Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FSF Appoints A New Executive Director

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the congratuations-all-around dept.

An anonymous reader writes "The Free Software Foundation (which has a new website, BTW) has appointed a new Executive Director. The former executive director, Bradley M. Kuhn, is going to work for the new Software Freedom Law Center as its Chief Technology Officer." Peter T. Brown, who is replacing Kuhn, is currently the director of the FSF's GPL Compliance Lab.

6 of 85 comments (clear)

  1. Why non-coders don't get Free Software by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Insightful
    The Blog of RMS is a rare opportunity to see him sum up his views. In this entry he's actually managed to fit his "copyright is no longer a good deal" concept into a single paragraph (whereas usually it takes him 15 pages). For those who don't know it (and couldn't be bothered clicking on a link) RMS basically says that way-back when we gave up the right to republish to encourage people to make works we weren't giving up much cause no-one republished back then, but now, with the internet, we all republish so we need to rethink that deal.

    It's a good argument, and it applies to software, that is, if you're a coder. People who don't code might want to republish software verbatim but most the time they don't. In fact, us coders generally tell them that isn't a good idea because of viruses and trojans. i.e., it's a lot safer to download FireFox from the official web site than it is to grab it off a friend or some shareware website. With that struck off the list, what exactly is the non-coder fighting for Free Software for?

    There's lot of reasons why users of Free Software should support it, but they don't at the moment. We, the coders, need to make sure they know these reasons. The most obvious reason to me is that it is only Free Software that can be fixed by someone other than the original developer. Proprietary software is inferior because if you want it fixed you have to go back to the original developer. It used to be a given that you wouldn't take your car back to the original manufacturer to get it serviced. Now-a-days you get a warrentee with your car that gives you an incentive to go back to the original manufacturer, but you're still free to seek maintainence from a third party.

    Warrentees strike a good balance, they force the original manufacturer to do a good job in the first place to reduce the number of people who claim service under warrentee, and they up front specify a specific date after which the customer is responsible for paying for all future service.

    Maybe if coders were to start offering Free Software with a warrentee (something the GPL specifically advocates) users would come not only to expect high quality software, but to be free to have it maintained by a third party.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Why non-coders don't get Free Software by DeepHurtn! · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Very insightful post. I just thought I'd share my perspective, as a non-coder who switched to GNU/Linux last summer (and hasn't looked back!). First, I need to say that it was the rhetoric of the free software movement, especially that of RMS, that persuaded me to switch -- *not* the open source movement. You're a lot more likely to convince a non-coder, I believe, by emphasizing the freedom aspects of it than by technical ones. RMS's right-to-read arguments are what got to me, and I think plenty of people would respond to it.

      For example, I think that right now academics -- particularly those in the arts! -- could use more exposure to that type of argument. I began my grad studies in September, and I was really shocked by how dependent all of the profs were on MS file formats. These people don't like to hear that all of their research and papers might be inaccessible in 20 years -- or that if they are, they might have to give MS money just to read them.

      Anyways, IMHO unfortunately the open source ideals seem to be getting most of the publicity right now, and I think that that argument, in the long run, isn't as powerful as the free software argument is.

      Hope you don't mind the ramblings.

    2. Re:Why non-coders don't get Free Software by QuantumG · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Unfortunately I don't think I'm always very clear on what I mean by "support". When I say that people should "support Free Software" I mean they should pay for it. Be that by donations or by hiring a developer to do maintenance or customizations. It's like a football team. You can paint your face with the team colours and declare them the best but unless you go to the games (and pay the entry fee) you're not really "supporting" them are you? Reporting bugs and doing advocacy is helpful but you can only consider that "supporting" Free Software in the "go team go" sense.

      When I say people should "support Free Software" I mean that in the same sense as when someone says they need to "support their family".

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
  2. Re:Good to see ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm still worried about the "new GPL". I see it as unnecessary and potentially capable to do more harm than good-- splintering the community into "GPL 2" vs "GPL 3" vs "GPL 2 or higher" is unlikely to have good effects, especially considering how difficult it ALREADY is to describe the GPL to people.

    One of the attractive qualities of the GPL at present is that your obligations to the GPL are directly linked to your distribution of GPLed products. The rumblings about the GPL 3 are that the chief elements will concern patents. This is a good thing because it means a company will no longer be able to GPL something, then cease distributing the GPLed product in question, then effectively "withdraw" its GPLing by a patent. However it is also a bad thing because it means that the GPL will no longer be a simple "conditions under which you may continue to distribute this file" license. There will be external obligations, "side effects". The major side effect here is that a company could be indefinitely licensing patents to GPLed software for all eternity by simply releasing a single GPLed program. This would be a serious hamper on corporate distribution of GPLed software; "it's okay, we don't lose anything by releasing this code" will be gone, instead corporations will suddenly start asking "wait, just by putting this software on our ftp server, we're licensing patents?".A small portion of a larger company is no longer able to argue to their superiors they can put software under the GPL without having a negative effect on the remainder of the company.

    The GFDL does need improvement though, there's a reason Creative Commons is getting so widely used and GFDL gets used by no one.

  3. Re:Unfortunately by turnstyle · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "Unfortunately the phrase the FSF has come up with to meet this exact situation is "libre", which has the same problems as "GNU" and then some, i.e., no one knows what it means until you explain it to them, and no one can pronounce it."

    My guess is that if you mention "free software" to 10 people who don't know already what it is, all 10 will think "free as in beer."

    The term "free software" is inclined to give people the wrong idea.

    But if you were to call it "software libre," some people would think "free as in speech" and others wouldn't understand, and would ask about it.

    Wouldn't that be much better than giving the wrong impression?

    --
    Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
  4. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion