[Dialithis]

On what basis do you think he can "change the license at any time" any more than RMS could change the license of GCC anytime he wants? DJB straightforwardly addresses that point in his licensing page.

Re:I think

[Trepidity]

Stallman agrees with you. This is the reason for the existence of the LGPL - its explicit purpose is to allow people to use Free libraries with Proprietary software, in order to ease people into the Free software world. The only point Stallman is making is that we should keep in mind that the goal is to ease people into the Free software world, not to have them stagnate in a half-Free, half-Proprietary world. Thus, things like the LGPL, win32 ports of GNU software, and so on can be useful, but they should not in themselves be the end goals.

Re:I think

[aozilla]

You can patch the program, just not release the patches applied.

I am under the opinion that anyone can patch any program for any non-DMCA covered purpose without permission from the copyright holder (under fair use). DJB is also of that same opinion.

In any case, you can release the patches applied, you just can't release the patches applied along with the software itself. As mentioned in the link above, see "Galoob v. Nintendo, 780 F. Supp 1283 (N.D. Cal. 1991), affirmed, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1587 (9th Cir. 1992). and Foresight v. Pfortmiller, 719 F. Supp 1006 (D. Kan. 1989)."

Qmail is not "free software" only because you do not have permission to create and distribute a patched programs. (Also I believe you are not permitted to distribute unmodified copies electronically, though distributing them as CDs that you have burned directly from your download would be legal under first sale). As for being able to change the license at any time, this is only true for new downloads, once you have obtained a copy legally, your fair use and first sale rights apply.

The main reason I prefer "free software", as defined by RMS, is because I want the ability to create patches and be assured that the patched program is always available to third parties. This would require me to either download and burn a few million CDs with the current version, or rely on DJB to always offer the original free for download to those third parties.

Re:I think

[Trepidity]

I wouldn't really consider it "darn close to 'free'". The entire point of free software is that one can make modifications and distribute a modified version, which djb does not allow in any form - either through distributing the modified version itself or through distributing patches. The only thing he allows is private modification for personal use, which is not free software - I can modify Sun's source-released software for personal use too, but that's certainly not Free.

Re:I think

[hnehosting]

Since I'm not a coder, I cannot defend the code. However, I have not had one problem with Qmail, or any of DJB's software, for that matter. Have you made a comparison to the Sendmail source?

FWIW, I switched to tinydns/dnscache on a running system, and later went from sendmail to qmail on the same system. The longest part of the process was moving the mail directories.

Being GPL does not necessarily make code better, and non GPL code does not have to be inferior.

Re:I think

[Seth Cohn]

His licensing is not explicit in the software bundle itself. His webpage, while it could be argued, isn't enough of a license to hold up in court. This is one reason the GPL is required to be distributed: to insure that the licensing is clear and present at all times.

If DJB changed his web pages, do you really think a judge would argue with his right to change the license of the program. Yes, all previously downloaded copies would be under whatever terms were in force at the time, but go _read_ those terms:

installing your package produces exactly the same files, in exactly the same locations, that a user would obtain by installing one of my packages listed above

That is a big deal, that means no patched version, including security fixes, etc. Thus old versions would be obsoleted easily.

Not to mention:

You may distribute exact copies of any of the following packages, or precompiled packages under the same rules as above, until the termination date shown:
Termination Package
2002-04-01 daemontools-0.76.tar.gz
2002-04-01 ucspi-tcp-0.88.tar.gz

Don't get me wrong: I USE his stuff, I like his stuff, but the license issues are a sore point.

Re:I think

[Seth Cohn]

one can make modifications and distribute a modified version, which djb does not allow in any form

Not true:

From http://cr.yp.to/qmail/dist.html
If you want to distribute modified versions of qmail (including ports, no matter how minor the changes are) you'll have to get my approval. This does not mean approval of your distribution method, your intentions, your e-mail address, your haircut, or any other irrelevant information. It means a detailed review of the exact package that you want to distribute.

Re:I think

[Seth Cohn]

See my other response(s). But yes, when I said _applied_, I meant that as in already patched into the program. Of COURSE you can distribute patches separately without limitation. You can also distribute his original files without limitation (well, mostly, he does have some expiring clauses on certain programs - see other reply)

Re:I think

[aozilla]

Qmail is written pretty poorly. If you look through the code you'll find an amazing number of poor choices that adversely affect performance.

I'm not sure what choices you're referring to, but I'd definately trade performance for code simplicity or security, for an MTA. If it takes 30 seconds extra to receive each email (which is a rediculously high exaggeration), I won't even notice the difference.

Re:I think

[jgerman]

Qmail code is certainly not simple n any respect. He's written his own io library called interestingly enough, substdio, I'm assuming that he means the sub as in "below" the standard io library, but has more meaning when you just look at the sub-standard aspects of it. For small applications qmail is great, it's one of the best out there, but for any significant amount of volume it starts becoming useless very rapidly, not to mention overly taxing a servers resources.

Not to mention it's extensibility, and protability, considering the way the code was written.

Re:I think

[AndrewNelson]

That's why Yahoo! runs it, right? They barely serve any mail at all.

Re:I think

[aozilla]

Writing your own I/O library doesn't really complicated the code, as long as the library is well separated from the rest of the code. Do you dispute DJB's claim that "qmail is vastly smaller than any other Internet MTA"? In any case, I've never looked at the qmail code, but I do love tinydns and the tinydns code.

I'll take your word for it that qmail is not useful for large applications. But most users don't fall into that category, so as I argued before I think it's a moot point. Even for large applications, you have to consider security as mandatory (not just a feature), and I have a good deal of respect for DJB's coding wrt security (not just because of his unclaimed $500 security guarantee, although that is one reason).

I've just moved over to my new static IP DSL line, so I'll be picking my MTA shortly. I've already picked my DNS server, tinydns, and qmail is one of the finalists for MTA (sendmail being absolutely out of the question). Performance is pretty much not a factor, access to source is mandatory, security is the number one factor, ease of installation and maintenance is the number two factor, and license issues (besides access to source) is a minor factor.

Re:I think

[Anonymous Coward]

> On the other hand, I can see him disapproving of > efforts like Wine, which have the potential of
> turning systems that already are 100% Free into
> less-than-100% Free. "Hey, MS Office runs in
> Linux now? Let's stop using KOffice!"

Oh my, musn't let users have the *freedom* to
decide what it is that they wish to use for
themselves...

Re:I think

[Trepidity]

Well, that's pretty much the same as saying "not allowed." I'm also legally allowed to distribute modified copies of Microsoft software if I get their permission. DJB's and Microsoft's licensing allow me the same amount of freedom in this regard. The only difference is that DJB is more likely to grant me an exception (special permission to distribute a particular modified version of the software after he reviews it) than Microsoft is.

Re:I think

[jgerman]

That's why their mail is slow as well.

Re:I think

[jgerman]

It does complicate thee code, especially when it's not needed.

Don't get me wrong, qmail has its problems, but it's still of of the best out there, there are just some modifications that need to be made, some minor and some extensive, but it works.

Re:I think

[nsushkin]

Both bin Laden and Stallman operate under "end justifies the means" principle. I think Richard's harm may be underestimated.

Let me just give a couple of analogies.

Richard joining assorted software projects for the sole purpose of promoting free software reminds me of a man strapping explosives on his body.

Free Software Foundation is Software Liberation Organization.

Of course Richard's actions didn't injure anyone, but his quest to disentangle free and non-free software is in my opinion harmful to the free.

Re:I think

[Glytch]

Thus spake the non-Yahoo mail user. It's pretty damn fast for me. The pop and smtp access is a nice bonus for a free service, too.

Re:I think

[Radical Rad]

On the other hand, I can see him disapproving of efforts like Wine, which have the potential of turning systems that already are 100% Free into less-than-100% Free. "Hey, MS Office runs in Linux now? Let's stop using KOffice!"

That might be a valid argument once more people are using Linux than Windows and Koffice than M$ Office. But after that happens, who in their right mind will switch to an expensive, non-libre office suite that few others are using?

Wine is a good thing.

No!

[Anonymous Coward]

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"?

Re:No!

[Oo.et.oO]

i agree whole heartedly.
but the goal of free software and in this case gnome may not be best served if they concentrate on integration with proprietary software. i can't really think of an example...
But it is still absolutely necesary IMO to allow users ANY freedoms. as the above AC said.

the integration and therefore free marketing of proprietary softs in a free software product should be secondary to its own features and integration with othe rfree software.

-eric

Re:No!

[Trepidity]

I think Stallman does recognize this, as evidenced by the nearly ubiquitous Win32 ports of GNU software (see here for a list).

Re:No!

[the_2nd_coming]

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.

Hypocritical os the wrong term. Stallman does not advocate free software then turn around and sell proprietary software. However, his idiology is cotradictory to his goal. he says that he wants freedom for software, however, in his thinking freedom means that everyone must use his modle. that is a contradiction not hypocracy.

Re:No!

[kuiken]

Well i for one can think of an example where free software could benefit alot from non free stuff

EX The Gimp has no pantone support because of the lisc on pantone colors. I know i few ppl who like gnome alot but never use it ti get real work done cause they cant send it to the publisher without converting it in an other app on windows. these ppl would gladly spend some $$$ for a plug-in that would allow just that function

So you see there are always parts in free software that could benifit from some non free involvment. because wheter we like it or not we cant just abolish all IP (IMHO)

Re:No!

[hopeless case]

Oooo! Good one.

That makes his denial of this obvious fact all the more interesting, does it not?

Re:No!

[Phillip2]

"Stallman needs to recognize this and embrace it"

He does. I am sure that he is quite happy for instance to be directly involved in porting Emacs to run under NT. And likewise for other projects that he doesn't directly work on.

The point that he is making is that the purpose of free software is not to have as many people use it as possible, but to help develop the idea that software should be free. This is his aim, which you may or may not agree with, but is something that he stuck to clearly thoughout the years.

GNOME is not important to him per se. Free software is important. Seems like an admirable position to me.

Phil

Re:No!

[TheCarp]

Slavery?

Um, noone is forcing them to do anything.

They have all the freedoms that everyone else has in that scenario. They have no requirement to provide further support or anything

-Steve

Re:No!

[sydb]

However, his idiology is cotradictory to his goal. he says that he wants freedom for software, however, in his thinking freedom means that everyone must use his modle. that is a contradiction not hypocracy.

You fail to see that his model is freedom. There is no contradiction. Understand this.

His model ensures the freedom of the recipients of sofrware, defending against an artificial restriction on freedom created by copyright law.

Also, your typing

Re:No!

[Hard_Code]

There will always be people willing to sell their "rights" away. So in that sense, "forcing" people to retain theirs rights could be considered less freedom ("empowerment of users") than just letting them give them up in exchange for something. Bah. The semantics are awful.

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.

Re:No!

[sydb]

IANAL. Without copyright law, would people 'selling their rights away' amount to contract law?

Any lawyers?

Re:No!

[jmccay]

I agree with you. I feel Stallman's problem lies in the fact that he is focused on the end goal. He lost track of the pathway that leads to that goal. Like him, I like the ability to look at, and modify if desired, the way a program, or group of programs, work. I also realize not everyone will agree with me, or see all the benefits of such an approach. As such, I think that there will need to be a middle ground for a while where free software co-exhists with it not-so-free counterpart. I see an entire system using free software as a goal with many steps leading to it. I think we need to focus on the small battles while keeping our minds o the final goal. I mean really, who ever heard of winning a war without first accomplishing smaller steps?

Re:No!

[Sentry21]

You fail to see that his model is freedom. There is no contradiction. Understand this.

Freedom with restrictions is not freedom. Just like you cannot say 'you have freedom of speech, but don't talk bad about the government', you can't say 'this software is Free as in speech, but you can't do this or this or this or this or...'

His vision of freedom is not freedom for all, but rather control for the developer. If he really believed that Free Software was better than closed source, then it wouldn't matter who used Free code for any project, commercial or not, because Free software would win out. He obviously does not feel that confident about the realities of life, or his flagship license would not place so many restrictions.

My idea of freedom is that anyone can do with my code what they wish, if they give credit. His idea of freedom is dictating what people can and can't do, not just on a practical level, but on a philosophical one. The artificial restriction of copyright law does not apply in either case.

Sadly, I cannot agree with you that his model is freedom.

--Dan

Re:No!

[faboo]

It is not purpose of FSF nor the mission of RMS (as I understand these things) to deplete the freedom of the software user. As such, never at any point will they attempt to dictate how you may use your software (that's freedom 0, remember). What RMS does not like is the inclusion of non-free software (ie. software that revokes the freedom of the user) in what is (or at least used to be) purported to be a Free software package.
It was the GNOME project's original goal to be a _Free_ software package, because what was previously available was something of a mixed bag. With the inclusion of non-free software in the official GNOME release, now GNOME is the mixed bag.

I'm not sure what that means for this GNU world, but it would seem that either GNOME has changed its view of the reality, or it is seriously lying to its self.
faboo

Re:No!

[jcast]

Stallman needs to recognize this and embrace it.

But he'd sure as hell better not extend it! Otherwise he'd be as bad as Microsoft!

Re:No!

[jcast]

Just like you cannot say 'you have freedom of speech, but don't talk bad about the government'

No, the GPL is more like saying ``you have freedom of speech, but don't libel anyone''. You cannot use your ``freedom'' to contradict the freedoms of others. Thomas Jefferson said something like ``Rightful liberty is unrestricted action within the circle drawn by the equal rights of others''. Note the last phrase: ``equal rights of others''. Yes, other people have rights, and Thomas Jefferson, Richard Stallman, and other radical fanatics expect you to respect those rights!

His vision of freedom is not freedom for all, but rather control for the developer.

No, if we had ``freedom for all'', in the
sense of ``Free Software for all'', then every one would have Free Software. If ``freedom for all'' is a right, then everyone has a right to free software. So, the ``right'' of developers to produce proprietary software would be in violation of the rights of users, and so no true right.

So, if developers have a ``right'' to BSD-style licenses, then they have a right to produce proprietary software. (Otherwise a BSD-style license would be meaningless.) Other developers, however, would also have a ``right'' to produce proprietary software, hence conflicting with the ``right'' to BSD-style licenses. So, your ``freedom for all'' is:

1. Contradictory
2. ``Control for the Developer''

Maybe Stallman's model isn't freedom, but neither is yours.

If he really believed that Free Software was better than closed source, then it wouldn't matter who used Free code for any project, commercial or not, because Free software would win out.

Yeah, and if Roosevelt had really believed that Free Countries are better than tyrannies, he wouldn't have fought the Japs, since freedom would win out. I'm not saying that what software hoarders do is as bad as what the Japs did at a Pearl Harbor, or elsewhere, but in both cases the point is: sometimes you gotta fight. George Orwell said, ``Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.'' I say ``BSD-pushers are objectively pro-proprietary software.''

<snip>

My idea of freedom is that anyone can do with my code what they wish, if they give credit.

News flash: ``freedom'' is something you've got a right to; something you can fight for if you don't get it. However, you don't want me to have any legal recourse if anyone tries to take this ``freedom'' away from me. Sorry, but your idea of ``freedom'' is not even consistent, much less freedom.
<snip>

Sadly, I cannot agree with you that his model is freedom.

Sadly, I cannot agree with you that your model is self-consistent.

Re:No!

[Fat Cow]

didn't he say exactly the opposite of this? he said that if, in the future, no one uses gnu at all, but software generally is "free", then his project will have succeeded. he's not insisting that people use his model, then is he?

Re:No!

[Guignol]

The biggest mistake RMS did was probably to call his 'vision' "Free Software"
People get extreme around this word.
First, "freedom" as "absolute freedom" is a nonsense and cannot exist. it's unfortunately not so clear a problem as "This statement is False" so people don't realize it and still want "Freedom" to be absolute as in "everything I wever want". So they get in big ideological troubles, all of them rooted in the fact that they both understand Freedom as something different and generally too large, yet to strict to admit anyonelse's "freedom" (freedom definition, not freedom itself, although freedom itself sometimes).
Second, freedom has this great "added value" that everybody cares about it and would defend its own (definition) with so much conviction yet so little skill it's the mess we're witnessing every so often in slashdot.
Look at your own words, for instance: "EX. I may not like Microsoft bashing Linux, but I will defend their right to do so."
So far so good.
"Stallman needs to recognize this and embrace it."
Uh ?
Big dilema here, how would you defend someone's freedom to fight your freedom of defending his freedom ?
Not what's happening here, but it's the same problem :)
In the end, I think you should stand on this "I'll fight for your rights to..." as it's clearer and easier. I.E. you know what you are fighting for. (of course you'll have to fight for someone's rights to advocate censorship, but it's still simpler)
In the case of Stallman's "Free Software", you'll have to remember he's standing for something he started himself.
Also, it's not like the guy is an idiot, I'm pretty sure he actualy understands what he wants. Why does everybody undersntand what he wants better than he does himself ?
Maybe you want something else, maybe you should discuss with him how you'd like his vision to be called something else than "Free Software" so that you can use it for your own "vision" (I garantee you you'll end in the exact same situation, simply because of the "Free" word).
I doubdt he'd like it though, but it would be nice. Of course, Free Software as it is in RMS's words must just fit his own freedom understanding so that he probably wouldn't even see the need of another, more 'accurate' description.
So how would something for "free" be more acurate than "free" uh ? :-)

Re:No!

[msaavedra]

With the inclusion of non-free software in the official GNOME release, now GNOME is the mixed bag.

I just looked through the latest stable Gnome release, and as far as I know, all of this software is available under the GPL or LGPL. Which packages specifically have a non-free license? I'm sure there are proprietary apps out there that link to the Gnome libs, but that is their privilege under the LGPL. I know that Stallman dislikes the LGPL these days, but neither GNU nor the Gnome Foundation have the right to change the license now, because they do not hold the copyrights to all the code. I don't see what you (or RMS) think the problem is here. Or, if your problem is the LGPL, what you think can be done to change it.

Re:No!

[trcooper]

Comeon moderators... This isn't a troll. A lot of folks have legitimate beefs with Stallman and GNU. Simply because I think the GNU license inhibits free software doesn't mean I'm trolling.

If I were trolling I assure you I could have put something there that would bring in the comments...

Re:No!

[aozilla]

His model ensures the freedom of the recipients of sofrware, defending against an artificial restriction on freedom created by copyright law.

Not so. Stallman believes that a software distributor of a derivitive work must release his/her source code. In the absense of copyright law there would be no such requirement. If you imagine such a world, absent copyright law, we would likely have fewer software products distributing source code, not more.

You can argue that his model promotes freedom, but it does not promote freedom from copyright law.

Re:No!

[WNight]

GPLed code is free as in speech. Show me GPLed code and I can recite that code and show it to anyone else.

There are limits of the use of it in new software (specifically, refusing to ever apply any limits, except that one.) but you can always look at the code and write a new implementation of it.

With proprietary software you can't use it for that.

With BSDL code, you can do anything you can with GPLed code, plus using it directly in non-GPLed projects.

But, how is that last part a "freedom of speech" limitation?

I think I lost more freedom through the actions of your hypothetical corporation using BSDL tcp/ip code, than I would have if they'd either written their own or used GPLed code.

As is, I can't read it, let alone speak it or copy it.

If they had used GPLed code, I would be free to examine the guts of the OS.

If they'd written their own, I still wouldn't be able to see it, speak it, or copy it. But at least they would have had to develop it on their own instead of essentially getting a handout.

Personally I think using the LGPL for proposed standards like tcp/ip is the best way to go. Anyone can implement it, speeding adoption of the standard, but any modifications of that standard automatically fall into (essentially) the public domain, helping interactivity.

And again, if we could examine MS's code (they they took from free software) we could be sure that they couldn't embrace and extend because we'd have the same ability they did, to borrow and improve on existing code.

Well

[beefstu01]

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.

Re:Well

[sydb]

BAM!, there you go.

There you go with what?

Lot's of proprietary applications for our nice Free system?

Why exactly do you use Free Software beefstu01? Do you have a reason? If you don't have a reason, besides it idling away your time pleasantly, then why bother submitting posts to a discussion? If you don't have a philosophy, then what exactly do you have to say?

It's not all about Market Share because it is not a Business.

Re:Well

[krmt]

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.

I hate this one. I really do. Linux geeks don't expect everything to be for free. How many of us buy our CD's from Cheapbytes or somewhere similar? Or official Redhat or Mandrake boxes even? How about the insane amount of money we've all spent on books despite its availability online? I've spent plenty of money on my Linux habit (yes, it's an addiction) and I'm not about to stop because I love it. I may not be buying copies of Intel's spiffy Linux compiler, but I don't need it. I'm a student and I don't have tons to spend, and I know that I'm not alone there.

And what about those Windows users? Windows games are pirated left and right (do a "keygen" search if you don't believe me). No one buys new copies of Windows, they just use someone else's CD or stick with the one that came "free" with their computer. And for every legal copy of Office I've seen (outside a company), there have been 10 illegal ones that some family "borrowed" from a friend because Works is what came with their computer. And don't forget that the most popular programs right now are the media sharing ones. Can you guess how much Windows users pay for the stuff they download there? You can't say that it's just Linux geeks who like free stuff, Windows users are no different.

Re:Well

[Glytch]

Lot's of proprietary applications for our nice Free system?

What about those of us who just want software that doesn't suck?

I use Linux because it doesn't suck, not because of some ideological battle. I don't want Free. I want Quality. If it's Free, cool. If not, I'll spend the cash for the Quality. I don't live in your one-world-one-people-one-reich delusion.

Re:Well

[sydb]

If all you want is "software that doesn't suck" why are you getting involved in a discussion about freedom?

My freedom does not interfere with your non-suckage, thankfully.

So, what is your point? Is it "Please be quiet I don't want to hear your philosophising"? Then stop listening. No-one is making you listen to Stallman, or any other free software advocates.

However, the attitude that comes from those like you who don't-give-a-damn about freedom, does interfere with those who do.

Re:Well

[Glytch]

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that I wanted people to stop discussing this. I was responding to a direct question (not specifically directed at me, I admit, but which interested me). I was just adding my own two cents to the discussion, in the hopes that people can understand another side to this whole debate.

However, the attitude that comes from those like you who don't-give-a-damn about freedom, does interfere with those who do.

Sigh. There's just no way to reason with fanatics.

Slightly offtopic, but has anyone had any luck replacing FSF programs with BSD programs in Slackware 8?

Re:Well

[sydb]

Stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that I wanted people to stop discussing this.

Umm.. stop putting words in mine! I never said that you wanted you people to stop discussing this!

Sigh. There's just no way to reason with fanatics.

Interesting viewpoint. Let's see, try reasoning with a scientist that gravity is not proportional to density. Damn, you just can't reason with those scientists, they must be fanatics.

You see, gravity is a principle of the universe (well, the known universe). And a moral belief is a principle of a personality. I'm sorry, but neither of these things can be reasoned out of existence, even if you don't happen to have any principles yourself.

