Gnome Preliminary Election Results In

makapuf writes "First results of Gnome Board elections have been issued. They include some well known gnome hackers, Miguel & others, along with Tesla Gwyne, but RMS has not been elected. Remember this is only temporary and see the results on Gnotices. You can see RMS' responses of the application form."

Comments

rofl

[Shadowcaster]

I wonder if it was like real (meaning american politics, voting booth and all that) voting, in that one could put down their own candidate. It would have been funny to see JarJar get in there somewhere..

I wonder if JarJar would have beat out RMS for votes.. they can both be equally annoying at times:
"Yousa call da system GNU/Linux-sa?"

Urgh

[Anonymous DWord]

It's actually Telsa Gwynne. Close though. :)

Why gee, that's a surprise ...

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

"... but RMS has not been elected"

RMS has acted as a intolerant stubborn donkey for so long with regard to software that he isn't taken seriously anymore. Even the FSF are getting really tired of him now.

Don't get me wrong, his strong opinions *were* the right attitude when free software was something of a novelty, when the business world was taking the few free software people for lunatics. But that was years ago. Now the world at large at least takes free software seriously, and Stallman has become as useful as a fire hydrant in the middle of a bike trail.

Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ...

[Anonymous Coward]

as useful as a fire hydrant in the middle of a bike trail.

What kind of analogy is that? I'd say RMS is more of a one-legged cat trying to bury turds on a frozen lake....

Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ...

[Muggins the Mad]

> Now the world at large at least takes free software seriously, and Stallman has become as useful as a fire hydrant in the middle of a bike trail.

I must disagree with you here. Stallman, or at least his strong views on the purity of free software are needed more than ever.

Now people are recognising some of the benefits of available source code, they're not seeing the important difference between open source and free software (in GNU terms). And it's all being confused. People are going around thinking that just because it's publically developed, it's free.

We need the FSF as much as we always have, as a voice pointing out why the "viral" clause in the GPL is so important, and why the BSD license gives developers more freedom but doesn't necessarily transfer it to the end users.

- MugginsM

Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ...

[forgoil]

I totally agree, and it's good that more and more people are seeing this. I think anyone who wants to should be able to keep what they do free, those who don't shouldn't be haressed.

Stallman couldn't care less about companies making real money to pay their workers. The situation today is vastly different. We are not talking about a driver for a printer that was close source so the printer became useless on a system, we are talking about a very high level software piracy, where nobody wants to pay.

If open source is a viable way to make a business, there is just one way to prove it, companies that makes a profit. And don't tell me, go out and start one instead, because M$ is still making the most money and thus must have the best idea on how to make money.

Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ...

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

"his strong views on the purity of free software are needed more than ever"

Okay, so take the example of the Linux kernel : it started as a project from a brilliant programmer geek for brilliant programmer geeks : RMS' message isn't very useful here (because of the small specialized audience) but I admit that it might be.

Then, Linux grew bigger and started to show-up on company radars (namely Novell) : when Linux was at that point, RMS was key to keeping it from being taken over by rapacious companies. Linus also said many times that the GPL was a natural choice. So I say bravo RMS : directly or indirectly, he kept Linux independent, and he still does.

Now, Linux has reached a critical mass : companies have vested interests in it, too many people have given time and effort to make it better, or simply to use it in solutions, it's not going to be adulterated by business thugs anymore. Nobody is going to take it over today. Does it need RMS' unbudgeable attitude to keep it safe ? heck no. What Linux needs now is $$$, and a steering committee able to make balanced decisions for the good of geeks as well as suits. At this point, RMS just drives businesses away, and even Linus admits that he steers clears of him for similar reasons (it's written in his book, quite bluntly).

I'm a programmer, I maintain open-source projects, and because I used to be a hot-headed teenage geek long ago, I still feel a pang of disgust in my stomack when I hear or read about businesses doing this or that with the information that wants to be free. But I'm old(er) now, and what my head tells me differs from what my stomack does : at some point in every major OSS project, businesses have to bring in cash to keep the ball going. It might feel disgusting, but it's the truth. RMS' head thinks the exact same way his stomack does, and that's stupid.

"We need the FSF as much as we always have, as a voice pointing out why the "viral" clause in the GPL is so important, and why the BSD license gives developers more freedom but doesn't necessarily transfer it to the end users"

You're 100% right, we need the FSF. But there is a major difference between the FSF and RMS : they acknowledge the importance of the business world, even if they don't often shout it out loud, and they strive to work with them *and* keep the spirit of the GPL intact, which is why they drafted the GPL 3.0 that Stallman hates so much, and why they try to distance themselves from Stallman.

Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ...

[nagora]

Now the world at large at least takes free software seriously

Serious enough to stop trying to patent code? Serious enough to ensure that all software comes with source on disc? Serious enough that you or I can have access to the language codes which drive our printers?

The world has moved backwards in respect of free software. Ironically this is largely RMS's fault, AFAICS. His irritating manner has almost totally destroyed any respect for his ideas on free software, ideas which are valuable.

The world hasn't stopped needing RMS's vision, it just really needs a new RMS.

TWW

Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ...

[Get Behind the Mule]

I must disagree with you here. Stallman, or at least his strong views on the purity of free software are needed more than ever.

... and so on and so forth, but your post just keeps asserting that these things are all so important, without explaining why.

Sure it's a Good Thing that the FSF exists, and of course RMS deserves respect for the dogged exercise of his rights (as everybody always says nowadays). And if he and others like him can convince more people, then more power to 'em. But a lot of us know and understand the message, are not terribly convinced by it, and aren't planning on doing anything particular to promote it in the foreseeable future. In the marketplace of ideas, you win some and you lose some.

Incidentally, since you're evidently a supporter of the FSF and the free software concept, I'd like to advise you, probably for the umpteenth time, that RMS is an extremely poor ambassador for your cause. Let's once and for all be rid of the canard that it's everybody else's fault, because we're all just too lily-livered to cope with someone who is so strongly dedicated. RMS could be just as passionate without being such an insufferable jackass. It is possible to take a strong, principled stance, and nevertheless have some skills at diplomacy and just generally getting along with people. RMS's fans try to redefine his weaknesses as strengths, but that's just an argument born out of desperation, not to mention sheer baloney. He has simply failed to learn some lessons that his mother and kindergarten teacher should have taught him, and it is extremely damaging to the free software cause.

Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ...

[Paladin128]

But I'm old(er) now, and what my head tells me differs from what my stomack does : at some point in every major OSS project, businesses have to bring in cash to keep the ball going. It might feel disgusting, but it's the truth. RMS' head thinks the exact same way his stomack does, and that's stupid.

That's the way it is now, but not the way it has to be. At some point in the future, if the world abandoned propretary software, and all software available was free (as in speech), corporate backing wouldn't be necessary. Why would we need the help of the industry if there were no proprietary file formats or network protocols to reverse engineer or sign NDA's for.

Sure, interaction with business on some level is necessary (businesses offereing tech support, etc.), but good software will happen with or without industry if it is universally accepted. And yes, we can still all get paid doing custom development for different companies (everything from web sites to customized POS systems). Stallman has said for years that that if the world consisted of all free software, we could still get paid, but not as much.

Please note I am not arguing whether these cases are good or bad, I'm simply arguing alternative scenarios that others had presented.

Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ...

[Paladin128]

We are not talking about a driver for a printer that was close source so the printer became useless on a system, we are talking about a very high level software piracy, where nobody wants to pay.

Bull! There are plenty of closed source drivers for Windows that have no implemented equivalents on other OS's, and those keep people from using free software. Just because that's less of a problem today, don't pretend it isn't a problem. Think of all the people out there with WinModems that are totally screwed if they want to try Linux. There are such things as WinPrinters and WinScanners as well.

Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ...

[Russ Nelson]

RMS was an orphan. No surprise that he failed to learn lessons from his mother.
-russ

Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ...

[Syberghost]

Now people are recognising some of the benefits of available source code, they're not seeing the important difference between open source and free software (in GNU terms).

You are assuming that the fact that they are not adopting the GPL is proof that they don't understand the difference between Free Software and Open Source.

I suggest that the fact that companies have begun exploring other licenses is proof that they DO finally understand that difference.

They're trying to find a balance between the anti-capitalist FSF position, and the flaming they'd take for using a BSD-style license.

Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ...

[sydb]

In the past, pro-MS posters would generally get moderated down and flamed, whilst pro-Linux posters would generally get moderated up.

At the same time, a vocal minority would complain about this lack of balance. Fair enough.

But now, the pendulum has swung the other way. Fully. Now the balance is against linux and Free Software. You are part of the vocal majority.

I'd rather have NONE of the flaming and trolling, the karma-whoring and bigotry on EITHER side.

