Slashdot Mirror
FSF Wants Your Vouchers
Ridgelift writes "California residents can help support the Free Software Foundation by donating their Microsoft vouchers to the FSF. In turn, the FSF will be able to convert the vouchers into hardware. There's more information here at the FSF website. With 1.1 billion dollars in vouchers Microsoft is forced to pay through the recent anti-trust court case, it's satisfying to see some of those fortunes being spent to help create good software for a change."
The FSF primary goal is *not* to create good software. It is to create *moral* software - software for goodneighbourliness and sharing - the fact that it is good (high quality/few bugs) - is a welcome - but secondary effect.
FSF's beef with Microsoft is not that it produces poor software - but that it produces non-Free software.
What, then have them buy Microsoft software to put on those computers? Donating money to a free or open source software organisation (FSF, EFF, etc) means that free software improves. It will receive more widespread adoption. Schools will feel more inclined and more justified using it over Microsoft's products. They can then spend the money they'd otherwise spend on Windows and Office on more PCs.
Giving the vouchers to the FSF (or EFF) is a long term plan rather than a direct feedback route to Redmond's bank account.
I am inclined to agree. I'm much more likely to donate any vouchers I receive to an open source rather than free software organisation. I'd much rather see the money support projects that really need it rather than those that fit with Stallmann's moral vision.
I bet the only software he'll be sending machines is that which is licensed under the GPL, not any kind of BSD-style license - and considering many of the important components I'm using on this desktop at the moment are indeed licensed under BSD-like licenses (XFree, GNOME [LGPL]) are also those most in need.
it's satisfying to see some of those fortunes being spent to help create good software for a change.
Just what is "good" software? Quality good? MS makes quality software. Is it guaranteed that all software produced/supported by the FSF will be of high quality?
Morally good? How can software be moral or immoral? It just is. You may not think the method of production is moral (think slave labor in diamond mines) or the use of the product is moral (think use of encryption by drug cartels) or even if it was moral to produce the product in the first place (think TEC-9) but really, those cases are really about the morality of the producer and not the product.
Is Microsoft an immoral organization? What does that mean? If a company has done good and bad which actions determine the character of the company? The standardization of the desktop (Windows) and of basic productivity applications (Office) has certainly accelerated the acceptance of the personal computer, and that appears to be a good thing.
Of course, Microsoft's motive was profit. But is that immoral? Microsoft is a company. Companies seek profit. Even more than that, companies want to dominate their markets. Microsoft clearly achieved that and not through anti-competitive practices. Once upon a time, Wordstar was king, Visicalc was the sole player in the spreadsheet domain, and GEM was the GUI to use on a PC. Microsoft came to dominate those areas through quality software and marketing savvy.
Microsoft was successful at doing what it was supposed to be doing. That's not bad any more than the failure of a company is good. Next time think before you throw out your knee-jerk rhetoric. Consider your position and choose your words to say what you mean.
Ha, that compiler your looking for is GNU software. You're not geeting very far on FreeBSD with the GCC.
gcc.gnu.org
The question to ask yourself is "has the usability of Linux on the Desktop improved in the last 5 years?". You're kidding yourself if you think the answer is no.
The next question to ask is "will this trend continue?". Considering that many free/open source software projects such as the GNOME project are now extremely focused on usability and both they and KDE have won awards for usability, I'd say the answer is almost certainly "yes".
Some time in the next five years, Linux will be ready for prime time desktop use in any environment. I can't say exactly when that will be due to the order-from-chaos development model of most projects (which is both a good and bad thing). But it will happen, and when it does, I'm pretty sure you'll be pleased you donated your vouchers to help.
Schools don't really care if their kids can get jobs. And they really don't care about what software they use. They're too buys "teaching to the test" with the NCLB (No Child Left Behind).
NCLB is a good idea, but too many teachers I know are being told by their bosses, "teach the test".