See my point? Thought not. But it should be clear that there is nothing fanatical about my beliefs - I don't hold the freedom represented by the GPL above your right to life, for instance.

Re:Well

[Nailer]

Why exactly do you use Free Software beefstu01? Do you have a reason?

Thanks for your overly personal rant. I think that beefstu might use Free Software for the same reason I do: people appreciate quality software. Its not that hard to believe. Much Open Source (and Free) Software (Galeon, Red Carpet, KDE, etc) is of good quality because it is Open Source, and has many developers and attracts good talent. Much however (90% of the apps on Freshmeat) isn't - because the category requires more resources to develop, because its hard to make a services based busines model selling video games (though it has been done), because there aren't to many people attracted to or employed to write free software programs for certain tasks - educational games, for instance.

Many (in my experience most) people use Linux because its good, not because they're obliged to under a set of ethics they don't agree with.

Small victories...

[rekoil]

I have to agree that Stallman is being a bit shortsighted - just because the _entire_ system isn't free doesn't mean that the FSF's mission is a failure. The simple fact that there's a demand for open source software on a proprietary OS should mean something right there...

In other words, don't discount the small victories just because they're small. Keep going for the gold, but accept the bronze graciously.

Re:Small victories...

[NetSettler]

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.

Re:Small victories...

[Alomex]

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.


A very smart friend of mine once sat next to RMS at a dinner. He asked a few questions and all he could get was pontificating. He tried for about an hour to explain the fine points of an argument and RMS clammed up as a shell and carried on screaming. It wasn't that RMS saw the points and then still disagreed. He simply could not be bothered to listen to a mere mortal.

If you want your side to win, choose your leader wisely. The wrong leader and a foolish move later and suddenly your entire, hard-built organization collapses in less than two months, if you know who I'm talking about.

If I were Microsoft I would give money to keep RMS around. As long as he's there, OS will never trully succeed.

It took Miguel a few years to realize this, thus the GNOME foundation, and the purported statement of regret about GNOME being part of GNU.

Re:Small victories...

[Prong]

Bingo.

The primary issue I've always had with RMS is his ego-driven approach to running the FSF. And to top it off, lately he seems to have adopted some sort of weird "ebmrace and extend" approach to dealing with the rest of the world (insisting on sticking GNU on the linux name being the first example I can think of).

Don't get me wrong. The world is a better place for having the GNU tools and projects, and the fact that they exist has certainly made my life easier over the years. But I'm starting to believe that Stallman thinks of himself as GNU and the FSF, and that is not good for either him or the free software community.

Re:Small victories...

[reflective recursion]

Score 4 with rating of "Flamebait." Go figure.

I discovered GNU and the FSF around '95-96 and thought what they were doing was amazing--and it is. Before I found GNU there were only "snippits" (i.e. various fragments of code) which could help me learn programming. Having fully featured programs helped me incredibly. I was inspired by what RMS was doing. Now his extremist attitude of "free software or no software" is wearing a bit thin. Partially because there is only questions of how to make money with free software, but no real solutions (i.e. selling support or t-shirts, etc. is not a solution). It seems as if they (GNU) give only ideal solutions which fit only what they want. There is no compromise or even debate, from what I can tell, coming from the FSF. I like the idea of free software, but there is only so much I personally would like to give. If RMS' vision of an ideal software industry is a bunch of people working for charity, then I want no part of it. Until there are real solutions to real problems, then I will never be in full agreement with the FSF.

Just once I would like RMS to come out and say "Yes, producing free software and making a decent living is hard, but here is how we can fix it.." or "Not all problems in the world are solved by free software, here is where we can safely draw the line.."

Re:Small victories...

[smittyoneeach]

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

So often, the solution path is more of a curve than a step function.

The more I read about RMS, the more the opinion forms
that he is more an invaluable piece of the overall whole
than the whole itself.
Hats off to the voice in the wilderness, and would he step further back?

Re:Small victories...

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Small victories...

[reflective recursion]

That's fine and dandy, but how does he expect all software to come with source code and freely distributable? If someone like Adobe did this I'm sure they would be out of business within a year or two. It is one thing to have ideals and stick to them. It is another to gripe about what others do (i.e. proprietary software shops) and offer no real solutions to their problems. This is exactly what RMS does.

It is not my problem of resenting him having ideals--I agree with a lot of what he says. A man with ideals who will not discuss or debate them, though, is like a stubborn child who always has to get what he wants.

Re:Small victories...

[Lumpish Scholar]

I think his [Stallman's] 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.

You mean like this?

The following was part of SNL's "Weekend Update" on December 8, 1979:

Al Franken: Well, the "me" decade is almost over, and good riddance, as far as I'm concerned. The 70's were simply 10 years of people thinking of nothing but themselves. No wonder we were unable to get together and solve any of the many serious problems facing our nation. Oh sure, some people did do some positive things in the 70's - like jogging - but always for the wrong reasons, for their own selfish, personal benefit. Well, I believe the 80's are gonna have to be different. I think that people are going to stop thinking about themselves, and start thinking about me, Al Franken. That's right. I believe we're entering what I like to call the Al Franken Decade. Oh, for me, Al Franken, the 80's will be pretty much the same as the 70's. I'll still be thinking of me, Al Franken. But for you, you'll be thinking more about how things affect me, Al Franken. When you see a news report, you'll be thinking, "I wonder what Al Franken thinks about this thing?", "I wonder how this inflation thing is hurting Al Franken?" And you women will be thinking, "What can I wear that will please Al Franken?", or "What can I not wear?" You know, I know a lot of you out there are thinking, "Why Al Franken?" Well, because I thought of it, and I'm on TV, so I've already gotten the jump on you. So, I say let's leave behind the fragmented, selfish 70's, and go into the 80's with a unity and purpose. That's what I think. I'm Al Franken.

Re:Small victories...

[ahde]

Adobe only even *competes* these days through hostile takeovers, software patents, and bogus lawsuits.

Re:Small victories...

[reflective recursion]

Okay, then substitute Alias/Wavefront or any of the numerous honest development houses. I just picked Adobe at random, but it doesn't take much searching to find a decent software house.

Re:Small victories...

[synsear]

Your typical 'evil' businessman doesnt care about small victories, if you compromise once, you're leaving yourself open to more and more compromise.

This means that if you combine free and proprietary software, its unlikely they'll ever be seperated.

Better to stand firm to your ideals than compromise them for the sake of popularity.

Re:Small victories...

[AbsoluteRelativity]

> It wasn't that RMS saw the points and then still disagreed. He simply could not be bothered to listen to a mere mortal.

Either that or he wasnt in the mood to talk about it, and your "smart friend" was anoying him at dinner.

Re:Small victories...

[AbsoluteRelativity]

What harm?

This is the nth time I have heard someone use the word "harm" in describing RMS on OS, but they dont go into detail of this "harm". To me it was started by someone else who probably knew what they were talking about and then parrotted by those who don't.

-

Pure Bigotry...

[MosesJones]

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.

Re:Pure Bigotry...

[tstock]

I think you are confusing Open Source with Free Software, they are not one and the same. While its true that free software has to be open source, the reverse is not true.

Free Software fills a very important position in the software landscape, and it is hard to say if its more or less important than Open Source software.

Re:Pure Bigotry...

[mgkimsal2]

Not quite a reply to the whole 'viral' thing, but...

The biggest problem I see is that it can be pretty much damn near impossible to "add" enough "value" due to human nature. People will use what's 'good enough' if it's free, compared to something which may be *better* if they have to pay for it. They'll put up with crashing software, bad interfaces, etc, for the sake of the pocketbook.

If I took Apache and could add some 'value' to it through patches that could quintuple it's serving power, people STILL wouldn't pay for it - not enough to justify my work in developing it and marketing it.

Hypothetical example, but I hope it makes the point...

Re:Pure Bigotry...

[TheCarp]

Your missing something.

What "Freedom" is being taken away from you?

The position of the FSF and other "Free Software" supporters (meaning people who support "free software" for the political and ethical reasons and not for the much touted "practical benefits" of "Open Source" ) is that it is the people who sell proprietary software who are taking freedoms away.

That a person who uses software has the right to know what its doing, to modify it for his own use, and to share it with people who will benefit from it.

Much as you do not have the "freedom" to make money by going around and beating people up (because it infringes upon their rights), you do not have the right (according to the fsf view) to try and make money by taking those rights away.

Now, whether you agree that these are indeed rights of the user is another story.

-Steve

Re:Pure Bigotry...

[MarkCC]

While I agree with you in principal that there are cases where open-source makes it impossible to make money producing something, you chose a rather poor example for your argument.

Several companies have produced "value-added" versions of Apache, and make a lot of money selling them. For instance, IBM's Websphere platform is nothing more than an extended version of Apache. And they make quite a lot of money on it. People are willing to pay for the combination of guaranteed support and added features.

Re:Pure Bigotry...

[Indomitus]

The point I am making is, so what if someone doesnt release source to their program based on a released open source version? If it is significantly better than the original I dont believe they should be forced to release source. They put time and effort into it. I don't think programming is a worthless endeavor and I believe it has value. Making it value-less devalues the worth of programming itself.

The point is that if I release my source for anyone to use and I choose the GPL, I'm saying that I don't want you taking away the freedom from somebody else that I gave you. It's not devalueing the worth of programming at all, it's making sure that if I create something of value and chose to give it away, you can't come along and use my code for free but not contribute back to the common good. If you want to keep your software closed and not contribute to the common good feel free to, just don't use my code as a base for yours. The only freedom that is taken away is your freedom to steal somebody elses work and pass it off as yours.

Re:Pure Bigotry...

[reflective recursion]

erm. I think the person you replied to meant "free software in the GNU sense." Not in the absolute sense. The two predominant camps are "free software" (GNU and only GNU) and "Open Source(TM)" (BSD, GNU, etc.). In other words, I don't think he was debating whether GNU is truely free--he was just stating that "Open Source" != "free software" when talking with respect to RMS.

Re:Pure Bigotry...

[maxpublic]

What bullshit. People who write proprietary software, no matter how draconian the licenses, don't "take" anything from me unless I allow them to - by buying the software in the first place. I don't like the license, I don't buy - whining, pissing, and moaning about some vague ethical point is for idiots.

True freedom allows everyone to release what they write under any license they like, and allows everyone else the option of choosing or not choosing the software. Anything else is someone's campaign for personal power dressed up as "for the good of the people". Been there, done that, fuck everyone who uses that line.

Max

Re:Pure Bigotry...

[TheCarp]

> whining, pissing, and moaning about some vague
> ethical point is for idiots.

Got it, enagaging in activities that you don't like (like pissing and moaning) is something that only idiots do. Certainly anyone who is intelligent will see how obviously right you are and will do what you do. Thank you for your enlightening commentary.

> True freedom allows everyone to release what
> they write under any license they like, and
> allows everyone else the option of choosing or
> not choosing the software.

No, not at all. True freedom allows everyone to release software in any fashion that they like, and then provides no means whatsoever for them to control what is done with that software afterwards.

The entire concept of a "license", when we talk of "true freedom" is silly, there is no such way for it to exist.

You complain of free software being "someone's campaign for personal power", well copyright is no different than that, the entire "license" concept is no different than that.

-Steve

Re:Pure Bigotry...

[Elwood P Dowd]

Well, that might be the whole point of Open Source. For you. If Open Source were only about freedom of choice, then Gnome would not be Open Source... Oh wait, it's not. It's Free software. And the point of Free Software is to eliminate proprietary software. Well, people may use Free Software for other purposes, but the original designed goal of the GPL is to eliminate proprietary software. RMS is correct in that Gnome was also created to further these goals. You might not agree with these goals. That's ok. I don't think I do either.

Your comments about worry, bigotry, and insult do not follow from any of your other comments. You just seem to not like Free Software. That's ok. Eric S Raymond has a big tent for you. I'm in that tent too some of the time.

Re:Pure Bigotry...

[maxpublic]

Actually, acting like a fucking idiot is something you've got down pat. Claiming that your personal definition for control of the work after release (as in "the author is 100% fucked and has no rights with regards to his work") is the preaching of a true control-freak shitbag. Your way or the highway.

The author owns the work. You don't like the license, THEN DON'T FUCKING BUY IT. You don't have any right whatsoever to use the software unless you abide by the license, and that's exactly the way it should be. Choose or lose, asshole.

Max

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.

What about using the free version of GNU-Darwin?

[melvin22]

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?

Stallman is building another cage for the users

[yanestra]

If you take it literally, freedom is the posibility to do what you want. But Stallman is constructing an ideology which disallows some things to be done. Stallman is a man of yesterday...

Re:Stallman is building another cage for the users

[radja]

in real life I don't have the 'freedom' to murder, but does that make me less free?

//rdj

Re:Stallman is building another cage for the users

[uchian]

The only freedom that is being lost is the freedom to take freedom from other people.

If you have a problem losing this freedom, then ask yourself what your hidden motives are.

I personally, couldn't care less what anyone does with anything I have ever created, whether software, art, whatever. If they can change it into something better, great. They deserve to be able to do that. Why should I restrict their freedom to do this? I cannot think of an answer to my own question, which is why I disagree with what you say.

Where's the freedom ?

[dda]

And the freedom to sell a sofware, where has it gone ?
I'm not against the Free software at all, but the author as the right to sell it if he wants.
That's where I disagree with RMS.
See this ( for french speaking only, sorry )

Re:Where's the freedom ?

[KjetilK]

I think you have completely lost the whole point. There is absolutely nothing wrong with selling software, and there are a bunch of people doing it, even profitably, e.g. Red Hat. But there are limits for what kind of restrictions you can impose on the software you write.

Re:Where's the freedom ?

[dda]

First, Red Hat is not selling a software, it is selling a service : the packaging of an OS (among others).

Let me translate you two qustions/answers of RMS from the link I just wrote before, just in case you don't speak french :

Q : Imagine I'm a developer. My freedom, it's also to decide if I want to sell source code under a proprietary licence, or under a free license like the GPL ?
A : No! the proprietary software is immoral and should not exist, if you give me a copy of a program, I have the right to use it freely.The users have the right to decide what to do with the software they use.
The choice is not given to the developers, we don't let enterprises, or a tyran decide. You don't have the right to impose you preferences. The mission of the FSF is to convince the users they should not tolerate anymore the proprietary softwares

Personal remark : sorry, but the users have the freedom to refuse if they want to buy a software.
Of course, it is better if they have free alternatives, but to sell a software is not immoral, while there is an alternative. If there's a fight to give, it is not against the proprietary softwares because they exist, it is against the proprietary softwares, but trying to give better solutions ( good luck ). Anyway, it's a matter of choice, and of freedom of choice.

Q : The freedom of someone stops where the freedom of the others starts, as we use to say. The freedom that you intend to defend is the one of the users, not the one of the developers ?
A : [Speaking lauder, annoyed] I don't like your questions , on a "devil's advocate" style. It's surely not a good way to abord posivitively the problems, and I don't want to answer. All what I say is : you have the copy of y program, you do what you want yith it, and that's all.

Personal remark : No, that's typically post-hippie, not serious, and without future. Who's the tyran now ? If he wants to fight for the freedom, fine, but he should apply what he says to everybody and to all the kind of freedoms.

I think he shouldn't try to impose his point of view like that, and be more tolerant.
Sorry if there are any nistakes in the translation, I'm doing ny best.

Re:Where's the freedom ?

[argoff]

Personal remark : sorry, but the users have the freedom to refuse if they want to buy a software. Of course, it is better if they have free alternatives, but to sell a software is not immoral, while there is an alternative. If there's a fight to give, it is not against the proprietary softwares because they exist, it is against the proprietary softwares, but trying to give better solutions ( good luck ). Anyway, it's a matter of choice, and of freedom of choice.

This logic is too similar to saying that if you don't like slavery - don't own slaves, if you don't like nazisim - don't join the nazis. Both of these were said in US history, and both were dead wrong because this is as much about our choices as it is about how we deal with those who are trying to impose massive restrictions on the rest of us. Copyrights are much more like a federally imposed regulation than a property right. They are simply an imposition, and simply dishonest, and need to be minimized wether we use the GPL or not.

PS: I know of no requirement that keeps me from selling GPL software, just ones that keep me from monopolizing it and forbidding others to copy and sell it too.

What users want is what is best

[dustpuppy]

It seems to me that Stallman contradicts himself:

If some day GNOME, GCC, GNU Emacs, and all of GNU are obsolete and forgotten, but computer users generally are free to share and change the software they use, these programs will have done their job well.

This is all well and good.

If, on the other hand, GNOME and the rest of the GNU system are widely used, but mainly in combination with proprietary software, they will have succeeded only part-way, and a big task will remain ahead of us.

What happened to choosing the best software that does the task that I require it to do? If the goal is for users to be 'free to share and change the software they use', then that should also include the freedom to mix and match software (be it proprietry or open source) to meet their requirements.

What Stallman is trying to do is ram his ideology (good aspects notwithstanding) down everyones throat in much the same way that Microsoft tries to ram their ideology down our throats.

Ultimately, what is best for the users is what the users want. And generally if you provide what the users want, you won't need to force them to do what you want them to do. So Stallman, the fact that you feel you need to physically intervene to stop 'Gnome' going off in the wrong direction, is actually the first sign that you are heading down the wrong path.

Re:What users want is what is best

[jas79]

What happened to choosing the best software that does the task that I require it to do? If the goal is for users to be 'free to share and change the software they use', then that should also include the freedom to mix and match software (be it proprietry or open source) to meet their requirements

if it is proprietary you aren't free to share and change the software. It isn't that complex to understand.

Re:What users want is what is best

[Cardinal Biggles]

What Stallman is trying to do is ram his ideology (good aspects notwithstanding) down everyones (sic) throat in much the same way that Microsoft tries to ram their ideology down our throats.

YAWN. How many times have we had to read this babble on Slashdot? It's getting pretty tiring. Who the $#@! moderates this up?

OK, one more time. Your statement is equivalent to the following: "What Gandhi was trying to do is ram his ideology (good aspects notwithstanding) down everyone's throat in much the same way that Saddam Hussain tries to ram his ideology down our throats."

If someone is using government power to bleed people dry that is really in no way comparable to someone who is trying to find ways to give people as much freedom as possible within an oppressive system.

Stop this nonsense now. Show the man some respect, he deserves it.

Re:What users want is what is best

[Syberghost]

What happened to choosing the best software that does the task that I require it to do?

Stallman has always been opposed to that. That's not news.

If you stop attempting to reconcile Stallman's views with Capitalist society, you'll be a lot closer to understanding him.
Ultimately, what is best for the users is what the users want.

Amen. And for some users, that's going to be Free Software. For some, it's going to be Open Source. For some, it's going to be Proprietary Software.

In a world where Stallman isn't in charge, we get to choose between these three and many others.

Re:What users want is what is best

[mjh]

What Stallman is trying to do is ram his ideology (good aspects notwithstanding) down everyones throat in much the same way that Microsoft tries to ram their ideology down our throats.

Ultimately, what is best for the users is what the users want. And generally if you provide what the users want, you won't need to force them to do what you want them to do.

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.

Re:What users want is what is best

[Score Whore]

The AC parent post of this one needs to be modded up.

Re:What users want is what is best

[sydb]

RMS may well agree with your points, but ultimately what he is saying is, "What use is a printer without a driver that works properly?"

Because the only way he could fix it would be to have the source.

Stallman's freedoms are actually the ultimate pragmatisms - the freedom to get things done when others no longer want to do it, the freedom to take the fruits of someone elses labour and build upon it, while retaining those freedoms for everyone else.

Re:What users want is what is best

[Score Whore]

Moderation is fucked up anyway. The whole system is a bullshit methodology developed by an incompetant wanker. The moderation choices are inadequate to fully categorize postive and negative posts. The fact that people can moderate while viewing at +1, highest scored first is fucking stupid. The only valid way to moderate is to fucking read at -1, Oldest first. Metamoderation is flawed because it doesn't force context on the metamoderators. How the hell can you accurately agree with a moderation of -1, Redundant while only seeing the post? Not to mention that metamods will agree with moderation that is incorrect but supports their philosophical viewpoints. And feel free to mod me down. It's not like the length of my penis is directly correlated to my slashdot karma.

Re:What users want is what is best

[Ian Bicking]

Since when does RMS have a duty to fight for you to do whatever you want as effectively as possible? Just because he talks about ideology and the common good doesn't mean he owes you anything. The good for dustpuppy != the good for everyone.

Do you want to run whatever proprietary program on Linux? Fine, go ahead, RMS could probably care less. But where do you get off making it sound like your goodwill towards yourself is some sort of moral virtue?

Re:What users want is what is best

[extrasolar]

"What Stallman is trying to do is ram his ideology (good aspects notwithstanding) down everyones throat in much the same way that Microsoft tries to ram their ideology down our throats. "

Whoa there. That statement is full of venom. So lets step back, breathe deeply, and let the leeches suck on that wound.

RMS is running to be part of the Board of the GNOME Foundation. This does not constitute ramming any ideology down anyone's throats. When running for the GNOME Foundation, he doesn't have to convert anyone. Because they already agree. Read the charter (http://foundation.gnome.org/charter.html). In fact, I will copy an excerpt for you:

"GNOME is part of the GNU project and supports the goals of the GNU project as defined by the Free Software Foundation. Free software licensing has always been a mainstay of GNOME, and we must ensure that this tradition continues. GNOME will include only Free software."

Now, I don't know what you think GNOME is but its always been a GNU Project. Its always been free software and fits nicely with RMS's ideology. Because it is his ideology.

Thats what free software is. Its a philosophy. Now...you can have a different vantage on the philosophy. You can think that it would be okay to mix proprietary ("change this program and I'll sue") and free software and include it all as part of GNOME. But you wouldn't be elected as part of the GNOME Board of Directors. If you ran for the position, there would probably be someone on slashdot complaining that you were ramming your ideology down everyone's throats.

Wow. What a twist in paradise.

Cooperation with KDE forgotten ?

[sl956]

I had a dinner with RMS last week in Paris. When I asked him that very question (why he was running for Gnome Board of Directors), he said that the first reason was to help improving the coperation with the KDE development team. He spoke of the duplicate development effort in the desktop area and he even made a parallel with the gnu-emacs vs x-emacs debate (just a couple days after he took the lead back in gnu-emacs!!!).

I cannot understand why KDE is not even cited in this response. Is this only electoral bulls**t ?

Re:Cooperation with KDE forgotten ?

[HeUnique]

I don't speak as KDE representitive (David Faure, Kurt Granoth and others can), but if I recall correctly, RMS did "insult" them with his "forgivness" back in the days where there were some problem with QT license & KDE license.

A good co-operation between GNOME & KDE is more then welcome (look at freedesktop.org) but RMS pushing for this? I'll belive it when I see it.

Re:Cooperation with KDE forgotten ?

[jonathan_ingram]

Damn right. RMS saying that he's there to help the cause of KDE is like Ian Paisley saying he's there to help the Catholics.