I came to Slashdot for intelligent discussion, about technical news and, specifically, about Free Software related happenings. The site has ALWAYS had a Free Software slant. Just because it's not written in lights at the top of page doesn't change that; but remember that Slashdot is part of the OSDN: Open Source Developers Network. "Open Source" may not be a drop-in replacement for "Free Software" but near as dammit. But it's not solely about Free Software, and I welcome that, and I don't troll or flame people talking about Microsoft products; in fact I try not to troll or flame anyone. If someone puts up an opinion, it's an invitation to a discussion, but most people here don't want to discuss, they just want to score points.

Your kind and many more like you make me want to go elsewhere.

Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ...

[Score Whore]

Actually that's bullshit. The only downward moderation I've gotten was critizing RMS, linux, or stupid-dot.

Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ...

[xinit]

"if the world abandoned propretary software"

You may as well say "if the world abandoned that crazy hatred thing."

It may be nice to picture a world where everyone gets along and where everyone runs Free (tm) software, but it's not likely to happen, regardless of the involvement of RMS or anyone.

Corporate backing for software development includes such things as IBM paying developers to port free software to linux. It includes businesses having open sourced drivers written for their hardware. It includes college students writing code for open release as part of a project.

Corporate backing isn't all Microsoft and One True Way. Sometimes it's ugly coding and someone needs to be paid to write it in one fashion or another.

Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ...

[connorbd]

Actually, there is a difference, but it's mostly one of intent; Open Source simply says that you should make source available for your own benefit and others, while the FSF feels that that responsibility applies to anyone who borrows your code. My sympathies lie a bit closer to Stallman's point of view (I have an aversion to artificial scarcity), but I find him to be hopelessly fundamentalist in his aims. While openness is to be encouraged, it's not really fair to take a "RMS's way or the highway" attitude.

/Brian

Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ...

[WNight]

Yeah, it's pretty annoying. In fact, Slashdot's whole moderation system seems broken. Kuro5hin's works better imho, but even it has issues.

You missed the best way to get karma.

"I know some fanatical [anti-topic of post] moderator is going to punish me for this, but it needs to be said."

or

"I know I'm going to lose karma for this, but ..."

Put either one of those in a post, the more flamebait the better, and prepare to be modded up.

I've specifically asked for a new moderation "-1, mentions karma" specifically to get rid of that kind of troll. I really feel that the moderation needs to feel like it's not there, if people post because of it (especially if that works!) then there's an issue.

I too would like a more balanced set of moderators. Even pro-MS fundies, though they piss me off to no end. I believe either ignoring them, or debating them is the answer, not knee-jerk moderations.

Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ...

[aziegler]

That's the way it is now, but not the way it has to be. At some point in the future, if the world abandoned propretary software, and all software available was free (as in speech), corporate backing wouldn't be necessary. Why would we need the help of the industry if there were no proprietary file formats or network protocols to reverse engineer or sign NDA's for.

*snort*

You can survive without eating, I presume? Corporate backing will still be necessary, and corporate support. The bad part about Stallman's vision is that he wants everyone to work a support role. I, for one, ain't interested.

I'm all for open-source; "free software" is just silly when it reaches this level of horse manure ("corporate backing wouldn't be necessary" indeed).

-f

Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ...

[jaoswald]

"Artificial scarcity" is rarely an accurate description. It usually means one is mis-identifying the actual scarce resource. For instance, ignoring important and risky capital investments or research expenditures.

Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ...

[sydb]

Actually, that's not bullshit. Open your eyes, I'm not talking about just your posts.

Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ...

[Get Behind the Mule]

RMS was an orphan. No surprise that he failed to learn lessons from his mother.

Wow, I didn't know that. I'm sorry then, my remark about his mother was below the belt.

Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ...

[connorbd]

The product being created with these capital expenditures (music or software) is something that is infinitely reproducible. The fact is that the economics of the situation are not on the side of the producers and have not been since, oh, about the invention of the cassette tape.

The fact is that in the era of the microcomputer, copy protection has never been anything that a sufficiently sophisticated hacker (and I use the term in the canonical, Jargon File sense, even though it doesn't always apply) can't get around, and the legalities involved consistently attempt to uphold a business model that was built and is being maintained with little thought given to current economic reality.

Look at the DMCA: this is an attempt to strongarm people into falling in line with someone else's business model. The fact is that "artificial scarcity" exists because of a failure to adapt on the part of those putting out the product (and the expenses to develop it).

/Brian

Re:Why gee, that's a surprise ...

