Slashdot Mirror
Bruce Perens Resigns From OSI
I'm Bruce Perens. You may know me as the primary author of the Debian Free Software Guidelines and the Open Source Definition. I wrote the Electric Fence malloc() debugger, and some pieces of Debian. And you may remember me for having brought the TIGER map database to free software. If you want copies of that, you can get them through Dale Scheetz .
About a year ago, I sent out a message announcing "Open Source". Eric Raymond and I founded the Open Source Initiative as a way of introducing the non-hacker world to Free Software. Well, thanks to Eric, the world noticed. And now it's time for the second stage: Now that the world is watching, it's time for us to start teaching them about Free Software. Notice, I said Free Software, _not_ Open Source.
Most hackers know that Free Software and Open Source are just two words for the same thing. Unfortunately, though, Open Source has de-emphasized the importance of the freedoms involved in Free Software. It's time for us to fix that. We must make it clear to the world that those freedoms are still important, and that software such as Linux would not be around without them.
One of the unfortunate things about Open Source is that it overshadowed the Free Software Foundation's efforts. This was never fair - although some disapprove of Richard Stallman's rhetoric and disagree with his belief that _all_ software should be free, the Open Source Definition is entirely compatible with the Free Software Foundation's goals, and a schism between the two groups should never have been allowed to develop. I objected to that schism, but was not able to get the two parties together. Another unfortunate fact is the certification mark dispute which has gone on between Software in the Public Interest and the Open Source Initiative for a whole year. That was entirely my fault.
Sadly, as I've tended toward promotion of Free Software rather than Open Source, Eric Raymond seems to be losing his free software focus. The Open Source certification mark has already been abused in ways I find unconscionable and that I will not abide. I fear that the Open Source Initiative is drifting away from the Free Sofware values with which we originally created it. It's ironic, but I've found myself again siding with Software in the Public Interest and the Free Software Foundation, much as I did in 1995. I feel that the Open Source Definition, which was copied from the Debian Free Software Guidelines, should still be our touchstone, and I'll be working to promote software that fits that definition, but independently from the Open Source Initiative.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
This is the story submission from ESR
ESR writes "Today, following a recent dustup on the discussion list for the upcoming Open Source Summit in which he described Tim O'Reilly as ``one of the leading parisites (sic) of the free software community'', Bruce Perens resigned from the board of the Open Source Initiative.
Though no formal motion has yet been passed, it seems likely that OSI will shortly replace Bruce and add two more directors in an effort to broaden its base of representation in the open-source community. A shortlist of nominees had already been assembled for the two additional seats.
"
Fanatics like Perens are doing the whole Linux movement more harm than good. No wonder Debian is such a mess (license wise).
The only one that represents the linux world to me is Linus himself. He has exhibited much more sanity and balance than the rest of the self-appointed spokespersons.
I'm waiting for the day:
."
"Yeah, you get the sourcecode for the Office Suite, but as a new licensing policy we are charging $20,000 for that version. No, you can't have the source until after you buy the software. . .
I long for the Linux community of five years ago when I first installed Slackware. No one seemed to give a shit about idelogies or rhetoric. They just cared about the simple phrase: "show me the code".
Everyone go write some code or documentation and quit trying to be spokespeople for the "free software movement" or "Open Source community" or whatever else you call us.
Open source may have been founded in free software but it is a different concept. One that has been taken up by large companies across the world. This is proving a boon for developers as we can step into / look at the code we are calling. This greatly speeds up development and cut down calls for help, via helpdesk, usenet or co-workers. No company is going to steal the source code of another companies product and repackage it as there own, simply because they will get sued off the planet if found out.
So freesoftware has inadvertently started a revolution in software distributing. I find it upsetting that a visionary like Bruce Perens cannot live with this. I wish him luck.
Rich
There is only one Free and it is Freedom
There is only one revolution and it is GNU
And is only one Free License and is it L/GPL
i am pleased to see perens acknowledge that the primary point of it all is the software and the freedom, and that while rms might be controversial and difficult, he does have the best interest of the individual and the movement at heart. i have never gotten this feel from esr, and while he may be a good representative to business, i feel long term his attitude will do more harm than good.
seth
lytles@neaccess.com
You know, there seems to be many views on our paradigm. Open Source, Free Software, etc. but I can't stop thinking... as we are all on the crest of this massive Information Age wave (and we are). We should set out common goals. Should all software be free? I personally don't think so. Should our society become 'transparent', I don't see how you could stop it. And what about capatilism? It seems to benefit a small portion of the population in a large way, and the scientists, techies, inventors, geeks, etc. rarely get credit. I think we should look more into what motivates us as people. I know personally I'm much more motivated to do a good job out of respect from my peers, than to do a good job out of money! I think most people are like this originally. Capatilism corrupts them though, and they no longer see the light!
This paradigm we're all toying with right now could very well lead to the eventual down fall of the capatalistic society we all live in. Yet as much as I've come to dislike it, I'm becoming a part of it, I'm becoming greedy, I need it because without it I wouldn't have high speed Inet access, wouldn't have smooth shaving cream... roads, schools, police, etc. I,... we need it almost. Or do we?
We have to map out solid goals, or fork off into seperate groups with thier own ideals (OSI, FSF, ?). And we have to hint at what the future could be. I for one know we have to fully imbrace technology, it's coming, you can never stop it (it's our nature as humans), slowing it only brings on half transparent, eleetist, capatalistic societies. Or does it? Would the slow down of faster CPU's level out the number of people who could afford the technology? does faster and faster CPU's create eleetists (if that's spelled correctly). hmmm... many questions yet to be answered... seems we need a few good leaders (beyond the current Linus, Richard, Alan, Eric et al croud) and some philosophy discussions.
This philosophy of how the Information Age should progress will be very important... do we want our wallet's crashing every time we go to the variety store because it's running buggy software? Do we want hackers smurfing the couple major backbones and taking down the planet? It's so important to analyse and ask these questions. And to ourselves, not the president of UUNET, or Microsoft, or any large company, they rarely have the better intentions of humanity in mind. More or less they have they're stock prices in mind. I really think the answer would be to crash the capatalistic system (see the movie SNEAKERS). Start from new, take parenting classes so we raise proper children who aren't abused, healthy well rounded individuals who are more happy doing work in the spirit of OSS (et al, whatever that exact spirit is) than for money. It's time to analyse... the wave will crash in time, 5, 10, 50, 100 years, maybe 500. But we've got to start now.. before it's too late, before capatilism and stock prices ruin the next age of humans. The Information Age.
I can't spell and I didn't proof read this...
Jason too lazy to login
jason@emailme.net
without fanatics like RMS you'd be going to the local best buy and paying for tools like sed, grep. bash would cost $99.95. you could totally forget about a young finn writing a kernel because he wouldnt be able to afford the compiler to do it with.
fanatics have made free software what it is today.
Um, before Open Source there was still the Apache Licence, the BSD licence, and other free non GPL licences. Moron.
Me, I'd rather just use commercial software.
Closed source sucks more. I as a developer am happier working with open source than closed source. Most commerical source code should be open IMO, but as 'commerical' it will not be free. You can modify it if you want, but don't post that code to usenet simply because it is not yours
Rich
Yes, what we hear now is very sad... And yes, the movement is split. Linux started as free software, and it still (mostly) is. Licenses *are* very important to us - I mean, they are fundamental to keep Linux the way it is now. I don't care if we achieve world domination, if Windows is still a success or what. I'm not a coder, but I've always disagreed in separating the fundamental pieces - source and object - because GNU and GPL must be mantained. It's very sad for me to hear all this...
Get out your copy of Animal Farm. Our noble leader Napol^H^H^H^H^H ESR will continue to lead us, despite the efforts of the treacherous Snowb^H^H^H^H^H Bruce Perens. Maybe http://www.osi.org was the correct link after all.
Anybody else remember when the OS source for DOS 1.1 was available? It was available through Austin Codeworks for awhile (are they still around?).
I remember seeing it in Dr. Dobbs around the time that DOS 4.11 was released. It makes sense -- early versions of DOS were licensed to clone manufacturers, who added their own modifications to the OS (generally to fix BIOS bugs or add the nonstandard feature support that was common then).
PC-DOS, Corona-DOS, Cordata-DOS, Compaq-DOS... I think I still have most of them on 5 1/4" disks somewhere.
( BTW - talking about old Dr. Dobbs, I found an issue from early 1995, which covered the new GUI interface that the soon-to-be-released Windows 95 would have. They also covered the technical details on the new "Loadable Kernal Modules" for Linux. Sigh... I would love reporting like that again.)
--
JW
Hmm let's see Unix had the 'X libs war' and now Linux had the 'Linux personalities war'. Both as damaging, both as pointless.
Brue Perens, a man whose done more to help Free Software than I ever will. And it seems almost as much to hinder it.
First there was Debian which is so far back I don't even remember what he managed to fall out about. Then he tried to set-up a Debian Killer Distribution but that didn't fly. He did manage to frag SPI by taking the Open Source mark with him - whether illegal is one matter but it certainly looks immoral (not even telling the board!). The he works fulltime to push the Open Source concept and kill off GNU/Free. Now he's decided that this is a bad thing and wants to back out.
Wherever these 'luminaries' go a committe follows - one that acts behind closed doors doing bizarre legalese things in the name of Representing Linux!!
Look at ESR's response...'a new members of the board will be added'...Oh good, thank heavens, I'm calm now, for a second there I thought we might get less hot air, no, no now we get 2x as many members leading to 4x as much pointless rubbish......well the ship must be going the right way if we're using a committee!!
Bruce, get back to what you were good at, I could never have done that memory utility. Don't join another commkitte, don't start another 'organisation' and don't come up with another initiative. Keep people like me amazed with the one ability we don't have 'great code'......after all we can all do the things above.
I seem to remember a big long thread on one or more of the newsgroups called "Lignux GNO!" (or something) which was the same arguments about free software. This was several years ago.
Back then the enemy to free software was Netscape, according to the FSF followers
The trouble is: All these people are unix junkies, they all have beards, have had beards, or secretly want a beard, they call '#', dollar, or whiz, or shebang, they didn't do enough drugs at college, they can't get proper jobs, they like star trek.
PUR-LEASE.
This leaves me with a feeling of hope for the Open source / FREE SOFTWARE future. People are so wrapped up in "downing" microsoft, they forget to focus on the realities of this community.
Microsoft can go f*ck themselves. I don't care.
I DO care that Linux exists, that I have access to it, that I have tools with it. I care about GNU.
I don't think Stallman will be successful (too much greed in the world), but I wholeheartedly support the mission.
I applaud Bruce for taking the initiative, to being true to the game.
Alot of you people use Linux 'cause it's 'cool',
alot use it because it ain't 'm$', how many are using it because of the principle it's based on,
(both the kernel and GNU aspects?) ?
get a grip people...Linux is being exploited, and so are you.
Tony Waters
hawaiistyle@earthlink.net
http://home.earthlink.net/~hawaiistyle
Bruce's actions prove that OpenSource is thw wrong way to go. It's Free or nothing.
Also without non-GNU stuff, like Netscape, and the Xfree86 project, we would not have Linux the way we have it now. Of course the FSF would rather have you forget all that, hence the whole GNU/Linux fiasco.
It isn't everyone's problem. The core developers /.-posting
(i.e. people that write code...) are still fairly
solidly on the side of free software. It's all
these IRC-using
hangers-on that don't appreciate the importance
of political issues, because they haven't been
around long enough.
RMS is very well respected among most real developers. And he is certainly not comparable to Bruce; he never throws a tantrum like this.
After Linus said called people who complain about licensing "whiners", this was the first guy to whine with a lengthy editorial called "Why KDE is still a bad idea."
Do you want to be attributed if I quote it?
RMS is an idealist.
RMS is righteous.
RMS is a Good Thing.
FSF was around before Perl, Apache, the WWW, and
all you young ruffians.
Stallman's GCC (for he put his money where his
mouth was and was one of the primary authors of
it) kicked ass over SunOS 4.1's compiler (which is
what I had when I started UNIX) and came with the
source.
(BSD/Perl/Apache are all righteous too, just not *AS* righteous. ^_^ )
I don't get it.
Even though most English speakers equate free with no cost more often than freedom, and the "Free Software" advocates spend more time posting "Free speech" not "Free Beer" messages than they do writing code.
Why don't they dump the "Free software" moniker and adopt something else, like "Liberated Software" that people are not going to confuse with public domain? To me, that was the beauty of "Open Source".
Face it, people equate "Free Software" with "Public Domain", and the FSF is fighting an uphill battle trying to change that preconception.
I don't know much about this situation, but I think that this guy is obviously a big moron. Stupid people bother me.. He should have tried to resovle his issues a little more before running away. People like him make me want to go ballistic. I think his whole point is illogical. If he wants people to respect him, and his viewpoint, he should not be so hot headed and try to resolve issues more. I think he must have taken a jar of stupid-pills.
Long live linux!
Penguin power!
Why would you be proud of not proofreading?
The real "eleetists" would look down on the likes
of you.
Huh? ESR as a right-wing fanatic? Crazed Libertarian perhaps, but not even close to a right-wing fanatic.
He didnt just want a revolution in the software making, but rather a revolution in software as a whole. He wanted everybody to have acess to good and free software, he wanted people without much money to be able to enter this world and not be just watching the trains passing by, he wanted to minimize the tremendous gap in the world between the ones who have computers and the ones who dont.(there are more eletricity lines in Manhatan than in the whole of Africa)
And i guess he still does all this things. Nowadays, ideals are banned. But I think ideals are the only things that keep us human and not blood-thirsty vampires.
Eduardo
Considering how vocal he is (not very) Bruce Perens seems to draw an afwul lot of fire from all sorts of people. He usually seems to attract more of it (relative to how much he says pubically) than even RMS. I can being to understand where people would get off knocking RMS (although I tend to agree with him the vast majority of the time). But Bruce Perens always seemed to me to be a more palatable version of RMS -- not overtly controversial, and generally on the ball.
Now, I'm not a Debian developer, and I've never interacted directly with Bruce. (I haven't with RMS, either.) But maybe some people with more insight can explain to me (and to others) just what it is that Bruce does that makes them so upset. I'm really curious. I'd like to see specific examples of things he's done and/or said; we could all probably learn something from this.
Ehh... All these guys are pretty silly.
Don't get me wrong - I appreciate many of thier motives. RMS, Perens, ESR, etc., when it comes right down to it, started doing what they're doing with good intentions, for what they believe to be The Right Thing. That is laudable.
But it's still silly, and here's why. Open / Free Software is a dynamic, chaotic system. It is really much bigger than any one of us now. It has grown to be something almost organic, definitely self-perpetuating, and no one person can really steer the direction of this thing with that much influence anymore. If Linus, RPM, ESR, Cox, or any other big hacker / motivator were to leave the movement today, sure, we'd feel the slight vacuum temporarily, but this thing would still move on without them. Free Software is really and entity entirely independent of these people.
And when it comes down to it, as good as thier intentions may be, these people are human. They have egos. They have pride. They wanna take the most credit (especially RMS) for what is happening. And no one really can. As big as an impact as they may made have made, this movement is like a swarm of bees or a flock of birds - an unstoppable mass of dynamic group initiative, without any real leadership at all.
(There is a term for this lack of leadership, BTW... I wish I could remember it. I read an article once that described how ants work, that they have no authoritarian structure of any kind - just common goals and common ways of doing things. Software simulations prove that you need no real leadership at all if most parts are sufficiently well motivated (by pure self-interest, even), every part has common goals (building a big anthill, for example) and every one has a similar task (putting dirt pebbles in a pile). [I worked a job at a small restaurant once without a manager, boss, or any leadership of any kind, and it was held together by common goals and motivated self interest on part of the employees. Everyone just did what they liked, what they were good at, and what needed to be done. Laziness was simply frowned upon - not punished. We were the cleanest, most efficient, and most profitable franchise in the state for those three months...] If you have these things, you have the kind of dynamic system that applies, IMO, to Free Software. Eventually, a bunch of little anthills turn into one big anthill, with no social engineering or centralized planning of any kind. It just gets done because everyone needs it to get done. Everyone benefits, so everyone pitches in on the largest anthill around, until one anthill coalesces. There is *some* wasted labor here in abandoning smaller anthills for bigger ones [::ahem:: KDE, GNOME, GNUStep, etc.] but eventually the stongest and most useful system always survives. It's an experiment in evolutionism, pure and simple [may the best / most useful software win]. It's much better than basing software on marketing value alone, IMHO. ; )
BTW... This seemingly communist system at first glance, is in fact motivated by individual self-interest (we all need and profit from freely available information / software). Weird, eh?
Thank you RMS, ESR, Bruce, and gang. But respectfully stated, your efforts in "organizing", "structuring", "leading", "defining", and "terminologizing" the movement are not at all needed. More new code, code refinement, documentation, artwork and graphic design, proper implimentation, networking expertise, user interface interaction research and refinement, "coolness" factor, consultancy expertise, fun stuff, a large user base, filling percieved needs in the software market, solving tough problems in the software market, new concept creation, and other such things, are needed. This is a dynamic system - not a company in need of a CEO. No one gets to be the big hoss. No Steve Jobs is needed here. Sorry.
(BTW... ESR has personally [well, by email] helped me understand some concept that were at the time unclear. I thank him. His insight is a gift. And I thank RMS for his vision and his morality. If only we were all so driven by principle...)
We indeed live in exciting times!
-Josh
Defender of Dynamism and Free Enterprise
If ESR "seems to be losing his free software focus", shouldn't we just send him to the free software optometrist? How much does that cost? I will gladly send a donation.
Slashdot, I make sport of you for hoisting this self-indulgent diatribe to your web site.
Kit
The problem with most of the new Open Source
licenses is that they're "conditional." Somebody
with a financial interest still holds the
ultimate control over the stuff. Thus, what is
"Open Source" today might not be so--at least not
in its entirety--on another day.
The problem with GNU licenses (under which I
*presently* license any of my original work, btw)
is the "GNU Virus." A side-effect of this one
is, for example, that the company for which I
work will *not* port its Unix-based products to
GNU/Linux. Sorry. The "GNU Virus" precludes
it. End of story. (Before someone takes off
about how I'm mistaken, I suggest you *really*
*read* the GNU license. And Stallman's
discussions of it. Particularly the one with the
"readline" story in it--about how a company used
readline in an application and was subsequently
forced to open-source their entire product, or
remove it from the market, or remove readline.)
As I noted: I appreciate the aim of the GNU
licenses. But I also appreciate why a for-profit
company would be averse to allowing its products
to become "virus-infected" in this way.
So I understand and cannot argue with the
motivations behind "both types" of "Open Source"
licenses. But each of these, in their own way,
fall somewhat short of being *truly* "open", IMO,
in that they each have their hooks.
All that being said: I sincerely wish the "movers
and shakers" of the free/open software
movement(s) would stop with the squabbling
already, agree to disagree, and simply get on
with the business of improving the "product" and
public awareness of its advantages.
There are only *two* entities weakly holding back
the tide of eventual complete world domination by
that bloated, unstable, proprietary garbage out
of Redmond in any meaningful way: and those are
the open source initiatives and the products that
derive therefrom, and Sun Microsystems.
The proponents of the former ought to consider
the effect of their squabbles on its (continued)
success and market penetration. I, for one, am
becoming increasing disgusted with these
religious battles. If they keep it up, they'll
likely find developers eventually writing their
own licenses. As a consequence, these priests
and their beloved movements will become
increasingly marginalized. They ought to think
about that. They ought to think about it *real*
*carefully*.
Bruce changes allegiances more often than I change my underwear.
I'm sick of hearing about him.
Nice post.
Debian and GPL forever.
I have had several experiences back in the old days with what one might call "hippie communes". The idea was to develop a (small) society that was as close to utopia as possible, however I don't remember anyone actually using those terms.
Well, the way things inevitably went was:
First there was great enthusiasm and things got done. There was a lot of selfless volunteering. There was no real consideration of "rules" or really what we were doing.
Then things started to change. Someone got a reputation, deserved or undeserved, as being lazy, or excessively egregious, or whatever. There was a lot of talk behind peoples backs.
Then we started having "rules" or a constitution to protect everyone's various civil statuses. Then there were great debates about these rules. Just think about how our congress works. In some (many?) of these debates things were much worse than our congress.
Then disillusionment followed. People dropped out. And the society started to dissolve.
In general this evolution took many years. Sometimes more than 20 years.
A postmortem. At least one of these so-called societies is still in exsistance, however it has changed dramatically. Changed so much that I don't recognize it in anyway as its former self. The people who are there now have accepted some set of "rules" for better or worse. But most importantly, they have moved forward. I have only visited a few times, and after having gotten over how much things have changed, I came to the conclusion that things there were better, much better, than in the real world where I lived.
In "linux land" we seem to be in the phase of fighting about our "rules". But, for better or worse, we probably will adopt some set of rules and hopefully move forward. And, I think, that here in our "linux society", however things turn out, we will be better off than in the "real world" of commercial software.
So, IMHO, we are having growing pains. We should concentrate on moving forward.
1) We all know how important GNU and RMS are/were to Linux.
2) We all know how important Linux is/was to GNU.
3) We all want source code to our software.
Here's how I look at it:
GNU zealots need accept victory, and at the same time accept defeat. The vision of RMS is of a utopia, and although it's a great ideal to work towards, reality is somewhere in between. You can split hairs over licenses all day long, the result is what matters. We have the source. Life is good.
More software than ever is available in source form and to that I tip my hat to RMS, Linus, the folks at Berkeley, the folks at MIT, and anyone else who has contributed his or her skills to an open source project.
I started with Linux a long time ago, and I did not know the difference between the GPL the LGPL the BSD license or whatever, I didn't give a crap. I had a system that I could tweak down to the finest detail and I was thrilled. Now we've brought this satisfaction to many, and the people responsible start to whine and complain about ideals, rather than enjoying the end result.
-rich@richnut.com
We have IANAL for "I Am Not A Lawyer", but we need something small and usuable for "I am not a lawyer, but am willing to nitpick in an annoying matter over infintesimal differences in software licensing."
This could get used *a lot*.
Running beneath the banner of Perl and selling books like nobody's business, what do they do for the open source community? The best we get out of him is a couple shots at Microsoft and the perl.com website (a bunch of links to free documentation) which is just another tool to sell O'Reilly books.
Ummm.. they could have just written their own
version of readline. The author of readline
didn't want it used in non GPLed works. Said
company did it anyway. Seems like said company
is the villian here, not the GPL.
RMS has produced far more free software than Linus, Alan or most of the other kernel hackers. He pretty much single-handedly wrote Emacs, he's the primary author of gcc, and the FSF maintains libc/glibc, most of the basic utilities (sed, awk, mv, and that sort of thing). The FSF made most of the 'core OS,' except for the kernel. RMS is a brilliant coder, and has been working on this for 16 years now. Right now, he's working to make Emacs into a full-fledged user-friendly word processor.
yeah, it sounded exactly like that.
if ESR could possibly deflate his ego long enough to speak english, everyone would see what he's up to.
if larry wall was the person posting that, it might be different. wall is one of the most respectful and humble people i know.
So what exactly is wrong with selling books? He's a book seller thats what he does. If you expect everyone to use man pages or those awful GNU info pages then please consider that not everyone wants to go to that much effort to learn perl, or python, or whatever else O'Reilly has published.
how about *free of ownership* . where it gains its own freedom in the sense like how a corporation is a person.
Maybe we don't need any spokespeople to give us their narrow opinions. lets treat linux and the rest as a *natural resource* of some kind that will always be there as long as the more basic human freedoms are upheld.
alex
It's the SAMS etal of the world that are the parasites, publishing poorly cobbled together collections of writing on Linux or a given program and calling it "Unleashed". Not to mention their rush to market so their books are out at the same time the new version of the software is released, further ensuring errors.
And people could use pieces of BPL'd code in their commercially licenced SW. Not my worst nightmare.
In fact, the only reason I'm on the Linux bandwagon is because I expect the GPL virus to kill BSD OSes before long. The only reasonable choices left are Linux and M$ and I will sell shoes before working with those devils.
...and he's touching himself.
nuff said
I agree wholeheatedly with Bruce's decision. I too am beginning to have my doubts about OSI and the entire Open Source initiative.
Our foot is now in the door, and it _is_ indeed time to start educating people about what is really important.
I saw this coming, after the posting Bruce cc'd to debian-devel (IIRC) about Tim OReilley accepting an Open Source award of some nature, despite the fact that Mr. OReilly has not written a line of free code in his life.
Kudos to Bruce for doing what he feels to be right. Many of us applaud his decision in softer voices than those who clamor against it.
Maybe ESR's initials shouldn't have been there since he tends to be a lot more pragmatic than RMS.
But Perens, RMS are the idealists.
Those of us who don't pray to a software license are the pragmatists
Perens: "Most hackers know that Free Software and Open Source are just two words for the same thing."
This man is delusional. About what I'd expect
from someone who slings around words like "parasite".
I've been hacking for 30 years. I've given a lot of source away, and I'm real glad that y'all have started to do the same. But the proposed "utopia"
is repellent. I am insulted when Perens tells the
world that hackers share his ideals.
To a left-winger, a "Crazed Libertarian" looks much like a "Right-Wing fanatic". (e.g. Wants a less-intrusive government)
To a right-winger, a "Crazed Libertarian" looks much like a "Left-Wing fanatic" (e.g. Wants pornography shown on network TV)
To a Crazed Libertarian, everyone else just sucks.
exactly.
This is kind of immature behavior.
The part about O'Reilly is just to discredit Bruce and make it look like an **.
I am very disapointed of ESR to see im respond like this.
The thing I like about Bruce is he keeps
coming back after he promises to go away
forever! Remember the wonderful words he
had for the Free Software/Open Software
community last year? I won't be nearly
so rude here -but he told all of the above
developers and users to do some very
uncomfortable things...
Bruce seems more to be a cry-baby, and a
wannabee figurehead to me. I've watched him
over the last 4 or 5 years start things -then
jump as the fire got hot. He doesn't seem
to have ANY follow thru - he picks up his
marbles and goes home. Anywone remember
"Linux for Hams?" That was his first significant
project as I recall - well - that was
still-born. Then he got heavily involved with
Debian - and bailed...and then with SPI and
bailed... etc. Anyone see the pattern here?
He seems quite good at throwing bombs around -then
clearing out before they explode...and then
after the smoke clears - we find out he
took off.
At least folks like ESR, RMS, etc having
staying power. you may not agree with their
take on an issue - but you DO know where
they stand -and they keep by their first
principles.
Bruce has no moral authority to speak
for anyone except himself in my mind.
How many compilers exist for Linux? Including all ... about 2, right?
free and non-free, I would say
How many of them existed before Linux
was created. Let's see... Only one!!! And what's
its name? gcc - The Free Software Foundation
compiler. So thanks to the FSF the first people
were able to compile Linux for the first time.
Now you go and criticize the FSF. I am really
grateful for their generosity and their making of
Linux a reality.
I forget where, but at some conference last year, RMS referred to O'reilly as a parasite, with O'reilly present.
According to the Boston Globe, RMS worked 2 months of the year as a consultant, charging $260/hour!
He also won a big award that he lives off the interest of. (From what I'm told).
As a Linux user I hereby remove ESR from representing me and the free programs I create.
Can I do this? No. Do I want ESR to call my hard work a part of the Open Source(TM) movement? No. If I create any GPL program it is not going to be considered Open Source(TM) by me, but it will be pushed onto my programs by others. Do you really think Linus considers Linux a Open Source(TM) program? Probably not. ESR just attached the term to Linux to make his idea sell.
Open Source(TM) is bad for a number of reasons:
1.) Only Americans (and few others) understand
what a trademark (the letters "TM") mean. Other countries consider it a regular phrase.
2.) Open Source(TM) is NOT compatible with itself. I can write a program under license X (Open Source(TM) compatible license), but another program under license Y (Open Source(TM) compatible) will not work with licese X. Therefore, I cannot interchange code. This is BAD.
3.) Open Source(TM) is changing a old term, "open source". Remember how the media changed "hacker" to mean "cracker". This is what ESR is doing. But instead of changing to mean another, he is changing to mean he created the idea.
Open Source(TM) needs to be stopped now. Magazines/Newspapers/etc. are using this phrase to categorize GNU's hardwork, Linus' hard work, and other free software author's hard work.
I'm glad to see Bruce really was trying to do the right thing. Lets just hope ESR sees the light also.
It's not a matter of my passivity versus their volunteer efforts. I would suppose that the implication is that I am different only in that I won't do the work. Baloney.
In my first posting on the subject I said that there is a difference between a volunteer and a self-appointed spokesperson. That difference is still fully relevant to this thread: "self-appointed" would be an accolade if it meant I were helping. It would be a term of disparagement if it meant I were a hindrance.
When it comes to doing work, more help is almost always appreciated. When it comes to speaking and playing the frontman, it's almost never helpful unless the person is specifically chosen to do the job. I hearken to the old proverb:
"When a piano needs moving, there are always plenty of people willing to carry the stool."
When I want to characterize myself as a "volunteer", I'll let you know. Until then I prefer to be anonymous without a "self-appointed" person speaking for me. By the Golden Rule I assume that everyone else would like the same generous treatment. I think I'm right.
MJP
A licence gives you licence to do some things and prohibits you from doing other things. This is true of the GPS and LGPL and the NPL and the BSD licence and any M$ licence. Picking a licence in the middle of the freedom spectrum to call the Free Software licence is wrong.
(rant)
:) I hope btw that the whole OpenSource situation will get cleaned up without creating too much problems, since that would of no benefit to anybody really. And i hope Bruce Perens will continue his efforts to the benefit of Free Software like he has done in the past.