The same bosses probably prefer more expensive software because it means they get bigger budgets to spend as they wish. No administrator wants their budgets cut, so there is no real incentive for them to start using cheap/free software.
sPh
What you say is true, but it's worth mentioning that there are real social harms tied to non-Free that Microsoft is a great example of. The first and most obvious social harm is the intentional waste that users are subject to. When a vendor decides to change file formats in order to drive sales of a new version, they force their users to convert their files mostly to own the same thing they thought they already owned. Less obvious intentional waste comes from the inability of users to fix their problems. RMS cites a closed printer driver and his inability to fix it as his first brush with non-Free pain. The least obvious but most harful effect of non-Free is it's bad attitude. Non Free software vendors promote knowledge hoarding. A society where everyone, doctors, lawyers, engineers, you name it, acted like that would be highly inefficient and unpleasant to live in.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
no more GNU software on my computer, I'm gonna go play with FreeBSD, now dammit where'd I put that compiler.
Beware: There's a lot more GNU software in FreeBSD, than gcc (and binutils, etc...) alone. And I don't mean third party ports that we all love and use, but also in the base system. There is a also a lot of non-GNU, but GPLed software in the base FreeBSD system as well. Just one example: cvs.
We owe a lot to the GNU project, and would never have gotten that far without their contributions.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
Could you imagine if a certain grade school decided, "Hey. I have a good idea! Let's use Linux on all our computers here.". The children learn and get aquainted with Linux then get into Jr. High - Uh oh, now the students from that grade school are way behind.
The reason for this is because we really don't teach computing fundamentals. We teach computer technology through rote memory. Go ahead, pick up any Windows application textbook. You will find many enumerated lists on how to accomplish Task A, with lots of pretty graphics with pointing arrows. By the time the student is done with such a book, they know exactly how to perform Tasks A, X, Y, and Z--and nothing more.
We are building a society of automatons, with little in the way of reasoning ability. A big shame.
First of all the FSF doesn't produce any software, they let "their community" take care of that, so for development they don't need those machines.
Second, good software comes with good documentation, but the FSF blocks all efforts to produce good documentation with their insane GNU "Free" Documentation License, that is not free at all according to Debian, and even according to RMS himself.
Finally, the FSF is not the right organisation to donate anything to in the first place. RMS rules it like a dictator, there is no Freedom in the Free Software Foundation (cf. the HURD developer that got punted because of public criticism on the GFDL).
If you want to donate something, donate it to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, to Lawrence Lessig, or to Red Hat for their battle with SCO...
Californians, who like many others had little choice but to pay Microsoft's high prices for its monopolistic proprietary software, now have a unique opportunity to help the Free Software Movement
RMS's stance on non-free software is tiresome, borderline-communist, and impractical. I agree with others that his motives are not great software, but software li[b|v]re.
But OH-my-goodness...the contributions he's made! Take a couple of hours and read Richard's biography Free as in Freedom. It's a must-read, and as always Richard has ensured it will be a free one as well. You may love him or hate him, but more than that the man has earned the respect he deserves.
Support the FSF.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
satisfying to see some of those fortunes being spent to help create good software for a change
Classic (unnecessary!) Slashdot editorializing in a news report.
Hint: News has an impact of its own. Ending every story with an inflammatory spin, one that's often misinformed, is not needed.
lindows costs more money but it's still was built on OSS so why would i donate it to the FSF and possibly not get a freePC?
because Lindows Co. does have a revenue source, while FSF depends heavily on donations to keep their operations running. Lindows is selling commercial OS which *happen* to be based on OSS and/or free software. Also consider the fact that thanks to the billioneire-turned-entrepreneur, Lindows has enough budget to promote their products.
personally I have no craving for a half-ass freePC. Would Debian-based Lindows be successful (not commercially, but as an OS) as it is now without OSS/free software? I doubt it. donating MS settlement $$$ to keep OpenSource and free software movement alive is not a bad idea, imo.
Personally I wouldnt mind if the GPL stipulated that tools for compilation of the source code needed to be freely available at all ... in fact it seems a very reasonable requirement. That is one of the two things Id like to see changed about the GPL, that and the requirement to abide by the restrictions of the GPL even if you are a copyright holder (ie. as a patent holder you shouldnt be allowed to tack the GPL on code for which the patents arent freely licensed for GPL software, there are a few companies doing this ... and it could be easily prevented by adding some stuff to the license to the license.)
What is the point of having the right to modify a format without the means to do so?
BTW the invariant sections only concern the non technical parts of course, so it isnt all gloom and doom.
I would not donate my voucher to the FSF, because the GPL, which the FSF promotes, helps Microsoft. It does this by making it impossible for small companies to reuse code to build commerical products that compete with Microsoft's. It thus kills Microsoft's competition in the cradle.