[jaoswald]

Yes, I'm aware that electronic media are cheap and easy to reproduce. So are most pharmaceutical products. However, what isn't cheap and easy to reproduce is the R&D that go into these products.

If the price is forced to zero to match the marginal cost of the media, there isn't any way to recoup these costs. Most people don't like putting their capital where it is guaranteed to get zero return, so guess what, few people do serious development work on either of these things unless they can use intellectual property rights to monopolize the end result, and get to charge something more like the average cost.

For instance, exactly how do you envision people developing (not just manufacturing) AIDS drugs if they aren't allowed exclusive patent rights? Or is it better to not have AIDS drugs because they don't reflect "current economic reality"?

That open-source developers (or their regular employers) often give away their scarce development talent gratis does not prove that their development talent isn't scarce, that there is anything "artificial" about this scarcity, or that there is something more "natural" about giving stuff away rather than building a profitable business.

Elections

[loraksus]

However, RMS has demanded a recount in 13 counties, claiming that media bias that he is not a team player has offset the public's perception of him, and thus cost him the election.
Reports have come from a source close to Stallman saying that he is stomping up and down his office and muttering " No? NO!?!!? I invented the fuckin' GUI!!"

More at 10.

Re:Elections

[Lunastorm]

Don't you mean, GNU/GUI?

Re:Elections

[YU Nicks NE Way]

Reports have come from a source close to Stallman

Typical media bias. The original quotation said "Reports from a closed source near to Stallman".

Re:Elections

[hawk]

>This would have been funny if RMS had actually claimed credit on
>inventing a GUI.

yes. We all know that he invented tha AlGore, and that Gates invented the GUI . . .

hawk

I was confused...

[x136]

...I think I accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan!

What I found vaguely interesting

[Chuck Chunder]

was that of the 11 people who voted and who have gnu.org email addresses only 2 people, including RMS, voted for RMS.

Not that this necessarily means anything particularly significant, I have no idea about what having a gnu.org email address means for a start, it's just vaguely interesting.

Re:What I found vaguely interesting

[Russ Nelson]

The FSF has given out gnu.org mailing addresses like pretty girls at parades give out candy. I've got one, if I chose to use it. nelson with the domain of gnu.org gets to me.
-russ

Yep

[jawtheshark]

Yep, sometimes one needs "extremists" to show a point. You don't get public attention by being tolerant and staying in your corner: Stallman is what I would call a "extremist-opensource-advocate", he went out in public and showed his intolerance for proprietary software.
I would nearly compare it to environmentalists back in the seventies that wanted to banish all industrial activity because of the pollution. (Anyone recall GreenPeace back then?) They made it clear to the world that we were on the wrong track. The world now has taken a moderate standpoint to environmentalism.
I think that Stallman has done the same for opensource: the IT world now has embraced it but won't take it to the extreme.

History repeats itself in some form or another.
Note for potential flamers: I use the word "extremist" in the context of "someone with extreme viewpoints" not in the current context of "terrorist". Also I wish to note that I have nothing against environemntalists, they need to be there and I respect nature as much as I can.

Re:What an irony?

[Majix]

Telsa Gwynne works on the GNOME Documentation Project. Besides, the board is not about coding, we need a well-balanced board of people with many different skills.

Domination by a few companies

[amorsen]

In retrospect the protection against company dominations could have been stronger. Of those elected:

4 are employed by Ximian
3 are employed by RedHat
3 are without affiliation
1 is employed by Compaq

As it is, Ximian and RedHat together have almost 2/3 of the seats. Both are respectable and honourable companies and I am sure that they will try to keep the viewpoints of the whole GNOME community in mind when they decide issues, but it is hard for them to represent important GNOME backers such as Sun Microsystems.

One can hope that the GNOME Board will consult with the greater community when they are facing important issues. They could invite people with different affiliations as non-voting guests for select meetings, perhaps.

Re:Domination by a few companies

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a pity that noone from Sun got elected.

I think it would have been more interesting to have at least 1 representative for Sun instead of yet another ximian guy or Telsa Gwynne (despite all the sympathy I may have for her and her husband).

I wonder if this election is going to have any impact on gnome2 for Solaris, the use of bonobo or gtk in OPenoffice.org etc.

Re:Domination by a few companies

[biglig2]

Well, most Linux people have to earn a crust somewhere, and the tendency is for them to work of Linux companies, so not really that surprising.