I'm slightly irritated about some of the postings here. Especially the continuing people posting about RMS, calling him a fanatic or an extremist. I keep saying again and again, someone who has thought about something for a long time, who has reached a conclusion on a subject and who is holding onto that conclusion because he thinks it is the right thing is not a fanatic nor an extremist. The Free Software Foundation has a goal, and they persue it. They are not hurting any people in the process, and they are not forcing anybody to agree with their views. Instead, RMS has dedicated much of his life actively coding Free Software for everyone's benefit. If you're not happy using GNU stuff, drop Linux and go use NT4. If you can't pay for it, pirate a copy and be happy knowing you ripped off M$ for a couple of bucks. Its not like i'd have sleepless nights over it. Nobody's stopping you. So what is all the fuss about? Apparently people can't stand the fact that there are people who dare to openly disagree about certain things, something which RMS certainly does. The result is somebody who tells you right in the face where he stands, which is rare enough allready. Unfortunately some people don't have a strong enough personality to handle that and start spouting all sorts of nonsense about what a dangerous lunatic he is.
I get the impression that a lot of the people who are saying these things have never read any of the texts Stallman has written about Free Software. A week ago there was another twit on Linux-Kernel screaming something like "Stallman wants all libraries GPL'd!" which was simply untrue and a grave misquote! All these kinds of posts and misinformation get picked up by less gifted people who start screaming this kind of nonsense like a bunch of braindead parrots. Another example is the continually repeated "everything should be GPL according to the Free Software Foundation", which is simply not true. (Seen the posts here on slashdot comparing RMS with Stalin? Hello?! Now who's the nutcase here..) Then again, the cynic inside me thinks it's probably not modern, accepted and Right(tm) to stand for something you believe in. Instead you should sell your soul, switch opinion the moment it is convenient, cheat people, do only stuff that's good for yourself, and then you'll be what people consider to be Successful. Freedom is worthless and nothing to fight for, as long as you're comfortable and have software that works and has nice animated icons to drool over. Who needs ideology, as long as we have something that works ey? Well, if thats so, i hereby choose to be a failure. And maybe an extremist fanatic too in some people's eyes, because i've come to the conclusion after a lot of reading and thinking that i agree with most of the things RMS writes. I don't think everything should be free though, there's room enough for non-free software in the form of applications in my opinion. There are also some notable exceptions for which i think the free software system won't work, such as games for example, which are more of an artform than an engineering effort. But i do think we should strive towards maximizing the amount of Free Software available. People have the tendency to screw up a lot of stuff in order to
gain some short-term convenience, and much of the attitude displayed here is exactly that. People are short-sighted and always will be, playing
political games, subverting things etc. which is why its so great that there are people like RMS that are as steady as a rock. Free Software is a long-term investment. If you're willing to give up your freedom for some short-term benefit by making stuff "less free", do so, but don't expect me to agree or help. On the positive side, Free Software and the GPL are gaining more and more acceptance, and the end to the increasing attention isn't anywhere near yet. While all these political problems are a nuisance, i think (and hope) they are nothing more than that. The principle is sound and there's nothing in the way of a glorious future for Free Software. Lots of new users are flooding in. Thats why RMS is so persistent in the whole GNU/Linux thing i think - because all these microsoft refugees don't give a shit about the ideology behind it and just want to use some nice working software. I'd be pissed off too if i worked almost 20 years to achieve something, and when nearing succes people would take it and say "Oh, that works nice. but your ideology is not convenient for me, since i want to exploit people. now fuck off.".
I know all this is not directly related to Bruce Perens' departure from the OSI, but i just had to vent some frustration about this reoccurring phenomenon.
(/rant)
Greets, Vertigo - Using Debian GNU/Linux and hopefully soon Debian GNU/Hurd. (just get a book about Mach programming from the library. The Hurd looks very interesting.)
Open source is NOT a registered trademark. There isn't even an application for a trademark pending. The open source application for a certification mark is not yet published for opposition. You have been lied to and allowed to draw all kinds of inferences as to the legitimacy of the US Patent & Trademark's handling of the application and its status. ESR is a nut and a liar. Perens is close to a nut and has been lying about this, but is stepping out of the ring because he's tired of being caught misrepresenting the legal status of the term, among other things.
Open Source is not trademarked. There is no application pending to that effect. Open Source is on an application for a certification mark which has not yet been published by the US P&TO for opposition. It will be opposed, perhaps by the owners of opensource.com, a Texas Corporation, and perhaps by the owners of the registered service mark Open Source Solutions, who filed a claim of first use in 1993. Do you understand now that ESR and Perens have misled you and part of the reason Perens is washing his hands of the mess?
If ESR did not want you to be mislead by the truth - that it is not a trademark, or even a registerd certification mark, then he would publish to that effect here. He doesn't mind that you think he has a trademark on open source, so he won't. That bothers a lot of people. Does it bother you?
Check their site. They have removed the attribution clause from their license.
anubis
Which organization are you referring to?
Perens has such a history of resigning from things that it's not clear what you are referring to.
Is that most of the people who plunk down $40-$50 for the "Official Red Hat" don't realize that you can get the whole distributions (minus a few non-free apps) for as little as $1.95, legally!
Is it just me, or does Bruce Perens seems to quit virtually everything he joins?
Yeah, I'm rather disappointed in ESR. I have a lot of respect for him for being centrist in the Free / proprietary scheme of things, and taking a mostly pragmatic view. I also appreciate the way he analyzes the movement itself from within. But it *does* seem like he's gotten an inflated ego from his new-found popularity with the press. Personally, the only way I can forgive him is if he publishes an apology for publicizing the statement that Bruce Perens made.
Personally, I'm starting to dislike the whole open-source movement (but not the Free software movement). I don't think we should push Linux and other Free software -- people will start using it when they're ready to. If they use it too soon, it will only hurt the movement. If they never use it, then it's their loss.
booch (no password -- at work)
I read it before. And here in /.
hehe
Well for an explanation of the difference in attitude between RMS and Linus Torvalds I think you just have to look at their history. Linus has not been through some company taking Linux and telling him to sod off, this is theirs now and if they find him with the code they'll sue him. And hopefully, due to RMS, he wont have to go through that, because the GPL and the FSF would result in anyone trying that being faced with a horde of rabid FSF lawyers :).
Riddance with an A. Damn I'm Dutch and most of you are American, and apparently 100 Americans CAN be wrong.
Articulate answer, thankyou.
:(
I take your point although I don't see a model where I can draw a large salary / rate for my skills. If we all worked on free software how would we pay for our bread and roof? I understand that money can be made in consulting and support on the software that is created, but the vast majority of software (not nessarly the best) is created by paid proffessionals. You want the best brains? you pay through the nose and there are only so many people who will work for the love of it.
How many people are currently being paid to write GNU software? are they getting a competive rate? are they moonlighting to cover thier costs?
Maybe I'm just selfish but the future worries me, I want a roof, money to spend, (eventually) a family and the best life I can have in what will be a troubled world. I don't see how free software can provide that for me
Rich
As far as turning a "cool thing" into a political agenda. Are you implying that linux should have never been licensed under the GPL? I got news for you bud, no one would even know what Linux is if it wasn't for the GPL or a similiar license.
I am assuming the person you are responding to was speaking about the politics that came with the GPL only after it became popular.
As for myself, I dislike all the politics that have come out lately. I like to develop. I like to share (not because of the license used). I do not like to hear about how great the license is all the time.
Sometimes people get into a rut. I believe many GPL supporters are there now. They fight because that is what they are used to. They believe code should be free, yet they forget others who believe the same way but want a different path. I would compare it to Freedom of Religion except only one religion may be followed. This is not the kind of freedom I want.
Sean Farley
P.S. Swearing at someone is non-productive.
I'm not sure if you can class drivers and patches as new software. Sure they contribute and thank god they do, but you don't see a lot of fresh free software projects started by them.
This is all the same problems that the human race has had with information, it should be in the public domain and then everyone can benefit from it. Take for example the young girl in Ireland (whose name escapes me) who developed the new encryption algorithm. Say her work turns out to be the best thing since sliced bread. She can release it to the world for free use (best for you and I), or she can patent it and perhaps make a fortune. In her case it is her choice, but in the eyes of share holders in a large company that would be stupid particularly if they had invested a lot of money in research to the problem, 'hey I've an idea, lets give this stuff away for the good of the industry!', happens sometimes and when it does it is sooo good.
Universities and the like used to contribute vast amounts of valuable work (not just code) into the public sector and they are all sponsored and hence the work now often belongs to the sponsors. This sucks big time and it is not helping humanity.
However opensource does not imply freesoftware although freesoftware implies opensource. I want to see more free software and I want to see more source code. I thank god that the free software community has convensed the big boys not to be so securitive of their code.
Rich
I don't. I'm glad people work a bit harder to spread the idea of free software or even open software. I don't agree exactly with these peoples views (I like almost everyone have my own slightly different views on free software). But as long as they help get some of the ideas across it still spreads the word, that is worth something. But all the fighting and flaming is mostly just a waste of time and pathetic IMO. It can also give people a bad impression.
Anyways woop-te-do. This doesn't really change much.
Snoop
2 compilers for Linux?
You are FULL of it.
There are dozens of compilers, both free and commercial, available for a number of different languages, including C, C++, Fortran and Scheme.
You guys are worse than the president. Your petty infighting makes one think that you are promoting your own ego rather than software. You share the common goal of promoting free (or is that open source? or is that free? or is that open source?...) software, so stop arguing over stupid semantic issues and do your job.
The patch file clause is gone from the QPL...
I'd find it hard to believe that anybody using Linux would be so stupid that they didn't realize they could get it for free or cheap. So I don't think this has anything to do with why people buy RedHat for $50.
Beginners and suits like the minimal installation support, for what it's worth. (I swear, this is true, as crazy as it sounds. At least, it's true around here.)
For me, it's something different. $50 is cheap for a one-time purchase, so the price doesn't turn me away. What I like is that for this small fee I get a solid distribution from a company I'm familiar with, and this money funds software development which is all open-source.
Yes, I've also donated to the FSF. And yes, I realized at the time that I wasn't under any obligation to.
O'Reilly makes money off of others writing free software. Seems to fulfill the definition of parasite to me.
"Hello, Mr. O'Reilly? I'd like you to publish my book, but I'd also like you to make it freely downloada.. *CLICK*"
hmm last time I checked these non-GPL tools are free and better than any GPL equivalent
without thinking I can name 2 that kill gcc: gnupro from cygnus and KAI
You think so? Here's the excerpt from the latest version of the QPL (v0.92, www.troll.no/qpl) that deals with the patch issue:
3. You may make modifications to the Software and distribute your modifications, in a form that is separate from the Software, such as patches.
OK Bruce, explain to me how I can redistribute a modified Qt "in a form that is separate from the Software" *without* using patches. Although the license is just vague enough on this point to not explicitly require modifications as patches, I can think of no alternatives that wouldn't leave one exposed to a lawsuit from TrollTech.
Of course, this is deliberate. Trolltech doesn't want users to be able to redistribute modified versions of their library -- the Qt Free edition is at least honest about this, by requiring distribution of mods as patches. The current license is actually WORSE, in that you can never really know if you're in compliance -- either try something else and see if you get sued, or choose the only legally safe option and distribute patches.
Anyway, I think the QPL was only a vaporware-licensing scam designed to provide the promise of a version of Qt that would be Open Source(tm) enough to kill the Harmony project. Now that it's succeeded at that, there's no longer a need for the QPL, and I'll be very surprised if Qt is *ever* released under any version of it.
Finally, I'd just like to thank you and ESR for creating enough confusion with this Open Source(tm) thing to help the corporations in killing off promising free software projects like Harmony. Who needs Free Software anymore, now that we have all these watered-down, Open Source(tm) projects we can work on? Sure we have to put up with patchware, and software that can't be combined with any other software due to dozens of incompatible licenses, but at least we get to fix bugs for free. Isn't that enough freedom?
The problem here is that all the sane, decent people (like Linus and Alan Cox) don't care about the power, leaving a void to be filled by folks like ESR.
I think this sums it pretty well. IMHO, ESR does not represent the linux community (or free software, in gereral), never has, and never will. He is a self-appointed leader, a leader that no one wants and no one needs.
RMS has something to show for, you cannot argue with what he has achived for all of us. ESR has nothing to show for. He wants too much to be leader, and in my view, someone who wants leadersship too much does not deserve it. I'm not even sure if he was invited to the Refund Day, or if he invited himself and hijacked the event.
We want less politics, and less ego. In fact we want less leadership -- of this kind, anyways.
I think the attitude to emulate is that of Linus Torvalds. Be moderate, be calm, and use what you want.
That is what free software is about: choice. I am actually opposed to Linux World Domination. I am opposed to world domination by any software whatsoever, and firmly support the homogenous environment as being the most friendly towards open standards. Perhaps I will get flamed for this, but I use Linux because it is what I know and what serves my purposes best (i.e., learning and tinkering). If I were attempting to remaster digital recordings I'd use Windows or BeOS.
Choice is also the reason unix has survived so long, been so successful, and continues to be so. Don't look at the statistics on personal computers. Look at workstations. The number of workstations that do not run unix is so miniscule as to be nonexistant. Instead of a set of pieces forged into a single system, it is a piecemeal of components put together to serve a particular purpose. Ever unix machine is different, moreso than given Windows machines are.
I don't know whether Perens is doing the right thing. I don't pretend to know what is going to happen. Businesses releasing software for Linux does not strike me as anything unusual. Some of them release for Solaris or Irix or Digital Unix. What is different about releasing for Linux other than a sometimes rabid user base?
Linux is ours. It is open, and no one can take it away from us. For instance, say Linus lost control of the kernal and it ended up in commercial hands who tried to lever the entirety of Linux (not saying that this will or even could happen, just a hypothetical situation). Chances are that we would create a new kernal, recompile our packages, and get on with life. Perhaps it would gain a new name, perhaps it would be a BSD clone, who knows? The spirit is still the same.
I entreat you all: stop flaming each other, stop flaming companies, stop complaining about what others are like. All men are created equal is an important assumption of mass policy, but is spurious on the individual level. We are all different, and saying we equal is like saying and apple is equal to an orange. If you don't like a closed license, then use something else. If there isn't an alternative, create one.
Perhaps the business world is incapable of meshing with free software and open source as it stands now, and copyrights and closed source hurt us. Don't decry the system, try to change it, and in doing so remember that compromise is necessary.
For instance, copyright as it stands now extends for ninety five years after the death of the author, and can be sold and inherited. I would like to see a copyright of fifteen years, renewable only by the author, untransferable. But this is unrealistic considering the current publishing scheme. Today's society just can't deal with the sudden change. Thus I would say that it is transferable by inheritance or sale, but cannot be renewed by anyone but the author. Perhaps after society adjusts to this then a further step can be taken. But compromise is necessary.
Calm and open reflection is the greatest manifestation of wisdom, one which I do not claim to be able to maintain. Yet I try. One such voice was nailed to a cross for it, another was given hemlock. But a group of them created a nation from a mass of indentured servants, convicts, and debters.
