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 thought the most important definition of free was free as in beer.
Now it's 'free as in free iPod' or 'free as in Buy Four Get One Free'.
Where were you when the voynix came?
It cannot be!
Lets end all these issues by calling OUR definition of free by a different word. Take their power away.
Suggestions?
Look, you can't just go out and define a word to mean whatever you want. Free means freedom and costless depending on the context, wether you're talking about software not. Getting upset that someone used the word 'free' to mean 'no cost' while talking about software is simply idiotic. Its one thing to educate people, but its an entirely diffrent thing to try to own a word, especialy one thats been around for centuries. Words can have more then one meaning.
Idiots like ESR tried to do this with "hacker", to mean only what they wanted it to mean so that they could call themselves "hackers".
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Wookey, a Debian developer, shared Stallman's view and accused Schwartz of deliberately twisting the definition to justify not releasing Java as open source.
If anything, he probably did it because a large percetange of the population (and especially the business world) don't care to understand "free" in any terms other than money.
Free Software (as RMS believes) is something that is way too radical for most businessmen. I'm sure that Schwartz was just trying to interact with his audience on their level.
Yes, it's wrong and yes it negates all the crazy stuff RMS has talked about over the years but I really don't think it was meant to hide or purposefully deceive anyone. Then again, RMS wouldn't have anything to get his name in the news about then, would he?
Richard Stallman nominates GNU/Free.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
Many open source projects are mimics of commercially available software. They were adopted because they were free for the most part - not because the source code was available. Very few people and companies customize the software or utilize the source code in any way.
Let's call it "libre."
No, wait. That makes us sound pedantic, petty, and grouchy enough that we need to start co-opting other languages' words to set ourselves apart from the crowd.
"Libre" it is.
For more information, click here.
Couldn't we moderate Jonathan Schwartz as a troll?
Now, seriously, the guy must do whatever doesn't break the law to increse Sun's shareholder value. What would you expect, ethical behaviour? Free as in speech is dangerous for Sun - their edge in hardware is eroding fast and he can do nothing about it. He can reduce the erosion in software by creating confusion.
It's not surprising.
Not at all.
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Id hazard a guess that for 99% of the people who take advantage of the 'free software' movement do so precisely because its zero purchase cost, not because it gives them freedom of code. Seriously, how many people using apache do so because of the open codebase as opposed to the fact that they got an enterprise level web server for zero cost? MySQL? Perl? Linux? How many people that you recommend a GPLed application to dabble with the code? How many would have paid for that software instead of using something else?
Somehow, I'm thinking Stallman has just found something new to be furious about...! Ingrid, better check your email!
By the way, did the article leave out thefirst name of "Wookey, a Debian developer", did I somehow miss it or is that ZD's idea of a source?
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Now normally, I'd agree whole-heartedly with your disgust re: their pedantry. However, I must admit, in the context of the keynote speech, Schwartzman actually went out of his way to say the acronym, "FOSS", meaning "Free and Open Source Software". If you tried to correct me on the street when I said "free", and meant free as in beer, then yes, I'd immediately stop talking to you. In this case though, the Free and Open Source Software community defined their unorganized collective by coining that phrase/name, and Schwartzman went out of his way to explicitly call the movement by said name, so in this case only, I think I actually do agree with his nonsensical rambling.
--- What
I suggest we use "gay". Here's a good slogan:
"SOFTWARE FREEDOM IS GAY!"
That way, the gay software movement can encourage people to make their software gay, too. When people ask you what you do, you can say "I'm a gay software developer".
Come on, it would be funny. Let's start a petition.
Microsoft cheerleader, blue flag waving, you got a problem with that?
He didn't distort the definition. He just stated what he admitted was his own opinion on what the most important part of free software is.
From TFA:
Now just to relay my bias, if you had to ask me what's 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...
Somehow I just don't care.
Sun may be shooting themselves in the foot by refusing to join the FOSS movement. Simply offering software for free is obviously not good enough; they need to make it totally accessible for it to meet its potential.
But this doesn't matter, really. If Sun decides that they're going to keep their toys to theirselves, the FOSS community will come up with something to rival it. It happened with lots of other programs, and now we have OpenOffice, Linux, MonoDevelop, Audacity, PDFCreator, GiMP, Blender, Firefox, 7-Zip, and more. It can happen with Java, too.
Regardless of the fact that the new alternatives would no doubt mimic Java, the fact that their source would be universally available would give them an edge over the original.
I am scientifically inaccurate.
free (adj.)