Re:Domination by a few companies

[Russ Nelson]

Should the GNOME board consist of community members or GNOME hackers? If the latter, it's going to be impossible not to have strong representation by Ximian and Red Hat. If the latter, merely difficult.
-russ

Re:Domination by a few companies

[supabeast!]

I honestly feel that having some serious corporate representation on board is a good thing. There are many people in the Open Source/Free Software communities that want to see Gnome become the standard desktop out there, but until Gnome gets to a point where it can be popular with regular old users, and stable enough for use in serious business applications, it will never have a good chance at winning business from Windows. Perhaps with some serious attempts to make money involved (At least from RedHat and Compaq- the chances of Ximian ever becoming profitable seem pretty slim.), Gnome can become the free software desktop of choice and deserve it.

Re:Domination by a few companies

[Russ Nelson]

"latter" binds tightly.
-russ

Board dominated by Ximian and Red Hat

[Florian Weimer]

Time will tell if this is a good thing. Perhaps the per-company limit should have been lower (two or three), so that some other companies would have been represented on the board. The current member's affiliations probably do not mirror a large part of the GNOME community.

Re:Board dominated by Ximian and Red Hat

[JamesHenstridge]

First of all, members of the foundation board are not representatives of their respective companies -- there is a separate Advisory Board comprising representatives of companies on the foundation. Decisions are made by the Foundation Board though.

Well, last year, the majority of the board was split over Red Hat, Ximian and Eazel. As Eazel went out of business, they aren't listed as the affiliation of any board member now.

There are other companies that have been working on GNOME, such as Sun and CodeFactory, but their work on GNOME (or the company itself) doesn't seem to have as high a profile. The Sun hackers have been doing a lot of great work on accessibility and GNOME 2.0. CodeFactory hackers maintain a number of core libraries in the GNOME 2.0 platform (Anders maintains libgnome and libgnomeui), and work on various other libraries/applications such as gtkhtml2 and Mr Project.

If you want to see more diversity in affiliation, try and convince more companies to pay for hackers to work on GNOME (the company doesn't need to join the Advisory Board though).

yeah right

[streetlawyer]

Now people are recognising some of the benefits of available source code, they're not seeing the important difference between open source and free software

Or possibly, they're seeing it, and they don't think it's important.

In general, never assume that the reason people don't think things are important is because they don't understand them. Years of evolution has given us a sense of proportion which means that the mass of people is almost never wrong about what's worth bothering with. That's why turnout is so low in Presidential elections.

Re:yeah right

[Watts Martin]

Years of evolution has given us a sense of proportion which means that the mass of people is almost never wrong about what's worth bothering with. That's why turnout is so low in Presidential elections.

You know, two responses come to mind:

The serious response

You more or less make the case, with the "presidential elections" crack, that the mass of people can quite obviously be wrong about what's worth bothering with. There is nothing more important to the health of a representative democracy than choosing who represents you: if you don't take that responsibility seriously, you abandon it to the dwindling number of people who will be bothered to vote. This is precisely why campagin ads are so often repugnant scare tactics: the idea is to depress most voters out of voting, leaving only the ones who really believe, say, electing the Democrat will mean abortion clinics opening on every street corner to vote. And eventually we end up in a situation like we have now: where the best way to get elected to government is to campaign against government, and to bash anyone who believes that government can possibly be useful. And, gosh, when the government gets full of people like that, darned if it isn't a self-fulfilling prophecy!

The flippant answer

People watch Tom Green. Enough said.

Re:oops.. a typo possibly?

[msaavedra]

She may not be too pleased that her husband didn't vote for her, either! :-)

Re:oops.. a typo possibly?

[Anonymous DWord]

Yeah, but he got 8 out of 11, and she didn't vote for herself either. :-)

Re:FUCK RMS

[Anonymous DWord]

Here's his application, just in case you're curious: http://nm.debian.org/nmstatus.php?email=rms%40gnu. org

Application Manager Assigned: jordi assigned on 2001-11-25

The following things need to happen still:

• ID to be checked by AM
• Philosophy and Procedures to be checked by AM.
• Tasks and Skills to be checked by AM.
• Your Application Manager will put their approval to the DAM.
• DAM to approve application
• DAM creates new account

Re:RMS's ballot rejected..

[JamesHenstridge]

The first ballot from RMS was an automatically generated away message:

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/vote/2001-November/ msg00000.html

Re:What an irony?