Tolerance, my friends, tolerance. The world is not perfect, nor will it ever be. I know only too well how difficult it can be to be tolerant, but it is worth the effort.
I fear I have strayed and preached a bit, for which I apologize. I am not the first, nor will I be the last. I shall simply follow Socrates' advice and avoid public life, and hopefully escape the hemlock and the cross.
Frederick Ross
fred@ls.net
The goal of the BSD licence is to allow the widest possible use of the relevant software by the greatest number of people.
People who use the BSD licence are generally less concenrned with politics than with providing useful software to anyone who has a need for it. In the case of derived software, proprietary and GPL'd software are distinctly different:
a) Proprietary software by its nature cannot include restrictively-licenced (GPL) code, so there are only two options: (1) use exising code under an open licence (assuming such code exists), (2) write new code. If BSD-licenced code saves somebody reinventing the wheel, it has been put to good use.
b) Free software can be licenced under an open licence (BSD) or a restrictive licence (GPL). If code derived from BSD-licenced code is put under the GPL, it represents a deliberate attempt to restrict the use of that software for political reasons. This reduces the potential utility of the original code and is what some people find objectionable.
At the end of the day it's the difference between a utilitarian perspective (BSD) and a utopian one (GPL).
Emacs must die. We have better editors, both
simple (pico) and powerful (vi).
We can use BSD make, with or without BSD.
We can use BSD find, with or without BSD.
BSD had a C compiler. If Cygnus hadn't developed
gcc, the BSD compiler wouldn't have died off.
After reading a few hundred of the discussions on this topic I am now rather confused. Most of us slashdotters work with computer. We earn a living doing so. Free software is undoubtedly cool for a number of reasons, but how exactly is someone who likes to code going to make a living? And I am not talking about making documentation or doing customer support here. I would just like some ideas please.
If Tim's a leech, what does that make you? You want something for nothing.
The people who write the books get paid, they're making money off of their work. Why should they hand it off to you?
Why don't you go into the publishing business, how are you going to pay to have the books published? Distributed? Y'know some people prefer a hard copy book to electronic documentation.
When does the free ride end? Ever? Still living at home with Mommy and Daddy?
Grow up! If you don't like O'Reilly books, don't buy 'em. Quit your carping.
All this squabbling is really stupid.
The US is fairly unique in having its wings reversed, so to speak
it is not the US, but the rest of the world that has its wings reversed.
we own the missiles. therefore, the unilateral decision pertaining to wing ordering is ours to make (as is the accepted spelling of riddance/riddence).
Juanito
(yeah? lighten up.)
1. Bruce runs around half cocked and wholly uninformed about the award.
There was an Infoworld Electric forum, a few weeks ago, by Nicholas Petreley. He wanted READER input for the Industry Achievement Award. If you go LOOK at the forum archives you will see posts recognizing the people in the "Collabrative Software" award.
If you bother to READ the article and not Bruce's lil tantrum you'll see that there is an effort to recognize many in the OpenSource/Free Software Community. Linus, Alan Cox, Richard Stallman, Larry Wall.. (I cannot recall everyone else offhand) I assume that the reason it was called Collaborative was that he did not want to see the quarelling over Open Source vs. Free Software, etc. Well, if there's a will there is a way. If not the GPL vs. BSD, Boxers vs. briefs.. it will be something.
This wasn't a publicity stunt between IW and O'Reilly. Petreley is not one to have anyone tell him what to write. He in a column asked his readers who they thought would deserve some recognition. He was probably not aware of the in-fighting going on.
The publicity stunt however, is this snit about O'Reilly. Mr. Perens feigns suprise " I don't want to seem catty "... doesn't want to make a big deal out of it. Well gee Bruce.. then don't send your letter to everyone and their brother, and post it on the usenet to boot.
The publicity you seek... unfortunately may not be the publicity you want.
If anyone wants to check out the forum area of there it's www.forums.infoworld.com --- I think the forum in question was a few weeks ago.
I think it was a great award. Regardless of whose bookshelf it ultimately sits on. It was to laud the achievements of everyone that made Open Source/Free Software contributions. Coders or whatever they/he/she did.
-Eileen
p.s.
sorry for the bitchiness, this stuff gets so tiresome. It does sound so very petty. If you don't want Linux/Free Software/Open Source/et al to go anywhere other than your own backyards - this is just the kind of stuff that should continue.
To roughly paraphrase George Benard Shaw...
The reasonable man makes efforts to fit into the world around him. The unreasonable man however refuses to conform at all. Therefore all change and progress comes from the unreasonable man.
Progress is a subset of change, you cant move forward unless you are first willing to move. In order to live in a better world you need to be willing to challenge what you believe is wrong. _This_ is what RMS does, and more the fucking kudos to him. Do you have the guts to stand up to public ridicule for what you believe? obviously you do to some extent since you posted something here, but do you have it to the level RMS does? I dont agree with RMS on everything but I sure as hell believe that in his heart he intends good for everyone, and in this he has my support.
matt
I'm new to Linux, so perhaps there's more going on here then I know.
But, if the only way that O'Reilly is a leach is in daring to charge for his books, then I strongly disagree. Taking that logic to the extreme, anyone who makes his living consulting for Linux is a leach as well-- after all, their just making their money off others volunteer labor.
O'Reilly & Assoc. is known for writing arguably the best, most consistent books in the computer industry. And, they are generally priced favorably compared to the other books in the market.
Want your books for free? Fine-- there's plenty of them out there, feel free to print one out (of course you'll end up spending more & have a unwieldly, large book). Or, read it online (you'll probably have a headache within fifteen minutes though.)
Free software doesn't work for every bit of software. For example. Give me one reason why it is morally "wrong" for a computer game to not be "Free Software".
Ciao
orj@ihug.co.nzNOSPAM
Do you really know what you're talking about? Who says that open source can't be modified?
SPI does not have a registered trademark on open source. Nobody does. Open Source Solutions Net is a registered service mark of a Virginia company and Opensource, Inc. is a Texas corp. That's it. No ESR, no SPI, period. You can go to the US P&T office on the web and see this for yourself. Stop bullshitting us.
The first registered use of Open Source Solutions Net is in 1993. There is no trademark asserted by ESR or SPI. If they choose to assert one, and they never have, they'll have to prove they used it before 1993. It will never happen. It's all been a lie by a few people making it up as they went. Bruce finally gave it up. ESR will have to also give it up. Reality built on a lie is a lie.
fuck money
burn money
free software is a virus out to destroy whitey's capitalism suburban strip malls garbage culture
cheap quality exploitation by corporations rotten stinking filth of greed and hording
we are redesigning the world
starting with the software
then free music and everything else
free software doesnt solve all the worlds problems
only some of them
you could make money programming for some clients needs. You could make money selling your program.you could make money programming for a company wich distributes free software.
Sure, you wouldnt be rich as Bill Gates, or similar like that... but I suppose thats not what you seek
Eduardo
you dont need to 'teach the public' or
'advertise' about 'free software'. those who care
will learn it on their own. those who dont
care cannot be forced to.
isnt there some law of programming.. something like..
'if people want it, people will use it, and it will flourish,
if people dont want it, it wont'
in other words, even if its 'good', its futile to 'force' it on people.
Wasn't Richard Stallmans objection against "Open Source" all along that it de-emphasized the importace of freedom. I'm not sure, but I think I read something like that when the term first appeared last spring.
Unfortunately, this hardly spells the end of the "schism" Bruce writes about.
Everything would be better off if people quieted down and wrote code. We wouldn't have nearly the penis-waving that we have today, both in terms of the politics between open source and free software as well as the growing community of Linux users who are becoming blatantly anti-"anything that isn't Linux", which certainly doesn't help the rest of us.
I guess my question is exactly how is Bruce fighting to keep the code free? That's not clear to me. I see where he's done alot of code (good). And I like the concept behind OSI (to help Linux become acceptable in a "suit" environment).
But overall, my impression is that he's a spoiled prima donna --not that there's anything wrong with that-- but it can cast the Linux Community(tm) in a bad light when one of their top dawgs is constantly leaving in a huff.
I'm not saying anyone 5ukZ or r00Lz -- I just wond er why we can't agree to disagree about the hot topics. If we're all so smart and geek-telligent, why can't we discuss issues like adults?
What important freedoms do you think the GPL is taking away from you? As far as I can see, the only thing you can't do with GPLed software is use it to create proprietary software (either directly or indirectly), and that's very deliberate.
Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that the GPL is going to be compatible with other free licenses, but that has more to do with the limitations of the law and legal documents like licenses, rather than intent. The solution to this is to make a serious effort to limit the number of free licenses. Ideally, they should be at least as free as the GPL, and compatible with it, if they are to be of any use.
BSD-style license supporters often complain that their code gets absorbed into GPL-licensed code which they can't then use (while not being bothered that it gets used in proprietary code -- hmmm, curious...) This leads to people disparaging the GPL as a "viral" license. Really though, there's no easy way around this problem. If code containing BSD stuff gets GPLed, it's because a GPL hacker built something out of it that they didn't want to become proprietary. If the GPL allowed BSD coders to somehow use the GPLed extension under *their* licence, then so could proprietary developers, which would defeat the whole purpose of licensing under the GPL.
I think this "viral" stuff is crap. If things end up under the GPL rather than freer licenses, it's because some of the developers who created it refuse to allow their work to be used in proprietary products -- seems fair enough to me!
Norman Petry
npetry at sk sympatico ca
Your idea is nice in theory, but I don't share your opinion that it would work. The problem is that licenses are legal documents with very specific meanings. Creating a GPL-like license that allows linking to anything that's under a DFSG/OSD approved license or similar brings those definitions into the license and would allow for all sorts of unintended uses.
As guidelines the DFSG are fine -- as a legal definition, they're unacceptably vague. Already it's easy to see that Bruce Perens and ESR have very different ideas about what they allow -- hence the recent schism. Tightening them up to disallow the recent spate of proprietary (but Open Source(tm)) licences would only result in yet another license, probably very similar to the GPL.
Consider this example: BSD-style licensing is *very* free, and satisfies the DFSG. If I created code under the SGPL, a BSD-coder could then modify it and license the result under the BSDish license. Since this license allows use in even proprietary, closed source development, all the SGPL restrictions I placed on *my* code (to prevent it from becoming proprietary) have been rendered worthless by the relicensing made possible by the SGPL itself. If instead you meant that each piece of the combined work retains the restrictions contained in its original license, then this is no different from what we have now, where BSDish code in a GPL licensed derivative is still usable under the terms of it's original license.
It's unfortunate that license incompatiblity is one of the inherent limitations in using legal documents to embody a set of ideals called free software. The only REAL solution is to limit the number of licenses, by encouraging people to use the ones we already have (L/GPL, BSDish, Artistic).
The GPL allows you to link it to anything licensed on terms that are as free or freer, but prevents it from being used in software where any of the freedoms it guarantees have been removed. From what I've seen of the corporate Open Source (tm) licenses, their incompatibility with the GPL is *not* accidental -- in most cases, the company is trying to retain some proprietary advantage over other software developers, which the GPL disallows.
I think that the restrictions in the GPL exist for very good reasons, and that using it is the best way we have for ensuring that software and its users retain their freedom. Tamper with it at your peril!
Norman Petry (not a lawyer)
npetry at sk sympatico ca
So you say gnome is just about code and not idealogy? I think not. One of Miguel's main objectives in gnome is to "infect as much software as possible with the GPL". When I heard that, my respect for him trippled, both as a coder and as an idealogist.
Attitudes like this will lead to the downfall of Linux. I for one will never use a binary driver for anything, to hell with this "be thankful" bullshit. If we openly accept binary-only drivers then this will encourage other companies to do the same.
Why should we be thankful for leftover scraps then we can have the 14oz. steak?
The only thing that is a tragedy is that people like you are trying to subvert the whole movement.
Releasing binary drivers != Supporting linux community.
/home/ftp/pub" and the we will write our own damn drivers, that is a much better solution than using some buggy binary only piece of crap.
Hell, all they have to do is "cp chipspecifications.pdf
http://www.dejanews.c om/=gh/[ST_rn=qs]/getdoc.xp?AN=444382781.
He is right to criticize O'Reilly for this bogus "collaborative software" award.
Actually, as a certification mark, "Open Source" cannot be applied to your software without your consent. If you claim your program is "free software" and reject "open source" labeling, there is nothing OSI/ESR can do about it, even if you meet their criteria.
RMS has specifically stated that he does not get paid for his work at the FSF in order to eliminate a conflict of interest. He is a volunteer. If you think he might be lying (which I don't), you can probably look for verification in FSF filings with the IRS and State of Massachusetts.
no less and certainly not more!
Posted by rayola:
I don't think this is a good thing. I don't like the way slashdotters compare one person to another. I just think it's a shame that Perens feels this way, and I can understand. I don't think people should put their ideology aside and it does not matter one damn bit if "Gates Wins" or whateverthehell. Come on, people, the GNU / Linux community has some really cool things about it, and those cool things are ALL because of stubborn peoples' ideologies. None of the gang are saints, we know that, but taken as a group they're some of the best people in the realm of computers, and we're lucky, and we should respect their feelings and decisions, not name-call.
Posted by patg:
So much bickering over symantics... The key here is that Linux and similar software not be religated to obscurity. Companies don't care about symantics, they care about the bottom line (such is life) and I and others who work in this industry want to use Linux and open source code and not be forced to use something like NT to make a living. Whatever works to let companies see the value of using Linux, that's what is the best. I don't care about symantics. I just want to use Linux.
Leave the egos behind.
Posted by twi:
> If they can't release enough information about
> the hardware for us to be able to write drives,
> it means that there's too much logic in the
> drivers, i.e. you're buying a winmodem.
Or perhaps the board is full of super-secret
magic tricks, which they do not want to give
away to the competition. And perhaps these tricks
would become obvious if you saw how they are
utilised in the driver. So they might write all
drivers themselves, but of course only those which
will sell them enough cards to pay for the additional
work. This would sound 100% reasonable to me,
although it's of course not in general publics
best interest. But then again, most corporations
main motivation is making money and lots of it.
You should never assume that you know FOR SURE
why other people do the things they do.
Posted by twi:
> Yes, spokespersons should be appointed, by the people for whom they speak.
It might also work the other way. Like, if RMS would say "I say XY, and therefore am the spokesperson for all the people who think XY too.". And if you don't think XY then he simply does not speak for you. You could then stand up and speak for yourself, or find another, more fitting, spokesperson. The problems start when someone claims to speak for people who do NOT think he does. Wether the FSF-folks do that I cannot say.
Posted by patg:
How does that translate to me going to work and being able to work with Linux,Perl and what not, as opposed to being told that I have to work with NT? Ideals don't always translate to harsh reality.
Someone has to pay the bills.
