Slashdot Mirror
FSF Launches Associated Membership Program
Andy Tai writes "The Free Software Foundation (FSF) has launched an associated membership program. Support Free Software by becoming an FSF associated member.
From the FSF website:
On Monday 25 November 2002, we launched the FSF Associate Membership
program. Now, you can support FSF by becoming a
card-carrying associate member.
You can find out about the rates and benefits
of membership, sign up to be an Associate Member,
login to edit your membership options, and even read briefly about some current projects of FSF.
" Seems a little odd to me, but what do i know ;)
At present, the article's links are pointing back at Slashdot itself. The full page with the links pointing correctly are here.
...does everyone that you are linked with automatically become a member too?
What we see depends on mainly what we look for. -- John Lubbock Now search for that bug slave!
They will have to change their name to the Fee Sofrware Foundation.
Guess Stallman finally wants a taste of the good life. Now Stallman can pay the course fee for that round of golf with McNeally and Gates.
"by becoming a card-carrying associate member. "
Great, and when people call us communists they can now just say "card carrying commie!"
I've paid monthly as a member of a lobby group to support the company I work for. Why not support a more important politcal organization?
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
The way FSF is operating is getting closer to the PBS model everyday.
First, they plead for memberships. Pretty soon they will have a yearly membership pledge drive. Perhaps they will start holding off releases until they can reach a goal of 1.5 million dollors every year.
Second, they will solicit corporate sponsorship. Maybe in the next version of emacs, you will have to stare at an ad disclaiming that "Our gold sponsor is Micro$oft Corporation. Micro$oft. We bring windows to your desktop. (Or whatever their tagline is.)" Perhaps when you do C-x C-h you will see first "This feature is sponsored by GeeEee, GeeEee, we bring good things to life."
The problems with PBS model are two fold: 1) it sure is annoying to endure these pledge drives and the sponsorship messages; 2) the sponsorship messages are not much different than commercial ads. It can be argued that PBS is not that much different than your regular commercial station. As such, it is inevitable when your sponsor will exert influence on your content, especially your editorial content.
Similarly, it is not hard to imagine when a sponsor of FSF "gentlely" suggests that a project be cancelled or a feature be altered because of conflict.
That will be the end of the free software movement.
Come ON! This is such bs! Granted Stallman if pretty far out there, but so is Gates. And in fact, so is Jobs too! Linux will probably, definitely, outlive OS X (I forget where I read, but the Linux desktop it will outnumber OS X desktops by next year or somethin), or at least out nubmer it substantially.
.con years and how they took the public on a ride off a cliff (which most went willingly I might add) and corporate America's insatiable appetite to gobble up more, pay their execs more, and lay off the average Joe more. But those are only a few reasons and frankly, it's not that simple.
Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with free software and I'd rather the public have access to code and ideas than just a few corporations via their rules. I think it takes two extremes to get people to find an acceptable medium. You sometimes need the extremes to wake people up for the long term. I have no problem with selling consulting services and contributing to the FSF not just with my pocketbook, but also with coding abilities. Like Lessig said "what have you contributed lately?"
As far as your 'unemployed' issue, it has absolutely nothing to do with Stallman. More to do with the banking industry over the past
Point really being, sell your brain power as services that you can dictate, or, punch a clock which someone else will dictate; the struggle of the worker since time began..
Perhaps you've heard of the DMCA?
If you dislike laws like that, wouldn't it be great to have an organization to help fight legal battles that might eventually bring down bad laws, or perhaps loobby to help stop them in the first place?
Well there is such an organization, it's called the EFF!! By giving money to them you aren't just helping develop free software, you are helping to pay for legal fight that make it possible to keep writing Free software.
Rather than waste any time and effort of futile boycotts, why not join the EFF instead and help an organization that is actually doing something real.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Jesus, it's amazing! $10 a month!? Everyone bitches about M$ and Windows day in and day out. Yet I'm sure IE is prob /.'s biggest browser client. How do you get that? Uh, you have to have Windows (or CX Office/Wine :). So, short of pirating copies to install, you've all bought $100 of M$ crap! Possibly on a yearly or so basis. Then people whine about $10 for a foundation that, at least tries to help distribution of code instead of locking it all up for just a few people to benefit from!