[DrXym]

Sure he sacrificed a lot of his lifetime to free software, but precious little of it was for GNOME. Probably most of the other people on that list have expended more than he, with the consequence that they got voted in and he didn't.

Besides, it's pretty clear what people thought he would bring to GNOME - politics, rifts, negative publicity and an agenda that meant it lost even more ground to KDE.

As an unwilling convert to KDE, I hope the committee address the fundamental problems in GNOME that prevent me from using it - bloat, integration, usability & packaging. While I wouldn't put KDE up on a pedestal as the perfect UI (far from it), at least it feels like a seamless whole rather than a bunch of cobbled together stuff. GNOME has some fantastic technology but until their comes as close to KDE for letting me do Real Work, I can't switch over.

Graphical network object model environment.

[Forge]

Or "Good Network Object Model Environment".

However they do it they really need to drop "GNU" from the name of the project. The rational is very simple. The GNU project has very clear and simple goals. The GNOME project also has clear and simple goals. These goals are not the same.

Not by a long shot. Gnome advocates will tell you of the plight of the pore shareware author who must develop his nifty new application for Gnome as the competing desktop is built on a GPLed library. GNU will tell you that the LGPL should only be applied to libraries that provide a function that is already available on other none free operating systems.

On an issue as basic as that, GNU and GNOME disagree. On whether a new proprietary application built on the Gnome foundation is worth mention in the main Gnome news source or promotion on the Gnome website the two organizations disagree.

However GNU was here 1st and its position and ideology have not changed significantly in years. Therefore it's op to Gnome to either conform to that position, change it from within the organization or get the hell out of an organization to which they don't truly belong.

The GNU way will not change. At least not this decade. Gnome will not abandon friendly corporations that happen to do proprietary apps for the platform (sometimes in conjunction with open apps). That leaves only option #3.

Gnome needs to stop calling itself a GNU project because quite frankly it is not. It is worth noting that other massive Open source projects don't have the sort of conflict with GNU that GNOME dose. The Linux Kernel. KDE. Xfree86 and many more. All of them do the on GNU like things GNOME has done but none bring out RMS' fury.

Simply because they don't use his pet project's name for marketing. Some don't even use his license but at least those who do honor the license enough to keep the goat at bay.

Re:Graphical network object model environment.

[sydb]

Gnome advocates will tell you of the plight of the pore shareware author who must develop his nifty new application for Gnome as the competing desktop is built on a GPLed library.

Which Gnome advocates? I'm a Gnome advocate (Use Gnome!), but I would never say "Because it's great for shareware authors!", even though it in fact is.

Have a look at the Gnome web site.

Tell you what, I'll save you a mouse click. Some quotes:

GNOME is part of the GNU project, and is free software

The GNOME project was born as an effort to create an entirely free desktop environment for free systems.

The GNOME project was the first to provide a fully free desktop environment for Unix-like systems. Free Software is about empowering users, and about granting them rights over the software they use. With Free Software, the user gets a number of rights:

• The right to use the software.
  
  
• The right to redistribute the software: if you have a piece of free software, you can share this software with other people (no license fees are required).
  
  
• The right to learn from the software.
  
  
• The right to alter the software (all source code, data files, images are included). For example, users can improve it, extend it, trim it down, fix problems, learn or experiment.
  
  
• The right to redistribute your modified versions of the software. This means that once you have made changes to the software, you can distribute these changes to your friends, customers or anyone else.
  

These rights and freedoms are at the core of the GNOME project. The side effects of Free Software are that the software tends to be of very high quality, it evolves very rapidly, problems are fixed quickly, and in general the system is better both for the user and the developer.

Now stop trolling, understand what you are talking about before you open your underinformed cakehole.

Re:Graphical network object model environment.

[Forge]

Actualy I do understand fuly what I am talking about having been involved in free Software for the better part of a Decade.

GNU is not very pragmatic. It dosn't belive there is much of a place for proprietery software.

GNOME on the other hand thinks that the closed application has a definet roal to play in it's future.

It is this basic disagreement that caused the 1st tosle betwean GNU and GNOME some months ago. Simply regorgitating a few pages of GNU doctrin on the GNOME website dosn't change the facts of how the project actualy operates and what it actualy seaks to achive.

Forinstance. Being shiped with a future version of Solaris is considerd a major coop within the Gnome comunity. Ask around. To GNU that is an inconsequential side isue at best and at worst an atempt to undermine the free status of the project.