Posted by patg:
Huh? Say what? Dogging on Tim O'Reilly is pathetic. So, what are you? Huh? What have you done to spread the use of, or the familiarity of, or knowledge of open source software - Linux - perl - gnu? Tim O'Reilly has done a whole lot of good for open source/gnu tools and OSs than it would take you a hundred lifetimes to acheive. Alot more than a revolting grey-shirted social ineptoid in a dark room posting under anonymous coward moniker knocking down the efforts of Tim Oreilly.
Alot of people wouldn't have learned what they do if it weren't for O'reilly's books.
Anonymous coward - that's exactly the case. Do you even know O'reilly?
He produces - books - CDs - etc... What have you produced? Parasites, from what I last remember, don't produce.
I hate to think that serious people would read this site and see some little chump rantings calling O'reilly a parasite.
Posted by twi:
> O'Reilly makes money off of others writing free software. Seems to fulfill the definition of parasite to me.
And so does everybody who, say, buys
solaris to work in his commercial company but
prefers and uses gcc with it. Everybody who uses
freeBSD on the servers that make up his ISP.
Everybody who writes commercial books about
commercial stuff using latex. Everybody who uses
linux to teach himself unix for his real-world job.
If you call that parasitic, you're saying
"free software is free for people to share and
use, BUT only to produce more free software, and
never to get their real PROBLEMS SOLVED.
It would be fun to collect and share free software,
as much as it's fun (at least for some ppl) to collect
and share stamps. But it would be ultimately useless,
pointless, worthless.
How can you tell people they may not make money off
of free software and on the other hand demand* that
such free software be the only software that gets
written at all ?
"There shall be no software but ours, and that you
may not use for your work" ??? I'm extremely curious
to learn how THAT is going to help anyone.
* yeah, you didn't say that here, but since the FSF considers
proprietary software evil, and you seem to represent
their views in this argument...
RMS is well respected amongst most real developers? That's not what I hear - apart from the groupies they all think he's a nut and keep well away from him.
Then you hear way differently fromme. Most of the programmers that have been around the block a few times that *I've* run into acknowledge RMS' programming skills. Why don't you look at his code and decide for yourself?
I know I couldn't enjoy my work without some of the code he's written, and the design he's done.
-Peter
== Just my opinion(s)
>Right now, he's working to make Emacs into a full-fledged user-friendly word processor.
I doubt that.
Please don't. It seems to be the direction that 20.x is headed in. At least according to its documentation.
RMS has been more than a little bit vocal about not caring a whit about whether free software is user-friendly. It is, in fact, one of my biggest aggravations with him. In fact, I believe that the split between Emacs and XEmacs was partially over that very thing. The XEmacs team seemed to move a lot more towards making it a really usable, user-friendly, GUI-oriented program. This stuck in RMS's craw, and thus the code forked. If the details are different, I'd love it if someone would enlighten me. That seems to have been the way of it, though...
I think you're partially right. My understanding from reading and trying to understand this stuff is that the Xemacs (or lucid emacs then) project started because emacs couldn't do colors, fonts, or whatever and as you say RMS didn't want to spend time implementing this. I think they (the lucid emacs folks) made a point to RMS that he had to think of emacs' UI, because of how many people used xemacs. So he has. At this point RMS has design problems with incorperating Xemacs' display code into gnu emacs because there are no code attributions, so he can't ask anyone to assign their copyrights to the FSF. So it has to be re-written for emacs, and re-designed for emacs. I believe that having multiple fonts and multiple sizes displayed is in the works.
He's a brilliant programmer, no argument, but he hasn't worked alone on any of that. In fact I've never used a single piece of software that RMS solely wrote, or even wrote the majority of alone. Bet you haven't either. (The same, of course, can be said of Bill Gates...)
It seems to me that your observation validates RMS' philosophy. His code is out there. Others have contributed both because they are employed by the FSF and because they want to for their own reasons. RMS can design and code some of the system, and others can complete it in less time then he could have himself.
OTOH bill gates doesn't code anymore and according to some stories he never could program well, and he isn't letting anyone fix the mistakes.
I agree that Linus has been a good manager for Linux, and that he seems to get along with others much more then RMS does. I'm happy that both of them ar around.
-Peter
== Just my opinion(s)
Fair enough, but I'd prefer that there be an OSS "marketing arm" that was closer to RMS's and Bruce's ideals than to ESR's (not that I don't appreciate the efforts of all three). "Sell" the fsck out of Free Software, but don't end up with the thing becoming unrecognizable amidst the alphabet soup of newer and newer ESR-compliant TLAs.
Disclaimer: posted via the non-Free Communicator 4.5-x86-Linux.
pingouin as Insomnia Boy, two sets nightly...
--
--
=8^
Bruce Perens has done a lot of good work and made a lot of things happen, but while some people need to take a deep breath and count to ten, it seems that higher numbers would suit Bruce's purposes better.
I hope that everyone involved can sort out their differences and get back to the useful work they all do.
--
Xenu loves you!
Yes. He won an enormous award a few years ago and has lived off it ever since.
I'm not as sure about this part, but I think MIT also throw some money his way, not for specific work, but on the grounds that he's a Good Thing.
--
Xenu loves you!
yeah, oracle runs great on BSD...
;-P
and of course there are so many, many more BSD developers than, say, Linux developers.
No contest for Apache, but really, give it a rest. And of course KDE sucks eggs -- nice libraries, wish I had a 2nd hard drive to fit them on.
Remember that what's inside of you doesn't matter because nobody can see it.
It's very interesting to me how people use the term "self-appointed" to disparage those who volunteer. Is volunteerism really such a bad thing? If so, how do you think spokespersons should be appointed?
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
That's a fair opinion. I don't yet agree, but would be willing to see a concrete proposal for an appointment process. Do you feel strongly enough about this to make it happen, or are the volunteers more motivated about this than you?
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
That is, in fact, the logical trap that I was trying to set. You did not fall for it, but now you must admit that it's a matter of your passivity versus their volunteer efforts. I hereby claim that "self-appointed" is not a term of disparagement, but an accolade.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
We're never going to present a unified front, and I don't think that we should because doing so would necessarily entail promoting homogeneity at the expense of diversity. That would deal a more painful blow to the movement than the rant & resignation of any individual.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
The religious battles that we see are an integral part of the movement. If they were to disappear, it would be a symptom of collective disease: loss of passion, apathy, failure in the peer-review process (which, by the way, doesn't just apply to code but to the guiding memes as well). These battles happen in any human endeavor. The only difference is that they usually happen behind closed doors, buffered by a well-funded PR/Margeting machine.
Our battles happen in the open, but that's where they should happen. We don't need to kill the battles between ideologies. All we need to do is make sure that we're civil when we have them. That's a tall order; we just have to learn to value civility & work to achieve it.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
I've seen a few people say 'screw ideologies, let's get market share.' Well, screw that. I've seen a few people say, 'screw ideologies, show me the code.' Well, that's what I'm trying to push :)
My perspective is that Linux is all about ideology, and a very pragmatic, immediate ideology. The same ideology that a lot of free software authors have, although not the same one that RMS seems to support. This ideology is more about getting things done -- and getting them done well -- than anything else. Unfortunately, in a proprietary environment, you generally can't. So proprietary software has a place -- of getting things done well -- but not a place that is completely trusted.
Then there's ESR, who I have some issues with. He seems to have picked a tertiary 'measure of success' and turned it into a goal, a goal that supercedes accomplishing what it's supposed to measure (obviously, commercial support of open source). IMO, this is like re-writing a test so you know the answers; if free software works, then it will work whether we have people trying to make it work, or just people doing it.
Then there's RMS, who seems to have another plan -- the freedom of all software. While this is nice, I think it is again only part of the general Linux community -- free software is a byproduct of hacking, and necessary for hacking, but not hacking itself.
I think that these are both necessary focuses, but people will naturally fall into one camp or another (polarization happens), when really, we need to keep the reason for wanting free software -- hacking other people's code -- as well as the community from which we want free software -- fellow hackers.
I consider Linus' bent on making Linux an easily usable desktop OS as a great 'proof of concept' approach, but let's not turn proving the viability of free software into proving the lameability of free software.
--Matthew
RMS/ESR/INSERT-THREE-INITIALS-HERE clones ready to spout scripture and summon righteous fire to scourge the earth of the unbelievers who don't actually give a shit for the politics.
Ah, so ESR and RMS agree about where free software (wait, no, open source software, wait...) should go?
I don't think so -- there's a schism, and I don't know that RMS or ESR actually represent 'old-school' hackers.
--Matthew
Was my post selected at random for your trolling, or did you carefully read each and every one to decide what was worthy of your spite?
--Matthew
Never mind that Linus himself was the first to whine -- one of the reasons Linus wrote Linux (if you believe the USENET logs) is that he had issues with the Minix license.
--Matthew
So the 'followers' of ESR and RMS agree wrt what? Pragmatism? Or Idealism? Or are you trying to say that ESR's followers are on the same side as ESR, and RMS's on RMS's?
I don't quite follow you any more.
--Matthew
Yes, that was the thread in which he also bitches about Minix' license. He didn't say 'It's not GNU,' and neither did Perens. He said 'it sucks ass, I can't deal with this patch file crap [among other things, it *has* been a while]' and wrote his own system. Perens essentially pointed out that it's not very free, and is at least supporting an alternative.
I think my biggest problem with the QPL (and several other licenses) that doesn't get enough air time is the whole patch file business. It completely destroys the potential for code reuse (as does incompatible licenses, of course).
Which is why, more than a plethora of OK 'open source licenses,' we need to one or two GOOD 'free licenses' that allow as much code reuse and distribution as possible. I think that the X and GNU licenses fit here quite nicely.
--Matthew
So far as I see it, yes the community is about
freedom. Freedom to choose, and to make decisions
about what is best for a particular situation, rather than what we are allowed do do by the license.
Part of the problem stems from the GPL being TOO
strong -- rather than having the 'You can't...'
problems of proprietary software, you've got to
the other extreme -- 'You can't...' all over again.
(M$ software typically says that you can't run
in on a non-M$ platform -- and GNU does little
different -- you can't link to a non-GNU library
unless GNU takes precidence in all licencing issues.)
While GPL is one of the thing that is designed
to ensure Freedom, it is also one of the greatest
threats to it -- you can have Freedom, so long
as its 'this type' of freedom.
(Consider the parallel with -- 'you can run any
legally purchased program, provided your OS is
windows' -- the attitude that M$ wants to promote
with windows (One this, one that, one the other))
Think about it, think some more, and when
you're done stop and think. None of the freedom
comes from blindly following ANY single book of
rules -- you HAVE to think about what you're doing, what it represents, and what are the
consequences. You HAVE to listen to others (yes,
even RMS,ESR etc.) and consider other opinions.
If you don't, then the only thing that you can
really be sure of is that you are inevitably
going to end up being wrong.
John_Chalisque
Why can't we have some sexy blonde leading us blazingly through fads and fashion statments rather than Bruce?^ ~
^~~^~^^~~^~^~^~^^~^^~^~^~~^^^~^^~~^~~~^~~
ABORTED effort:
Close all that you have.
I agree. ESR looks very immature. That comment really changed my opinion on him.
Bruce Perens just put into words (as he so often does) things that I have been thinking for a long time. Right at the start of this "Open Source" disaster, rms stressed that he thought we should be talking MORE about freedom and not less - I'm glad someone else with some public visibility has stepped forward and said the same thing.
esr started this whole mess when *he* decided that he was going to rename our entire community. And his contribution to our community at this point? Well, he wrote part of fetchmail... (plus the New Hacker's Dictionary - if you count that). Almost everything he's said and done since that point has been to draw attention to himself and to inflate his ego further.
Sure, rms is someone with extreme views that can be hard for many people to accept. But in terms of his contribution to our community he's done a helluva lot more than esr. (started the GNU project, wrote most of gcc,gdb etc., devised the GPL, formed the FSF and on and on). I'm glad someone like Bruce Perens has now stepped forward to help move our focus back to where it should be - on freedom and not on pandering to the whims of companies and businesses.
Congratulations again Bruce!
We have our rms and our esr - we need to know Bruce Peren's middle name now so we can have our bXp...
While RMS, ESR, and Bruce are sitting around bickering about the definitions of terms, and whether or not all software should be free (Has anyone actually read the GNU Manifesto? There are really two options, either RMS is right and there's nothing we can do about it, eventually copyrights will go away; or RMS is wrong and there's nothing we can do about it, copyrights are here to stay), Linus, Alan Cox, and countless other developers are doing productive work to give us better software. Who's making the bigger contribution to Open Source/Free Software?
I'm somewhat amazed that more of these soap operas don't happen.
With different personalities working within a hierarchy you'd think loud disagreements would happen more often.
Much as RMS would like you believe otherwise, we've had free software a lot longer than we've had any "Foundation" for it. It would exist anyway, and would be just as strong, if not stronger, without the FSF and all the "everything must be GPL" crap.
--
Matt. Want XML + Apache + Stylesheets? Get AxKit.
Hippie? So you mean if one has principals and ideals as guidelines one is a hippie?!
/mill
I am a consumer too. I won't buy software that isn't Free though.
You need to understand the difference between Free and gratis.
/mill
In addition to being of enormous help to other people's projects, both of these people could write lists of their own achievements a mile long.
Whilst I don't approve of political in-fighting, I -do- think that Bruce Perens and RMS have the right idea about freedom. It's that kind of freedom that produced much of the GNU software, and it's when such freedom gets neglected that projects lag or fade away.
So what if you think that the FSF's beliefs are "extreme", "utopian" or list plain "nuts"? If you aim for the moon and miss, you'll still end up amongst the stars. If you aim for the ground, you won't miss.
Do you know what the most ironic thing of all is? That the critics of "Free Software" are so determined to slam it, yet don't allow a single word to be spoken that's contrary to their own beliefs. "Open Source" ISN'T contrary to "Free Software". It's the PEOPLE who are, which is sad because that defeats everything those same people are trying to achieve.
Why not leave the religious fanatisism to the likes of the people on the MSNBC tech board, where even the merest mention of "Open Source" or "Free Software" brings down hate, venom, McCarthy-style "Commie Witch-hunting" and various other sundry forms of verbal abuse? It IS allowed for people to behave better than a pack of rabid dogs. You don't need any special permission. Really, you don't.
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)
Actually, GNU is used by NASA, the European Space Agency, CERN and nuclear research labs around the world. These don't sound that small to me.
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)
Did you know that it's a b* nightmare to write Fortran to C++ wrappers (or vice versa), using G77 and G++, because of symbol table problems? No? Well, now you do. That's the sort of problem that NASA, ESA, CERN, etc, can track and identify, because they need and use that kind of obscure functionality. But that's just the point. They DO use obscure functionality, and so find the obscure bugs that other people are unlikely to have tested for. IMHO, that is invaluable work.
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)
A lot of comments here seem to suggest that we should simply ignore any political or ideological beliefs we hold..just "shut up and code". There are so many things wrong with this viewpoint that I don't know where to begin..but my point here is this: show me an apolitical action. Go ahead, pull an apolitical action out of a hat and dangle it in the air. You can't. A deliberatly apolitical action is simply a statement of another political position. So quit pretending that you're high-and-mighty and above the squabbling--the real reason most people here are complaining about the so-called 'fanatics' is because not because those 'fanatics' mix politics and code but because the complainers do not agree with those politics. Trying to shut up the opposing side is simply facist and, ironically, against the ideals that the Libertarians (who seem to be the largest proponents of 'shut up and code') claim to support.