Does Stallman own all GPL code? No. Do users get to keep copyright to the code they contribute? Yes. Are you free to use pretty much any GPL code in your application *and* sell it? Yes. Just include the source.
Oh, you're right, grandma and grandpa and mom and dad and Jim VC-less research Nerd down the street will wanna steal your trade secrets and compile your latest source for the coolest Mozilla plugin, therefore, screwing you out of a fortune. Get real! The reason M$ has switched from panic mode to embrace mode is because they see Linux server and desktop shipments are on the rise. Without the GPL, the computer industry would be in worse shape than it is now. If Quicken doesn't wanna write a client because they can't innovate some way to make money on Linux, then so be it. Where they fall, others will rise.
Everyone want's freedom when it's gone or don't care about it when it's there. Well, screw that. If you don't want an IE dominated web, use Mozilla or the OS equiv. If you want a M$-less domintate office, use Open Office. If you want to have control of your own audio or video content use a GPL OS or OS X. And if you want freedom in an industry that mostly doesn't care much about your freedom, then consider a piddly, measely, $10/mo. Something you probably wouldn't think twice about paying to the latest crappy blockbuster movie out there. Jeeze, 10$..
My main concern is that the Free Software Foundation doesn't deserve a cent of my money, or any of your money for that matter. The entire organization is ran quite similarly like the dictator third world countries we all hate. Don't believe me, why don't you go read any interview of the makers of Gnome (now Ximian) or linux kernel developers.
Read here, Linus basically likes free software not because it's so super politically cool, but for other reasons like most software to him sucks so he likes to make it work for him and if he uses it he doesn't have to worry about it not staying free. Hell Miguel de Icaza is working on a .Net for linux called Mono, how much more not free software do you need to be.
The FSF is a wonderful idealistic thing that doesn't take into account that we're not a communisitic or remotely socialistic soceity in the "developed world". And I can say developed world, because lets face it, poor third world countries don't need computers or source code to look at.
If you are able to spend $10 a month I would highly encourage a donation to your favorite opensource project, political party, or charity, it will be money well wasted on the FSF.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
If you are programmer, best way to support FSF is to donate code not money. Why? Because potentially code you submit will have more value in monetary equivalent than money you likely to donate.
But this program could be useful for people not directly connected to software industry, but who believe in FSF goals and want to help.
I would bet that most people flaming against the GPL haven't written any software of substantial merit. If so, please list your projects and the license. Then I will take your opinion seriously.
Why do most people write free software? What is the incentive to them? Why do so many non-GNU packages out there use the GPL if it sucks so bad?
I would venture to guess that it would probably suck big time to pour your soul into some really neat software program that took you years to develop, to have some company come along, add a feature or two, close the source, sell it, and make millions, all the while you get squat, not even a credit mention.
To the guy who is upset that readline is GPL, hey, write your own version from scratch and release it under any license you want.
And for the record, I haven't released any public software of any kind, so yeah, my opinion on the GPL wars obviously doesn't me shit either.
I see alot of people complaining that the GPL isn't absolutely free, and therefore it's deceptive to call it Free Software. Perhaps, if you're willing to similarly argue that there are no free nations and no free people.
Freedom is not an absolute that you have or don't have. It's a sliding scale. On one end is "Absolute Freedom". Absolute Freedom is only interesting in the sense that Absolute Zero is interesting: useful in theory, but unattaintainable in practice. Absolute Freedom would give me the freedom to, say, murder, rob, and defraud. Relatively few people people would desire that much freedom. By accepting restrictions on themselves, they know that others who might harm them are similarly restricted. In fact, Absolute Freedom probably isn't attainable for a population of any size, someone will take that freedom to use force to remove the freedom from others.
