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."
Turn justice into poetic justice =)
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.
EFF
Attn: MS Voucher
454 Shotwell St.
San Francisco, CA 94110
I think that giving these vouchers to schools that don't have computer equipment (or that have older computer equipment) and helping those children learn to use computers is a much better use of the vouchers than donating them to the FSF.
evil adrian
Something tangible like 273 software packages? Little items like Glibc, GCC, Bash, and the GIMP.
Note that these are GNU packages, meaning that they are provided by the FSF. There are thousands more packages that are merely distributed under the terms of the GPL/LGPL.
-Peter
yup, EFF are also great, but when I can spare cash, it goes to FSF.
.sig:
They've been busting their asses to give us freedom for 19 years now, and with Bradley Kuhn as the Executive Director, they've gone from strength to strenght.
If fighting for freedom is lunacy, you can download thirteen 2hr lunacy recodings (sounds fun) on the GNU audio page. Well worth a listen, IMO
(and as a european, I'm very glad of all the work that Stallman has done, and the work of Hartmut Pilch of FFII who's work is funded by FSF)
and my
Expert in software patents or patent law? Contribute to the ESP wiki!
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...
The FBF (Free Beer Foundation) also wants your vouchers. In turn the FBF will be able to convert your vouchers into beer. The FBF members will then utilize the beer to stimulate debate on many of today's most devisive issues.
I'm against this, as I'm against the vouchers. I got my claim form in the mail the other day, and the choices it gave were basically "Accept the settlement, write an objection to the court, attend a hearing to state your objection in person, or do nothing (and thus waive all further rights)".
As these vouchers represent accepting the settlement, donating them to a worthy cause doesn't satisfy my problems with the settlement, namely that they are to be redeemed for hardware (much of which comes bundled with more Microsoft products).
I can't say I agree with an antitrust remedy that increases the sales of the monopoly that is being punished.
-transiit
Ok how about just perjury alone. Forged video evidence was also presented in the anti-trust trial in the U.S.
Ok how about the court's decision, upheld on appeal, that the company used illegal methods to maintain a desktop monopoly?
There are also the false and misleading advertising, against palm, novell, and regarding MS-Passport. MS-Passport cannot be secure even in theory, so any claims were clearly known to be falsehoods. And since MS-Office 2003 is tied into that, expect more legal action.
Then there have been a series of fines regarding patent infringements. The most recent being from SPX.
Where I come from, all that's called lying or stealing.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
RMS 'fires' Lead Hurd Dev over license dispute.
http://lists.softwarelibero.it/pipermail/discuss io ni/2003-November/008465.html
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:33:16 -0800
From: tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Subject: What's up with the GFDL?
To: gnu-prog-discuss@gnu.org
X-Spam-Level:
Richard Stallman is pushing an anti-free license for documentation.
By that, I mean, a license for documentation which, if it were used
for software, would unquestionably be understood as unfree.
There are many negative consequences of this action:
1) The Debian Project, which is committed to free software, cannot
distribute GFDL'd manuals as part of the Debian system. This is
ironic in the extreme, because RMS used to complain that Debian was
too loose about distributing non-free things. Now Debian is too
tight for him.
2) It is not possible to borrow text from a GFDL'd manual and
incorporate it in any free software program whatsoever. This is
not a mere license incompatibility. It's not just that the GFDL is
incompatible with this or that free software license: it's that it
is fundamentally incompatible with *any* free software license
whatsoever. So if you write a new program, and you have no
commitments at all about what license you want to use, saving only
that it be a free license, you cannot include GFDL'd text.
3) The FSF solicited public comment on the GFDL, but this seems to
have been a deceptive enterprise. The goal seems to have been to
garner public support for it, and that simply failed. So the FSF
does not trumpet that little public comment, and has issued no
explanation of why such a widely unpopular documentation license
should be used.