Re:Cooperation with KDE forgotten ?

[zmooc]

Well the KDE-situation most certainly changed completely when QT became GPL. That RMS did insult them back then doesn't mean that he has any bad feelings for them now...although insulting is always a bad idea. Knowing that, I don't see why RMS would not be the right person to push co-operation. I think the KDE people will understand his change in opinion and I think that his change of opinion clearly shows that he's really behind his idea's and is reasonable about them.

Re:Cooperation with KDE forgotten ?

[zmooc]

Yeah he was pretty offensive back then so I think you're right; he fucked up. But in theory it's possible:P

GPL does not prohibit comercial software

[vtechpilot]

There is no clause in the GPL that prohibits using GPL software with comercial or any other non-GPL software. If it RMS though a divorce from comercial software was required, it would be in the GPL. RMS can sit on it and rotate if he doesn't like me writing GPL software for Windows.

Stallman

[supernaut]

You know, sometimes he remains calm enough to actually make rational and well thought out choices.

But, OTOH, he has shown himself in the past to be a purveyor of utterly ignorant dogma, almost on the level of religious zeal, that, as such, I dont consider him a leader of anything. He does not stand for me. And, to be honest, I dont think he stands for anyone.

He stands for the unrealistic little bubble world he has created in his own mind.

Yes, I like Free Software. Yes, I like Open Software. But, I am not about to embrace a surrealistic, and wholly unrealistic and non reality based approach.

OS/FS has its issues. But, if you ask me, there will be bumps in the road with any revolution.

The real question is, can we find a happy medium, across the whole map. I think we can. But, I dont think Stallman is our Jesus. I think, while he is an intelligent man, he also has the propensity to come off as a flaming idiot.

Which is why I really dont understand why OSDN gives him so much press. Yes, he has done his part. But, it really ticks me off how you think we all hang off his every word. I dont, and I am willing to bet only a very tiny percentage do.

Freedom

[jmu1]

The whole purpose of the FSF and GNU was to give people a choice, or even a whole slew of choices. Not to lock them into having to only use one type of software, be it proprietary or not. Stallman is being a bit too overzealous in this case. He can't see the forest for the trees

Great way to alienate potential Gnome users

[the_rev_matt]

While I agree with most of what Stallman has to say, he has a tendency to be confrontational and to come off as belligerent and antagonistic. This tends to make people uncomfortable. I personally think it would be bad for Gnome if he became a board member, but I'm not a voter. I don't question his commitment or his ability, but rather his approach.

Stallman is NOT about Freedom

[numbsafari]

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.

Quite happy being opressed

[AIXadmin]

I am quite happy being opressed. I am using Mac OS X 10.1, and while it has its low points. Mac OS X 10.1 has more high points. I write things in Python, and write VB macros for MS Office. Quit happy.
The world is not perfect, but it is a pretty good blend.

Stallman is a hippy, not a realist

[SpinyNorman]

If he were a realist, he'd realize that spreading free software in as many ways as possible is a good thing. If he doesn't want free software running on commercial systems then he's just ensuring the continued viability of commercial software, not that I see that as a bad thing, being a professional programmer!

Okay so define proprietary

[isa-kuruption]

If you say "GNOME shouldn't be used and/or worked with proprietary", then aren't you condeming GNOME as proprietary as well? The only way to break the proprietary mix is to make everything "work together"... this would mean GNOME working on MacOS... hey, In fact, I'd love to run GNOME in place of explorer.exe in WinXP. This would be great. If you're going to be narrow minded about the course of GNOME and other open source projects working *together*, then maybe we should start calling you Billy too.

Tough Medicine

[abde]

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.

Re:Tough Medicine

[fredbsd]

Interesting take on keeping the board on their toes.

However, most companies don't succeed with this type of leadership. If Gnome is to be successcul, they will need a board of like minded, energetic people to lead them. Do you think there was anyone on Microsquish's board who said "hey, I think we are doing the wrong thing here?".

If the goal of Gnome is to simply encourage 'free' software, then RMS is a good choice. But if they want to be successful as a product, then RMS would simply cause to much dissention to be effective.

Personally, as a businessman, I would never, ever have RMS on a board. He is quite good at pontificating his views, but he is absolutely horrible at seeing other sides of arguments. It's his way or the highway. Can you imagine the board meetings? He would drive everyone else crazy.

My biggest complaint is with Mr. Stallman is the hypocrisy in his definition of 'free'. Freedom = Choice. Mr. Stallman thinks freedom = his way.

But, I could be wrong.

Re:Tough Medicine

[ethereal]

If Gnome is to be successcul, they will need a board of like minded, energetic people to lead them. Do you think there was anyone on Microsquish's board who said "hey, I think we are doing the wrong thing here?".

If there was any justice in the world (or in the U.S. government) then Microsoft would right now be wishing that they'd had such a conscience. Most of the time, keeping a business focused on ethics (or at least on staying within the law) is a good business practice, not a mistake. It saves you money and time in the long run. Microsoft just happens to have been a giant exception to this so far.

Re:Tough Medicine

[biohazard99]

I think I have a solution....
In the red corner, From Canada, Theo de Raadt and from the MIT AI lab, Richard Stallman
And in the blue corner, hailing from the Redmon Washington campus of Microsoft, Steve Ballmer and Craig Mundie....
<voice impression="Michael Buffer">Let's get ready to rumble<voice>

Re:Tough Medicine

[Ian Bicking]

Personally, as a businessman, I would never, ever have RMS on a board. He is quite good at pontificating his views, but he is absolutely horrible at seeing other sides of arguments. It's his way or the highway. Can you imagine the board meetings? He would drive everyone else crazy.

As a businessman, what perspective do you have on Gnome anyway? Gnome isn't a business, its board is not the board of a business, large parts of the work are done on a non-commercial basis. There are many, many people who have contributed to Gnome without expectation of monetary reward. To businesses these people are just dopes -- and yet they are the only reason Free Software has succeded, they are the ones who have actually given for the cause. Businesses just make deals. One day they help you, the next day they change their mind, or maybe just go bankrupt.

As a businessman, I think you can't appreciate what GNU is about, what Gnome can be, and what is important for the project. There will always be arguments and negotiations -- RMS will argue about important things, like freedom, while the businesses will be more apt to argue about territory.

Re:Tough Medicine

[Syberghost]

In all of this, RMS has been a constant - he promotes Free Software.

While that's probably nice if you support Free Software, it may come as a shock to you that not everybody does. The Open Source movement is rather large and rather well known, and is NOT the same thing, as RMS himself will tell you at length if you ask him.

IMHO, RMS deserves a place on that board solely because of his constancy and vision.

This is like saying that the NAACP should have David Duke on their board. Not that I'm comparing Stallman's position with Duke's, but clearly extreme positions should not always automatically qualify one for board positions. There's a very big difference between listening to what someone has to say (and I think we should listen to Stallman, for very much the same reasons I read Marx) without putting him into a position of leadership on a project that directly touches so many businesses that he dislikes (for much the same reasons I wouldn't vote for Monica Moorehead for President. Or Congress. Or School Board. Or Dog Catcher.)

I can admire Stallman's purity of purpose without agreeing that his goal is admirable. I can value his input as an extreme stance without wishing to have decisions that affect me made according to it.

If I were a devotee of the Free Software movement I might very well feel differently. But I'm pro-Open Source, thankyouverymuch, and wouldn't vote for Stallman for any office of which I can presently think.

Re:Tough Medicine

[Karmageddon]

In all of this, RMS has been a constant - he promotes Free Software.

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.

I defend RMS more than I bash him. however, in this case [if the other statement I quoted is true] he is not being constant-consistent

The GNU tools are cool... and they're free... but they were originally released precisely to be run on non-free versions of Unix. and so it should be with GNOME. It should kill all non-free fat desktops (I run a slim desktop myself) and if it does it has succeeded.

That it might also promote free software in general is good, but it should not be a slave to that task... unless the plan has changed and RMS thinks Mazaar e-nonFree is about to fall, but that is not a constant, that is a change.

Re:Tough Medicine

[chuqui]

>In all of this, RMS has been a constant - he promotes Free Software.

He promotes HIS VIEW of free software. No other version need apply. That's the problem with RMS's position, and why he's increasingly being marginalized: there are two positions: his and the heathen's. And he knows better how your software should be licensed than you do.

He seems completely unable to deal with the reality that different people (and different software projects) have different needs. His view is that if the peg is square, you simply need to hit it into the round hole with a bigger hammer.

Re:Tough Medicine

[fredbsd]

Read the post. I said "if the goal is to promote free software, then RMS is a good choice".

Sheesh.

Re:Tough Medicine

[fredbsd]

I think I can appreciate what GNU is all about. In fact, I have for many years.

I never mentioned those who contribute to GNOME. Their intentions are admirable and they perform a great service to the computing world.

Personally, I use Open Source software daily. I contribute and advocate constantly.

Your assertions that businesses just make deals is, I think, somewhat off target. Businesses make products. MS makes a product, IBM makes a product, Sun makes a product, etc. Are they a bit 'slimy'? Sure, they sometimes are 'ethically challenged'. But, they have a goal. Make money.

There are many reasons why 'Free Software' has succeeded (if you wish to call it a success at the moment). But, that is a whole seperate issue. Email me and I will gladly reply.

Anyway, as a businessman, I do appreciate what FSF and GNOME are all about. Everything depends on the goal of GNOME. If it is to be a product, then RMS is a bad choice for leadership. It's not as clear cut as it used to be anymore. Sadly, I don't see it getting any better.

BTW, didn't a bunch of businesses contribute millions to the GNOME foundation? Just asking.

Re:Tough Medicine

[fredbsd]

I agree with your assertion regarding ethics and business practices. Unfortunately, there is no such thing as justice (another mythical term created by humans).

You should reword your statement to "all of the time" rather than "most of the time".

How's this for 'justice': MS will be able to write off their legal fees. That's a kick in the teeth.

I was not questioning ethics. I merely wanted to point out that RMS is not a good choice if you want GNOME to be a product (which many of the companies that donated a lot of money to the GNOME Foundation will want).

Actually, most 'successful' companies have blurred the ethical boundries at one point or another. It depends on whose ethics you choose to listen to. Even our charitable organizations have crossed those lines.

Re:Tough Medicine

[softsign]

The GNU tools are cool... and they're free... but they were originally released precisely to be run on non-free versions of Unix.

Yes, yes, no.

From the GNU homepage:

The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete Unix-like operating system which is free software: the GNU system.

You see, the original goal of GNU was to develop a complete Unix replacement - designed to be interoperable, but free. (I think Mach was originally developed to be the kernel for the GNU system). A side-effect of this was that the GNU tools could be built on non-free Unix - and eventually Linux.

It's kind of ironic. GNU tools have helped keep commercial Unix vendors like Sun in the game against Microsoft and launched Linux to new heights. Meanwhile, the intended core of the GNU system has now been absorbed by one of the great satans of non-free software: Apple. But through it all, the complete GNU system has never emerged as a real contender or even alternative. Makes you wonder why...

Re:Tough Medicine

[clone304]

Gnome, being under the GNU GPL will never be a "product" in the usual sense unless something pretty wacky is done to change the licensing in the future. Therefore, any companies that dumped large sums of money into the project should have made sure their eyes were open when they opened their pocketbooks. If these companies get some other benefit from having invested in Gnome, then great, but pouring money into the development of GPL software does not give these companies the right to co-opt the project from the community.

Re:Tough Medicine

[macshit]

Personally, as a businessman, I would never, ever have RMS on a board. He is quite good at pontificating his views, but he is absolutely horrible at seeing other sides of arguments. It's his way or the highway.

It seems pretty clear that you've never worked with RMS. He will state his views very strongly, but if you think he's wrong, and you can show he's wrong, he'll switch, just like that. He's a real sucker for a logical argument.

[Of course, many people disagree with him on what are basically matters of opinion -- but you can hardly fault him for having his own!]

Re:Tough Medicine

[ambrosius27]

I think the businessman poster is saying that he has in the dynamics of how a board runs. The board may serve to further a corporation's profitability, or it may serve to further a free desktop environment. Either way, the board members have to be able to work together cohesively and handle objection with civility and rationality. If you have a board member who frequently disrupts meetings, refuses to see the viewpoints of others, and is not "diplomatic," the board may get little done. If little is done, the organization the board serves may suffer, no matter what the organization's purpose.

So, I think the businessman poster has a good point and doesn't need to be flamed because he didn't identify himself as a hacker.

Re:Tough Medicine

[msaavedra]

As a businessman, what perspective do you have on Gnome anyway? [snip] As a businessman, I think you can't appreciate what GNU is about, what Gnome can be, and what is important for the project.

These are some really bigoted statements, and I'm disappointed that enough people agree with you that you got this moderated up to a 5. Since when did Free Software come to mean "business people have no rights"? Under the GPL, business people have the same rights to the software as anyone else does. They are also free to join the Gnome Foundation and have a role in Gnome's future.

Don't forget that Miguel de Icaza, the founder of Gnome, is also the co-founder of Ximian, and hence is a businessman. Should we tell him, as well as all the valuable and hard-working Gnome developers at Ximian, Red Hat, and Sun, to simply shut up (but keep forking over their code), their input into the direction of Gnome isn't important? If you want to kill the Gnome project, singling out these developers for abuse would be a good way to do it.

Remember, everyone is free to use and contribute to Free Software, as long as their contibutions are Free as well. Businesses are no different from hobbyists in this regard. In fact, they have contributed lots of good stuff so far, and have been, with very few exceptions, polite and respectful of our community. Why do you wish to ostracize them like this?

Re:Tough Medicine

[squaretorus]

As a businessman, what perspective do you have on Gnome anyway?

I take exception to this assertion that 'businessmen' cannot understand Free Software.

Not all business is run purely for profit. My own company operates to provide a good quality of life for myself and my employees. We charge a decent rate for our work, and my employees take home market rate salaries. I take home a below market rate salary, because everyone else that does my job would pay each employee 10% less and double their own salary. No one is getting rich - everyone is doing pretty well. My business is NOT run for profit.

I seriously believe in Free Software. I believe that my commercial background gives me valuable insights into the drives behind software users that could be used by ANY Free Software organisation to better target their wares.

This is true of a growing underclass of 'businesspeople'. You can't group all businesspeople together with generalisations with any more justification than you can with geeks, gays, glaswegians, gorillas or goths.

One thing business people tend to have in common is a clear defenition of their goals, and of their strategy for achieving them. I believe THIS is the missing link in many FS projects, which is why I hope the Gnome Board DOES have hard nosed business attitudes which can be applied to the Gnome goals.

OK rant over! Businessmen are not all evil. Stop believing Dilbert!!!

Re:Tough Medicine

[Elwood P Dowd]

RMS addresses exactly this concern in his answers. That is, the fact that he is considered very bad at compromising. It's possible that he would not cause extra dissention for all of the reasons that he discussed. Also, one of the primary goals of Gnome *is* to encourage Free Software. So RMS is a good choice. And he's fine at seeing the other sides of arguments. He's still sure he's right.

Also, I've never heard him define freedom any differently than you do. You might not like his definition of Free Software though, but since he made up the term, I figure that should be ok.

If he were trying to join the KDE board or something, then I'd agree with you completely. But he's not. He's trying to join the Gnome board. Gnome is all about Free Software (as RMS defined it).

Re:Tough Medicine

[Karmageddon]

The GNU tools are cool... and they're free... but they were originally released precisely to be run on non-free versions of Unix.

Yes, yes, no.

yes yes and yes, as in, you are wrong.

I said "released", not "written". The goal may have been a completely free unix, but the tools were released well before this dream was realized. One can only conclude that they were released precisely for the proprietary unices that were available at the time they were released.

An argument could be made that X is part of the OS, but Gnome isn't even X. Gnome is a tool like the rest of GNU, and it was created to combat the non-freeness of KDE's library dependencies. It might be part of a strategy to acheive the larger dream, but still, it is intended to run on non-free platforms in the present. To state otherwise is to state a change.

Gnome the desktop "environment"

[nsrbrake]

Maybe I'm just on crack, but 2 weeks ago I ditched the Gnome desktop. I've always run Enlightenment as my window manager, and for a very long time now have run Gkrellm. So I looked at things and said, what am I running all this extra stuff for? Enlightenment has menus for apps, gkrellms holds any and all applet style things I need, and buttons for frequently used apps. Don't get me wrong, I love Gnome/GTK. All the apps I use use the Gnome and GTK libs, but there was no real reason to use the desktop environment. Plus my memory usage dropped about 20MB. Maybe this is off topic, but do we really need a desktop "environment"? I don't.

Re:Gnome the desktop "environment"

[yaba]

Amen brother!

So do I. I love KDE applications, but pure E is way better and performant.

One day I was trying Unreal Tournament with KDE. Unplayable! Used Enlightenment again and the frame rate was up to 25% again.

However we need does desktop environments for thos people that come from windows. KDE and Gnome is alcohol, but Enlightenment is the real hard drug.

Re:Gnome the desktop "environment"

[PMCausey]

Uhhh....question? If the stated goal is to provide a "non-Microsoft" software alternative, and Microsoft's most-dominiant, errr, offensive product is a desktop, isn't that justification. A desktop provides the less-literate with a way to use the computer without taking the time to learn how to program it.

Re:Gnome the desktop "environment"

[dltaylor]

I run a "bare" Sawfish, myself (used to use OpenLook, on Linux, not just Suns). I do like that it
is "Gnome-aware", so programs like "Gnorpm" run correctly.

Not everyone likes a "desktop environment"; one of the real benefits of Linux, for me, is that I can have the type of desktop that works the way I work, rather than being forced into someone else's vision of how I should want to work.

I'm about to stop using "distros", since it's getting harder and harder to get a Gnome/KDE/etc-less desktop configured.

Stallman's honesty

[Trepidity]

Say what you will about his goals, but at least he's perfectly honest and up-front about them (and everything else), even going so far as to admit that he hasn't been following the GNOME development.

Re:Stallman's honesty

[Sentry21]

Say what you will about his goals, but at least he's perfectly honest and up-front about them (and everything else), even going so far as to admit that he hasn't been following the GNOME development.

Yes, I'll give him credit for that, sure. Honesty is good. Then again, do you want someone running GNOME even though they admit they know nothing about it, haven't been on the mailing lists, and only want to commandeer the software for a political purpose?

Stallman wants GNOME to do different things than the people using and writing GNOME want. They want a desktop environment. He wants a GNU project.

He has an idealistic but narrow vision of the world, and he's trying to reshape the world according to his vision. The GNOME project is already a little off-track (it's getting slow and bloated, imho), and the last thing it needs is to be redesigned from a desktop environment into a political statement.

--Dan

Re:Stallman's honesty

[Trepidity]

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."

Re:Stallman's honesty

[Sentry21]

I think the distinction lies in what specifically they want.

Stallman wants something to say 'look, here's a GNU project'. his primary concern is political.

The GNOME project team wants a usable, popular (ideally), functional desktop environment.

At least, this is my take on it.

--Dan

Re:Stallman's honesty

[Trepidity]

I'd have to agree with that. I get the impression that Stallman has no real interest in windowing systems in general or in desktop environments in particular. But if desktop environments are to be an important component of modern operating systems, his goal of making GNU a completely Free modern operating system requires that it have a desktop environment. So I do think there is some overlap - to fulfill his goal Stallman also needs GNOME to be usable, functional, and ideally popular. But I'll agree - he mainly wants that not for its own sake, but so that GNU will be more complete.

putting words in his mouth

[brlewis]

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.

That's not really the point...

[benad]

The point of Fink (well, for me) is to allow users to make GNOME co-exist with truely commercial software, something that's almost non-existing until now (except some "OK" Win32 ports).

Doing web pages with the *real* Emacs or vi and using Illustrator for the images (and GoLive for the rest) at the same time is something that a lot of people thought to be impossible until now.

- Benad

Re:That's not really the point...

[ichimunki]

Huh? I can use Illustrator and the *real* emacs at the same time using technology that was in the wild several years ago. Even so, there is a version of emacs available for the pre-X Mac OS. But why run that when I can run emacs natively on my Linux Apache server in one window of Mac OS and Illstrator in another? Using a Mac program like Fetch or SCP in SSH, I can transfer my images quickly. But I don't even need to work that hard-- I could just set up an AppleTalk server on my Apache machine and mount /var/www/images as a share under Mac OS.

Of course, I get the sense that you're talking about doing web development under Windows, which is just plain unacceptable *grin*. But even if it were tolerable, what's to stop the use of the Win32 emacs (which I use daily and enjoy) and Samba on the Apache server, while running Illustrator in Windows?

Re:That's not really the point...

[benad]

what's to stop the use of the Win32 emacs (which I use daily and enjoy) and Samba on the Apache serve

There is a simple answer: Win32 is not "fully" supported by most open-source projects. If you think that there isn't enough software on Mac OS, try to count the number of open-source apps in Win32 compared to Linux.

Even on Linux, using a PowerPC machine is a real pain. Most open-source projects are not fully cross-platform and become totally unstable on non-Intel chips. And we're still on Linux here. Now, try to think what happens when making the Mac OS 9 or the Win32 version. Ouch.

In the end, using the "real" thing is important if you care about "support" and updates, and we cannot expect the open-source developers to support several, totally incompatible development platforms. So, having to use the "real", slightly patched thing makes a big difference.

- Benad

...and this is where Stallman gets it wrong

[blayd]

Using free software with a non-free operating system should be viewed as a win, not a loss. More people using free software is a good thing. You start them off slow with a couple of nice applications. Then the user starts looking for free alternatives first before buying something proprietary. From there it's a short hop to running a free system.

For example, I used to be an OS/2 user. There is a ton of free software out there that has been ported to the OS/2 platform. I started out with GCC and some of the GNU tools. Pretty soon I was using free software for about 95% of my computing needs. One day I decided that since I was primarily using free software, why not move to a free system. That was 5 years ago. Today I run free systems exclusively at home, and I am in the process of getting the same at work. The only non-free software that I own are my Linux and console games. I don't dual boot or use wine or some other emulator. Maybe some day I will be able to dump non-free software altogether.

I realize that my use of non-free software, even just for entertaintment purposes, would get me blacklisted by Stallman and his fanatics. It is this my-way-or-the-highway, no compromise attitude that turns me off to Stallman and the FSF. In my opinion, this makes him more of a hindrance than a help to the free software movement.

Re:...and this is where Stallman gets it wrong

[jrumney]

Using free software with a non-free operating system should be viewed as a win, not a loss.

Please show me where RMS calls it a loss? As far as I can see, it is a partial win, and becomes a complete win when the user's experiences with that free software convince them to swtich to a completely free system.

Re:...and this is where Stallman gets it wrong

[Trepidity]

Using free software with a non-free operating system should be viewed as a win, not a loss. More people using free software is a good thing. You start them off slow with a couple of nice applications. Then the user starts looking for free alternatives first before buying something proprietary. From there it's a short hop to running a free system.