On the other end you have an Absolute Lack of Freedom. This really requires that we all be robots or otherwise completely controlled. If you're into predestination or the absolute computability of the universe, then you might believe that we fundamentally have an Absolute Lack of Freedom. Most people don't.
So we have a sliding scale between these two points. To take a situation I'm familiar with, let's look at the United States. The vast majority of citizens of the United States feel that they are free people. Yet, we accept a large number of restrictions on our behavior. There are laws limiting use of violence; which chemical compounds we're allowed to sell and purchase; when we're allowed to vote, drink, smoke, and run for political office; electromagnetic emissions our computers are allowed to emit; pollution allowed from our cars; what we're allowed to say and where (no "Fire!" in a crowded theatre). Yet with these restrictions, and thousands more, we basically feel that we're a free people, a free society. We're nowhere near Absolute Freedom, but we're free enough. There is naturally a continuous struggle to define what is free enough. Some argue to increase freedom in some areas, others argue to reduce freedom in some areas. Yet we're free enough.
So, back to software. In much of the world, the status quo is that you cannot distribute copies of other people's software. This is implemented through local copyright laws. Most software licenses start with the restrictions of copyright law, then add additional restrictions. Clearly most software licenses are less free than the default. The GPL starts with copyright law, then offers you a deal: you can have more freedom than copyright law grants, but there are some restrictions. You have a choice with software under the GPL: you can accept copyright law, or you can accept the GPL and gain certain freedoms. Yes, the GPL restricts how you can distribute copies of the GPLed software, but it's still better than the copyright default of zero copy distribution allowed. Clearly, the GPL is more free than copyright.
Now, the GPL isn't quite as free as the BSD / MIT / X licenses, sure. But you cannot claim that those licenses acheive Absolute Freedom. Clearly not, since there is something more free than the BSD license: the public domain. In the public domain software just barely reaches Absolute Freedom. Of course, Absolute Freedom is unstable, and naturally any software of value is copied out of the public domain and incorporated into less free works. While works in the public domain cannot effectively be removed from that freedom, their mere existance supports the creation of much less free works.
If we're going to debate the meaning of Free, we need to draw a line in the continuum of Freedom and Lack of Freedom. Would you draw it at Absolute Freedom? If we're talking about Freedom in general, you'll never achieve it. In the case of software, you there is an Absolute Freedom at public domain. Very nearby is the BSD style licenses. That certainly is a very free location on the continuum. It's so free that other people take the free thing and create something non-free. While that's very free, it seems a bit unfair to some people who want spread freedom more widely. If I create something and I want to make it free, why should my work support less free works? So I'm willing to move the line up to the GPL. Clearly less free than the BSD license, it helps to ensure that my donations to things on the Free side of the line cannot be used to support things on the Non-Free side of the line.
Perhaps you feel that the GPL isn't free enough. But for many people it is free enough, and as such can legitimately be called Free software. (To be fair, some people probably feel that proprietary software is free enough. I suspect relatively few people who have ever tried to get additional legal copies of software that was no longer published, or support for out of lifespan software, or wanted to use software no longer supported on modern system, or subjected to a BSA audit feel that the software in question is particularlly Free.)
Search 2010 Gen Con events
Premier Networks
). The FSF is charged with "getting the word out" and can do so much more effectively and on a larger scale than I can. I do my part locally, and I support the FSF (yes, I am a member) to do the same nationally. The single biggest impedement to sales (as is true with any kind of technology product or service) is ignorance on the part of the customer. Where a commercial products pimp would try to overcome this with glossy flyers, smooth talking sales people, etc...we try to overcome it with knowledge transfer, education, etc. We offer classes, lectures, etc. on Open Source and how it can truly benefit a business, interact with commercial software and such. The FSF is a very important organization, and one worth supporting (presently). As a matter of fact, when we sell a system we include a 1 year FSF membership. Just my $.02, all naysayers welcome. ERThe code costs time to produce, not everyone can do it, you certainly cant, so if you want good code, pay for it.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
We need to filter greedy bastards like you out of the community you sellout, go run microsoft windows.