Not everyone will agree with your particular position. Get over it. Don't act like they're a 'looney tune' or 'stupid' or 'egotistical' (and those are some of the milder epithets I've heard applied here). Deal with the ideas--random flammage might give you a sense of accomplishment but it really does make it look like you've run out of clues and are just flailing.
So: Keep talking--and code.
Daniel
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
I do admit they (BP, ESR, RMS, et al) have done some great things for the software community. I wouldn't go as far as some of you saying they have done more harm than good though. I think each one has probably done more good than harm.
But, personally, I believe in KISS more than I believe in OSR, OSS, OSI, ABC, XYZ, PDQ, on and on, and on... I quote slackware.com and Patrick Volkerding here with "KISS Principle, that is Keep It Simple, Stupid!"
IMHO, all these "orginizations" to try to promote one licence over another, and one principle over another are just BS. There are plenty of options out there, GNU/GPL and BSD should be the primary two considered by anyone IMHO. Either pick one of those to, and make it simple for people to know you are following a "well know licence" or write your own (ala Netscape, Java, etc.) and be know as a "more restrictive licence."
Making it more complicated than it needs to be is wasting the time of valuable minds like BP, ESR, RMS, etc... and the community might be better served by less promotion and more coding. Let the products speak for themselfs.
Trying to tweak all the "open-ness" of Licences is just going to dillute the whole issue, and people are getting sick of it. The end result is people will just care even less, and not even read the licences themselfs anymore. So, KISS and make up, all of you!
I can certainly agree with the observation that RMS is either right or wrong, but what makes you think that there is nothing we can do about it?
I hope you're not claiming that RMS hasn't produced useful software! I've found GNU tools (and especially Emacs) to be far more generally useful to me than Linux the kernel.
Right on the money!
Let's see...RMS writes huge chunks of Emacs, gcc, etc. ESR sells a book on Emacs. Hmmm. Who's doing the hard work and who's grabbing for credit here?
RMS may have some strongly held opinions, but his heart's in the right place and his "radical ideas" are the bulwarks of democracy and modern science.
ESR, on the other hand, proudly proclaims that he is a Libertarian.
Libertarians are right-wing fanatics because they advocate repeating the failed, brutal experiment called laissez-faire capitalism.
Slavery, child prostitution and psychotics with unlimited firepower, anybody? They're all on the Libertarian platform.
What part of "A well regulated militia" do you not understand?
> Linux is playing with the big boys now
thats the problem really. if we play with the big boys by the big boys rules, we'll lose. linux, GNU and everything else has gotten as far as it has by not following the rules.
esr seems to have lost sight of this, as have many other people lately, and sold out to the idea that market share and market domination are what's important, while people who actually care about free software really could care less.
drew
If I don't put anything here, will anyone recognize me anymore?
I proposed that we appoint three new members to the board. Bruce quit while that motion was on the table. So now one of the new members replaces Bruce, and the board gets bigger by two.
-russ
I'm Bruce Perens. You may know me as the primary author of the Debian Free Software Guidelines and the Open Source Definition. I wrote the Electric Fence malloc() debugger, and some pieces of Debian. And you may remember me for having brought the TIGER map database to free software.
I'm Troy McClure. You may remember me from films such as:
"Driving Mr. T",
"Android Beach Party",
"The President's Neck is Missing!",
"Dial M for Murderousness", and
"A Fish Taco Called Juanita" (with Cheech Marin!)
For the Simpsons deprived, Troy McClure was a recurring character played by Phil Hartman on the Simpsons.
I think I'd have an easier time liking this guy if he didn't constantly sumarize his achievements for us, and tell us how great he is. As it is, who really cares what Bruce is quitting this week?
Shawn Asmussen
Not all parasites are detrimental to their hosts...
Tet
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
Why bash Digital Creations? They've modified their license, changing the attribution from a requirement to a request that can be ignored if you like. DC staff, most notably Jim Fulton, have contributed various things to the Python distribution, which is free software. While the whole attribution thing was ill-advised, and I still think it shouldn't be in the license (why not just leave it in a README?), claims that they're "starting to twist free software" are utterly bogus.
(Yes, I agree with RMS that free manuals would be better, but not many people work on writing them.)
Time heals all^H^H^H some wounds.
(shrug) I couldn't care less. The important thing is that people continue to produce OSS and free software and Linux continues to improve. These organizations seem to be about 95% talk, 4% wearing cool penguin shirts, and 1% action. It's the programmers and product producers in the trenches that are doing the real work of OSS. Realeasing press releases and throwing public tantrams (and calling a book publisher a parasite) doesn't do anyone much good.
-Eric
(who is planning on writing a GPL game for Linux)
SPI == Software in the Public Interest;
OSI == Open Source Initiative.
The title has it correct: it's his resignation from OSI.
As I see it, FSF is an organization devoted to the GNU project (HURD + GNU utilities), whereas SPI and OSI are both broader based, devoted more to free software in general (some more than others).
I'm not clear on the splitup which formed OSI (although note that the www.opensource.org web page [I thought that was OSI's?] is listed as a part of SPI on SPI's homepage), but I wonder if the initial objections against SPI have been more or less resolved. It seems to me that OSI could in fact resolve its conflict with SPI by becoming part of SPI. OSI can focus on the "open source" definition and trademark, which may move into some gray areas of free software (for instance the different "open source" licenses which may or may not be considered "free software" licenses).
Rather than provide a rubber stamp for "open source", OSI should provide a resource for users to learn about the many different licenses, and their relative freedoms. Rather than have a single "open source" mark, there should be different levels of evaluation. For instance, proprietary "open source" (such as the MPL or upcoming QPL) versus non-proprietary "open source" (such as the Artistic, BSD or GPL licenses). OSI should review new licenses which wish to be considered "open source" and place them in such a category based on the terms of the license.
ESR talked about the egos of the programmers being the driving force behind the free software movement. Apparently, this is not just technical ego but political ego as well. For all the curses heaped upon Richard Stallman, he has stayed away from these battles of the bulge, content, it seems, to play the role of free software advocate (whether you agree with him or not). Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond at times seem to want to be the king of the hill, seeking glory as being the driving force behind the open source and free software movements rather than simply being a part of the movements. That's not to say they are bad people, both have done alot for the movement and both have good insight and have alot to add yet. But unfortunately, their egos seem to get in the way too often and cause these types of conflicts.
I'm curious as to Richard Stallman's take on the SPI vs. OSI conflict. I don't always agree with his opinions, but he does represent a third party, with much respect in the open source community, and is seemingly uninvolved in this battle. Has he made any past comments on SPI and/or OSI?
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
ESR is scheduled to appear on the Peter Weissbach show this afternoon, sometime between 3pm and 6pm Pacific time (sorry, I haven't heard a more exact time).
Weissbach is carried on KVI 570AM in Seattle, which is also available over the net at www.kvi.com (but you have to be using Microsloth Media Player to hear it).
Brian
But what irritates me is the demonizing of those who have tried to bring free-market capitalism to the Open Source industry, including Tim O'Reilly whom Perens labels a "parasite". "Proprietary" manuals or not, I and many others have found O'Reilly's publications helpful and feel that he has made as decent a contribution to bringing awareness to Open Source software as much as anyone else. And if he has made a profit off of doing that, then I say, so much the better!
I think the Open Source industry (including free and non-free software) best serves the industry as a piece of the puzzle, not as an end in itself. Both proprietary and Open Source software should be able to co-exist together to bring more freedom of choice and standards to customers while at the same time making the industry as a whole financially viable and profitable.
Certainly let us honor those who have volunteered in this movement and encourage more to volunteer as well. But let us also honor those who have been able to gain more awareness for Open Source software (again, free and non-free) by turning it into a profitable industry.
And as for "World Domination", GEEZ, people! Don't you know that Linus was only joking when he wrote that? :-) I'd rather work towards more freedom of choice, then "World Domination". I sure Linus agrees.
Also, Troll has fixed their QPL 0.92 license so that I have no complaint with it.
However, I believe that you are complaining that these licenses are not the GPL. I think it's best for me to encourage people to use GPL/LGPL in a positive way, rather than deprecate licenses that are free software: they meet every reqirement of the DFSG/OSD even though they are not the GPL.
I've not figured out yet how to discuss the OS trademark abuse without sounding "catty". I know from previous experience on slashdot that people hate me when I sound catty. Maybe it's best if I let OSI take care of their own public image from now on, without either adding to it or subtracting from it.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I think they've really found the right balance.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I don't think anybody's questioning the value of free software of FSF. I'm certain nobody would question the value of GNU software. But that's not really the issue here. The issue is ideology. I think it's perfectly reasonable to complain about the fanatacism of folks like Stallman and Perens. They have both made tremendous software contributions to Linux, and to the computer industry in general. For this I respect them. However, their intolerance of anything but Free Software(tm) does the industry nothing but harm. Look, for example, at the reaction on /. when nVidia pulled their Riva driver from Xfree and gave them one with obfuscated code. Sure, that kinda sucks, but look at the big picture here. Everyone screamed and cursed nVidia and threatened never to buy one of their products. WTF?!?!? We should be thanking nVidia for giving us drivers at all. All-in-all they've been very responsive to the Linux community. Thanks to the rhetoric of those like Stallman and Perens, our response was largely negative. I'll probably get flamed just for saying this, but nVidia had a perfectly valid justification for sticking with the Windows market. We have no divine right to have them write drivers for us. We have no divine right to their intelectual property. Out of the kindness of their hearts (and maybe some belief that it would improve business a bit) they did provide drivers, and they're still working on a way to access the 3d features of their chipsets. And yet, when they try to slow things down just a little, the Stallmanites scream and curse them like some sort of religious fanatic calling down the Wrath of God. Folks, I think somewhere all the noble ideals got lost and we were just left with the anger and self-righteousness. That is a tragedy.
-Perrin.
Now I want you to go in that bag and find my lightsaber. It's the one that says bad mother-fscker on it.
Disclaimer: The mention of nVidia in my previous post was mostly by way of example, not so much to pick on a specific issue. Since the response was directly pertaining to the nVidia issue, this reply also will be.
/. so great. And you certainly have every right to flame nVidia for their caution. You also have every right to be an asshole if you want to. Where you're wrong is in your statement that this is beneficial to the linux community. You point out that lots of companies have released specs. There're also lots of companies who completely ignore the linux scene. nVidia made a move toward support for the linux community, and people flamed them for it. Sorry, but if you expect every company to jump in feet first, then you're out of your mind. If you bitch and whine at nVidia after they make a move toward linux support, that sends entirely the wrong message. The management at nVidia says, "Look...we tried to support the linux community, and they cursed us and said they'd never buy our products again." Now, you're telling me this is helpful???? I think I definately missed something.
I have no problem with people expressing their thoughts on slashdot. What do you think I'm doing now. That's what makes
As for your bit about writing drivers being their job...bullshit. Sure, it is their job to write some drivers. But, then, they do. They have drivers for Windows 9x and for Windows NT. These are their target market. They have NO obligation to support any other OS. Sure, we think it might be in their best interests to support linux and BeOS and any other OS that comes along, but they make the economic decisions. They are free to make them as they choose. I have 2 Riva TNT based video cards. I'd like drivers for every possible OS (and I use Win98, WinNT, Linux, and BeOS). I'd say that nVidia has made remarkable progress toward support for alternate OS's. And they're doing more. It looks like they will be among the first vendors of integrated (2D/3D) video cards to provide a method for alternate OS's to accelerate 3D.
-Perrin.
Now I want you to go in that bag and find my lightsaber. It's the one that says bad mother-fscker on it.
I agree with you that it is admirable to stand up for what you believe. There is, however, a limit. Lets take, for example, something completely unrelated to computers:
The IRA fights for Irish freedom. They stand up for what they believe. In my oppinion their cause is noble. BUT, I am absolutely opposed to the IRA. Using their methods they will never achieve independence for Northern Ireland. They actually drive people away from their cause because most people with a decent set of morals find their methods to be absolutely wrong.
Now, I'm not saying that RMS or any of the free software fanatics are as bad as the IRA. The point is that they actually drive people away from their movement and others affiliated with it by being too fanatical. I support free software. I think it's a great development model. But I don't think it's the only model. I think there are other perfectly valid models. My objection is to fanatacism so great that it actually drives people away from your cause.
-Perrin.
Now I want you to go in that bag and find my lightsaber. It's the one that says bad mother-fscker on it.
I'm actually one of the lazy idiots that pays $50 for each new release of Red Hat. In fact, I pay $100 since I buy both Intel and Alpha versions. But my real motivation isn't that I'm lazy; I often download the release when it first becomes available for FTP, and then buy the official box later. Why? Because I want to support Red Hat; I think that they are doing great stuff, and that they deserve the money. The fact that they give away their code and documentation under the GPL makes me more inclined to buy their product, not less.
I may be an idiot, but the people getting the Red Hat distribution for $2 or for free should thank me.
After seeing "pootpoot", I checked to see if it would pootify *any* page of slashdot. Apparently, it will. Go to the pootpoot page & you can find this article (look for ESR or OSI -- they seem to survive pootification).
:)
Example:
poot Poot I SAY!!!!
by Pootpoot Poot on Pootpoot Pootpoot 18, @09:37AM
Poot Poot is poot, RMS is poot, ESR is the poot poot of all, but poot poot poot!!!!!
poot poot out the poot!!!!!!!!
Really, it's much better.
b.c.
Can I get a witness from the congregation?
Thank God that some one besides the Free Software Foundation is picking up the torch to explain the (IMHO) major differences between OSI and Free Software.
I, too, thought that the OSI was a "good thing". That is until folks like Digital Creations are starting to twist free software in to purely a profit making endeavor. They happen to be the first blatant example, but not the last, I am afraid. (See my letter to the editor for Feb 11, 1999 issue of Linux Weekly News for further explaination.
I share in Bruce Parens belief that
"You're gonna need a bigger boat." - Chief Brody
The opensource initive looked at the beginning to
be a great way to introduce the concepts that had made Linux into what it is to the world. But in the end it just ended up giving companies which made their own bogus "open-source" licenses an excuse. I respect Bruce for not beeing willing to endorce all these fake licenses, like the so called open source licenses of Jini or Qt.
Mr. Raymond on the other hand seems to be happy as long as he gets to read his name in the paper every day.
What makes RMS, Bruce, and ER seem so whiny? Is it just me or does this kind of crap come up with them every 2 months or so?
-- A hacker is a machine for turning caffeine into code. G: GU d-(--) s:- a--- C++++(++)$ UL++(+++) P+(++) L++(+++)
...a little like ESR was grumbling "fuck you, bruce" while writing it? Paticuarly that part where they're shortly going to replace him with two people.