I don't think that's an accurate analysis of his views. Stallman does concede that using free software on a non-free operating software is better than using non-free software on that same operating system, and that this can be a way to ease people into a completely free system. He specifically acknowledges this on gnu.org (I can't seem to find the page at the moment, unfortunately), and mentions that as the reason most GNU software has a win32 port. It's also the reason for the existence of the LGPL.

However, Stallman would like this to remain a way to ease people into a completely free system; he doesn't want it to stagnate into nearly everybody using free software on non-free systems, and never making the complete switch to free systems. Thus his reluctance to port GNOME to win32, and his general wariness about using LGPL too extensively.

He's not as one-sided "my way or the highway" as you portray though - if he was, there'd be no official ports of GNU software to win32, and the LGPL wouldn't even exist.

Re:...and this is where Stallman gets it wrong

[AbsoluteRelativity]

I dont think you get black listed for *using* non-free software, you might *making* non-free software, but I dont even think he has a black list of people anyway, I believe he does have a black list of licenses. Also I dont see this "my-way-or-the-highway" bit either. He didnt say anything bad when the makers of Ogg Vorbis switched to BSD from LGPL, because they wanted hardware manufacturers to create players for Ogg Vorbis and they felt LGPL was to restrictive for this, I believe he said this was okay. I think he wants people to try creating free software and developing a business model (for survival) from it, but he is not asking people to commit business suicide, or to starve to death for the purpose of free software. Free software should be the ultimate (utopian kin of) goal of all software engineers, it is the ultimate feature you could possibly offer to your users, but in these times practicality benefits non-free, but things change over time as technology and society change over time.

Stallman is an honest man

[avdi]

I think this response says a lot about RMS's personal character. Some salient quotes:

In our community I often encounter personal insults, sometimes simply reflecting personal enmity, sometimes used as a tactic. You know what I mean. Could you face such hostility for years and respond as dispassionately as this?

and:

People have given me have a reputation for being uncompromising.

and especially:

By nature, I am not diplomatic at all.

Whatever people say about his being "out of touch", I think this shows that he is well aware of the criticisms levelled at him. He is also admirably aware of his own stubborn nature, and of the ideals he stands for. This guy knows what he's fighting for, knows his personal limits, and has no illusions about how he comes across to others.

Re:Stallman is an honest man

[cybrthng]

Just because he admits his problems and limitations doesn't make him right. I would say until RMS can listen to what people have to say instead of philosophize about it things won't get any better for GNU.

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.

Re:Stallman is an honest man

[reflective recursion]

Freedom is the choice of software, not the limitations of it.

Exactly. While I agree with many of the ideas of free software, much of what RMS says sounds to me like "I want what I want and who cares what you want." I believe it is time for RMS to provide answers to serious questions if GNU is to move forward. I'm saying this because right now GNU has the spotlight. If they truely want free software in the world (and less proprietary) they really need to provide answers. Otherwise they will miss their chance and free software ("fad" as some might see it today) could fade away. The signs are already present too (such as infighting and coder burnout, etc.).

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.

Re:his definition of success

[Michael Wardle]

propreitary software rules, but it is well within the budget of the average peasant...

In this situation, the basic freedom to access and modify source code is lost. This means we still do not have direct influence on new features or bug fixes, and still can't get our printer to work, which I believe is one of the motivations of free software.

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.

Unfortunately many "free" societies also undervalue those who work for free or perform volunteer work. George W. Bush has been heard saying "get a real job" to those who are not paid to work. We need to change the view that giving your efforts to free software is somehow "un-American" or "communist" (which has negative connotations).

Free isn't free if it comes with strings attached

[swb]

Really. If you have meet a sociopolitical standard to use free software, how free is it?

Stallman is right

[deno]

GNU != freeware.

The idea behind GNU software isn't "let's do something to help producers of propriatery software". Just on the contrary: the idea is: "let's do something AGAINST propriatery software".

Those who disagree are free to use software which is "freeware", or licenced under one of BSD licences, but the point of GNU licence has always been very clear: Even in the case where licence itself allows some kind of mixed propriatery and GNU-licenced software, this is clearly an "unwanted artefact" by whoever choose to put his/hers software under GNU licence, and one should not expect to be greated as a hero if doing so.

The fact that "oh so many people want to do it" is completely irrelevant, because these "oh-so-many-people" haven't written the programs in question, and thus have nothing to say about the way these should be used apart from kindly asking the author(s). Let me state this once more:

GNU != freeware

Re:Stallman is right

[MrEd]

Bang on my friend.

License choice is entirely up to the author of the code, and that's that.

Re:Stallman is right

[hopeless case]

I thought the idea was to do something FOR computer users better than propriatery software, not to tear down peopriatery software.

The idea is not to reduce the size of Bill Gate's bank account, but to increase the ability of the great mass of computer users to effectively use software.

If you could hurt Bill Gates at the expense of hurting the average computer user in the process, would you?

Re:Stallman is right

[LMCBoy]

The point of GNU is to provide a system of software that does not inhibit the Freedoms of its users to use, share, modify or distribute the code.

To the extent that this is opposite of the proprietary software model, it is "against" proprietary software. That doesn't mean that the point is to "hurt" Bill Gates, or any other person or company. If they lose business in the face of a superior system that doesn't enslave its users, then so be it. But that isn't the direct goal of GNU.

Re:Stallman is right

[hopeless case]

So why promote those freedoms (freedom to use, share, and modify)?

Because it would lead to a world filled with high performance, low cost software, right?

Those freedoms are the right choice because, and only because, they would lead to such a world. So, therefore, they are not the bottom line, but a subtotal on the way, if you will.

Re:Stallman is right

[argoff]

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.

Re:Stallman is right

[LMCBoy]

"So why promote those freedoms (freedom to use, share, and modify)?
Because it would lead to a world filled with high performance, low cost software, right?"

This is more similar to the Open Source point-of-view than the Free Software position. Free Software promotes the Freedoms because the alternative (restricted, proprietary software) is morally wrong. Hence RMS's insistence that OSS != FS.

Re:Stallman is right

[Froggie]

My idea of Free Software is to give something to other people, should I so choose, safe in the knowledge that they can't (legally) bury it in their code and make a profit out of it. I don't care whether it makes other software Free, and I'm not stopping other people writing what they like and selling it for money. My motive is to make sure that what I give, no-one else can take away.

Re:Stallman is right

[Shimmer]

So you don't believe in any sort of "intellectual property" rights at all? That seems like a good way to snuff the Information Age in its infancy.

-- Brian

Re:Stallman is right

[argoff]

So you don't believe in any sort of "intellectual property" rights at all? That seems like a good way to snuff the Information Age in its infancy.

I've also heard that alot, and it also disheartens me. Society has been progressing at regular rate long before "intellectual property". The entire renissance happened without it. Why do people believe that need to have massive monopolies, or innovation will suddenly come to a halt? that didn't happen with Linux!

This attitude was also common in the 1830's with another form of "property" - slavery! There were actually people who believed that the great success and wealth of america rested on it's strong base of plantations, and it was widely believed that it would be impossible to maintain it without slavery. They had no incentive to grow cotton without slaves - right? Sadly 2 million people died over that mistaken belief. Ironically, many of them were very educated.

Re:Stallman is right

[Shimmer]

Society has been progressing at regular rate long before "intellectual property". The entire renissance happened without it.

I suppose that's true, but I think it's a pretty weak argument. To show you, I'll echo your point back to you with a minor tweak:

Society progressed at a regular rate long before "property". 95% of human history happened without it.

The very notion of "rights" (including "property") is a fairly recent invention in human history, but that's not really relevant to the discussion.

I don't see any reason to believe that the existence of intellectual property rights would have hindered the Renaissance -- or helped it much either. These days, however, information and ideas are much more mobile, so the need for such rights seems that much greater.

Why do you interpret this to mean that I'm in favor of "massive monopolies"? I can tell you that I'm not.

-- Brian

Re:Stallman is right

[stubear]

If you remove intellectual proerty rights, you remove any hope of protecting software under the GPL. GPL requires copyrights to exist as uch as any other intellectual idea governed by USC 17.

Re:Stallman is right

[Jboy_24]

I think many people need to recognize this fact. People seem to turn blinders on and make a knee jerk reaction when the question comes to licencing.

I used to work for an GPL ecommerce company, we were talking with one of our potential clients, a famous name, about integrating our product as a sales mechanism using their content delivery system. This would have meant major dough and tonnes (millions) of end users. They were willing to give up any modifications/additions to the code they would have had to make in order to both, get the product up n running and to get the features they desired yet weren't in the product.
As well they'd pay us a big hunk'o'money to give consulting and for our development part. Now we weren't that well rounded so we definatly coulda used the programming help and the cash.

Their problem? There were many many people dieing to figure out their content delivery system, to sell products that would enable anybody to get content without paying.

Well, it basically boiled down to integrating their software with ours, then selling it to their clients. (they were middle men) Well, under the GPL, they were afraid that they would have to give up their propriatary delivery mechanism in source code by integrating it with ours. And they probably were right. At the upper level, we didn't want to split off and relicence it because we had a little RMS as well. GPL or nothing...

Result?
nothing... and i'm off to another job.

Now doing consulting work I make sure the work I do for a company doesn't use ANY gpl stuff in my code. Why? Because all the software I will have writen will be gpled. Ie, if your doing some Perl glue, make sure that library you picked up off the internet isn't GPLed, or that c library.
I'm fine with contributing the libraries that fix global problems to the community, I'm fine for moving the general products to the community. I know the thrill of finding people using your code, and i know the thrill of having people improve it for you.When I release my software I let it go, at most leave a line in there that says I did it, and make sure your critisims are constructive. But I go by a rule that EVERY piece of software that is to be made, does not HAVE to be open.

Futhermore I state as a Law..
At no point in the future will every piece of software created be under the GPL

I think this is unprovable but I think most people (even RMS) would agree on this in principal. Therefore, using a licence that expects every piece eventually to be so is not productive.

And don't think that the GPL has any other purpose but to make ALL software GPLed. RTFM! Its not a hidden agenda or a straw man that Micro$oft is bringing up to defeat Linux. Its the stated and from the questionare, primary goal. If that bugs you, don't use GPL, don't GPL all of your software. Figure out what YOU want for your piece of software and choose THAT licence. There are plenty to choose from. And you can GPL some and not others, LGPL, Artistic, BSD etc etc its your choice.

Re:Stallman is right

[clone304]

That's ignorant. Removing intellectual property rights removes the NEED for the GPL. This is because it naturally enforces the exact letter of the GPL: If I make this and release it to the community, you can't take it, change it, and distribute it without releasing it back to the community. Wow, similarly, when there are no IP rights, no one can take anything from the community, because they were never given the artifical right to keep it from the community in the first place. Get it?

Re:Stallman is right

[ahde]

don't give any anecdotes without names -- I think you forgot the traditional

"its a Fortune (number) company"

Re:Stallman is right

[danov]

The fact that "oh so many people want to do it" is completely irrelevant, because these "oh-so-many-people" haven't written the programs in question, and thus have nothing to say about the way these should be used apart from kindly asking the author(s).

Funny how that sounds like what a proponent of proprietary software would say: "I am the developer, I decide what license I use for my software and how you are to use it.".

I am a big believer in free software, however I cannot help but notice that the free software movement sometimes uses tactics that are strikingly familiar with the way makers of proprietary software act. After all, one of the big argument of the FSF is that deciding how people are gonna use their software ("you can't see the source", etc.) is bad - that people should be free to use the software as they please. Yet telling people how they should release their software is exactly what the FSF is going with the GPL!

I think that there's really no big difference between the GPL and non-copylefted licenses like the BSD license - they're both giving away a right (to use the software as one sees fit). The only difference is that the GPL tries to make a moral point - that proprietary software is wrong, that it should not exist. But imagine this: if lawmakers were to get that and render proprietary software illegal, then there would be no difference between the BSD license and the GPL.

Re:Stallman is right

[argoff]

The very notion of "rights" (including "property") is a fairly recent invention in human history, but that's not really relevant to the discussion.

What? Rights are the the whole point of this discussion. people didn't just pull property rights out of their nose. The entire foundation of property rights derives from the fact that not everyone can use everything at the same time, get it! PS: copyrights by their very nature are massive monopolies

Re:Stallman is right

[stubear]

Ahhh, but IP rights are required to enforce the GPL. Without them the GPL is about as worthless as the paper it's written on. Companies can take form the community without having to give back because the concept of property, which the GPL relies on, believeit or not, has been removed.

Not to mention that compeltely removing the IP system would create many more problems than it solves.

Re:Stallman is right

[Shimmer]

people didn't just pull property rights out of their nose

Correct. And people didn't just pull intellectual property rights out of their noses, either. In a society where ideas are becoming as valuable as physical objects, is it any surprise that IP rights have evolved?

copyrights by their very nature are massive monopolies

Okay, I'll bite. How is my copyright on my own work a "massive monopoly"?

-- Brian

Re:Stallman is right

[Jboy_24]

Ummm.... its not considered proper to mention names in a public forum, when the topic on hand doesn't require them.

Re:Stallman is right

[argoff]

Correct. And people didn't just pull intellectual property rights out of their noses, either. In a society where ideas are becoming as valuable as physical objects, is it any surprise that IP rights have evolved?

Thankyou, and the factor that naturally limits good ideas isn't the distribution system, but the individuals who create them. When we quit trying to monopolize one, it will give more inherit value and to the other and bring more respect to creative individuals. Or let me put it another way, for every one idea you loose control over, there are billions that you would have access to without cost that you wouldn't have before. This is why the GPL paradigm is going to win out over the copyright paradigm every time.

PSS: copyrights are massive monopolies, because any one copyright you get automatically puts a restriction on billions of other people arround the world who are not allowed to copy and redistribute that information. Sounds pretty massive to me?

Re:Stallman is right

[Shimmer]

for every one idea you loose control over, there are billions that you would have access to without cost that you wouldn't have before

Well that's pretty much the Communist paradigm in a nutshell, isn't it? Probably won't get very far with that argument in this day and age.

copyrights are massive monopolies, because any one copyright you get automatically puts a restriction on billions of other people arround the world who are not allowed to copy and redistribute that information

That's just silly. When I buy a piece of land, that also "automatically puts a restriction on billions of other people" who aren't allowed to trespass on it. I don't think anyone could reasonably call my ownership of that land a "massive monopoly". Ditto for my IP.

Tell me this, Mr. Marx, if I don't have control over my ideas, who does? The government?

-- Brian

Re:Stallman is right

[argoff]

well, I thought this argument pretty much died out, but that was so false - I can't let it go unanswered

me:for every one idea you loose control over, there are billions that you would have access to without cost that you wouldn't have before

you:Well that's pretty much the Communist paradigm in a nutshell, isn't it? Probably won't get very far with that argument in this day and age.

Communisim failed because it ignored the fact that physical property has natural limits in supply and demand and a free market is the most efficient mechanisim to allocate those resources. Well guess what? that cd you just recorded, everybody can have a copy of it and it won't deprive you of your copy at all.

you again:That's just silly. When I buy a piece of land, that also "automatically puts a restriction on billions of other people" who aren't allowed to trespass on it. I don't think anyone could reasonably call my ownership of that land a "massive monopoly". Ditto for my IP.

Wrong! If those billions of people used your land, it would drasticly impact your use of it, if those billions of people have a copy of your cd - you could still do whatever the hell you want with your copy and noone would notice - they probably wouldn't even give a damn what you did.

you again:Tell me this, Mr. Marx, if I don't have control over my ideas, who does? The government?

It figures that you would get my name wrong, because you got all your other facts wrong too. But this statement shows your whole problem - ownership of an idea is not exclusive, me, the government, and anyone else can use your idea and it wont prevent you from using it too. If the government restricted the natural supply of oranges, you could see how it could fuck up the market, but if it restricts the natural supply of information and ideas - you don't seem to get it at all. It's not a property right, it's a regulation!

PS: I'm a hard line libertarian, this communist stuff is silly.

Coexistence is reasonable

[ewe2]

If you look at it the Microsoft way, then free software is only there to provide communities that you can sell to, providing it doesn't get in your way.

If you look at it the FSF way, commercial software is only a hindrance to the march of progress.

The truth is in between: freely-available and commercial software have lived side by side for years, and however Bill and Richard want to cancel each other out, its not going to change any time soon. Whether its GNOME or KDE on any proprietory OS isn't the point, its that users are getting something useful.

We currently have almost a symbiotic relationship that is producing great results, and excluding one from the other isn't realistic, much less productive.

At the funeral . . .

[Anonymous Coward]

At a funeral service, the clergyman invited mourners to share their memories of the departed. After several people had spoken, the room was quiet; and the minister asked softly, "Anyone else?"

And Stallman said, "If no one else has anything to say, I'd like to say a few words about Free Software."

Good read!

[underpaidISPtech]

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.

Doesn't Godwin's law apply here?

[jcr]

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

Re:Doesn't Godwin's law apply here?

[MSBob]

I don't disagree. Like I said the tools they use to conduct their Jihad are different. RMS has not threatened with violence but he did cast a FSF Fatwah on a project or two. What I have a problem with, and my point stands, is that both RMS and OBL's behavioural patterns are too similar to ignore.

Re:Doesn't Godwin's law apply here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Physical violence? No, but unless you lack the imagination necessary to extend the comparison you must admit the attack on KDE was violent. RMS refuses to recognize the right of KDE to exist. He IS a fanatic. Apologies are reserved for those capable of reason.

Re:Doesn't Godwin's law apply here?

[jcr]

No, but unless you lack the imagination necessary to extend the comparison you must admit the attack on KDE was violent.

Hogwash. The attack on KDE may have been vehement, or vitriolic, or inappropriate in any number of ways, but get this through your head: Speech is NOT violent. Describing RMS's actions as "violent" is absurd.

-jcr

Re:Doesn't Godwin's law apply here?

[Moofie]

ummm...call me crazy, but I don't think Mr. Stallman has blown anybody up yet. I think that's a pretty critical fucking difference, don't you?

Solaris? HP-UX?

[yaba]

Gnome is not to be used on proprietary platforms? What about Sun Solaris or HP-UX? Are both OpenSource? - No?

So what about the agreements between HP and Ximian to make Gnome the default desktop of HP-UX 11i (or any later version). Sun also already announced Gnome as default desktop for an upcoming Solaris version. Will RMS tell them "Sorry, you are proprietary and may not use Gnome"?

Re:Solaris? HP-UX?

[bytes256]

That's GNU/Solaris and GNU/HP-UX to you

-RMS

Re:Solaris? HP-UX?

[Medievalist]

Doesn't really matter, Solaris must either go OSS or die, and HP-UX is already a lame-duck zombie.
--Charlie

Re:Solaris? HP-UX?

[phajek]

Err, you could get the source to Solaris and also obtain a free ISO-- if you free inclinded to do so. So are you stating that Solaris must receive the OSS(tm) branding in order to "survive"? Few point:

(1) Solaris are a vast amount of 3rd party developers and software that is well optimized
(2) For those of us the use Solaris on big boxes, Linux with it broken scheduler doesn't even touch the scalablitiy of Solaris.
(3) get a clue!

Re:Solaris? HP-UX?

[Medievalist]

1) I'm not aware of any way to legally obtain free copies of Solaris source for use in a commercial environment. Got a link? Seriously, I know some people who'll be overjoyed - not everyone is fed up with the Solaris patch-fest.

2) I have eliminated Solaris & expensive big boxes by using linux on cheap little boxes. Scalability is achievable for most purposes through proper process design, and in those idustries where this is not possible it will be in the near future as free OSes continue to evolve - much faster than Sun's OS is evolving, incidentally. Besides, IBM's mainframe OS-390 scales bigger than Sun, so if scalability is the only criteria for worth Sun loses there too.

3) Always willing to listen to critique. But Solaris, like MacOS, is more religion than philosophy. Have you tried to replace your Suns? I've done it sucessfully, though your business may not be able to yet. My employer avoids costs of more than $600,000 US a year thanks to the deep-sixing of proprietary systems.

--Charlie

OS X and Gnome, Super!

[tickle_me_perl]

Well I have never been a huge fan of Mac's, simply because I was use to DOS when I was first intoduced to them. Although, I thought that the GUI interface was terrific. Unlike anything I had ever seen. It's been many years since then. An about six month ago I was intoduced to Linux and it's GUIs. The only different is that with linux I had exactly what I wanted when I used dos. Control. I haven't use a Mac since the 1988. I have always thought that it was stupid to be proprietary. If Gnome can be run under OS X then that's terrific. Who cares what others invision for the GUI. Personally I think that anyones vision is valid and if there are enough that agree with that vision, something should and hopefully will be done about it. I would like to see more Linux OSes for the MAC. Maybe that would compel me to give them a shot.

Stallman vs. Glass: Fight!

[wideangle]

Brett Glass wins again. Babality!

How is this different fron GNU on proprietary UNIX

[Craig Maloney]

How is this much different from GNU running on proprietary UNIX machines all these years? GNU wouldn't have had the visibility it does and the loyalty it does if they hadn't had Sun and HP versions of GNU tools. I think the real reason GNU is where it's at is because it's always been there to scratch the users itch. What's so wrong about having GNOME or other GNU tools there to scratch OSX users itches? I think it's a big win for GNU that people are ready to accept these tools on OSX.

I think this is more of a purity issue than a political issue. Yes, in a perfect world users would prefer to run GNU tools on GNU operating systems and pass around GNU blessed formatted documents. We're closer to that goal if people become more familiar with the GNU tools, and not a moment before. I can't think how GNOME or other tools running on OSX hurts the end goal.

there will always be proprietary software...

[jptxs]

...and the only way to flourish is to operat along with it. As long as people can make money by making software, they will keep it closed. So if you want to push free, open software to the fullest extent it can reach you'll need it to interoperate with the money makers. Not to do that will be counter-productive.

Extremism is detrimental to free software

[jdreed1024]

After reading Stallman's responses to the poll, my impression of him has not changed.

First of all, he should be commended for having the guts to go out and make the statements he does. Look at his responses - he's basically telling the GNOME Board "Look, you can get as enthusiastic as you want about GNOME, but it's an integral part of GNU software, and don't you forget it." Whether right or wrong, you have to believe strongly in something to say that to their [virtual] faces.

The problem is, Stallman's viewpoint only serves to support the stereotype of the free software movement: "A bunch of opinionated geeks, who have all these high and mighty principles, but won't actually help Joe User learn how to use this stuff, because they don't consider him worthy."

If you wish to obey both the letter and spirit of the "laws" of the free software community, then yes, Stallman's view that free is free, and proprietary is proprietary, and never the twain shall meet, is right on target. However, it's impossible to do that in the real world. In today's society of capitalism and instant gratificaton, you need to offer people an incentive to use your software. Simply appealing to their ideals isn't going to be that successful.