O.E. freo "free, exempt from, not in bondage," also "noble, joyful," from P.Gmc. *frijaz (cf. M.H.G. vri, Ger. frei, Du. vrij, Goth. freis "free"), from PIE *prijos "dear, beloved" (cf. Skt. priyah "own, dear, beloved," priyate "loves;" O.C.S. prijati "to help," prijatelji "friend;" Welsh rhydd "free"). The adv. is from O.E. freon, freogan "to free, love." The primary sense seems to have been "beloved, friend, to love;" which in some languages (notably Gmc. and Celtic) developed also a sense of "free," perhaps from the terms "beloved" or "friend" being applied to the free members of one's clan (as opposed to slaves, cf. L. liberi, meaning both "free" and "children"). Cf. Goth. frijon "to love;" O.E. freod "affection, friendship," friga "love," friðu "peace;" O.N. friðr, Ger. Friede "peace;" O.E. freo "wife;" O.N. Frigg "wife of Odin," lit. "beloved" or "loving;" M.L.G. vrien "to take to wife, Du. vrijen, Ger. freien "to woo." Sense of "given without cost" is 1585, from notion of "free of cost." Of nations, "not subject to foreign rule or to despotism," it is recorded from 1375. Freedman "manumitted slave" first recorded 1601. Colloquial freeloader first recorded 1930s; free fall is from 1919, originally of parachutists; free-hand is from 1862; free-thinker is from 1692. Freebie dates back to 1942 as freeby, perhaps as early as 1900. Free-for-all "mass brawl" (in which anyone may participate) first recorded 1881. Freebase (n. and v.) in ref. to cocaine first recorded 1980.
What I say does not represent the views of my employers, my friends, my cats, or myself.
He's GNU/Angry!
All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
Not that I particularly care, but since you're being such an arse about it...
According to the OED, "Free" as in freedom dates back to around 900 AD and was first used to describe persons living in a household by bonds of kinship rather than slavery. By about 1300 AD, it was specifically applied to ideas of personal liberties. "Free" as in free-of-charge dates to just before 1500 AD.
Check the dictionary before you rant, please.
I was lucky enough to go to JavaOne, and was sitting in the room as he said this, and it indeed annoyed me.
Politics aside, Richard Stallman makes a very clear distinction between Open Source software and Free software. When people refer to FOSS (Free Open Source Software), they have added BOTH "free" AND "open source" to their acronym - this is to make a clear distinction between software that is merely open source, and software that is both free (as in speech) and open source.
Sure, free means "free of charge" as well as "free speech". I wouldn't dare argue that one definition is more valid than another.
But in the context of "FOSS" or "F/OSS" or even "FLOSS" (Free/Libre Open Source Software), the whole reason to add "Free" to the more traditional "OSS" was to convey "Free as in speech."
Why does it matter? I think Sun wants to confuse the community, and make people think that they are on a bandwagon that they *are not on*. I think Jonathan Schwartz knows what the "free" in FOSS means, and intentionally misused it to make people think that he was really buying into FOSS, when in fact, he hasn't, at least with respect to the the JVM and class files. This is the exact reason Apache Harmony was created.
If this doesn't make sense, try downloading the "Free" Sun JDK from anywhere other than java.sun.com. Try getting it to come bundled with a Linux distribution. You can't do these things, because it *isn't* free, they just don't make you pay for it (at least, for now).
The only other point I want to make is that the "free beer" definition buys you something right *now* - the ability to download the Sun JDK without them charging you for it. If you're getting it without paying, what's the big deal? The big deal is that tomorrow, they *could* start charging for it. And then you can only run as long as it takes for you to need some new feature, or support for new hardware or a new OS. Then you pay.
If it were really free, you don't just get it now, but you also get a guarantee that it will always be available free in some form, as long as people need it and are willing to work on it. And really, that is a big difference.
- 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.
Well, if it's GPLed or BSD, it's not unrestricted.
Neither really empowers anyone besides those looking to modify it, which is a relatively small user base.
The software Google uses for their search engine is Pro-User, but isn't free as in speech.
You're never going to find a term for it that really fits.
I suppose GPLed software could be Hippie Software. Well, except for the fact that most of the hippies use Macs.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
We already have this: "Open Source".
It has no confusing conotations with price, no confusing conotations with ownership, and no confusing conotations with petty politics.
It seems obvious that Sun is very much through the Looking Glass, these days.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
sig?
You are asking religious people to stop praying everyday.
Richard Stallman coined the term Free Software. In its context, "free" refers specifically to freedom, not necessarily to price.
The word, in general, can mean several things, from without cost to without fat. However, in the context of Free Software, the official name, as coined by the Free Software Foundataion, it refers to freedom.
If you don't like that definition, then don't call your stuff Free Software. However, don't try arguing that it has some other meaning for the stuff that is called that, because that's incorrect.
And when the COO of Sun says that the most important thing about Free Software is that people can get it at no cost, well, Stallman has a right to be a little miffed, because (from his perspective, and many others' I'm sure) the real importance of Free Software is that it's free as in freedom.