If 90% of everything isn't crap, your standards are too high.
I remember what happened the last time this issue came up. O'Reilly released a press release pointing out that the license on any book is the license that the author wants. O'Reilly has before produced a book on Linux with a GPLed license. It didn't work too well from a business standpoint, but they did it anyways.
Personally I suspect that the ghostscript license would make a lot of sense for a book. Make it proprietary for a fixed period of time, and then open source it.
But that is not Tim's call, it is up to the authors to ask for that license.
Cheers,
Ben
My usual seat in the cluetrain is at A HREF="http://pub4.ezboard.com/biwethey.ht
Why did you even bother to mention certification abuse if you were not willing to back up your statements? Such vague statements may well be FUD for all we know. Besides, weren't you on the board which decided who would be awarded Open Source certification and who not?
Thanks,
Navin.
This sounds more to me like a pissing contest over who gets to be famous for "founding the term". RMS had the idea first - but nobody likes him because he's a moral extremist. ESR is an affiable person, but he's seeming less and less about "hacking" and more and more about "corporitizing" hacking.
Fine. Let them have the media spotlight. Just gimme my gcc and the linux kernel, and I'll be happified.
--
I'm very saddened to read this latest message from Bruce. He's done a lot to help the free/open software movement. But recently, he's done a lot to hurt it as well. At some point the community has to stop debating fine matters of principle and present a united front.
Linux is playing with the big boys now - the announcements of SGI and IBM this week are just the latest in the Linux snowball. In order not to get crushed, we need community leadership that is effective, consistent, and professional.
Sadly, I think Bruce's continued outbursts have really damaged his credibility, and by extension the credibility of the entire free/open software movement. If there are still serious disagreements of principle, then fine, state them and go your separate ways if necessary. But please spare us yet another political drama - it only damages us all.
Respectfully,
Nelson
Here's a new OSS mantra : "Shut up and code!".
Now, anytime some stupid-ass license/ideolgy/whogivesafuck flamewar comes up, you should be able to end it with a hearty "Shut the f$%^ up and get back to work!".
Seriously, though. Since when does developing software need to involve politics? Do you think normal people really give a rats ass? I'd wager no.
I'm done ranting....
-prok
>I'm not really up to speed about what why everyone here is so against RMS, ESR, and all the Free Software guys... I
>mean I thought as a group many of us are all for their ideals!
>
>This isnt meant to start a flame, I'd just like the current reason for all the hostility. I think im out of the loop.
I'm probably out of the loop on this also, but if I understand the issues, the disagreement comes down to how should software with GPL (or similarly worded) liscencing work. Some writers here see this as an issue with incorporating GPL'd software into proprietary software -- e.g., if Sun or Microsoft were to port Emacs to their own OS's, & only distributed the binary. Some -- such as RMS -- hold that all software on a GPL'd OS (such as Linux or BSD Unix) should not be proprietary, but follow the GPL also; in other words, if Oracle ports their database to Linux, they must include the source code with every copy of their product.
ESR -- if I understand correctly -- is a little more pragmatic on this issue, & allows for proprietary software to be ported to GPL'd OS's. Even if this is not ESR's opinion, this view makes sense to me as a short-term strategy: we need to introduce the idea of open source, free software -- whatever the fsck you want to call the concept -- to the suits so that they begin to understand that including the source to software is not the end of the world -- or their bottom lines.
This is a risk to both the hackers on one side, & the suits on the other. But I think we have a lot more to lose if the risk isn't taken.
Geoff
I think I see a trend here. Maybe for them it really would be easier to muzzle the entire internet than to produce p
RMS called John Ousterhout, the creator of TCL, a parasite, not Tim O'Reilly.
I think this relates to the closed source/non-free tools that his new company has developed to cash in/build upon (your choice) the open source TCL base language.
I see lots of proprietary extensions to free software, and I don't think that's bad. In a way, any application which runs on Linux is an proprietary addition to a Free base system. If RMS wants the TCL debugger to be free, let him write one, or any of the FSF believers. No one is stopping them.
I think corporations generating a mix of Free and proprietary software is the way of the future. I just think certain projects are going to continue to be more feasible and achievable in a proprietary manner, at least within this capitalist society. Call me a pragmatist.
-josh
Bruce, if you're out there ( and I know you are ), could you please elaborate for the community what you meant in the following line:
"The Open Source certification mark has already been abused in ways I find unconscionable".
If the group is abusing the mark to such a degree that it became your impetus for leaving, I think there are quite a few people out there who would like to know some specifics.
BTW, hats off to you and RMS for having a ideological intrest in Free Software. We are a community that is on an exodus from propreitary software to freedom. Without sentinels such as RMS, the Debian group, and people like yourself keeping the night watch, the wolves in sheep's clothing would have devoured that freedom long ago. ( I won't name any names, but we know who they are)
Damn straight.
If you carefully look at ORA's take on Free Software, you'll see that it is more out of self-preservation than anything else. All their promotions for free software can be viewed as being redirected through a UNIX pipe-right to their wallets ( after a few filters, of course ). There's nothing wrong with that, except for that one of the filters has a conspicuous regex:
s/free/proprietary/
Is there an easy solution to ORA? They distribute proprietary books on free software. So what we need is free books for free software. Programmers put in a large amount of time into writing software, but hate documentation work. I'm much more literary in nature than a coder, and there are others akin to me out there. What I wish is that there was a publisher that would accept books from the community and publish those works. The books would be under a 'free content' agreement where the source of the books is freely available to all. Practices that have yielded such success in the free software community should prove to have analogues to this 'free content', such as peer review.
I think the LDP is in the best position to make this sort of agreement with a publisher.
The only reason you love ORA books is because they are all you are used to. We ( I am not innocent of using their documentation either) duped by the fact that we accept proprietary documentation.
I know that there was a time when I accepted proprietary software. And thought it was good. But then I used free software and experienced the relinquishing of power once held far from me.
What we need is to shift our minds from the delusion that there can't be anything better than proprietary documentation.
> If all software was free, there wouldn't be
> much software.
Do you understand what Free Software is all about? If you do, and can make a statement like that, then you are the one disconnected, my friend.
Well, RMS gave us Emacs and GCC. I think that's a pretty big contribution to be going on with. :>
Oh, slashdotters are experts on hating everybody, don't let that stop you from giving us some details of how OSI trademarks are being abused...
Of course, if all the information is out in the open, and we just haven't put the clues together in the way you have, that would also be valuable information as well.
I'd hate to be in support of the OSI just because I don't know any better.
I lost a huge amount of respect for ESR when he showed up dressed as Obi-Wan Kenobi for Windows refund day.
This "tattletale" attitude about Bruce only reinforces the prevailing view of Eric Raymond as childish.
And what's with all the politics lately? I fell in love with Linux because it did it's job and stayed out of my way. When it didn't, I could fix it. I guess it's like anything else, success and publicity bring power, and there are those who lust after power as much as others lust after money.
The problem here is that all the sane, decent people (like Linus and Alan Cox) don't care about the power, leaving a void to be filled by folks like ESR.
The whole Idea of Open Source versus freedom is very important, and I think perens makes a very good point. Open source means you get to look at the source. WHOOP DE DOO! I can take my VCR apart also, but that doesnt mean Panasonic is Open Sourceing it. The great thing that GNU-ish open source allows us to do is not only look at the code, but make modifications and distribute it freely. That is one of the greatest boons of the FSF/GNU/OSS movement. Just selling the source does not count. Freedom of distribution has to go along with it.
People say that because now Linux is playing with the 'big boys', the whole game is different. I say it's not. It's still the same, and it's even more imperative that the Linux community stick to the roots that initially nourished it. I first started using Linux when I was 13, and I started using it because it was Free (as in $$$). It was a choice between a pirated version of Dos6.0/Win3.1 and Linux.
The 'big boys' are not someone you want to compromise you purient goals to. The only 3 things that companies care about is $, money, and greenbacks. Why does linux need to play with the big boys to succeed? has it needed to ever play with the 'big boys'? Was Linux created because Linus identified and acted on a need for the geek community to be linked to the yuppie (business) community? NO! The Free Software movement has not grown one inch because of so called business interests. It has grown because of the socialist-like culture of the geek community - contributing to the whole without expecting a selfish reward - a concept that his completely alien to the current System in the world. Look at it, you've got the american government handing out patents for everything under the sun. If you fart in a unique position, you can fucking go and patent it.
To conclude, Free Software means freedom in all respects, $$$ and source and distribution. Secondly, big business will eventually corrupt linux, and the whole OSS/Free software concept in general - and I believe that if this happens, linux to will become a shallow product not really worth anything, focusing more on bells and whisles to keep the sheep of the world at attention, than on good code.
-Laxative
Like a bird on the wire
Like a drunk in a midnight choir
- L. Cohen
This might explain why ESR is so slow in getting a logo selected for OSI after canceling the logo contest some months ago.
My impression is priorities need to be re-examined. I think FSF and SPI seem the most consistent and speak for the most people.
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
"We could be happy if the air was as pure as the beer"
~afniv
"Man könnte froh sein, wenn die Luft so rein wäre wie das Bier"
Richard von Weizs
Well, actually, it (Linux) started as a hobby. One day Linus popped into comp.os.minux and said "Hey, I've this OS I've been tinkering with and ... ". And as they say, the rest is history.
Of course, even in the early days of Linux(around version .08 or so), Linux was an elitist-snobbish group, so that hasn't really changed in the past 7 or 8 years. But this Linux is freedom bs that people have been spouting was never the intent. A sad after thought perhaps, to take a cool piece of software and turn it into a political adjenda.
Such a waste of time and energy.
Some of you, rightfully so, have recognized that there are certain spokespeople for the movement. But there is no galvanizing figure. Sure, Linus is the head of state for Linux, and Stallman runs his group, while ESR provides rhetoric for his followers. But there is no galvanizing figure. bill is the galvanizing figure for m$, we all know that, we call him by name. steve is the galvanizing figure for mac, another first name. larry, the other steve, are two other names we all know, because they take it upon themselves to be known.
Who galvanizes this group? Linus doesn't want the job, and instead we have petty bickering between stalwart proponents of more or less the same ideal. Linus doesn't want the job because he has successfully figured out how to live a fulfilling life. It is important to remember that it is this community that has become over-zealous (not particularly all of us zealots) in sealing m$' doom. Face it, we're not going to nail the coffin shut. Microsoft couldn't do it to IBM, we're not going to do it to m$. But we can revolutionize the expectations of computers.
ITs expect their systems to run, and they choose the systems that will ensure that. The focus should be on the consumer, because that's what we all would like to see, right? "Linux on every desktop," sounds like the old campaign promise, "A chicken in every pot." The motivation is right, change the expectations of all users.
The fact of the matter is that I didn't choose to go to Linux because of Linus, Eric, Richard, or Bruce. These names were insignificant until only a few months ago. I chose it because I had higher expectations. The beliefs of any of those last three in the list are more on the side of the developer's own work, and not in galvanizing the ideal for using "free" software. It is always important to remember the reason why you're here, that way you don't get lost.
Why are we here? Because some Finn took an operating systems class and wanted to improve the functionality of Minix. The Andrews would not let him change it (because they had a reason for the way it was), so instead he worked on a new system based on it. The reason why we're here is because we are the people who hate to see bad code, so we give advice on how to fix it. Follow the advice of Linus and use it because you need a *nix to run on your pc, and forget the rhetoric of fighting the war. I've always found that if I concentrate on what I should be focused on, the war wins itself. Win the battle first.
Finally, I need to explain why I have used "galvanizing" so much in this reply. The process of galvanization makes your metal much stronger, it makes your sword less likely to break during the battle. With one figurehead, there is but one true ideal. Everyone is entitled to their own innovative translation of that ideal, but in the end, only the figurehead provides the true embodiment. Whether the ideal is right is best left undetermined. You can't win an argument with a zealot of either side. Stop fighting those battles, and get back to reality.
I've said my fair share here, but it is something that should be realized. In the words of my favorite professor this semester (Yes, he is a cs prof.), "This isn't about software. We're in the entertainment business, y'all. It is all about the marketing." Get back to reality and maarket the hell out of this thing.
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
People who want to by software can buy GPLed software as well as proprietary programs. There are more Linux users who have never read the kernel source than ones who have, I am convinced. And the kernel is the first place for curious hacker-wannabes to go.
Free software has users, as well as hackers.
Here's a poll idea for Rob.
The first Unix-ish source code I read was:
- an example PPP script
- my window manager config
- the Linux kernel
- BSD / AT&T code
- Huh?
- I haven't, what's it like?
Are you aware that a lot of people are initially quite intimidated by exactly the kinds of topics that are documented in O'Reilly books? Do you know anybody who learned Unix without buying or reading any O'Reilly books?
You may not have noticed that if the open source world is missing something, what it's missing is good documentation. Good documentation doesn't only help you, the experienced Unix user, it also lowers the barrier that your friends face in becoming Unix users. An argument against good documentation is an argument in favor of an exclusive elitist Unix priesthood, and I don't think you really meant that you want that.
Are you saying he's a parasite because he engages in profitable commerce? That's a pretty childish position. Some people are best motivated by profit. One can argue whether this is a character flaw, but at least it motivates them to do something. Some are close enough to retirement age that they can't afford to pour all their time into non-paying pursuits, even if they want to.
Tim O'Reilly has also been a prominent advocate of open source software. He has a much higher profile than you or I. He gets noticed, we don't. When looking at the effects of public opinion (and yes, we really do want public opinion to favor open source), his actions make a lot bigger dent than your and my cranial churnings.
WWJD for a Klondike Bar?
I'm not really up to speed about what why everyone here is so against RMS, ESR, and all the Free Software guys... I mean I thought as a group many of us are all for their ideals!
This isnt meant to start a flame, I'd just like the current reason for all the hostility. I think im out of the loop.
Ok, I listen to people like you and RMS, and yeah, you sound like extremist ideologues. But every once and a while y'all say something and I sit up and take notice - without extremists, we'll all be subliminated by the grey men. ESR in my view is slacking on the ideology. His public "let a hundred flowers bloom"/"think of it as evolution in action" sangfroid appeals to my fad-jaded perspective on computing, but I see no originality - he's observing, not creating.
I will always appreciate people who are willing to step up with a well-reasoned and critical dissent, no matter how it rocks the boat. After all, this universe is consensual, not physical, reality - we can be fooled or fool ourselves and not notice we've compromised our ethos. So, if you feel you have to distance yourself, fine. But don't be afraid to criticise.
.../jmo
No, I truely believe that a large percentage of /. posters who frequently make spelling or gramatical errors are kids. It would be interesting to see some statistics on posts that contained gramatical or spelling errors and the time that they were posted, along with location based on IP address if possible...
cjs
The world's most portable OS: http://www.netbsd.org.
Tim O'Reilly basically relies upon the existence of the "free" software community. This is a statement of fact, not of approval or disapproval.
Whether or not you find that concept reprehensible, the definition of the word "parasite" does not change. I think some here would benefit from reading that definition.
