Slashdot Mirror
Sun's COO Distorts Free In Free Software
sebFlyte writes "Jonathan Schwartz, Sun's COO and president, said at JavaOne that 'the most important initial in free and open source software, to me, if you want to reach the broadest marketplace in the world there's one price that works for everyone, and that's free". As you can imagine, this interpretation of 'free' in terms of software has angered a few people somewhat, including Richard Stallman..." From the article: "The free software movement stands for 'free' as in freedom. The open source campaign doesn't present freedom as an ethical issue, but it still formulates its criteria in terms of what users are permitted to do,"
- I choose to support a culture that fosters and encourages the open development of software and hardware, allowing me to profit from the shared wisdom and ability of like-minded people towards the end of commercial lock-in and discouragement of fully enjoying my creative impulses with regards to computing.
- I like not having to pay for software when I don't have to.
The ideals are all well and good, but I wouldn't bet that they are the prime motivation for people to switch. There's very little to be upset about; who cares what the initial reasons are if the end result is more users developing a personal interest and stake in the rationale for open development methods and willingly sharing what they create?Advocates would do better to recognize this than go after this guy for not quite getting the message right -- the users themselves would be quite turned off if they had to understand and adopt the full ideology (never create closed software, try to earn a living off providing support or alternatively as a waiter, never use closed solutions if open solutions exist) before using the software. Carrot before stick and all that.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
Exactly. "Pirate" has been used in a non-nautical sense for decades and then Stallman starts shrieking that the word only has a single proper meaning.
Sun is very much through the Looking Glass, these days
Nice..."
And as a user, I am free to write or modify the software I use
Just so. As a user, you are free. The software isn't. It is controlled by some entity - that's why it's licenced. The form of control the software is under keeps it in the realm of allowing you the freedom to change it. Of course, there are many licences like this. The GPL forces you to make your additions or amendments available in such a way as to accord another user the freedom to modify your changes.
So while the software is also going to probably be free (of money purchase cost) at the point of use, it isn't free in any other sense, especially when you consider that you're not free to keep your changes to yourself if you decide to re-distribute a GPL'd work.
I think it should be called Stallman Software and then we wouldn't keep having this silly strife about words.
That Schwartz was trying to talk to the audience is a valid point. However, Stallman is not known for doing anything to get into a paper. He will not contribute anything to an article that mentions "Linux" as opposed to "GNU/Linux". When he makes an editorial, he puts a free-to-copy footer that has to be preserved. So no, I don't think he does anything to get his name in a paper.
And assuming that the discussion is valid, who better to ask what type of "freedom" has inspired the free software movement than Stallman? I can't think of many.
I still don't understand the difference. AND I AM A DEVELOPER OF FREE SOFTWARE!!!
I understand the differences between two different *communities*. That ones easy. One community has a very thin skin and the other doesn't. One community is a pragmatic group concerned with quality software and development processes, while the other tends to get wild eyed and dreamy and prone to bouts of religious fervor. But in terms of the software, I CAN FIND NO DIFFERENCE!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
I actually researched this once. In the early 1960s (1963?), the heterosexual community had largely figured out that "queer" meant "homosexual" and started using it as a slur. So in a weird sort of grassroots movement, homosexuals began referring to themselves as "gay" instead. I believe the term started in New York, although I could be wrong; I have a nagging doubt saying it was Chicago, and another saying "everything gay comes from San Francisco". The latter is almost certainly wrong.
The primary purpose of choosing the new term was to allow homosexuals to discuss their lifestyle in the presence of heterosexuals without identifying themselves as homosexuals. The moral propriety of this intent is left as an exercise for the reader.
Insert the usual soapbox lecture about subcultures co-opting words and refusing to let them evolve naturally without that subculture's approval of the evolution. You've heard it before, pretend I said it again. While you're at it, pretend it was really smart and convincing.
Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
So, let's take your list of Sun's supposed contributions to open source.
OpenWindows,
Sun tried for years to kill off X11 and replace it with their proprietary, non-free window systems. When it became finally clear even to their own managers that their own customers were de-installing the crap Sun shipped and replacing it with X11, Sun finally dumped the remains of their failed efforts on the world as open source.
For you youngsters out there, you ought to know that virtually all Linux distros used Sun's OpenWindows windowing environment as the default in the early days - you can make a credible argument, in fact that it was that open source code that raised Linux up from the crowd, making it a "real" alternative to commercial Unix, especially since BSD was mired in lawsuits at the time.
I have used Linux since pretty much the day it came out, and that's complete nonsense. OpenWindows was a joke even on Sun workstations, and it was irrelevant on Linux.
OpenOffice (probably the largest and most important single body of software *ever* open sourced as a whole, and the only significant contribution that was a pure *gift* to the open source community, not just open-sourced for convenience)
OpenOffice open sourcing wasn't a "gift", it was a vital part of Sun's business strategy. It's good for the FOSS community that Sun was forced to choose a license that they couldn't weasel out of later. That's all one can say about that.
NFS (itself hugely important in the development of the whole idea of networked computing)
NFS is a piece of shit that is still a huge obstacle to UNIX adoption in work group environments.
Solaris itself (and that code has shown how far ahead Solaris really is in many areas that are vitally important if you want to use an OS in mission-critical, enterprise environments.)
Solaris is not doing well commercially. Technically, it's a bloated system suffering from second system effect. Solaris is irrelevant to mainstream computing and will have even less impact than Mach, Hurd, or Darwin.
Java (likewise, huge, and yes, it's really open-sourced - most of us don't care if the license is GPL compatible)
That's a blatant and dangerous misrepresentation of the facts. Java is not open source in any sense of the word. Sun Java source code is proprietary: if you as much as look at it, your future ability to work on anything related to Java implementations is severely limited.
Fortunately, people have been wising up to the lies and misrepresentations coming from people like you and Sun management. Sun is digging its own grave.