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.
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.
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.
Suppose a proprietary software company decides that one of their old products no longer has significant sales, so they wish to release the code to the world under GPL.
Under today's version of GPL, they can release the code even if it only can be compiled with a proprietary tool (e.g. Microsoft's IDE). Then perhaps some hackers outside the company, can start cleaning up the code on their own initiative -- creating Makefiles, getting it to work with gcc, etc. Eventually, after some work is done, it becomes truly free software that you can compile and use on your Linux or Hurd box.
Under the future GPL that you propose, the software company would not be able to release the code under GPL, unless they took the expense to make it portable first. Unless they're bubbling over with excess resources and altruism, they won't do it, and I wouldn't blame them.
It is pointless and counter-productive to put things into GPL that impose a restriction upon the copyright holder. If the holder does not like the restriction, then they will simply opt to not use that license.
What I would suggest as a compromise, is this: if a work can be compiled with free tools, then other parties (other than the original copyright holder) should not be allowed to distribute derivative works that require proprietary tools for compilation.
Derivative works should be at least as free as the work they are derived from. But do not place too many restrictions on how free that original work may be, or you simply won't get the work released under such a license.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.