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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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!

[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!

[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!

[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]

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!

[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...

[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.

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...

[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...

[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...

[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: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?

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

[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

[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.

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.

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 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

[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

[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

[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).

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.

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.

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

...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

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[ahde]

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

"its a Fortune (number) company"

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

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.

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?

[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

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.

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

[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.

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

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

[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?

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).

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.

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...

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 ...)

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

[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.

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: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: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.

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.

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.

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

[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: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.

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

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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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: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

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.

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.

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

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.

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: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?)

.

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.

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.)

Re:Newsflash - No idealogy needed here!

[sydb]

Please see my response to Glytch, above.

Libertarian

[ahde]

you use that word so much. I don't think it means what you think it means

Re:Here is why you are wrong

[sydb]

Heard it all before, bored of it.

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: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...

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.

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.

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.

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?