Here's an example: Imagine Joe User is given a Windows PC. Let's pretend that Windows PC runs the GNOME desktop, but still runs Windows as the OS. Once Joe User figures it out, he's pretty happy with it. In a year or so, Microsoft wants to charge him some more money for his license. His friend says "Hey, you don't need to do that. Try installing Linux." Joe User sets it up, and when it boots up, he sees the familiar GNOME desktop. Joe User is a happy user, and sticks with Linux, and another ones bites the dust as far as MS is concerned. This is a good thing, right?

Now imagine another scenario: GNOME can't be used with any proprietary software. It doesn't exist for for Windows. Joe User's friend comes along, and installs Linux for him to alleviate Microsoft's licensing. Joe User is very confused. "WTF is this bear claw doing where the Start menu should be?" he says. "Well, I see Netscape, but damned if I know how to manage my windows. I'm a busy man - I don't have time to read this documentation when I'm supposed to be working. I can't get anything done.", he laments. "Screw it," he says. "I'll just pay Microsoft the extra money."

The difference between the two scenarios is that in the first case, the user can take his time to learn GNOME. It's not essential to get his work done. Joe User views the idea of having to learn about Windows as a done deal. To him, you can't use computers unless you can figure out Windows. Because of this, he can fall back onto Windows if GNOME is confusing. But he'll eventually master it, at his own pace. If you throw it at him, and say "You can't do squat until you figure out how to use this, he's going to be unhappy."

There's lots of free (speech, not beer) software available for commerical OS's. I love Apache, but because of some applications I use, I can't boot into Linux 24-7. Thank goodness Apache is available for Windows, and not just because it's more secure than IIS - it's also a better product.
Imagine if it wasn't available for anything but GNU/Linux.

The point is, if you irreparably sever the connections between free and proprietary software, it can only serve to be detrimental to the movement. It's like opening "Joe's Fast-Food Burgers" right between a McDonald's and a Burger King, and wondering why no one is showing up to buy your food. You need to offer the average person an incentive to come to YOU instead of competitors.

As much as we may hate it, "It runs under Windows" is a good incentive for some people. Then we can say: "Hey - why don't you try out CygWin? It looks a lot like a UN*X console, but it runs under Windows. If you get fed up with it, just click that "X" in the corner, and you can go back to what you were doing."

Now it's up to the free software community to take it to the next step. As in, "Hey, buddy. I noticed you've got cygwin, Apache, and StarOffice on that Windows box. Want to try installing Linux? You get the exact same thing, but without paying money to Microsoft. Give it a try."

The "free as in speech" idea will appeal to users once they're involved in the movement. The "free as in beer" is what is necessary to draw them into the movement. Stallman would do well to understand this.

Re:Extremism is detrimental to free software

[NineNine]

Thank goodness Apache is available for Windows, and not just because it's more secure than IIS - it's also a better product.

Too bad Apache doesn't recommend using it.

From the Apache for W2K documentation:

Apache on Win32 should be considered initial-release quality code.
It has not been subjected to the same stresses on its stability and
security that the Unix releases have enjoyed, so there is a greater
possibility of undiscovered vulnerabilities to stability or security
of the Win32 port.

Apache performs best, and is still most reliable on Unix platforms.
Over time the performance, reliability and security for the Apache
Win32 port has improved, and continues to improve. Folks doing
comparative reviews of webserver performance are still asked to
compare against Apache running on a Unix platform such as
Solaris, FreeBSD, or Linux.

Re:Extremism is detrimental to free software

[Hard_Code]

I think Stallman would respond that you are arguing from a premise he doesn't hold. Stallman says that if GNU/GNOME, etc. become obsolete *but* still foster a community of code sharing and "freedom", then GNU/GNOME, etc. will have succeeded. Whereas you are saying these will only succeed if they start being used by the masses. I think Stallman would say "so what" about Joe Windows User, it's not worth compromising "freedom".

Personally I think there's room for compromise, but by starting off with the presumption that the goal is to gain wider acceptence in the first place, I think you illustrate the ideological divide. Stallman would rather preserve the "purity" of Free Software than to convert users, whereas you seem to have the reversed opinion. Not making a judgment - just pointing it out.

Re:Extremism is detrimental to free software

[Ian Bicking]

The problem is, Stallman's viewpoint only serves to support the stereotype of the free software movement: "A bunch of opinionated geeks, who have all these high and mighty principles, but won't actually help Joe User learn how to use this stuff, because they don't consider him worthy."

Those opinionated geeks with high and mighty principles are what made GNU happen, why there's so much GPLed software, why Linux is as complete as it is. They deserve credit for working -- often without compensation -- towards that goal. They aren't businessmen, they aren't marketers, but it's those programmers that are why we are where we are.

Like it or not, those programmers are more important to GNU/Linux than all those users you speak of. Not that users aren't good -- but the real momentum of the system will come from the creators, not the users.

Re:Extremism is detrimental to free software

[jdreed1024]

I didn't say programmers didn't deserve credit. I said Stallman's viewpoint supports a stereotype. As we all know, stereotypes are not fact by any means. Yes, the majority of programmers are willing to help individual users if they have the time. And yes, people who think they are "entitled" to support for free software are wrong. The point is, there are those (I could find sources, but we've all seen their words) who would respond to a bug/feature request in software with: "It's open-source. You figure it out and fix it, or stop bitching."

And this leaves the GNOME Foundation where?

[the-banker]

The most disappointing aspect of RMS's views is the potential impact on the GNOME Foundation.

One Board member cannot change things drastically working alone, so in that I am somewhat relieved. What concerns me is that we actually have multiple UNIX vendors (as well as Linux) looking to make GNOME a default desktop. Once again, Free Software is on the precipice of becoming a standard - it would be a shame to see that fail to materialize due to squabbles. What his statement amounts to is that GNOME is to provide a desktop to an - as of now - incomplete operating system.

Propaganda

[under_score]

Stallman uses the word "free" in a propagandist manner. Whenever he is asked to explain what he means by the word, he is always perfectly honest and always applies it in his life in that manner(therefore not hypocritical). But, he does not use the word in the same way that you or I might. He does not mean free-as-in-beer. He does not mean free-as-in-speech (although sometimes it appears so). Rather, he means the GPL. "Free" is one-to-one with "GPL" as far as Stallman is concerned. And that is okay, because he is clear about it. Why does he use the word "free"? Probably because it is closest to what he feels is the underlying philosophy of the GPL, and he needs a simple recognizable, marketable word to communicate his goals.

King Richard

[Dix]

He's a bit like the British royal family.
They get endless flak in the press, but their reaction is a consistent non-inflamatory one-liner and a speech once or twice per year.
Also, they have about as much power ...

Nevertheless, somehow, they wield great influence.
(Resting on past greatness perhaps?)

You're right

[benad]

Here's what Stallman said:

If some day GNOME, GCC, GNU Emacs, and all of GNU are obsolete and forgotten, but computer users generally are free to share and change the software they use, these programs will have done their job well. If, on the other hand, GNOME and the rest of the GNU system are widely used, but mainly in combination with proprietary software, they will have succeeded only part-way, and a big task will remain ahead of us.

As implied, their goal is that your whole computing experience is based only on "free" software. This is crazy. Computing can grow only if you have both commercial and "free" software. Remove one of the two and you have something like technology without science, or science without technology. We have to be realistic.

I almost always mix "free" and non-free software without rebooting, and I'm OK with that. At least I have the freedom of writing GPL, Shareware or commercial software if I want to. That's what I don't like about Linux: you feel "forced" to write only "free" software...

- Benad

Re:You're right

[ethereal]

As implied, their goal is that your whole computing experience is based only on "free" software. This is crazy. Computing can grow only if you have both commercial and "free" software. Remove one of the two and you have something like technology without science, or science without technology. We have to be realistic.

I think this is begging the question - do we know for sure that an entirely free-software-based computing sector cannot grow and thrive just as well as a partly or entirely proprietary one? It seems to me that computing has grown faster as free software (and even open source software) has become more prominent. The only question is whether we have currently found the best "mix" between open and proprietary, or whether we should continue on to more and more degrees of freedom in order to improve software even more.

Re:You're right

[benad]

I think this is begging the question - do we know for sure that an entirely free-software-based computing sector cannot grow and thrive just as well as a partly or entirely proprietary one?

Not all commercial software are proprietary. There's a huge difference between open-source software and "based on open standards software". While I agree that something totally proprietary is bad, this is a different topic.

The biggest thing now about open-source is not about open standards but about the right that we have to protect and charge for getting access to some source code. Coding is difficult, takes huge amounts of work, so we cannot expect everyone to just give that away for free and find some other "trick" to get paid.

Economy is now the whole point of open-source software. Software is difficult to make, so how can we make a living out of it? There will always be some people with enough free time to produce things, but we cannot expect computing to be built up on the leisure time of individuals. Maybe that was true 30 years ago, but not anymore. And up to now, no one found a way to make a living out of open-source alone, at least something as good as in the industry. Like it or not, this is true.

It seems to me that computing has grown faster as free software (and even open source software) has become more prominent.

Sorry, but it's only open standards that made the difference. Remember: the first web browsers were commercial, but it's the open standards that allowed competition. Even open-source software may not be based on open standards, so they could be a pain to learn, manage and change. Learn to use Linux, then tell me if it's easy to learn. Same thing for Microsoft Office.

From memory, everything that went fast in computing was the result of either:

• Tons of money; (sometimes happens)
• Brillant computer scientists; (very rare)
• or Open standards. (often happens)

I haven't seen one example where making the software open-source made it's development faster. And I know what I'm talking about (see my site).

- Benad

Re:You're right

[ethereal]

Not all commercial software are proprietary. There's a huge difference between open-source software and "based on open standards software". While I agree that something totally proprietary is bad, this is a different topic.

You are entirely correct; I read your post too quickly and assumed that you were making a leap that I've seen many others here make. Mea culpa.

However, since you go on to argue that it would be difficult to support a software industry economically based on entirely open source software, it sounds like you are arguing that "commercial" will essentially come out to be "proprietary" anyway.

I think the assumption that you are making is that the survival of a particular software industry is what's important for computing. I don't think that is really the case - otherwise the swallowing of the computing world by Microsoft would be the best outcome possible, rather than the worst, right? What is important is the computing experience which is provided to the users of the software; whether that experience can be better supplied by a commercial software industry or by the free software world is the big question. With a large enough user base, free software can drive itself forward - not built just during leisure time, but also as other users of the software hack on it to get it to work for their business needs. Considering the relative sizes of the current free software and commercial software communities, free software is already growing almost as fast, and is going much faster in some arenas. If free software were all that there were, the improvement would be even greater.

Sorry, but it's only open standards that made the difference. Remember: the first web browsers were commercial, but it's the open standards that allowed competition. Even open-source software may not be based on open standards, so they could be a pain to learn, manage and change. Learn to use Linux, then tell me if it's easy to learn. Same thing for Microsoft Office.

Linux was easy to learn, because I already knew HP-UX, and Linux was based on the same POSIX standards. I can't speak to Microsoft Office, not having tried to do anything complicated in it. And the POSIX standards were open for years, but cheap and reliable POSIX clones did not become readily available until people started handing around the source code to them. Open standards are good; open source to implement them with is better.

I haven't seen one example where making the software open-source made it's development faster. And I know what I'm talking about (see my site).

That's not exactly what I said. I said "computing has grown faster", not that a particular project has developed faster. Open source means more people contribute to projects, more people fork and produce interesting variants of projects, and user choice improves - thus computing itself, measured from the user perspective, grows faster. Although I will also point out that for large enough open source projects the project itself will be developed faster as development and debugging is done in parallel by many smarter people than one company could hire. Most projects are not Mozilla :) And even Mozilla is growing and blossoming in unpredictable ways now that there is a seasoned cadre of hackers that understand and make use of it.

Re:You're right

[benad]

Open source means more people contribute to projects, more people fork and produce interesting variants of projects, and user choice improves - thus computing itself, measured from the user perspective, grows faster.

I think I now understand what you mean. If I understand correctly, software innovation comes faster from open-source software than from closed-source software. Hey, hacking is easier! For that you're right.

But, IMO, I still think that some technologies are so complex now that they are more the result of competition than "software hacks" in open-source. For example, 3D rendering, video compression, OCR, voice recognition and so on. But then, I'm sure some open-source coders start doing that as soon as they see the price tag on the commercial packages... but I'd be surprised if they match the commercial packages...

- Benad

Re:You're right

[ethereal]

Good question. There are arenas that are tough to get a foothold in without some monetary support, and I would be more confident in my argument if I could point to the preponderance of open source projects being new and innovative ideas, rather than free clones of commercial software.

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?)

Re:A lot of people

[Zico]

The important distinction with Free Software is that those boundaries are extensive, flexible and empowering.

Absolute eyeroll-enducing jibberish. Sounds like it came from a Red Hat spokesman after his first day in Marketing 101.

Richard Stallman is NOT a "socialist" in the classic sense.

And? This argument is as tired as the whole "You label him a liberal like it's a bad thing, but lemme tell you what classic liberalism is really about!" thing. Well that's great, but words evolve, which is why we do things like preface them with the word "classic" to show that we're talking about something else. If someone doesn't use a similar word, how about assuming that they're not talking about the classic type, okay? Anyway, I don't care what term you want to use to refer to Stallman's philosphy, but I think a good summation would be: "People with lots of money and cool stuff are dicks. Let's take it from them and give it to people who don't have it, whether they've ever lifted a finger or not."

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.

Jesus Christ. Just like with that socialism thing, what's with this semantic mental masturbation you've got going? Or did you get this one from the professor who gave you those after-class tips about "flexible and empowering boundaries?" You're really not going to pretend to be so dense and/or narrow-minded as to not know what is meant when someone is described as "extreme," are you? And no, not the Mountain Dew type, either.

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?

Slamming his philosophy is surely not "gagging or limiting" what he says. There doesn't seem to be any shortage of RMS stories here at Slashdot for him to get his views out. His GPL seems to take away a lot more freedom than I've ever seen taken away from the man himself, especially where his right to speak is concerned.

Re:A lot of people

[jd]

Congratulations. It's rare to see a post that's full of flammage, with no fuel. Must be one of those spontaneous combustion things.

Let's cut to the chase, shall we? You don't know me from any other person, and yet manage to draw the most fascinating conclusions. "My professor", indeed! For all you know, I may well =BE= a professor, 60, with more degrees and Ph.Ds than you've had hot dinners. I'll conceed that that is not generally -seen- as the Slashdot norm, but since I doubt you know enough Slashdot users to determine what the true norm is, any conclusion you draw is mere stereotypical trash.

Let's get onto word usage, shall we? The meaning of a word, such as "socialist" depends upon common usage, does it? Common amongst who? I suspect that every single definable culture, sub-culture, nationality, or other socially-definable entity, has their own "common usage". YOUR "common usage" is not mine, is not Joe Average's, is not anybodys but your own. The fact that people can communicate at all is a miricle not to be taken lightly.

But having said that, even if you were to take the views of the Right Wing American Public (who are all a bunch of A-class A-holes), their version of "socialist" probably coincides with your own, but not with ANY country that defines or describes itself as Socialist. Who also out-number said Right Wing American Dorks. (They're also nastier, as a rule. That's why the French never needed any laws to let them have weapons. The fictional character of Asterix is strongly based on a very real Gaullic temper, if someone challanges their philosophies of life.)

To finish with, you claim RMS has "taken away" freedoms. Strange how you never back this up with anything but rhetoric. Slamming his philosophy IS gagging, as it diverts attention from the message and places it on the personalities involved.

(This is one reason a popular philosophy today emphasises that principles, not personalities, are the important thing in life.)

You show me one categoric example of RMS taking away freedom - not with some Right Wing extremist nonsense, but spelled out as a logical, rational and PRECICE argument, I'll listen. So will a lot of people. I don't believe you can, and that even if you could, you won't. If you could unwrap the egos from the debate so easily, you'd have done so in your first post. The mere fact that you didn't counter, so much as cynically condemn, shows much more about your state of mind than whether your mind has anything useful to say about RMS.

Re:A lot of people

[TooTallFourThinking]

(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?)

I think you hit an important point with this. True freedom comes with limitations, no, it comes with the responsiblity that the same freedom given to you should not encroach on another person's freedom.

I could argue that my freedoms are limited because I am not allowed to do something that would restrict the freedom of someone else. And as such, I am not completely free.

While this argument is flawed, it is not necessarily apparent to people and needs to be stated now and again.

(Yes, I more or less said the same thing as you. I'm quite aware of that. I just like hearing myself type.)

Re:A lot of people

[Chris Johnson]

"Anyway, I don't care what term you want to use to refer to Stallman's philosphy, but I think a good summation would be: "People with lots of money and cool stuff are dicks. Let's take it from them and give it to people who don't have it, whether they've ever lifted a finger or not.""

Ye gods. Are you completely insane? I would humbly suggest that a better summation would be: "Let's set things up so that a group of people pledged to share THEIR RESOURCES can share them, but people not willing to commit to that can't have any. And let's hope everybody eventually agrees to join the pool of sharers, if necessary by out-competing NON-sharers and killing their markets by releasing alternatives that WE come up with. Serve 'em right."

Or would you prefer corporate welfare and propping up proprietary software that way?

Its about GNU first!

[humps]

GNOME is part of GNU project (as he said), its a desktop for the GNU system. First priority would be to have it run on GNU systems and promote free software and its community. As long as he is clear on this goal, why should we flame him?

Its really nazi to say we should not allow gnome or any gnu software to run with proprietary stuff as some ppl are shouting here. GPL says it all really! You use original GPL'ed stuff and add proprietary things and its fine, unless you modify the original code!

Look at .Net regardless of the PassPort scam, a generic .Net service can really talk to anything that talks the same xml. Making a software with an open interface so ANYTHING can talk to it is GOOD. You guys knows what is an 'interface' right? not everybody is a C/Assembler monkey.

Say I have a kernel that does great home networking and adsl sharing, but uses Gnome for GUI. My users may actually get to know Gnome and the rest of GNU like Linux and discover the rest of the free software might do a lot more than my own proprietry kernel!

humps

Usability

[mkrus]

Shouldn't GNOME's main and most important goal be to make Linux easier to use on the desktop?

Re:RMS is a jackass...

[bytes256]

Hmmm...GNU dissenter=Troll

Thank god I use FreeBSD!

no divorce

[aozilla]

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

I agree with Stallman on that point.

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?"

Stallman knows that divorcing free software from proprietary is not always the right choice. This is why he created the LGPL.

I think it is mandatory that free software not be divorced from proprietary in order to accomplish RMS's goals. But I'm not talking about OS X, I'm talking about Windows. OS X has very little market share, and can safely be ignored, but Gnome must work on Windows and work well, if a GNU system is to have any chance of replacing Windows. Perhaps if the Windows port is GPLed (Gnome is LGPLed) that would encourage free software even more.

After thinking about it, maybe that is the solution with Mac OS X. Release the OS X port of Gnome under the GPL. Then the displacement of users from GNU systems to OSX will almost surely be outshadowed by the displacement of proprietary software (which possibly runs only on OSX) to GPLed software (which can possibly be easily ported to GNU systems).

Dictator RMS, some brainfood

[k4m3]

From this article :

No ! Proprietary software is immoral and must not exist. If you give me a copy of this program, I have the right to use it freely. Users have the right to decide themselves what they do with the softwares they're using.

The choice does not belong to developpers, neither companies nor tyrans must have the freedom to decide. You don't have the freedom to force your preferences. FSF's mission is to convince users to not tolerate anymore proprietary software.

I took the freedom to translate from french. As you can see, RMS considers simply that a software is not a product, but an act. As an act, its scope must not interfere with someone else freedom. This is liberty. It's the same fight as the one for software patents. Whether you consider a software as a manufactured product or as an expression of some art or science changes dramatically your vision of his views.

Reflections upon RMS.

[A_Non_Moose]

Over the years RMS has been a rather interesting character, if for no other reason than his tenacity, boarderline fanaticism and ideals.

I forget the circumstance (gcc vs cc compiler, perhaps) but RMS's views were dead set against one of the two, and IIRC Linus was trying to decide for/aginst RMS's arguments.

Now, this is based on my rather fuzzy recollection, but the jist is there:
I think Linus, himself, said in effect "RMS pisses people off by being unyielding, uncompromising, unrelenting...and invariably proven correct.

From what RMS said in the interview that he has learned *at times to be diplomatic* when it is called for, is very telling.
Wasn't it Will Rogers who said "diplomacy is the art of saying 'nice doggy' until you can find a big rock."?

Stallman has the proper motives, as usual, however his meathods leave a bit to be desired (still) it seems.

Re:Reflections upon RMS.

[Xunker]

I think a lot of the extreme people are much too extreme, like Richard Stallman; He's a very extreme person, and while I admire a lot of his ideals, I don't admire him because he is so extreme that he can't relate to other people; and that's a limitation.

What happened to question number 7?

[rsimmons]

It looks like Richard Stallman omitted question number 7. I wonder what that question was and why he did not answer it. I'm really curious as to why he removed it from his response completely?

It's Stallman, of course it's narrowminded

[BonoVox]

Stallman's view doesn't appear to be any different than Microsoft's. Microsoft wants everyone to use Microsoft software. Stallman wants everyone to use GNU software and license under the GPL.

I believe I'd rather have the freedom to choose between MS software and GNU software, and the freedom to license any code I happen to write any way I see fit.

Sorry RMS. I didn't let MS take my freedom of choice away, and I'm not going to let you, either.

Re:"hippie," not "hippy"

[SpinyNorman]

Hippy

weird

[nomadic]

Someone starts bundling proprietary software with their open source, everyone here goes crazy.

Richard Stallman criticizes the same practice, and everyone jumps on him.

Re:Stallman has lost it!

[cs668]

You are nuts!

The idea that choosing what happens to the work that I do is the same as committing murder is the sort of over the top attitude that makes RMS comical.

If I can not choose what happens to my work I will not do any. But, then I suppose you would advocate some software labor camps to make sure I produce for the collective.

Stallman's a crackpot, baby steps are essential

[Arethan]

His quest to destroy comercial software by creating free alternatives is admirable, but the goal is unattainable through his rigid guidelines.

Realistically, you can't expect users to drop everything they already know and move to a completely free solution. The functionality of the application in question isn't the issue. The look and feel of the application in question isn't the issue. The issue is the simple fact that people, by nature, resist change.

You could have an office suite that was a 100% clone of MS Office. Right down to the bugs and easter eggs. The functionality and look & feel would be exactly the same, yet people would resist using it simply because it isn't MS Office.

Granted, not everyone holds such an aversion to change. You probably would see a slightly larger acceptance than the current Linux userbase, but all-in-all it would still be fairly insignificant. Most of the people that haven't already tried Linux will still be afraid to try it, simply because it's too much change too fast. It makes them uncomfortable.