I've come for the woman, and your head.
All Free Software is Open Source, but not all Open Source is Free Software.
To further cloud the issue there is Copyleft which is a specific type of Free Software which is intended to give rights to the user and contributers and protect them. (GPL is the only Copyleft I know about, but I'm sure there are others).
BSD and MIT licenses are not Copyleft, but they are Free Software and by extension Open Source Licenses. APSL, CDDL, Aladdin, etc are Open Source licenses, but not Free Software licenses.
Maybe we should just make everything we want to give away for free as Public Domain and not fret about all these complexities anymore.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
You mean, as in GAY Ain't Younix (or GAY Ain't Yours)? It's a little "redneck" for me, but otherwise okay.
Carthago delenda est!
AFAIK the word free could have two meanings in the English language:
1) related to liberty (freedom)
2) related to price
Free as in beer associates with the second definition. As in "would you like a free beer?"
Free as in speech associates with the first definition. As in "I am free to speak as I please"
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
My penguin ate my sig
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.
"Free as in free speech" makes sense to me, but a replacement for "free as in beer" might be "free as in free contraceptives." Of course, here in the United States that phrase would probably provoke boycotting of Open Source software by enraged fundamentalists.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
RMS has spent most of his life at a college, and many of the people he works with are students or workers at the college. For students, beer is a very common item to get for free (ie at a party), yet it has enough value that they are willing to pay for it when free beer is not available.
None of the replacements for "free software" you mention work well, and this is usually cleared up in every FSF talk at the top of the Q&A session. Liberated/unenslaved/freed software doesn't work for software that was always free from the start (like GNU Emacs). Entities can't be liberated if they were always free. This same problem plagues all but one of your other suggestions. Liberty software might have worked, but by now you're about 20 years too late. The term "free software" is already listed in the most widely-used free software license, the GNU GPL. Changing terms now would not clearly help.
But you also have the problem of specifying how software is free -- what freedoms do you get, exactly? Instead, I recommend taking the time to explain what software freedom means. This will require people to stop believing that the right combination of two words will accurately convey ideas of arbitrary complexity.
You're not alone in your thoughts on this issue, in fact the people who founded the Open Source Initiative (and thus started the open source movement) thought as you do and coined the term "open source", in part, to do this job.
As RMS points out, they too failed:
Digital Citizen
Who is "defin[ing] a word to mean whatever you want" or "[g]etting upset that someone used the word 'free' to mean 'no cost'"?
I can point to where the FSF patiently acknowledges the ambiguity and patiently explains why they are focusing on the freedom meaning (including explaining which specific freedoms you get). I've heard speeches where Eben Moglen, counsel for the FSF, uses the word to mean zero cost and freedom in the same speech.
As for "hacker", the term did not originally mean what the popular press means when they use the term. In fact, there was a book called "Hackers", which includes some information about RMS, which referred to the old usage of that term.
Digital Citizen
Much of what ESR says includes namecalling and an ahistorical view of how the free software community developed. In his most recent interview (covered elsewhere on /.), he begins by dismissing the need for the GNU GPL without acknowledging that the license was in widespread use well before his movement began, that this license was not written to benefit businesses (unlike his open source movement), and that persistant framing of the GPL as being "open" code tries to link his movement to the intention of the GPL (despite the fact that the GPL was written by the FSF many years before ESR's movement began, thereby clearly showing that the GPL was defending software freedom without ESR or the open source movement).
He is not alone in framing issues in this deceptive way. Mark Webbink's essay on "open source" licensing (which fails to use the concept of copyleft because that is tied to the free software movement and the open source movement struggles to get away from any discussion of software freedom), and other notable open source proponents speak or write similarly.
Digital Citizen
Where, exactly, can I hear Stallman "shrieking that the word [pirate] only has a single proper meaning"? Certainly not in the list of words you might want to avoid. Without any references to primary sources, your post is highly overmoderated and is properly identified as namecalling, thus making the post either flamebait or a troll worthy of a lower score.
Digital Citizen
Sun spends money to turn OpenOffice into Free Software, and they get shit for it. Sun spends money to distribute Solaris as Free Software, and they get shit for it. Sun tries to make a Linux distro, and they get shit for it. They stop making a Linux distro, and they get shit for it. Behind all of this are moronic conspiracy theories about Sun being Microsoft's bitch because Sun forced the biggest settlement from Microsoft in history, for a lawsuit that really could have gone either way.
No wonder Jonathon has a cold relationship with Free Software. From his perspective, the advocates are a bunch of morons.
It's pretty amazing if you think about it. All these arguments all come down to a shortcoming of the English language. In Spanish it would be impossible to have this argument. The words Libre and Gratis are unambiguous.
XML UI Browser/Platform
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.