If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
Well, I was going to make some comments about this program, and why should I give, and how might the money be used (paying programmers, pro-actively building a "legal defense fund", buying advertising in computer publications to explain the benefits of Free software, etc).
:-)
But looking over the comments I see everybody's getting in the "free" nit-picking argument. Now, really, I know only like 1% of the slashdot population engages in this bickering, but just in case someone is learning about Free software through these comments alone, let me throw a few ideas into the mix. All of this is explained on the FSF web page but of course they insist on being precise and pedantic so it's hard to cut right to the soundbites.
Here we go:
* The GPL is a good example of a Free software license. So is the modified BSD license, the X11 license, the W3C license, and many others. Even placing your code into the public domain will grant users the same freedoms. And even the Apache and Perl licenses are basically Free, though the FSF discourages using them on new code for various nit-picky reasons.
So, if you use the BSD license or place your code into public domain your software is just as free, according to the FSF, as it would be under the GPL. Even the GPL defenders seem to forget that the GPL is only one of many licenses that ensure software freedom. When someone says "I'm using the BSD license, because it's really free and the GPL isn't and the FSF has a stupid name" you should just smile politely and nod your head, because they are the ones making the distinction, not the FSF.
* The FSF uses the term "copyleft" for the viral nature of the GPL. This is actually what many people (including Microsoft) dislike. The FSF themselves describe this is as a rather abstract concept, which is why they gave its own own made-up name and keep the concept separate from software freedom. Freedom is more concrete: it lets you do more with the software on your computer, and it gives the copyright holder less power over you.
When you argue against the FSF's definition of "free software", make sure you're not really arguing about "copyleft". But also remember that the freedoms are what's important, not the copyleft. That's why it's the Free Software Foundation and not the Copyleft Software Foundation.
Copyleft is a tricky way to keep software Free, by adding some redistribution restrictions. Note that non-Free licenses are themselves under a sort of "ironic copyleft" already: it's just as illegal for you to copy your neighbor's illegal Windows CDR as it was for him to download it from a P2P network and run it.
So when flaming the FSF, please remember that the goal we mostly agree on is to make software licenses less restrictive and less obnoxious. Both the BSD and GPL licenses are less obnoxious than the license on, say, any Microsoft/Adobe/etc product, so why focus on the copyleft provisions of the GPL?
Now, if the above makes your "GPL isn't really free" argument less useful, don't forget, you can still make ad hominem attacks on Richard Stallman's inflexible personality, leftist political views, and questionable personal hygiene.
But that won't make the software licenses you accept at home and at work any better for you. You do that by 1) writing and using Free software; 2) letting your vendors know that you prefer freedom with your software; and 3) not accepting licenses you don't agree with (and note that you don't have to accept the GPL unless you want to distribute copies of the GPL'd software).
Wht don't they host a Linux-based webmail service and make it much less painfull to donate. If they are already paying monthly for Webmail or are subjected to tons of spamming from free webmail services, they may be more attracted to a Ad+Spam, secure webmail service for $10/mos. Plus the warm fuzzy feeling that comes from supporting Free Software!
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
"Any price that you'd like" includes free of charge. If you don't wish to partake of free offerings then don't. You most certainly don't have the right to tell anyone else who made something what terms they can distribute it under. This bears some expansion. You've been all irritated by the fact GPL distribution terms are inconvienient for some downstream developers. You favor relicensing under any terms you choose....even proprietary terms under which downstream users and developers have essentially no rights. Yet you don't seem to agree that an initial developer of a project can't choose any license he wants...even that nasty GPL. You can even resort to name calling and use words like "socialist", "commie", or even "cancer" but those developers are only exercising their rights to choose the license. Linus Torvalds said it best: "He who writes the code chooses the license."