Now people can be cooed into change. In order to do this you need to take something dear to them, and mix it with something that is new, yet similar to something they already know. Like putting together a GUI that's similar to explorer.exe, and getting all of their Windows applications to run on Linux. Now they have all of their applications accessible to them, so their dear software is right there with them, yet they have to experience this strange new OS. "Good thing the user interface is mostly the same, or I wouldn't know what I'd do!", is what they'll think. At least at first.

After a while, they'll get used to it. And during this transition time, they'll probably try a few of these 'new fangled open source thingies'. They'll get lost in the application (it always happens to Joe User), and they'll get scared that they'll break something, and they'll revert back to the lowest ideology that they know. Namely: click the X in the corner to quit. This will repeat a few times, and will probably take a year or so of time, but eventually they will learn to cope with the funny GNOME and KDE applications ("whatever that means"), and will begin to feel at home in their new surroundings. Hopefully they will even start to rely on some of these new found applications for their daily computing lives.

Once they become reliant on a few pieces of OSS software, we can change the rules just a little bit more. Maybe move to a more Unix-like GUI, maybe introduce them to the command line. Utilities like cat, sed, grep, awk, and sort may not seem too useful to them at first, but they'll probably notice that copying and moving files is a hell of a lot faster in a CLI than it is in a GUI.

But, none of this is possible without baby steps. No Joe User off the street is going to just throw away all of their data and start fresh, and they're too busy to learn a bunch of new interfaces. Remember that not everyone is a computer geek. Most of these people are barely literate enough to install applications on their own. A good number of people buy a computer from a store, and only use the software that it's bundled with. If there's a new app they want, they might buy it, so long as their 8yr old nephew says he'll install it for them.

People in general are indeed becoming more literate, but we are over-estimating their competence. Baby steps are the key...

GNOME and OS X

[greygent]

It is simply amazing how many people want to use GNOME together with Mac OSX

One guy on a Mac site writing about how great it is running GNOME alongside OS X != many people. At most, people may want to run it temporarily just to see what it's about.

The Mac OS X environment blows away GNOME in terms of functionality and usability. I know, I use them both regularly. Why add the bloated overhead of Xfree and GNOME over the somewhat bloated Aqua interface?

What does GNOME do that Aqua doesn't?

Re:GNOME and OS X

[Jeremy Erwin]

Running XFree86 on my iBook allows me to freely use GNU software when I need to. I use a number of free software packages on a daily basis-- including emacs, xemacs, octave, gnuplot, perl, and lyx. It's not a seamless interface, but then, it doesn't have to be.

That said, I don't really need GNOME. I have the MacOSX finder, and it's far more convenient for me to use the Apple provided interface for file management, cut/paste, printing, etc. So while I might be interested in picking up and improving free software from the GNOME project, the core motivation behind the project-- a consistent, easy to use interface to Linux/(Free|Open|Net)BSD is not something that interests me, as a MacOSX user.

RMS supports KDE?

[mjh]

If some day GNOME, GCC, GNU Emacs, and all of GNU are obsolete and forgotten, but computer users generally are free to share and change the software they use, these programs will have done their job well. If, on the other hand, GNOME and the rest of the GNU system are widely used, but mainly in combination with proprietary software, they will have succeeded only part-way, and a big task will remain ahead of us.

Does this paragraph indicate that RMS would support KDE, if KDE meets his definition of free software? Note: I'm not trying to start a flame war about GNOME vs. KDE. I'm just asking if RMS, in his answer to this question, would support stopping the GNOME project in favor of a more popular, more established, more whatever GUI environment for the GNU system. Maybe KDE is that system. If so, would RMS, if part of the GNOME board, work to further the goals of KDE if he felt that KDE was a better GUI for the GNU system?

It's interesting that this discussion came up at exactly the same time that I'm browsing around looking at Pie Menus. And at one time they say that they are tightly integrated with IE and Active X, but in the next sentance they claim that they are free and unrestricted. My immediate reaction was that they can hardly be free if they're tightly integrated with something that is non-free. In other words, the use of free software obligates me to use non-free software, which obligates me to support a company I find reprehensible. Is that sort of thing extending or restricting my freedom?

And then someone goes and posts this, and now I find myself taking the exact opposite stance. While I'd like to agree with RMS, I can't. Just because GNOME is a GNU project does not mean that GNOME must subjugate it's responsibilities to its own success in order to maintain "higher responsibilities" to the success of GNU and free software.

That's kinda like the draft isn't it? When our country calls us to die for the furtherance of its goals. It's great if you, as a citizen, volunteer for that responsibility, but it's a whole other ball of wax when you're forcibly required to do it.

What to think about this? What to think? Hmmm.....

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:How is this different fron GNU on proprietary U

[Ridge2001]

It is not RMS's goal to prohibit running GNU software with or on top of proprietary software. He simply doesn't want to provide proprietary software with free advertising. See the GNU Coding Standards. I believe that explains his position fairly well.

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 ...)

outgrown its license?

[wydmah]

So when a project is successful this is precisely the time when you should change the license under which it has become so successful??? The subtext in much of the criticism is clear - GNOME should grow up and get its hair cut, even if RMS won't. But the success of the GNU project is not down just to programming skill - it is down to the license. Think BSD vs Linux for a minute.
RMS has opinions he fights for - his aim is, and has been for years, free software. He'll try to pursuade people to write free software, he'll fight elections for it, he'll write it himself - I mean thats just terrible....

Desktops and non-free software

[Sgt Pinback]

If RMS wants a desktop environment that is fully GPLed and thus can't be used with proprietary software, why doesn't he adopt KDE as the GNU project's desktop?

Misunderstanding Stallman

[sterno]

What you are describing is something that a USER does with the software which is exactly his point. I don't think he takes issue with users using free software with non-free software but rather that the non-free software exists in the first place.

His issue is with the corporations and the developers who use closed licenses. I suspect that if your description of his position was accurate there'd be no such thing as the LGPL. That license is all about giving people the freedom to interoperate between open and closed software.

Re:Misunderstanding Stallman

[_iris]

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.

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:Free vs. Open

[Scooby Snacks]

Well, the GPL itself, in section two, says,

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this License.

I'd say that's pretty damn similar to OSD's section 9.

Re:Free vs. Open

[DaoudaW]

Similar, but the differences are important.

The GPL is saying you don't compromise the proprietary license by packaging some free software with it.

The Open Source Definition is saying you don't compromise the Open Source license by packaging proprietary software with it.

Right Tool for the Job

[iCharles]

If the right tool for the job is Open Source, then I use the Open Source tool.

If the right tool is proprietary, then I use propritary.

Is that wrong?

"Right tool," for my purposes is the one that can accomplish the task quickly, stably, fits into the existing architecture, and can be supported (both internally (having staff trained in the technology) and externally (support from vendor or other third party)). If something does the job, but is a departure from our architecture, it may not be the right tool.

Open Source, the methodology, is just one solution to a problem. Proprietary may be another. If the Open Source doesn't suite the needs of a given application, not only would it not be chosen, it should not be chosen. That is how a marketplace works.

Besides, does it help "the movement" if an inferior solution is chosen just because it is Open Source? While it means a greater installed base, it would not put the best face forward. In effect, the rational for that is quite similar to FUD.

Re:RMS is a jackass... and so is Marcos the Jackle

[bytes256]

Hey dickweed...I was just saying that anyone who disses GNU on /. gets marked as a troll no matter what they say. I support Open Source...but I hate RMS and the FSF...they've done good things and I appreciate what they've done in the past...but ideologically i can not follow RMS

design a GIMP plugin API

[DABANSHEE]

That is, if one doesn't yet exist.

Then a propritry software developer could license 'pantone colours' & write a 'pantone colour' support plugin for GIMP.

That gives GIMP potential support of 'pantone colours' without compromising their GPL (or whatever 'free license' they use).

GNOME doesn't need to be tied to other GNU softwar

[flatrock]

I don't see why well written desktop software needs to be tied to a certain platform. Much of the GNU software is used on many different platforms. Is the main purpose of GCC just to have a free software compiler so that you can compile free software? Is the main purpose of EMACS really to provide an editor on GNU platforms? Do the majority of the contributors agree with these goals? It seems like the idea of GNOME's main purpose being to supply a desktop for GNU software is too narrow. I would think that the goal of GNOME is to supply the best desktop software that they can, and make it usable on as many platforms as they can reasonably support. But this is just my opinion, and other people closer to the issue will likely have more insight.

Re:Tough Medicine == Gridlock

[mallan]

Having Stallman on the board will only hurt GNOME. Being as obstinate and stubborn as he is, he will simply refuse to give ground. Resulting in gridlock. Resulting in GNOME decision making griding to a halt.

If he was so concerned about GNOME being Free only, he should have pushed for its use of the GPL from the beginning instead of spending so much time KDE-bashing.

The guy is a control freak. He should not be put in a position of power.

Re:How is this different fron GNU on proprietary U

[KaeloDest]

This is so true, I have been running Linux for a few years on various Macintoshes and I prefer many of the strengths of Linux ofer many of the grace notes of the Classic MacOS.

Maybe I should not use fink and be forced to buy More vendor-closed software. Right now I have a choice between the scarce packages that are native for Xv.10.1 and MS Office for X and if I run Office for X then I have done far worse than my other choice and that is to continue to use the Linux that I paid for on the mac that I paid for and let the VENDOR BEWARE! I hate to split the point or the codebase, but as a Mac support tech I must run MacOS X, it is a requirement for many of our jobs. Do I then have to *Keep it real* and have a seperate Linux box?

It is and will continue to be my *nix skill that keep me at the head of my field. Any other questions about it. Buy a used Apple and run X on it. You (like me) will want GNOME more than classic.

BTW Has it occurred to anybody that most of the code for MS Office for X *would be* portabe to most *nix's? The reprecussions of this are deeply more far reaching than MS using Apple/MacOS as R & D for yet another user to assimilate into their system.

Thanks for you time

Re:Its an analogy

[ncc74656]

Also you know there are less than 20 Sumatran Tigers left. AFAIC a that makes each Sumatran Tiger more valuable than every American one the planet (250million over 6 billon = 1/24). . Consequently (if I was put in such a position) I would kill 6000 Americans without hesitation, if it would save the life of a Sumatran tiger.

You are truly a sick and twisted bastard. Leaving aside nationalities for a moment, how anybody can put the lives of animals ahead of people never ceases to amaze me. I wouldn't be surprised if you bomb medical-research labs and bust animals out of zoos, either.

(That said, you're probably some sort of anti-American left-wing Euro-trash...just what part of Europe are you from?)

Re:Stallman is an honest man - So what?

[mallan]

Simply being aware of one's faults does not mitigate the effects of those faults.

A serial rapist who knows what he is a serial rapist is still a serial rapist.

You do NOT want someone who is uncompromising and non-diplomatic on a Board of Directors, no matter how "honest" he is.

flawed at the root

[epine]

There is precious little difference between source code and any other kind of machine readable file format. If I encode my sexual preferences in XSLT (deviant, I admit), would that make it source code? (I could even invent a new transformation language: SLXT. Small, large, or extra large.)

Stallman is not particularly good at discerning shades of grey, so I'd have to fear that my SLXT data is source code as far as Stallman is concerned. I might have a bug in there somewhere that Stallman desperately wants to fix. The columns don't line up right or something.

Everything is source code. This isn't about source code, this is about everything. Stallman wants everything. We're past ideals here.

There are things in life which are better shared, and there are things in life which are better kept private. It has nothing to do with whether you call one piece of information source code, or give it an entirely different name.

stallman responds to vigorous poking

[fishtoast]

with kippers

activex?

[mgkimsal2]

And at one time they say that they are tightly integrated with IE and Active X, but in the next sentance they claim that they are free and unrestricted. My immediate reaction was that they can hardly be free if they're tightly integrated with something that is non-free. In other words, the use of free software obligates me to use non-free software, which obligates me to support a company I find reprehensible. Is that sort of thing extending or restricting my freedom?

Well, I often feel the same way about most "open source" stuff. It's all written in C, which I find reprehensible. Well, not reprehensible, but too difficult for me. To use that C software, I'm obligated to learn C (to extend it anyway, which should be part of my freedom). Are they extending or restricting my freedom by only writing C code? I'd say it's restricting my ability to do useful things with it, because I now have a burden of learning something I don't want to learn.

Re:Like Stallman said

[Ass Licking Cunt Eat]

Yes! Thank you, I needed that.

What about Sun.. ?

[brunes69]

GNOME is not an independent software project; it is a part of the GNU system

Somehow, I don't see Sun agreeing with this. Sun was one of the major backers of Gnome, and it's adoption in SOlaris was going to expose a whole new class of people to Free Software. But if GNOME exists soley for the GNU system, surely this is a bad thing? Personally, I think RMS is a bit of a fanatic, and shoul not be elected to this board.

Re:What about Sun.. ?

[A Life in Hell]

Somehow, I don't see Sun agreeing with this. Sun was one of the major backers of Gnome.

This would hold weight it the project wasn't called "Gnu Network Object Model Environment". But it is. The gnome guys *CHOSE* to be a part of the gnu project. If they did this without knowing what the FSF and RMS believe in, then they are stupid and deserve everything they get. They have made their bed, sun included, and now they must lie in it.

Re:Stallman has lost it!

[Score Whore]

What do you mean your nose and your machine? Did the all mighty RMS bestow them upon you? And what law of physics says I can't hack into your box and delete your software? I mean, let's get real here, in much the way you are taking whatever rights you see as best for you, I can take what rights I see as best for me. We can agree to live in the same world peacefully where I can write and license software the way I desire. Or we can choose to live in a world where we are at complete and total odds with each other and my desire to get paid for my work may extend to reaching out and taking the fruits of my labor away from those who would rather not compensate me for the time, effort, knowledge, skill, and just downright persistance necessary to create a useful, interesting, stable piece of software. I acknowledge Dick's right to write and release software under the license he chooses, I wonder why he doesn't give me that same right?

Other goals

[sgt101]

RMS's goals are fine, I can see some of his point (but remember, you aren't allowed to share my house or salary, and I'm going to try and stop you sharing my code as well!). The problem is that free software with proprietary software is an economic good.

Some software is literally not worth marketing, it can be reverse engineered, can't support a business model because it is only useful for 100 people world wide or is background value - say worth 50cents a user a year. This is not to say that it is worthless, just not worth a marketing budget and a business. Giving away software like this is economically good, it saves many people time. Allowing those people to use it in commercial products is ecomonically better; rapid development of high quality stuff is enabled.

What we need to do is work out a system for moving some of the money back to the original contributers so that things are fair, and people are encouraged to do this. Think : you spend three wet weekends doing something, someone takes it and makes $millions, you never see a cent: fair? No! Should you get the $millions? NO! But you should see something for your skills.

But

[geekster]

wasn't GNOME started because KDE wasn't totally Free?

Why should business friendliness be a goal?

[Kenneth Stephen]

You are equating the word "success" to mean financial success. By that definition, yes, Microsoft has been extremely successful. However, the vast majority of the free software community defines "success" rather differently : success implies useful, reliable, secure, free software. By that definition, Microsoft has not been very successful. Upto now, I would say GNOME has been successful in this matter, but I am disheartened at the way things are going. I think Stallman is the right person to put GNOME back on the success track.

GNOME or the FSF is not a "company" in the sense that their primary goal is not to make money - their primary goal is to produce software. If you wish to make money off of this, more power to you. But sacrificing the ideals of a free software project just so that you can make money is a bargain with the devil IMHO. Yes, RMS would drive the board of directors of a commercial minded corporation crazy - that is exactly why he is so emminently qualified for the GNOME position.

Re:Why should business friendliness be a goal?

[fredbsd]

I understand. Success is a vague term.

But, if you read the post, I basically said if GNOME wants to develop 'free' software then RMS is a good choice. But if there are product intentions, then he is far from the right candidate. I am sure the backing GNOME received from many companies would vanish if RMS started to call the shots.

One quick question: if GNOME is not a company, why do they need a 'Board of Directors'? Why not a technical team and let the users deal with marketing and the rest of the normal business functions? Of course GNOME is a product just as Linux is a product. That may be sad to some (including yours truly), but it is reality.

Personally, I support Open Source projects. I have for many years and will continue to do so.

Anti-Proprietary means Anti-Handicapped to me

[jalbro]

On this page the FSF states that "we cannot install any proprietary program on our computers except temporarily for the specific purpose of writing a free replacement for that very program".

I guess they don't want disabled programmers working on free software for them.

I have ulnar neropathy. My arms are pretty toasted from computer use. For the majority of my work (writing, quality assurance, and documentation) I use proprietary speech recognition software. Until there is a free replacement, I will continue to pay for and use such software.

When Stallman refuses to work with or talk about proprietary software I hear him say that he feels my possible contributions aren't worth anything.

As such I refuse to work on gnu projects, and put my efforts towards other open source and free projects.

-Jeff

Re:Anti-Proprietary means Anti-Handicapped to me

[Ridge2001]

I guess they don't want disabled programmers working on free software for them.

I have ulnar neropathy. My arms are pretty toasted from computer use.

Does it affect your brain as well?

If not, how is it that you were unable to read the part two paragraphs below the section you quoted?

We don't insist that users of GNU, or contributors to GNU [emphasis mine], have to live by this rule. It is a rule we made for ourselves. But we hope you will decide to follow it too.

Re:Anti-Proprietary means Anti-Handicapped to me

[jdub!]

Hey there,

Richard's comment certainly doesn't mean that the GNU or GNOME projects are not interested in accessibility. We are *very* interested, and the GNOME 2.0 release will hopefully see many of the benefits of working with Sun Microsystems' accessibility team.

You should check out the GNOME Accessibility Project's pages to see what's going on.

I think the main point is that yes, we do want to replace proprietary systems with Free ones... and that includes incredibly important things such as allowing our software to be used by the disabled.

Your contribution to GNOME's accessibility efforts would be greatly appreciated!

Re:Anti-Proprietary means Anti-Handicapped to me

[jalbro]

You are correct, it does say that "contributors to GNU" don't have to live by that rule.

However, that section does imply that those who need special proprietary software may not work for the FSF.

and

In a preceeding paragraph it says that "Aside from (writing a free replacement) , we feel there is no possible excuse for installing a proprietary program. "

Both of which means to me that Stallman feels that a world of only free software is more important than a world where everyone can use that software.

-Jeff

Re:Anti-Proprietary means Anti-Handicapped to me

[jalbro]

Thanks!

It looks like GNOME is making great strides towards accessibility.

However, I am currently not using the Linux desktop very much. When I start using GNOME more often, I will definately lend a hand!

-Jeff

Re:Anti-Proprietary means Anti-Handicapped to me

[jalbro]

The current edition, sphinx 2 appears to be good only for limited vocabulary work such as interactive menus. Hopefully they will release sphinx 3 and it will be usefull as a dictation engine.

-Jeff

Re:Anti-Proprietary means Anti-Handicapped to me

[dvdeug]

Richard Stallman had (has?) pretty bad carpal tunnel syndrome. He looked at the speech recognition software, and asked himself whether or not he would be using it to replace speech recognition software. Since he wouldn't, he chose not to use it.

If there's going to be a free replacement, then somebody has to write it. You can't just wait around, and sooner or later it will appear.

Re:Get of my damn bed

[Ass Licking Cunt Eat]

Put a naked twelve year old girl on the floor?!

I agree 100% with RMS; squeeze out proprietary sw

[Benjiman McFree]

If the goal is freedom and control, there is not any room for proprietary software; the temptation to exploit users through their codebase is too great.

On the other hand, if proprietary licenses allowed for fair use(provided the source) and encouraged fixing bugs, adding features and allowed distribution of alterations(patches) to existing programs, I'd be open to other things besided the gpl; but until that day comes.. death to proprietary skunkware!

--sharpen your sword, and stick it to them good

Wasn't that the point in the first place

[order_underlies]

wasnt the point of free software (well OSS covered by GNU gen. pub. lic.) that people could see and know what they were running on their systems. if people run this software they know what theyre getting and they can change and test it and maybe use it to find out what other people are doing.

There always going to be money - at least for the next coupla thousand years so people have to produce something to get it.wheather they make more, in the long run, by keeping it closed , we'll see.

I think if Freee software run with closed then it more likely to keep the closed source companys honest, and not pull any( well less) fast , big borther style moves.

me

Let the users free themselves

[gaj]

Stallman wants to save me from myself. Thanks, but no thanks. He's got as much right as anyone else to run for the board, but I (as a Gnome user) really hope he doesn't get elected.

Free software is a grand thing. I use it, and contribute occasionally. I also have no ethical problem with proprietary software. I personally avoid it, mostly because of two reasons, both practical:

1. If I have the source, I can fix and/or extend the code w/o waiting for the upstream vendor. And yes, I do use that freedom -- often enough to not want to do w/o it.

2. If I have the source, I'm not screwed when the upstream vendor loses interest, goes out of business or takes the code in some really spactacularly stupid direction.

After reading rms's screed about how I shouldn't be able to choose the license for my code, since after all, it isn't really my code at all. It's "the community's" code, right?

<sigh>

Re:Let the users free themselves

[Chris Johnson]

That's not at all what RMS is screeding about ;)

What he's saying is: you obviously have complete and total liberty to do what you like with software YOU write. But if you don't choose a free license, other developers should not cooperate with you, and people shouldn't encourage you by buying your software.

Harsh judgements, but I agree with much of this. Do you think it will ever be possible to force people to mindlessly share their ideas with others? Greed and the desire to hoard stuff (like information or a good idea) is innate to the human being. That's fine- but people like that need to be on their OWN with it, they can damned well do everything themselves without any support from others.

If you insist on exercising a 'right' to refuse to cooperate, what possible excuse do you have for expecting a 'right' to benefit from the community?

What RMS primarily wants, and I'm very much in agreement, is this: if you insist on digging your own grave, you WILL damned well lay in it, instead of expecting to be given other people's work for nothing, and the support of consumers despite your giving them a bad deal and taking power away from them.

If you're not a developer, this isn't really your fight, but it's even more foolish for you to throw a fit, because you're acting as if RMS's fondest dreams are actually feasible. That's not so- you will ALWAYS have a chance to use proprietary software and get locked into it, even, if that's what you want. What RMS represents is a counter-influence to the proprietary guys- plenty of whom would be delighted if code sharing and open source was literally illegal. Hey, less competition...

Freedom isn't this simple

[ostone]

Pure freedom in a government leads to an anarchy. In truth absolute freedom would allow for murder and rape... why because if you CAN do it you SHOULD be free to do it. In truth some restrictions on what you are free to do keep freedom for the majority alive. Let's take murder as an example, if I am allowed to murder I have robbed the person I killed of their freedom; however, if I have that freedom taken from me everyone gains some peace of mind and some freedom to live. Now I am just playing devils advocate here... RMS is taking his GNU ideas a bit too far this time. Apple is freaked out about licensing because of what Microslothy did to them the last time they had a brand new idea invovling a GUI... so there license isn't as open as it should be. BUT, Apple is trying to become more Open and Free and the idea that they should just drop everything at once GPL it and go back to being hobbeists is... well, it reaks of RMS. Now again, don't get me wrong, I think that RMS is a generally good guy. RMS started a movment that I am a part of, a movement I love. All I am saying is calm down Stallman, Apple is STARTING to do a good thing for open source

Most of you dont understand the basic FS idea

[jayabharath]

I was listening to Stallmans speech sometime back at the NYU.

