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

[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.

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!

[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!

[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.

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

[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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.

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

[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."

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: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.

...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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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?)

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).

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.

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.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

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.