I also think your arguments are extremely disingenous. A few weeks ago, you were offended by the possibility that free software could be incorporated into a nefarious technology of some kind. You were arguing that free and open source software developers are responsible for what end users do with their products.
But in some of your posts to this topic, you argue that the GPL isn't truly free because one can't relicense a derivitive work and the BSD license truly is free. So which is it? You favor usage restrictions on end users (how else would one disallow glibc being used to control a baby threshing machine) yet are offended by restrictions on developers. Incidentally, if free/OS software can be used for nefarious purposes then so can proprietary software. Any remotely effective way of making that untrue would cut the ground from under your feet even more. Not that you have much to stand on as it is.Does anyone know if the membership fees are tax-deductible (in the US)? I didn't see mention of it on the FSF web site.
The Benefits are not good enough, far from it. And what is done with the money is not spelled out any where near well enough.
Who iniated this? And Based on what?
Maybe you should deal with the source and not the con, RMS.
An organization like the FSF shouldn't need much funding. Before one contributes to or "joins" any organization, one should ask what the money will be used for. It may not be something which you want to support.
Public Software Foundation is the most accurate name I think. They even bear some passing resemblance to PBS in that they beg for funds and have T-shirts and stuff with logos as trinkets. Likewise, their software continues to appeal to a smaller slice of the community, many who believe the content is better because of the way it's funded. I haven't looked, but surely there must be an FSF totebag someplace. :)
Of course they would never change the name because "Free" is such a powerful marketing word, and nonprofits market just like everybody else. They just do it with a different style.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Support the FSF. It's not expensive ($60pa for a student) and they do a lot of great work. Where else could you get free legal representation and expertise than the FSF? I'm just wondering whether they'll send me my copy of Free Software: Free Society. My mum has been hassling me for a copy for xmas.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Here's my main dilemma with this whole program. Other than having some lawyer types on retainer, or on staff, or whatever; other than paying for a connection to the Internet (for all I know that's being sponsored by some large college, company, or other such organization); and other than authoring/maintaining some informative but kindergarten-complexity web pages (Savannah excluded), what exactly are the dollars paying for?
- The FSF doesn't pay for GNOME, or binutils, or the Linux kernel, or probably 99% of the code out there that's GPL'd.
- Having heard a lot more about EFF's legal efforts than those of the Digital Speech Project, I somehow doubt that legal fees are making too many FSF folks broke right now.
- Richard Stallman seems to be making lots of personal appearances at trade shows and such... But then again, unless I'm mistaken he's paid to do that by the folks who want him to make an appearance, not by the FSF.
- Do tapes of FSF code (you supply the tape, by the way) still cost somewhere around $200/each? Good God, that's about $500/hour for copying code to a tape!
Look, I'm sure the FSF does have expenses, and I'm not going to bemoan them for trying to raise cash. That's what non-profits do. However, before I give dime one to a non-profit I want to know EXACTLY what that money is for. Sorry, but I don't give to slush funds.
Learn from organizations like Linux Weekly News. When they went to a subscription model they offered details on how many folks are on staff, how many hours they're paid to work, what it costs to run the site, how many subscriptions it'll take just to break even, what their plans are for the future, etc. At the FSF, all I see is "hey, we have lots of cool stuff that's mostly done by volunteers and we've done wonders for the Free Software movement, so give us $120/year".
Sorry, but that just isn't enough. You want my money? Justify my contribution.
since it chose the path of socialism it has been relegated to the dustbin of history
I wish this were true. If enough software gets trapped in the GPL potential well, IT will end up like law or teaching. Deprived of an honest source of revenue, programmers will turn towards the IT equivalent of the NEA and the Public School system. Only the rich will be able to afford Private Software. You will have to pay out the wazoo for software that's easy enough to use, or you'll have to hire an expert (someone like a lawyer) to make sure that you are interacting with the computer according to its convoluted logic (convoluted laws).
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it! Just look at other professions where the intellectual property is Public Domain, and ask yourself if you like the working environment and/or product of those professions.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?