What happened to the MIT X-Windows system? Yeah it was written and the source made open. Companies just used them in their software.. Cool the companies thought some one just made this beautiful thing the X .. saving us a lot of time, money & efforts .. and the best part we can sell it back to the guys who made it ....a success? Yes for the X windows developers... not for the public...

This is where the GNU and the GPL come in .. they try to protect the Freedom of the developers and the users. Stallman dosent want the same thing that happned to X, happen to GNOME. I totally agree with you Mr.Stallman.

If you guy dont agree with him... ( but you think agree with the GNU philosophy) go to the GNU page and re-read the philosophy ...bcoz you got it ALL wrong.

regards, JayaBharath

Re:Most of you dont understand the basic FS idea

[qbalus]

My issue is with RMS/FSF and the GNU license not being in-line with each other. The GNU license is not anti-business, RMS/FSF is anti-business (i.e software and source code are free)

Regards, Kramer

Re:Most of you dont understand the basic FS idea

[BluSkreen]

We do understand the idea, we just don't agree with many of RMS' positions.

I think it speaks spades that perhaps the most widely deployed free software package is not released under the GPL, or even part of GNU.

The FSF "all or nothing" approach is much more rude than anything a commercial software vendor could come up with.

Dave

Re:Stallman

[sphealey]

But, OTOH, he has shown himself in the past to be a purveyor of utterly ignorant dogma, almost on the level of religious zeal, that, as such, I dont consider him a leader of anything. He does not stand for me. And, to be honest, I dont think he stands for anyone. He stands for the unrealistic little bubble world he has created in his own mind.

I don't disagree, but the problem is that these statements describe just about anyone who was the catalyst for meaningful change in human society and/or commerce. Martin Luther, Larry Ellison, you name it. Change requires uncompromising, bull-headed obstinancy.

Making change palatable to the average Joe, though, is another thing...

sPh

nop.

[deno]

You thought wrong. The idea of "GNU" and GPL licnce" was exactly to offer an alternative to propriatery software, show that alternative is better and in the process "destroy the propriatery software business model.

Maybe you should take a history lesson at gnu.org site? http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html

Wrong?

[EnglishTim]

Maybe, but at least I know how to preview my comments on Slashdot...

Re:Wrong?

[jayabharath]

It dosent matter .. trivia ...the point is made... message has gotten right where it was ment to be NAILED...

DJB licensing

[nestler]

I wonder if he's had the opportunity to tackle Dan J. Bernstein [cr.yp.to] yet. Although his terms seem to meet the Free Software criteria for me, I hear all the time that Qmail isn't free software.

The OpenBSD team ran into this with that guy's software. They yanked it from the distribution. The issue was that for uniformity reasons, the OpenBSD people wanted the installation to point to a certain directory which was different from where DJB's thing tried to install itself. His license doesn't allow for something this trivial, the OpenBSD team didn't feel like having to ask this guys permissions about stuff like this, and so it was yanked from their ports tree (I think).

Re:Its an analogy

[aminorex]

:Sacarificing 1/24 of a cancerous species to save :1/20 of a rare species, its really common sense. :BTW a cancerous species is one that's shown not to :be in tune with its enviroment by multiplying out :of control to the point it destroying the balanced :eco-system of its host.

That's an amusing calculus. But destroying 1/24 of
humanity would be far more disruptive to the homeostasis of the earth's ecosystem than destroying
the entire species of Sumatran tigers (which, unlike
the Tamil Tigers, are not capitalized).

.

Non-Free Software

[hotsauce]

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.

Re:Tough Medicine (Jon Katz)

[Bodrius]

You're not supposed to say things like that.

They might notice you're not joking.

Just Say No To Stallman

[toupsie]

If there ever was the ultimate reason to stay away from a GNU Desktop system its Stallman. His "advocacy" of the GNU/OS/Tools/Everything reminds me of a reformed drunk hosting an AA meeting. Its either sobriety or death. There is no middle ground. There is no listening to moderation. No common sense about other options. Its either HIS WAY or the highway. He evens admits he is not diplomatic in his questionnaire. Why deal with someone that sticks his fingers in his ears and screams "Nah-Nah-Nah" when you talk about your opinions. How can a group effort like GNOME benefit from that? Sure FSF has come a long way from its start with Stallman but how much further could it be today without this megalomaniac in charge? Would HURD be the defacto kernel? Would Microsoft be a just a minor player in the marketplace? Does politics and programming as a combination really make sense? I never heard about Chefs debating the freedom of speech contained in a recipe for Quiche Loraine (or is that now GNU/Quiche).

If I were to put Stallman's writings and opinions in front of someone that was not acquainted with Open Source/Free Software movement, I think that they would find Bill Gates' opinion to be reasonable. The problem, as I see it, is the "GNU System" is more about a political goal than providing a system that I can plop down in front of my Grandmother on her fixed income that she could use without making me her full time tech support agent. My Grandmother is worried about sending e-mail not about some NAZI goose stepping through her operating system and limiting her right to source code (what the hell is she going to do with it? Needlepoint it into a sweater?).

I really don't have a problem with Stallman's idea of Free Speech for individuals but I think he should listen to voices besides his own echoing around his skull. I frankly would rather deal with the megalomania of Steve Jobs than Richard Stallman. At least with Jobs, I get something very useful at the end and it doesn't come burdened by his extreme leftist political beliefs. The couple of bucks I have to pay for it is entirely worth it and the lack of source code, so far, has not prevented me in reaching my goals with my computer.

If the GNOME community knows what is good for ITS future, I hope they vote NO on Stallman or GNOME will end up to be another HURD which barely anyone has HEARD about.

bootstrap first, only then run.

[Anonymous Coward]

It strikes me that more than ten years after, when there is no proper mach based distro, RMS whould still have the guts (in the french interview) to spit on Linus.
If there had been no dirty-hacked boo-ugly monolithic kernel to come to the rescue, contribution to FSF would come from only a handful of aristocrats running GNU stuff on 100kbuck machines running under 10kbuck unices.
I agree with the ideal, but when there is no choice that matches the ideal, I ll pick the next best thing rather than condemning the whole lot.
As if my machine would refuse to bootstrap because it s such a mundane job and doesn t match it s ideals regarding efficiency in LU-decomposition.

Re:Stallman

[Andrew Wiles]

Which is why I really dont understand why OSDN gives him so much press. Yes, he has done his part. But, it really ticks me off how you think we all hang off his every word. I dont, and I am willing to bet only a very tiny percentage do.

Yes, but a larger percentage of geeks hang on Stallman's every word than on, say, Jon Katz's.

Why do people hate freedom fighters?

[simm_s]

I may not agree with Stallman on every issue, but for what it is worth I respect the fact that he has put his money where his mouth is.

People critisize Stallman for his free software only ideals, but do you have the strength or the resolve to do what he has done? He believes proprietary software/IP rights and the rights of software users are not compatible. Right or wrong he is worried about your rights as a software user and I could never understand how people could hate him so.

not an exception at all

[kaisyain]

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.

Re:not an exception at all

[ethereal]

I didn't say Microsoft was the only exception. And I'll point out that in many of those cases those companies have been hurt by their unethical or illegal actions. Just reeling off names does not disprove my point.

Re:not an exception at all

[The Pi-Guy]

/me cries over bleem! :)

--joshua

The following strikes me as contradictory:

[drinkypoo]

1) Why are you running for Board of Directors?

For the sake of closer connections between GNOME and the rest of the GNU Project.

This is all well and good. However, consider it in light of the answer to question number 3:

3) How familiar are you with the day-to-day happenings of GNOME? How much > do you follow and participate in the main GNOME mailing lists?

I have not followed them before. I am starting now.

I'm sorry, Mr. Stallman, but it does not seem to make sense to say that you want a closer connection to a project whose mailing lists you have not even been involved with. Or maybe it's just me.

Also, the answer to the following is a bit ivory tower:

> 9) Will you represent the interests of GNOME and the GNOME Foundation over > all other personal or corporate interests you may represent?

All personal and corporate interests, certainly. But there are two higher interests that rightfully apply to GNOME: the GNU system, and free software.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't compute, either. "free software" has been shown, time and time again, to be more even than a belief, but also a personal crusade; If GNOME were best served by somehow being non-free (I personally can't see a case in which this would be true, but bear with me) then you would have conflicting interests, and you've already stated that your personal interests in free software and the GNU project overall would come before GNOME. Therefore, the answer to this question must be "no".

Supporting paragraph for my previous assertion follows:

The GNU system does not exist just for its own success either. It has a purpose: to spread freedom and community to all computer users. So while people working on GNOME should try to make GNU successful (all else being equal), that's not the highest goal either. The highest goal is that software should be free.

Now look, they asked you if your highest goal, at least in terms of representing GNOME, would be GNOME. You just said it wasn't, and that your highest goal is that software should be free. What gives?

In any case, let's wrap up:

10) Will you be willing and have the available time to take on and complete various tasks that the Board needs accomplished?

My time is tight, but GNOME is important, so I will give it the time that it needs.

Why even qualify this? This would have been much better without the "My time is tight" statement; Without it, it's an unequivocal "yes"; With it, it sounds more like a "maybe" to me.

Now, before I write my closing statements, let me set the stage so you can see where I'm coming from; I've been using UNIX for a decade. I started using Linux relatively early on; I think the current kernel at the time was 1.1.47. Obviously many people pre-date me in this. I occasonally dash off a small utility in perl or something, and I formerly released them under the BSD license, but now use the MIT license (mostly since OSI considers them to be functionally identical and the MIT license is a simplest case.) I do believe in free software, of course, but what that means varies from person to person. I definitely believe in open source, even in non-free software.

These days, I run only Windows on my desktop. For a server OS, I generally use OpenBSD. Since it's a server, I don't need a windowing system, so I am not using GNOME or in fact even using X at all. And in fact I have no real hope that I will be able to run everything I want to run on any UNIX for the next two to five years at least; I want the gaming performance delivered by windows, and I'm willing to suffer with the reliability delivered by windows to get it. While ultimately it would be nice if there were free versions of all commercial software, I don't think that getting rid of commercial software would be good for the world - With less money coming in, less money can go out to programmers, which means we will have less programmers on the job, and less quality software.

But I DO want to preserve GNOME because I think it's the best shot at a free desktop which doesn't suck. I haven't used GNOME in a little while, but the last time I used it it was quite slick. If its evolution continues then a UNIX desktop can continue to become more of a reality, and ultimately I would like to be free of Microsoft on the desktop, as it is a mishmash of various only-partially-working proprietary systems and nightmarishly crafted APIs. So GNOME is important to me, and I don't want to see it caught up in the RMS holy war against programmers getting paid for writing code.

Why do people run non-free software?

[ReelOddeeo]

Perhaps a question that RMS and other free software advocates should ask themselves is: Why do some people choose to run non-free software?

To be clear, let me state several things. I'm not talking about people who don't conciously make a choice. (i.e. I run Microsoft because it came with my PC.) I'm talking about people who make an informed choice to run (some) non-free software.

I'm not against non-free software, although I prefer free software, when it offers a viable alternative. (This last sentence, strongly hinting at my answer to the first question I asked above.)

My supposed answer to my question is: people choose non-free software when there is no free alternative, or when the free alternative is not up to par with the non-free alternative, and it is therefore *much* cheaper to use the non-free software. Imagine that. Is it possible that in certian settings, non-free could be cheaper dollar wise, than free? I said I prefer free. But some people need to take their blinders off and recognize that free software does not (yet?) provide acceptable solutions for every person for every possible problem to be solved, in every possible setting. Maybe someday it will, and I'll be glad to see it.

Re:Why do people run non-free software?

[KerrAvonsen]

This all great for consumer-style software. You know the type I mean - desktops, word processing, etc. This is also great for server style products - web, media, OS's, etc. These are areas that geeks often tread and also areas where a clear need is seen.

But how about the software market for proprietary software? Each state has very specific requirements for municipal accounting software. Quickbooks or GNU Cash isn't going to cut it.

Agreed. That's only one example of a situation where proprietary software is the only solution makes sense, but such examples have this in common: the software fits a very specialized need, for which the actual number of clients is small. That can be software for scheduling airlines or controlling train signals or controlling industrial processes or whatever. A business which needs specialized software has two choices -- get themselves an IT department who can write it, or pay a professional software company to write it for them.

So RMS can spout off about his precious GNU and his beloved GPL. He can rant about the immorality of closed software and non-free software, but lets be clear. The world runs on proprietary software.

I would refine this -- it isn't that the world runs on proprietary software, but an awful lot of things do -- and the free software/open source model will never work with "narrow need" software. Why? Because you can't leverage on a huge pool of users. The huge pool of user/developers is the thing which drives Open Source to its excellence. I'm all for open source, I love open source (and in my spare time I write open source) but it isn't appropriate for everything.

I figure that what I do (writing specialized closed-source software) is providing a service to people who need it, and are willing to pay me for it -- and to call that immoral is to call every single paid job immoral! Don't be ridiculous!

When there is not, and could not be an Open Source alternative -- I spit on the idea that closed-source software is immoral.

Re:Why do people run non-free software?

[aozilla]

But how about the software market for proprietary software? Each state has very specific requirements for municipal accounting software. Quickbooks or GNU Cash isn't going to cut it. On top of that, the software must do point of sale, generate tax bills and handle property assessment. It must be turnkey ready, and must be easy to use and modify (those bozo's keep changing the law, grr).

Sounds to me like the perfect place for free software. Any software which is only useful to a handful of clients can easily be made on a contractual basis. The clients need the software, not exclusive rights to the software. And to the extent that the software is paid by taxpayer dollars, it certainly should be released freely to those taxpayers who paid for it.

Its not practical. The costs are too high - basically this type of software isn't a hobby- its a career

Whoever said that you can't get paid for writing free software?

Helping your neighbor

[abe ferlman]

When I have seen him speak, he has bootstrapped his entire presentation from the simple principle that one should not be restricted from helping one's neighbor. Here is an audio recording (in ogg vorbbis format) of a speech he gave last January at ArsDigita University.

You seem to want to make him seem selfish. Why not listen to what Stallman himself has to say before drawing any conclusions?

Re:Helping your neighbor

[NetSettler]

This remark on my part might ordinarily seem off-topic, but the credential of my previous remark was challenged so I feel I need to add some defense. This will be my only response on the matter of credential.

I have spoken to him on this matter at length, just not recently. I was at the MIT AI Lab when he was there, and am well familiar with him personally, even if you could not call us friends. He called my house on the phone once to berate me once because I had created a document that was being distributed free of charge but not free-like-he-likes and he was annoyed. I tried to make a case that my document could not have been made available free-like-he-likes, and that the distribution mode I had created was the best that could be done under the circumstances. I said that I thought that it benefited the world just fine as it was, and that it was better than my not doing it. He disagreed and told me flat out that his interest was not in benefiting the world, but in having something that he personally could use. He told me exactly what I said before, that benefiting the world was of no value to him because it was full of people he didn't care to benefit. He would rather it have benefited fewer people and have those be the people who agree with him, and in particular he was irritated that he personally couldn't use it and would have to duplicate my effort to make something to use. It seemed not to matter to him that if I'd not done the project (my only other choice), he still would have had to duplicate my effort, and might not have thought of doing so, and that other people have benefited.

I've had a number of run-ins with him of this kind, and don't really expect him to have changed. I, however, carefully qualified my remarks to say that my data was old, and you are welcome to believe he has changed if you have more modern data. I just doubt that you are right if all you are working form is public talks and not personal interchanges where you have been able to ask probing questions on subtle matters.

I did not, as one moderator seems to suggest, offer my prior remarks as "flamebait". I don't really care what people think of Stallman personally, and have no desire to misrepresent him. The information I offered is, to the best I could, information he offered freely to me. He as much as told me that he's out to help himself and his way of life and that was that. He made no attempt to hide that. So neither did I.

I offered the information (a) because people seem mystified by him, and I just don't think he's that mystical, and (b) because he offers himself as a political figure, and I think the motives of political figures do require some discussion because it relates to whether those they represent will, in fact, be properly represented.

I have always said "There are no political answers, only political questions." If the question of whether he is a good person to guide a political movement is a non-flamebait question, then either possible answer should be a non-flamebait answer. If one can only say yes and not no, you have to question the bias inherent in the forum. I'm quite disappointed in Slashdot on this one. I don't think "flamebait=1, interesting=2, insightful=2" is best summarized as "Flamebait, Score=4".

Re:Helping your neighbor

[NetSettler]

Re: Stallman is a manipulator

On this point I would personally disagree. I called him selfish (an observation about motive) but I would not call him manipulative (an observation about tactic). To me, "manipulation" connotes subtle actions taken in secret. I'd put him more in the public and blunt category. Not high on some people's desirability scale, I guess, but much higher on mine than manipulative.

Re:Helping your neighbor

[slaytanic killer]

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.

The ironic thing is that Stallman is also an entity with disadvantages that don't yet outweigh his advantages. Free/open software probably wouldn't be as good a thing as it is now, without him. So accepting him is purely a matter of compromise.

about Stallman

[Stalcair]

first of all, this is not a troll. If it angers you, that is indicative of a problem with you. I simply point this out for thought.

His consistancy and ethics are admirable, but...

I am not the symantics police, but I do believe that it is VERY important that people understand these two words: 'ethics' and 'consistancy'. Regardless of what we think or agree with in terms of Stallman, the fact is that he is not consistent. Furthermore, he has willfully misrepresented himself and has become emotionally unstable with his decisions (decisions should be made with logic and reason and directed by emotion, not the other way around). While he claims to be for free software and his stated reasons claim that it is a direct extention of the very freedoms of the individuals that come in contact with it. However, if I am restricted from making development and licensing decisions myself (restricted by law nonetheless), then I am being restricted. Period. The analogy of 'making an omlete requires cracking some eggs' is not only incorrectly applied (as in inconsistently, the other word above), but is frightening when you look at others through history who have used that justification for their actions and choices.

I personally believe that open source software is superior. I personally believe that free software is fantastic and for that matter, anything free is great. I believe that lobbiests, politicians and the laws that result in restrictions of my freedoms are unconstitutional because they go against the very foundations of liberty, freedom and sovereignty (and dignity as well). But I am a results oriented person, who tries hard not to be taken in by my, or anyone elses, emotions. When rhetoric and hidden agendas top results and goals, then it is a sign we are the very evil we 'fight'. If I spend more time putting my rhetoric through a 'word-wizard' to hide my true agenda and make it more 'saleable' while ignoring content, then I have no integrity and therefore no ethics. If I then say one thing and do another, if my proposals are the antithesis of my stated goals and desires then I am NOT consistent. If I am selective in my litmus tests and lash out with obvious anger and malice then I am not either ethical or consistent, I am an agent of chaos.

Stallman would do well, as would his supporters, to ask themselves this simple question: "In my quest for openness, freedom and liberty, will I attempt to gain my desired ends through education and assistance or will I resort to a hypocritical mix of restrictions and limits on choice while treating consumers and developers as sheep for us to either devour or 'protect' as we choose?"

Again, this is not an attempt to flame. Forgive any wording that sounds negative, but I am merely trying to be blunt and straightforward. I do not question the desires of encourageing free software (and open source as another matter)... I merely question the motives and integrity of the group that claims to desire these ends. That is not negative. Maturity and efficiency REQUIRE that we always question ourselves, our attitudes and our actions/choices. Otherwise we are just one more problematic cog to add to the wheel of control over others. Police yourselves, THEN you can begin to look at others, and ALWAYS apply the same standards of judgement to yourself that you wish to apply to others. There is my rather long rant.

Re:Stallman

[Ian Bicking]

But, OTOH, he has shown himself in the past to be a purveyor of utterly ignorant dogma, almost on the level of religious zeal, that, as such, I dont consider him a leader of anything.

Can you give an example? I feel like a lot of people here are putting words into RMS's mouth -- but you don't need to do this, because this is the internet and you can link directly to most of what RMS has written. So exactly what utterly ignorant dogma are you speaking of?

Oh, get over yourself.

[jcr]

he did cast a FSF Fatwah on a project or two

Oh, get serious. He expressed an opinion which you are free to disregard, as I did at the time. Comparing RMS to someone who engineered mass murder is completely over the top, and reflects far more on you than on him.

-jcr

Newsflash - No idealogy needed here!

[NDPTAL85]

Me might be using Linux because he considers it a better performer than a proprietary OS. That does not mean every application on Linux is better than the proprietary ones. You don't need to buy into the free software philosophy to use it. Its completely and totally unnecessary.

Re:Newsflash - No idealogy needed here!

[sydb]

Please see my response to Glytch, above.

Re:What about using the free version of GNU-Darwin

[rfsayre]

its not displacing photoshop because free software could never contain the patented/proprietary parts in photoshop. some of isn't even owned by adobe... LZW, PANTONE, Heidelburg CMM, etc

Theological Debates

[Zeinfeld]

RMS has a particular view of the world. As much as many on Slashdot try, I don't think a single person here shares it.

Absolutism is very easy to defend, you simply refuse to accept any exception to your principals. The Pope has a very easy time in ethical debates on birth control and human cloning because he refuses to abandon the absolute.

RMS does not argue for free software on utlitiarian grounds, it is axiomatic that software should be free - according to his definition.

I don't think RMS is likely to contribute much to the GNOME board that they will consider to be of value. He will lecture them on his theological obsessions, but he will do that anyway. He won't persuade many people because it has to be all or nothing.

My problem with RMS standing is that his priority is his free software theology, not the good of the GNOME group. If he is successful he will polarize the GNOME group into two rival camps, pro and anti-RMS. There will be witch hunts and faction fighting and ultimately one camp will drive the other out. I don't think that type of activity helps anything. Certainly I would be very upset if I was a GNOME contributor and suddenly found RMS imposed on top of me by some slashdot cabal. Its like the folk living in Peshawar who were sending money to the Taleban to impose islamic orthodoxy on the Afghanis, theological purity is kinda easier to live with if someone else is going to live with the consequences.

Wanted: Leader for Linux....

[Anonymous Coward]

must be able to contend with spoiled children and egomaniacal lunatics. Seriously, what do we have to show for leadership in the Linux camps? Raymond, Stallman, and Linus? None of these people are capable of putting a "best face" on Linux. Yes, even Linus fits in this category. Great person, wonderful code slinger, but even he has stated many times that he just does not care about promoting linux in relation to other alternatives out there. Damn, where is the leadership for Linux that a majority could get behind and support. We should not have to routinely cringe at the stupid shit that these people say and believe. Yet we do so all the time, just about as often as RMS and ESR open their mouths in public.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

'scuse?