4) RMS has now "dismissed" me as Hurd maintainer because I have
publicly spoken against the GFDL, saying that a GNU maintainer must
support and speak in favor of GNU policies. If this is really
RMS's reason, then it means that he demands the right to control
the speech of every GNU volunteer when it comes to GNU project
policies. He wants not merely to set the direction, but also to
require that each and every one of us publicly support a GNU policy
when asked to.
I do not know what the right response is. I believe perhaps the best
thing to do is to create structures for GNU project volunteers to
express their opinions so that we can even find out what the GNU
project thinks. Heretofore, RMS has been an able spokesman, but when
he disregards the comments of volunteers (even when explicitly
solicited), works against free software, and attempts to control the
speech of GNU volunteers in talking about such issues, something has
gone very wrong.
I suspect that nothing will happen, and the sad result will be that
while free software will continue to thrive, the GNU project will
die. I do not know what would prevent that.
Thomas
Technical Addendum
- ------------------
The incompatibilities of the GFDL with free software are not
controversial. There are two central problems.
First, GFDL'd manuals can contain "invariant sections" which cannot be
changed or removed. This is a restriction on modification which isn't
permitted for free software licenses. Moreover, it is not a trivial
restriction or one that imposes minimal costs. Invariant sections can
be very large, and the pieces of a GFDL'd manual that one wants to
copy might be small. (For example, a description of how to use a
single function, if copied from the Emacs manual, requires the
inclusion of many kilobytes of extraneous text from invariant
sections.) Such restrictions are not allowed in free software
licenses.
Second, there are restrictions on what formats a GFDL'd manual can be
distributed in,
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.
So, instead of getting the money back for the software you didn't want (or ask for) in the first place, you turn around and give it to someone else? Right ... I think the FSF can find their own funding. If you really want to support someone, then donate your money to an OSS project that you actively use instead of the FSF. This makes a hell of a lot more sense to me.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
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.
People mention poetic justice...
When I was a frosh in the forms, my friends and I thirsted for mail. So we sent away for various free stuff- info from weird religions, product samples, software trials, etc etc.
While I never requested any information from Jerry Falwell Ministries I somehow ended up on their mailing list. At some point during the school year, I got a letter from them asking for donations- as well as a $1 check.
The letter purported that they had an anonymous shadow donor who was willing to match all donations. So if I cashed the $1 check they sent me and sent them that same $1 back, they would end up with $1 total profit, coming from the anonymous donor.
Probably a common scam- a lot of the folks they'd target would feel guilty about cashing the $1 and keeping it. And they'd figure, why not send them back their $1? But then they'd have the checkbook open, made out for everything but the amount. Then they think- why not make it $5? Or $10? Not that much money, but whatever they send in will be doubled by the donor lurking in the shadows, so why not?
That is what they were betting on with this donation drive. Except that they picked the wrong guy with me.
I went ahead and cashed the check. Before doing so, I made a photocopy of the check and letter. Then I wrote a new check, just like my pal Jerry said to do. After that I send a letter, a $1 check, and the photocopies of what Jerr sent me to a gay and lesbian rights group.
I can't remember the group though. I was a bit bummed that I never got a reply expressing the humor- or the extreme grattitude for donating a whole dollar!
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Man, some of you just don't get it. Slashdot is not a news reporting agency. Slashdot does not try to report the news. Slashdot editors are, by no stretch of the imagination, journalists. All Slashdot does is report the existence of news stories. You have to RTFA to see any actual reporting.
Those of you decrying Slashdot's lack of "credibility" are missing the point -- the only Slashdot posts that aren't "credible" are the ones that don't include a link to a news story.
Generally speaking, after a story is posted to Slashdot, people are expected to comment on it. That is the purpose served by editorializing. It serves to incite, inflame, or encourage commentary -- whether you agree with the editorializing or not. Example: If thousands of people agreed that it was not satisfying to see Microsoft vouchers going to the FSF, then they would post here and say so. Thus, the Slashdot model -- the real Slashdot model, and not the one you imagine -- would continue to be a success.
Breakfast served all day!