GNU and GNOME argue and disagree. Any true GNU project would recognise that the license is a major feature and by virtue of writing it RMS is a major contributer.

Please explain the difference.

[Russ Nelson]

I'm not clear on the difference between open source and free software. Could you show me a piece of free software which is not open source, or a piece of open source software which is not free software?
-russ

Re:Please explain the difference.

[Russ Nelson]

BlowChunx, this is just an example of the dual meaning of "free": libre or gratis? Gratis software may not be libre, but libre software can always be gratis.
-russ

Re:Please explain the difference.

[ichimunki]

Numerous examples of open source but non-free software exist or have existed until the FSF or other Free Software zealots hounded those with the ability to do so to license the software under the GPL or some other other GPL-compatible license. And when I use the phrase non-free, I mean that the software is somehow incompatible with the GPL, in that it has special requirements beyond the sharing of the freedom (things like: can only be re-distributed as-is, all changes must be distributed as patches, no redistribution as part of a commercial distribution, free for student, research, and non-profit, but corporations must pay a fee, etc).

A not-exhaustive list: Qt (at one time), mpg123 (without which the program XMMS may not be so popular), qmail, Mozilla... or go to http://freshmeat.net/browse/13/ and look at the packages you get with 'Free for educational use', 'Free for non-commercial use', and 'Free to Use but Restricted'. Those categories include links to plenty of binary distributions, but also to plenty of source code distributions.

Re:Please explain the difference.

[Russ Nelson]

Do any of your examples use an Open Source license?
-russ

Re:Please explain the difference.

[Russ Nelson]

Precisely why we took the time and effort (this time around) to establish a defendable trademark for Open Source Software, "OSI Certified". Yes, open source might mean anything. So could free software. But "OSI Certified" means something.
-russ

Hungarian electrical engineers

[Russ Nelson]

One can only hope that Telsa feels an affinity towards Hungarian electrical engineers!
-russ

This is as bad as TV news coverage

[Junks Jerzey]

with the election results being reported early before they are really known. Do we need this kind of story? Is the point just to make fun of RMS? This is one of the worst Slashdot stories ever.

Gnome is RUDE to turn him away now.

[Forge]

By declearing the Gnome a GNU project they have invited RMS into the iner circle of Gnome. By turning him away at this juncture they have shown an unreasonable change of heart.

Look at it this way. I can open a church and accept anyone I chuse and refuse anyone I chuse even if I preach the Catholic version of the gospel. (No comparitive thology please. It's important only in that diferent denominations have diferent interpritations for much of the bible) However if I open a Catholic church the Pope must ALWAYS be welcome and I can't alow my prists and nons to mary.

It realy is that simple.

Re:Gnome is RUDE to turn him away now.

[DrXym]

Turning copyright over to the FSF doesn't mean that RMS is entitled to charge in like in a bull in a chinashop. If he wants to control within a project it must be with the consent of the maintainers, in this case the GNOME contributors. If this case, there was a vote, the other candidates were better and he didn't get in.

If he's that determined to run GNOME his way (e.g. into the ground just like Hurd), he's perfectly entitled to fork the code, but I seriously doubt many people would bother to use it.

In fact GNOME needs to sweep some of the politics aside and encourage pragmatism. Getting usable code out the door and being able to run it anywhere is the best way it's likely to increase its mindshare.

Re:Havoc

[Glytch]

I'd worry more about how much jello and cream lemon he'd bring to GNOME, not to mention the next default wallpaper and theme.

Whoops, different Havoc. Nevermind.

Re:What an irony?

[hawk]

> As an unwilling convert to KDE, I hope the committee address the
> fundamental problems in GNOME that prevent me from using it - bloat,
> integration, usability & packaging.

So, "aside from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?" ?

:)

hawk, who has yet to see a use for a desktop environment

Long rant on rms and open source

[jemagid]

Funny this should come up. I was just thinking to myself earlier this evening about rms, the nature of free software, and his "political baggage".

Here's my feelings: rms is a brilliant technologist. His software (namely emacs and gcc) is used by millions and have become the default tools of an entire industry. The original emacs (written in TECO for ITS) was the first editor of it's type- full-screen, modeless, expandable. A groundbreaking piece of software. Life without gcc is unthinkable.