[jthill]

The problem is, Stallman's viewpoint only serves to support the stereotype of the free software movement: "A bunch of opinionated geeks, who have all these high and mighty principles, but won't actually help Joe User learn how to use this stuff, because they don't consider him worthy."

We're perfectly willing to help.

If you don't want to, or can't, use the source and the info, and it would be an utterly. pointless. world. if everybody spent the time to develop the necessary skills, then offer to pay for it. You'd be amazed what happens when people offer to actually pay for actual work.

Is that clear enough?

Absolute Freedom?

[Dr. Evil]

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.

Stallman

[jav1231]

We seem to all agree that Richard Stallman as an icon lies somewhere between a complete fanatic and a "basically cool guy with good ideas but perhaps abit outside." I think the Press in general, particularly Open Source resources, place far too much emphasis on him. They've made him an icon, and perhaps attributed far too much to him. I, quite frankly, don't sit down and ask myself what Richard Stallman thinks, is going to think, might be offended by, or is going to say about anything I do or don't do with regards to Open Source advocacy. For me he would be a complete non-issue if it weren't for the fact that I might have to apologize for some idiotic comment he might make that is read by a would-be convert from the closed-source / proprietary side of the arena. He, in many respects, has become the Ross Perot or Billy Carter of Open Source.

People should respect RMS!!!

[HanzoSan]

This is the man who started this entire movement. IF someone is using the GPL, or has a name for a product beginning with GN or GNU, Like GNUtella or GNOME the very least they can do is give GNU and RMS the respect he deserves for laying down the ground floor.

While i dont believe RMS is always right, he is right about one thing, Gnome is a part of the GNU system, or else it wouldnt be called GNome and use the GPL.

Second, Linux is part of the GNU system as well.

Now, Linux isnt requires to rename itself to GNU Linux, However GNU Linux, Is Linux. Linux is part of GNU and Free Software Movement. As Long as Linux is GPL, its assosiated with this.

Re:People should respect RMS!!!

[jav1231]

I respect RMS, but that by no means translates to giving an ear to every hair-brained idea he espouses. The man has given a huge contribution to the movement, but this is a technological movement, folks. This isn't something for which you pick and choose sides based on whether your going to condemn your Eternal Soul. Let his arguments stand on their merits, not on the shoulders of "all the wonderful flowers he's planted along the Open Source highway."

making people think

[Paul Komarek]

Whatever one might think of Richard Stallman, it is clear that he causes people to sit up and think. Every time there is an article about RMS on slashdot, an long debate follows. That's quite a contribution for one guy who probably doesn't read slashdot. He makes people think; obviously not everyone who posts is thinking, but at least a few are.

-Paul Komarek

Re:Its an analogy

[pma]

Didn't you know - 80 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

Software vs other work

[JollyTX]

There's one thing I don't understand about free software advocacy. I use free software almost exclusively, but that is because I find it more suitable to me and more interesting. There's nothing wrong with proprietary software.

This talk about how all software _should_be free doesn't make sense to me. If you record a good music album, are you supposed to give it away for free, and give everyone access to the master record? How does software differ from everything else created by talented people?

That said, free software is fun, and the more people promoting it, the better.

Maybe Next Year

[krmt]

Which is the reason why I wouldn't vote for him. All other issues aside, he likely doesn't know how the project actually functions well enough to manage it at present. GNOME is huge, and he probably doesn't really understand it technically or socially yet. This alone should disqualify him from being truly capable of running the project right now. Especially with all the other responsibilities he has on his shoulders right now. Once he's followed the project a bit he'd be ready, but not right now.

Re:Its an analogy

[Rob Kaper]

(That said, you're probably some sort of anti-American left-wing Euro-trash...just what part of Europe are you from? [guntruths.com])

I'm not anti-American, left (but not wing), Euro (but not trash) and I had a good laugh at that poster.

It was the US military that helped freeing Europe, not the civilians. Part of World War II ended due to the nuke bombings on Japan, by your analogy every American citizen should be able to own a nuke.

Stallman's great on principles...

[flacco]

...but questionable on strategy and tactics. Leave the fighting to the generals.

GNU and RMS

[qbalus]

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

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, ... 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 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

Re:How is this different fron GNU on proprietary U

[proclus]

> BTW Has it occurred to anybody that most of the code for MS Office for X *would be* portabe to most *nix's?

Maybe, but I doubt. M$ has an interest in this case to keep the Apple API's so that the code will remain opaque and proprietary. Apple has 'abstracted' the Unix parts for use with its proprietary interface, so that the general Unix portability of M$ code is very doubtful

Regards,
proclus

KOffice not free...

[ghack]

Sorry...but KOffice is non-free.

dont want to be too technical...

Re:KOffice not free...

[RDskutter]

Sorry...but KOffice is non-free.

Would you like to back that up?

QT is now free - Trolltech released it under a free licence after much whining from RMS and crew. And KOffice itsself is GPL.

Re:It's about control

[Snocone]

OBL is trying to build a Muslim empire and take Muslims' land back from the Christians and Jews who have exercised control over it for many years.

But the Muslims took that land from the Christian Roman Empire. Doesn't that make it Christian land? No, wait, the Romans took it from the Jews. Doesn't that make it Jewish land? No, wait, the Jews took it from the Caanaanites (aka Phoenicians). Doesn't that make it Phoenician land? Er, wait, there are no more Phoenicians.

So it looks like if you're going to use a 'who had it first' standard, then it is Jewish land. Quitcher whining.

Same reasoning applies to all the other areas ObL mentions in his war declarations, pretty much. I particularly like his claim to Andalusia. Do you agree that Spain should hand half of itself over to the Muslims? Well, exactly what is the difference between him claiming Spain and him claiming Israel? Both have been occupied by Muslims, both aren't now. He sees no difference, so neither should you.

Free Software

[spector30]

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 the US Government Doesn't...

[3seas]

If the US Government doesn't compromise with terrorist, why is
that and how does it's result effect the US power position?

Are the answers to such questions relative to GNU free software
and RMS's position?

Absolutely! Now maybe that an extream analogy to make, but then
again, maybe it's not. For certainly Bill Gates uses war like
Business tactic including the concept self sacrifice to cause the
opposition to also lose, and Microsoft is just one example. An
example that compaired to IBMs seven year lead on getting patents
granted (including the recent US patent #6304886 for HTML templates)
make MS realisticly almost non existant in IP constraints applied.

The point is, RMS is very correct and anyone who takes a much fuller
scope view of the free vs. proprietary software battle, will KNOW IT
with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY.

I used a threshold of 4 to read some of the comments posted so far
and I'm amazed at what I found to be not only those who wrote the
posts but moderators moding them up, that seem to not be in very good
touch with a clear picture of the battlefield. Yet every time there
is some crazy Patent issued, most then jump to a direction that is
far more intune to RMSs hard stand.

Maybe this story would have gotten a different general response had
there been alot more recent stories of silly patents of the obvious?

But here is the fact: either of the GNU desktops on Linux will be used by
choice of the user, to the degree of which they choose to mix free with
proprietary and regardles of opinions or stands people take or licenses.
But you cannot fully say the same thing about Windows XP can you? (not to
mention the anti-GNU/GPL license of .net)

Do not let the root of GNU become compromised by the nice sounding
words of corporations and their IP bankers. For as soon as GNU gets
root rot, you will witness even IBM changing their stand regarding OSS
faster then you can snap your fingers.

Then again, maybe those who are hard on RMS would be interested in
at least explaining the benefits of US compromising with terrorist?

For doesn't controlled/constrained IP impose limitations on our
freedoms (sometimes to the point of telling us we can not use obvious and
common sense solutions?)

.

simple truths for idiots

[maxpublic]

The only true freedom here is to allow the author to release under any damn license they choose - and the customer can opt to purchase or not as they please. That allows maximum freedom for both parties without imposing some fuckwit's personal view of the universe (read "do things my way because I'm right and you're wrong") on the way that everyone else does business.

Any "free" advocate who, speaking solely from their assholes, goes on and on about how proprietary software is evil, or how current licensing schemes are an oppression, or whatever pole they've currently rammed up their hindquarters, is a moron. A complete, total, one-hundred-percent fucking idiot. Let's not be polite here, because hell - they're trying to take away *my* freedom to buy the draconian crap I might want, so they aren't being polite to *me*. These clueless shits think that their own 'moral' viewpoint on free software supercedes that of all of us low-brows who might want to purchase stuff that doesn't meet their approval. And since we are low-brows incapable of grokking their high-minded principles, we somehow have to be protected from our own natures.

In actuality this has nothing to do with morality. It's power-grabbing in the guise of "the greater good", the same tired old crap that every malicious little twit with a hunger to make others do things they don't want to do has been foisting off on humanity for thousands of years. Only here it's dressed up (ridiculously enough) in the clothes of "Free = Good, Licence X I Don't Like = Evil".

If you're this sort of "free" advocate, then please - blow me. I don't need yet another power-mad 'do-gooder' trying to tell me how to live my life, even in this tiny, almost inconsequential fashion. If you think lobbying for laws to outlaw whatever licensing you find objectionable is a good thing then there's a speeding bus I'd like you to meet. Because when it comes right down to it this kind of 'advocate' is just another neighbor trying to stick his nose in my fucking business.

Now if Stallman gets elected to the board and immediately tries to impose his own personal standards on the GNOME project, trying to bury any non-free software he doesn't like, then he's just another dime-a-dozen asshole no different than any other control-freak or power-whore in history. Mark my words on this - having heard Stallman I guarrantee that this is precisely what he will do. The man doesn't give a shit about our freedom of choice - he only wants all of us to follow *his* choices whether we want to or not. I have no doubt whatsoever that, like any fanatic, he'd rather see the GNOME project up and die than deviate in any way whatsoever from the path he thinks it should tread.

Max

Re:simple truths for idiots

[proclus]

That appears to me as a tyranical notion of freedom, which does not help users at all.

Regards,
proclus

Re:simple truths for idiots

[be-fan]

Freedom is scary, nobody says it isn't. In China, they have much more civil order than we do here. Violent crime rates, in particular, are many, many times lower. Why? Because they lack the freedom that often makes society so dangerous.

Re:How is this different fron GNU on proprietary U

[Watts Martin]

What you're talking about is promoting running free applications in closed operating environments. What RMS was objecting to is the promotion of running closed applications in free operating environments. These two things obviously aren't equal. Up until relatively recently (i.e., all the years before Linux was really firmly established), proprietary operating systems weren't avoidable for most users.

I suppose the argument, and it's defensible, is that free apps on closed systems helps promote free software in a way that closed apps on free systems doesn't. It's also worth repeating that regardless of RMS' own feelings on the subject, even if he had his way and the GNOME project itself wouldn't publish announcements about non-free software on their desktop, he couldn't prevent a third party from doing so. And, I suspect announcements of the GNOME desktop on closed operating systems like Solaris would be exempt from this.

Is this a choice I would make? In the sense of making it official GNOME policy to not talk about proprietary apps, no. But I probably wouldn't talk about them in practice unless they were of exceptional importance. (Yes, that's a subjective measure.)

Imagine Leo da Vinci getting sued

[yerricde]

I don't see any reason to believe that the existence of intellectual property rights would have hindered the Renaissance -- or helped it much either.

Watch one painter sue another painter. Watch one composer sue another composer. Had strong, long term copyrights existed during the Renaissance, the world would have seen more lawsuits than works of art.

The first U.S. Congress originally created copyright law to protect authors from piratical publishers. Now it works the other way around: publishers sue their customers for promoting the publishers' products with fan fiction and the like.

Re:Imagine Leo da Vinci getting sued

[ahde]

right. copyright exists only for large publishers. It is undefendible and worthless to the creator of intellectual property (read: person, not corporation)
except as something to sell to a media publisher. An analogous state would be that your freedom exists only in that you choose who to enslave yourself to.

Re:Imagine Leo da Vinci getting sued

[Shimmer]

But, really, how often do artists sue each other? You really see it as a major impediment to great art?

I think there are probably other solutions to the problems of intellectual property rather than just eliminating the entire concept. For example, what if we made copyright non-transferable? Or if we said that corporations cannot hold copyrights?

-- Brian

May Sonny Bono rot in hell

[yerricde]

Even the people who put them in the US constitution realised that - which is why copyrights have an expiration date.

Copyrights have an expiration date, all right: the heat death of the universe. Every 20 years, DisneyCo donates millions of dollars of soft money to both major parties and seems to require employees to donate to candidates or get fired, in order to get sh*t like the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act passed. It extends the copyright term from 75 to 95 years (or from life+50 to life+70 for works created after 1 Jan 1978 by individual authors). How does such a term extension "promote the progress of science and useful arts" as required by U.S. Const. 1.8.8?

Academic Model

[epepke]

Stallman's model seems to fit into the academic model of 10 to 15 years ago. It may not be the same as how academia works today, but I don't think it's terribly un-American. A lot of the recent success of America consists of the sequellae of the Land Grant colleges after World War II and the increased public funding for education that followed Sputnik.

Please explain...

[raistlinne]

...how the "GNU Network Object Model Environment" could somehow conflict with GNU?

Re:Please explain...

[drinkypoo]

...how the "GNU Network Object Model Environment" could somehow conflict with GNU?

Linux is UNIX, GNU's Not Unix, now explain GNU/Linux to me.

GNOME != GNU. That should be a simple enough explanation. It's a GNU project but it is not equal to GNU at large.

So cygnus wasn't actually profitable?

[raistlinne]

Ok, so cygnus wasn't actually a profitable company? Wow, someone should tell them that they were actually losing money when they thought that they were very profitable. (note: this is in the past tense because I don't know anything about their financial situation now that they're owned by redhat.)

Historical note: for those who aren't aware, cygnus was the company that was very profitable supporting gcc (they were also the primary developers of gcc and were the ones who forked off egcs and then became the official custodians of gcc a few years ago).

And isn't redhat itself actually hovering right around profitability now?

And of course SUN's support division is poverty stricken, as we all know, and let's not even talk about the beggars in IBM's various support divisions.

Or is it that you're just morally opposed to paying for development of free software through support contracts?

Re:So cygnus wasn't actually profitable?

[reflective recursion]

Please read what I wrote.

Here:

(i.e. selling support or t-shirts, etc. is not a solution)

I know very well what Red Hat and Cygnus (and Sendmail, Aladdin, etc. etc.) do. They sell t-shirts and support.

Now let's put this in perspective. Red Hat did not create the software they sell. Red Hat could never produce software such as Linux. They would have been bankrupt long ago. The same goes for Cygnus and the rest. They have had massive outside support. I do not believe technical support alone can bring in enough profit to actually create new software. Whatever became of Eazel anyhow?

Or is it that you're just morally opposed to paying for development of free software through support contracts?

If you want to bring morals into the discussion then why not talk about what these companies are doing. Red Hat is selling work done through charity and Ximian is a corporate entity masquerading around as a non-profit. From Ximian Mono web site:

Ximian will not be able to taken on the whole project on its own. Mono will be a free software/open source community project, that is the only way we can hope to implement something of this size. You can contribute to this effort.

and..

Question 57: How can you expect Mono to compete with Microsoft, wont this require an effort too large?

You are right. Mono will never become a reality without the help of other contributors. Ximian is a small company that can not finish Mono alone. We will be working with members of the community to deliver the product.

I don't see how that translates into a healthy business. You don't see IBM out there saying "Help us build these computers! So we can deliver the product to the consumer!" The FSF ideals are turning innocent programmers into sweatshop slaves and they don't even realize it.

Here is why you are wrong

[NDPTAL85]

Actually to an extent your freedom does interfere with my non-suckage. You see when RMS goes off ranting and making free software less attractive to those I may need/have to work with, that lessens my ability to use the same software. If he wasn't such a jerk, free software might be more widely accepted than it already is. That would be good for me.

Also those who don't give a damn about freedom do NOT interfere with you despite what you claim. No one is trying to take your freedom away. We just don't want to hear about it 24/7 from nutjobs who make our preferred tools less attractive because of his rantings.

Re:Here is why you are wrong

[sydb]

Heard it all before, bored of it.

Re:Here is why you are wrong

[NDPTAL85]

Bored you may be, it doesn't make it untrue.

Re:Here is why you are wrong

[sydb]

It may not make it untrue, but your still a whining ninnie who can't help gatecrashing the party.

Libertarian

[ahde]

you use that word so much. I don't think it means what you think it means

False

[JamesKPolk]

The GPL is not the embodiment of Free, it is the canonical example of Copyleft.

Many people miss this point. Free software is software without restrictions. Copylefted software is software that requires derived works to be free software.

RMS will tell you that the Free in FreeBSD is accurate, but he'll probably follow it up by mentioning his view that Copylefted software protects the community.

The concept of free software is simple. It's only the copyleft that makes the GPL so complicated.

The freedom to take the fruits of someone elses la

[Canyon Rat]

If that's what he wants, he should modify the GPL.
My friend, with a little help from me, produced some GPLed educational software for a poor school district with some hand me down computers. The teachers from the school district shared the software with other teachers at a statewide conference. Fast forward a year. My friend's wife discovers that a rich school district has had staff programmers improve the programs. She asks for a copy and is told that the rich district has a policy against sharing. My friend goes to the district and is told that they are keeping "their software" because it would look bad if the kids from the poor district district scored as well on statewide tests.

Surveys show that 70 - 80% of programming is internal rather than commercial so, for all we know, 70 - 80% of GPLed code has been taken 'internal private' inside organizations that think they have a competitive advantage from "their" program.

Fast forward a few years. Apple closes this GPL loophole in the APSL. Does RMS hail the innovation and modify the GPL? No he rails against the APSL as non-Free while dodging any substantive discussion of the issue. One can only suspect pure ego is at work. It's non-Free because he didn't think of it first.

That reminds me of the FSF Mission Statement...

[Bob_Robertson]

The FSF Mission Statement, written by Stallman I must assume (since his name's on it), says the same sorts of things.

Which makes me wonder, is his GNOME board application a restatement, or the other way around?

But seriously, I find his promotion of "choice", but not the choice to sell your labor if it happens to be in something called "software", to be hypocritical.

You cannot with one side of your face promote "choice", and with the other side tell people what they may and may not do.

[sarcasm]Shall all sex be free, and it be illegal to deny sexual intercourse, merely because human life depends on it? Golly, sign me up![/sarcasm]

Don't get me wrong, I applaud the GNU license. I use it myself every day, and gladly promote its use. However, I abhore force and will not use force to make someone use that license any more than I would force someone not to use it.

Bob-

Slavery Is Wrong!

[Bob_Robertson]

There is no limit to the restrictions I can place on the product of my labor, in this instance "software". To put it any other way is to enslave me to your idea of what you want my production to be, to enslave me to work for YOU.

The GNU licence allows me to place a very tight restriction on my labor, my property, by restricting how it may be used forever!

There is the ultimate freedom, the one that governments don't like you to think about but which is very tightly linked with the GNU license: You have the choice not to use my software.

While the ones wielding the monopoly on force can crush competition easily, if anyone else uses force to arbitrate their disputes the "monopoly" holder gets irate. In effect, you cannot take your business elsewhere.

With software, I can take my business elsewhere. I can write it if I don't want to use anyone elses, I can license it any way I please. The limits are that it may not work, and I may not be able to sell it. So what? As long as I do not use force or fraud, it's not your decision.

People who say things like But there are limits for what kind of restrictions you can impose on the software you write are just power freaks who want to be able to enslave their neighbors to their idea of write and wrong.

Bob-

Re:Its an analogy

[SlashDread]

Why isnt the parent poster ,modded down as the horrible anti-european troll he is?

Gr /Dread

This comment is BS

[efgbr]

I'm sorry, but RMS has nothing against bringing GNOME and free software to users of non-free systems. You made that up. He doesn't mention Fink or Mac OS X in none of his answers.

He's problem is with promoting non-free (and non-GNOME, btw) software.

Re:How is this different fron GNU on proprietary U

[Aapje]

BTW Has it occurred to anybody that most of the code for MS Office for X *would be* portabe to most *nix's?

Yes, it occured to many. Unfortunately for you Office X isn't a total rewrite based on BSD. It's based on Carbon which is a refurbished version of the classic MacOS API's. But even a rewrite in Cocoa wouldn't be cross-platform unless Cocoa is ported to other systems (= zero chance).

Just run Wine and stop wining ;)

Oh, i see what you're saying...

[RomulusNR]

His consistancy and ethics are admirable, but one wonders if GNOME has grown beyond its roots in the free software community.

I love the inference to be made here. In other words, GNOME has grown so large that it can't be bothered with ethics anymore.

Contradiction: freedom belongs to...?

[leonbrooks]

...those who are willing to defend it.

Trite, but true. In order to increase the general amount of freedom, a specific freedom must go. It's like restricting one freedom of expression (say, in the form of graffiti) in order to protect another (such as people's right to create and/or view paintings that would otherwise be quickly covered in graffiti).

People attribute all kinds of ethics and high moral principles to [RMS], 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.

Agree.

I don't think he is offering what some see him as offering, and so it never comes out looking like what they expect.

Agree. And I think this is one reason for so many OSS businesses having bitten the dust recently: their business model was not mapped onto reality, but onto their expectations.

The difference is that RMS - like soft water dripping on a hard rock which eventually wears away the rock - sets out to change the circumstances to fit his expectations, and does so with complete persistence, therefore must ultimately succeed unless he dies first. Mohandas Ghandi would have been pleased to recognise at least some of his principles in action. (-:

There is a big difference.

[deno]

The big difference is this: When Apple decided to take a "free" code, and build some propriatery additions on top of it in order to spare lots of $$, resulting in OS X, they had two choices:

1) Start with GPLed code, and try to persuade all licencees to allow them to re-licence their code in such a way that adding propriatery libraries is OK.
2) Start with BSD code, and have no restrictions imposed to them.

Whatever people say about "Darwin", apple got a great deal out of this, and gave back next to nothing - exactly the type of situation GPL is made to avoid.

In above tread there is a (probably false) example of a difference GPL licence makes compared with BSD to a company: the company which decides to publish its code under GPL can always decide to make an alternative version of the same (or slightly altered) program under any licence they want, and earn a lot of additional $$ this way.
Everybody else is free to use the code as he/she wants, but doesn't have the possibility to resell it under another licence.

In case one publishes the code under BSD, the code is "gone", and anyone can decide to take it, add propriatery stuff to it, and publish under another licence. WDYT why Qt librqary is licenced under several licences, inclded GPL, but not under BSD?

Re:Oh, go troll somewhere else

[numbsafari]

1) Sorry, we all make mistakes from time to time.

2) I think my argument is quite reasonable actually, why don't you provide some details? Afraid?

3) BSD is hardly tired, nor are its arguments. What's tiring, are people who refuse to accept other viewpoints, and wish to force their own on others. I personally don't have a problem with anyone who chooses to utilize the GPL, or code released under the GPL. What I have a problem with, are people who feel that it is the ONLY "free" license, and people who are against user choice. That includes RMS, and Bill Gates.