RMS has never denied that free software was around before - in fact he has said he started GNU/FSF to keep it going.
As for existing today, probably yes - but it would probably be much further behind than it is now. Where would Linux be if we were still sorting out a compiler and such?
(See, anyone can make a blanket statement. If you can demonstrate that proprietary software is a good thing, I'd like to see how.)
-- Some things are to be believed, though not susceptible to rational proof.
Life goes on. The earth continues to rotate. I wouldn't loose any sleep over this.
Leknor
http://Leknor.com
"So many idiots, so few comets"
There's nothing wrong with selling books. There is something wrong selling books about free software, when the text of those books are not free (in the sense of freedom).
Shakespeare & Mark Twain is on the net for anybody to download and play with. I still have both of them on hardcopy in my library because I *prefer* books.
There's nothing wrong with selling books. There is something wrong selling books about free software, when the text of those books are not free (in the sense of freedom).
Shakespeare & Mark Twain is on the net for anybody to download and play with. I still have both of them on hardcopy, which I purchased,in my library because I *prefer* books.
>But can you really modify these electronic books
>without damaging their value?
Well, no, because it's the original author's skill and method of expression which is valuable. Which is exactly why I think it's possible to publish in hardcopy (and make some money) and in electrons (and have information be free).
Some quick notes:
Unfortunately corrections never quite catch up with the original misinformation. Sigh.
Hey man,
I agree with you 100 percent. I find it typical of the whole flock mentality to have very strong opinions about things that you know very little about. How many of these RMS haters have ever read papers that RMS has written, or have actually read the entire L/GPL? How can you begin to comment on a document that you've only heard about, but have never taken the time to read? It's totally absurd.
I personally think RMS is one of the finest individuals involved in technology today. He does have strong opinions, and he does share them freely. But he does not _force_ his opinions on anyone. That's the beauty of freedom, by definition it cannot be forced. Restrictions, on the other hand by definition are forced.
Let the coders code, let the users use, and let the talkers talk. It's worked pretty well so far.
-earl
AFAIK, it was always envisaged that it is perfectly respectable in the Open/Free/whatever software community to earn money providing software support - Tim has just found a way to provide support to lots of people at the same time. He's managed to get about $500 of "consultancy" fees out of me and I've never even met him :-)
I'm sure the various authors of the books he publishes [normally the people who put the time and effort into writing the software we use daily] don't complain about the parasiticism [big word for this time of night] when their monthly royalty check pops through the letterbox, allowing them to spend more time writing better software for the rest of us.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
If RMS isn't the embodiment of an old school hacker, then I don't know what is. I think RMS has some views that are far more extreme than many hackers, but RMS is definitely one of the remains of an era... he is certainly a lot more of an "old school" hacker than Linus, just by the fact that he's been hacking around for probably at least a decade longer than Linus.
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
I suppose Bob Young (Redhat) is Hitler. I thought this is how OSS/FSF was supposed to work - documentation and support would put food in our mouths. Isn't Tim just supplying much needed documentation. ESR may have written some good articles, but a documentor he is not. Nor are most of the FSF/OSS crowd. I find such comments destructive and counterproductive. If Bruce did say that O'Reilly was a parasite, why did ESR feel the need to publicize it. If you are all looking to these folks for leadership, I can see why "Revenge of the Nerds" was so funny to the mainstream.
Point well taken. And I'm impressed your reading this thread. I obviously don't know the whole story, but I don't find the RedHat 5.2 manual on par with most O'Reilly books. And I agree that the RedHat model is a good one to follow - but it shouldn't be the only "allowable" path for commerical ventures.
The key difference in documentation is the ability for a Jon Katz to pick up the book and learn from it - with as little frustration as possible. As one of the anonymous cowards pointed out, current free (GPL or simply freeware) documentation _generally_ suffers from poor quality. It's the nature of hackers. We love to code, but dislike documenting because it slows us down.
If one novice, however, picks up an O'Reilly book, reads it, and becomes interested in FSF/OSS because of it, to me, it's worth it. Tim O'Reilly and RMS may have a beef with each other (so why was Stallman excluded from the "summit"?), I don't think it should get in the way of FSF/OSS progress. Folks don't like Gates because his product is poor. The same cannot be said about O'Reilly. And they're books. Not programs.
Thanks for responding, though, as it serves to make me think about this.
Stonie
I would love this.
As it is, I'm VERY much tempted to release ANY program I write as a library, with a 'sample program' which is the actual application, but all the functionality is in the library code, and LGPL it all. That way if anyone wants to use the code and change it, they can modify and recompile my library and provide that as source, but not their own applications. Promotes free software, AND is useful in the Real World. Sweet!
That's my basic goal, and I at least would encourage everyone to do that. Make your programs entirely modular, build them as a library, and provide your 'actual' application as a 'sample'.
Besides, it makes for good software engineering!
Cyberfox!
Greetings,
Woof. This is exactly it. I started using Linux because I didn't have the cash to lay out for a Minix book. I knew what the GPL was, and I didn't CARE. What mattered was that I enjoyed getting my hands dirty in something new.
The truth is that the programmers, the people who actually write code, don't care about these licenses. They want to program, not play petty political battles and get their faces on Fortune.
The most powerful revolutions are not made with trademarks, licenses, and whining. They are made through action, and action that is to the point. The best argument for free software is itself. The quality, flexibility, stability, and power of the software.
Stick to your guns, and code your heads off, make it open under whatever license you prefer, let the zealots froth with their ideologies. They always do.
Remember this important clue: If you're a fanatic, you're always wrong, no matter what side you're on.
Cyberfox!
Greetings,
>Right now, he's working to make Emacs into a full-fledged user-friendly word processor.
I doubt that.
RMS has been more than a little bit vocal about not caring a whit about whether free software is user-friendly. It is, in fact, one of my biggest aggravations with him. In fact, I believe that the split between Emacs and XEmacs was partially over that very thing. The XEmacs team seemed to move a lot more towards making it a really usable, user-friendly, GUI-oriented program. This stuck in RMS's craw, and thus the code forked. If the details are different, I'd love it if someone would enlighten me. That seems to have been the way of it, though...
Beyond that, I don't actually know the percentage of his work that went into the currently used GNU Emacs. Certainly he wrote the original, but that's not what you're using now.
As for GCC I have no idea, and given the complexity of quality compiler design and RMS's background, it's only marginally possible.
YOU MUST SEPERATE THE FSF CODE FROM RMS'S OWN CODE. The Free Software Foundation is NOT RMS only.
I'm not putting him down much (except that I think he's close-minded about UI, a techno-elitist, and an extremist, but that's nothing new), but all that stuff is not RMS's. He's a brilliant programmer, no argument, but he hasn't worked alone on any of that. In fact I've never used a single piece of software that RMS solely wrote, or even wrote the majority of alone. Bet you haven't either. (The same, of course, can be said of Bill Gates...)
Linus, on the other hand, is MUCH more laid back and understands that there's (1) more to life than what license you use, and (2) good to be found in developing software that anyone in the world can use. He also comprehends product management while keeping technically on top of everything in a way that I haven't seen ANYONE else match.
If I had to choose between the two for some weird reason, then I would pick Linus, because I believe that extremists are always wrong, no matter how much I agree with them otherwise.
Cyberfox!
Greetings,
BP writes:
> I'm more concerned with what I am doing...
I strongly hope it's something non-political, like coding new and amazing free software.
If so, I wish you all the luck in the world and look eagerly forward to seeing your further contributions.
If it is political once more, you will deserve no less than every scathing remark about you.
Cyberfox!
I agree.
Unfortunately, the INCREDIBLE popularity of Linux and the licensing that went along with it (that being GPL) has made it possible for people to try to carve out more than their 15 minutes of fame. I feel that Bruce Perens falls into that category, along with innumerable others.
This is *NOT* about freedom. This is NOT about the GPL vs. the QPL vs. the NPL, etc. This is about face value. Bruce Perens wants it, everyone *BUT* Linus seems to want it.
Linus kicks back with his wife and kids and seems to realize that there's more to life.
What's better, Bruce Perens *AND* ESR haven't done anything near what Linus has done to promote FREE Software. In essence the EXISTENCE of Linux has made huge numbers of developers realize that Free Software exists and is viable and valuable.
I won't say that of RMS, he's The Man. I wouldn't invite him to speak at anything CLOSE to a commercial event, but he has my respect. (I still wince whenever I read his diatribes, though, and I REFUSE to wrap my lips around that abomination 'GNU/Linux'.)
Bruce Perens reminds me of what I used to call a 'short-timer'. The programmer who wants to be a programmer for a few years, and then get into management because that's where the real power is. See how he pushes what he's 'done' in the past, to try and ingratiate himself with developers? This is a trick every new manager I've ever had has tried, 'Hey, I wrote 3D software for a while...' It's bullshit. What are you doing NOW? Playing politics is his answer...
In any case, the thing that bothers me is that he's gone to *ANOTHER* organization. I don't give a damn that he's quitting, but I DON'T WANT HIM TO PRETEND TO REPRESENT THE DEVELOPERS ON OPEN SOURCE.
I don't want ANYONE short of RMS to do that, and I don't REALLY want RMS doing it either, because he'll just turn people off. (AND he's against making the computer easy to use for non-programmers, because all he cares is about the techno-elite (which we here probably mostly belong to, but it's still stinks)). I'd say Linus, but he's too smart to want to do that. (Reminds me of election politics. You don't want anyone dumb enough to want the job doing it.)
Let's all say it together: WE DON'T NEED BRUCE PERENS OR THE OSI OR THE SPI FOR OPEN SOURCE *OR* FREE SOFTWARE TO SUCCEED! These groups should just close their doors, apologize to the people who they messed with, and get on with their own lives. Or better still, start CONTRIBUTING again. The single best argument for free software is its existence. Every minute you spend arguing for it is another minute you could have been PROVING rather than debating or puffing up your chest.
Parasites, all of them. Bloody parasites on the side of the ACTUAL programmers who are working every day to provide good software. DAMN that makes me MAD.
"Really there is only one option, RMS is crazy, the GNU Manifesto is based on a flawed premise (that oroprietary software is bad)"
:) )
Is RMS crazy? I don't know, I've never met the man. Probably more the case that he's extremely passionate about his work.
Is the premise that proprietary software is bad really flawed?
In my experience, the (free && open) software that I've been using is at least as good as stuff I've had to pay for. Windows is just one large piece of buggy bloatware. Solaris has even less hardware support on X86 than Linux (no Glide, no BT848 TV) plus you're REQUIRED to use their $1000 compiler to develop hardware drivers! Also Slashdot has a tendancy to corrupt all the text on the desktop when used in Netscape (another bloated piece of bugware). In short, Solaris was the biggest waste of $20.50 I ever spent. Solaris for PCs and Deskops -- HA!
So, yes, I'd definitely agree that proprietary software is bad because
1. (Free && open) software tends to have less bugs (with the possible exception of the Arena browser
2. If you find bugs in (free && open) software and know C (which I don't to the extent required) you can fix them yourself.
Glückwünsche, haben Sie Slashdot ermordet, indem Sie zum korporativen Druck beugten und Subskriptionen einlei
It is utterly crucial that we learn to tolerate each others personalities and concentrate on the principles for which we stand. I personally implore each one (of us) to think and think hard before posting (some people I notice actually and some don't seem to). Our strength is entirely vested in our unity. Otherwise the world will be completely M$ and I'll have to find a career in Psychology.
Bruce is a touchstone for us. A touchstone is used to see if something like a ring is solid gold or just plated.
'Show me the code' IS about ideology -- it is about intellectual freedom, freedom of ideas, about Free Software. The fact that you refuse to think about the meaning of 'show me the code' does not make that meaning go away.
--
Victor Danilchenko
Oh, free software has been here for as long as software existed. What FSF did is keep it alive through the late 70ies and the 80ies, when the cultural support for it dwindled and when proprietary software almost became THE software paradigm. Without FSF -- without GNU and GPL -- whole generations of hackers would have grown up without having been soaked in the idea of freedom of code. It would have been a far sadder world.
--
Victor Danilchenko
It's a shame to see so many people take what they have for granted:
1. Linux exists because of the FSF first, OSI second.
2. The FSF exists because of RMS.
I don't believe that BP is whining; he tried to find a way to package the FSF ideals in a way that may have made those ideals more palatable to the general public. What he is discovering is that the general public wants to hoard the fruits of the movement that started with the FSF and RMS.
As for whether or not M$ and Windoze will win, they already have in a way (the zealots out there: bear with me). If you measure winning by having the biggest most profitable software company in the world, or if you measure winning by installed base, then yes, they have won. I don't believe that that has to be the end of the game. FSF and the rest of the world can exist together. The importance of Linux, or the FSF, need not be diminished because there is a big boy on the block. I don't believe that Linux or the FSF will get squashed into non-existance by anyone. I don't think we need more flames about M$'s taking over the world. Trying to put OSI and FSF (i.e. GPL) this all in perspective:
1. Non-open source is the least desirable.
2. Open source is better, but not the best.
3. FSF's GPL is best.
The order presented above is in relation to the individual's rights (freedoms) with regard to using products with the given type of license.
It is clear that BP started out at FSF's GPL level. He created OSI to promote the "acceptable" parts of the GPL, but clearly he hoped that he had enough in OSI that it would essentially be the same as GPL. Clearly he was mistaken. His letter indicates that he is retreating to the FSF GPL and is thinking of other ways to promote the GPL.
My 2 cents.
Replace Perens with RMS and let the fireworks begin!
now, a thousand years ago, we might be disputing the number of angels that can dance upon the end of a pin. i think the issues that have ESR and RMS pulling in different directions are somewhat more important than that, but i have always been bothered by the shrillness of the rhetoric. i'm a fundamentalist Christian, and i know shrillness of rhetoric: i know i don't like it, i know it turns off everyone who isn't a True Believer.
does energy expended in the disputing of these things generate any code? I'd rather see code than a crusade.
where is civility in political process? none of us are worrying about howto soak the rich, perpetuate the welfare state, or get the government off our backs.
it possible for men of good will to disagree without calling each other evil, parasites, or pointy-haired? indeed, our medium is prone to flamage. and the fear of all of us is that the flower of free software will be crushed by the forces of darkness. true, we must take council of our fears. yet, we mustn't let them dictate to us. we're all smart guys, and we're all opinionated guys, and we all immediately suspect that he who disagrees with us is misinformed or misguided.
we *want* the same thing "what" and some of us disagree on the "how" to get it. so, if some of us follow different paths, we're merely instantiating the distributed, decentralized, free software way. if there are multiple ways to approach a coding problem, there are probably multiple ways to aapproach a software process problem.
instead of talking as if we hate each other, let's articulate our differences with an evident spirit of good will. if neither of us "convert" the other, fine, we shake hands and part as friends agreeing to disagree.
now, if we disagree without starting a crusade against the other guys, we'll have all the energy spent crusading available to hack code. or to gently, and lovingly beg to differ with our ûfellow developers.
gaak, i feel like papa smurf.