As a social engineer- a man attempting to create a change in society, he has been very successful. Certainly on the very short list of computer programmers seeking and successfully creating social change. He defined free software. Even if you prefer to call it Open Source (as I very often do. it's easier to explain, I think). Many if not most people who run Linux and (free|net|open)BSD agree that making software free can provide more value to the user, and in the long run, the programming community, than the type of proprietary software that became prevalent in the commercial software industry.

As a Man With A Mission, he's brought hundreds of thousands of people (if not millions) around to his point of view. Whether they know it or not. Certainly, his aim to re-create the free software-oriented environment of the AI Lab/ITS community has succeeded beyond all imagination. He received the McCarther Foundation's Genius award, and those aren't just bandied about.

Free software (built on Linux and other free OS's) have reinvigorated a form of hobbyist computing that had almost completely disappeared by the late 80's, early 90's. For me and millions of others, free software has made computing a fun hobby again. How can you be a hobbyist with nothing to tinker with? Proprietary software is boring.

He gave us the GPL. The GPL is a brilliant legal document and a revolutionary manifesto at the same time. It's simple. It's elegant. Even a non-lawyer can understand it (something you can't say about the typical EULA that comes with windows, etc.) And it has provided a firm foundation for a free software movement. You can tell its working by how much MS hates it. It "breaks the virtuous cycle" of commercial companies building proprietary systems out of free developer's effort. Also, the GPL is the basis for free software companies like Red Hat, Mandrake, et al. Linus' first release of Linux was "for non-commercial use only". The GPL changed his mind.

Even if you're a BSD/X11 license enthusiast, you should know that rms was instrumental in getting the BSD developers to re-implement the proprietary/AT&T-owned pieces of BSD 4.3. Their efforts became the basis for all the open source BSD's.

Some of the credit for these breakthroughs and successful developments goes fairly to rms. If not as the direct player in all of it, then as a prime mover, inspirer, definer, prophet.

Yes prophet. And like the old testament prophets of old, a "A prophet is not without honor except in his own country, among his own relatives, and in his own house." No one likes a prophet. Typically, they are scruffy, ill-kempt, and wild-eyed. They speak harsh truths no one wants to hear. They shake things up. People hope they'll just go away.

The question of whether a prophet is right- is a different one. But no one can deny the effect of a prophet on his community. We're rms's community and the truth is he doesn't get a lot of respect here.

Why? I've heard some say it's because of his "pedantic semantics" and "politcal baggage". Well, I can't disagree with them. Specifically the issue of his calling Linux, GNU/Linux (and in the emacs configure script: lignux) lost rms a lot of political capital. The Linux community didn't want to hear him tell them that all their wonderful work (and it was wonderful. even back in '96 or so when this issue first came up) was dependent on the efforts of him and the FSF. And that they wanted credit.

The disagreement on Open Source and Free Software was similar. Pragmatists liked open source as it is easier to explain, and not so scarey to the proprietary companies who they wanted on-board. rms' politics and insistence on freedom as the essence of free software is scarey. cf. my bit on prophets. :) But to give him credit, that brand of anarchist radicalism is important- I don't think Linux would have happened the way it has if it wasn't rms' inspirational message.

Hmmm. This rant has turned into apoligism for rms. And rms needs no apologies. He's given us a lot. Probably, more than we'd like, or feel comfortable with.

Although I personally am a tremendous advocate for free software (and even open source), I can't endorse rms' beliefs that proprietary software is by its nature immoral. I think it has a lot of disadvantages. I think free software is better for user's b/c they have a choice about how it gets developed. I think its better for developers b/c it gives us a common store of accumulated wisdom and solutions on which to build new software. But I won't say that proprietary software is evil and those who write it are at best dupes. I feel like people pay the rent however they can, and it is still much easier to do that writing closed source software. Will it be true in the future? Maybe. I don't know. But I'm not going to make it into a moral judgement.

I didn't vote on the Gnome Foundation's board. I don't follow gnome's development really, so I didn't think it was right to involve myself. Would I have voted for rms? I don't know. As I've probably made clear, I admire the man and his work. He was an important factor in starting the Gnome project at its beginning. On the other hand, I think developments like the (purported) adaption of Gnome by Sun for Solaris could be very important to its future. rms probably doesn't like it. so, perhaps his losing is the right thing to have happened for gnome's future.

but I think its not right to celebrate his loss. certainly not to label him as a fool or a dinosaur as I've seen some linux-ites do. not only is it ungrateful, but it's foolish to label your fore-fathers as fools. What does that say about those who've followed in his tracks?

cheers, jem.