Slashdot Mirror
Salon on Bruce Perens
Zippy the Pinhead writes "Salon has responded with Slashdot-like speed to Bruce Perens' announcement with this article.
Also, just below that item is an article entitled "Linux bandwagon starts to groan", about the flood(?) of Linux-port annoucements. "
So BP has thrown is bomb. The schism has
been reported in Salon and may eventually
make as much noise as the Windows Refund
Day.
I just wonder if ol' BP came out of the
woodwork again because he was jealous of
ESR getting his picture on the national
news?
Just observe carefully though - he won't handle
the resulting heat well - he'll turn around
and tell us all to take a flying leap (Again...)
and leave in a huff.
If you thing ESR is wrong - then RMS has
already fallen off the wagon and been run
over he is such a wrong choice. I've heard
both of them speak in person - ESR sounds
reasonable and well-spoken - RMS comes off
as a communist when discussing Open Source
versus commercial software. He also has
a great tendency to insult in extremely
demeaning terms anyone who doesn't agree
with him. He is intolerant in the extreme.
Having watched both of them at the Open
Source summit last year - RMS came off as
an ill-kempt, rude egotist with no concept
of personal grooming or correct behavior in
public - oh he'll make a GREAT spokesman!
Yes, we need a business-savvy, "respectable" spokesman, to act as our interface between us and the mainstream media and business communities. Without a spokesman, we run the risk of always being misrepresented or misunderstood.
Let me put it this way - if we don't speak for ourselves, someone else will. _I_ don't want Bill Gates speaking for me!
However, our choices of spokesmen to date have proved poor:
- Richard Stallman: Great mind, visionary, and complete and utter loon. Don't get me wrong, I love the guy, and I have the highest respect for what he's done, but he's not spokesman material - not if we don't want to be branded loons ourselves.
- ESR: Another man who has accomplished much, and really ushered in the whole "Open Source/Free Software in Big Business" thing - and a great writer. But man, Eric, you're getting weirder all the time. I'm starting to have serious doubts about your stability and sanity....
- Bruce Perens: Don't know him, never met him. Seems like a nice enough guy, but never sticks around to finish what he starts. Bruce, you have a rep for jumping ship (publically) at the first sign of adversity, and recent news confirms it.
- Linus: Not interested - thank God! _Someone_ has to keep coding. Same goes for Alan Cox and Larry Wall. All 3 men are stable, well adjusted, happy individuals who are infinately more productive doing what they do now.
That leaves (to my mind) Bob Young, CEO of Red Hat
- He Gets the GPL, and what Free Software really is
- He's presentable to business
- He actually _makes money_ selling GPLed software. Holy "lead by example" Batman!
- He's not a parasite, as Red Hat contributes a lot back to the Free Software community. Anyone who bankrolls Alan Cox is OK by me.
(incidently, I think calling Tim O'Reily a parasite was WAY out of line)
Go Bob!
DG
Lets create a talking, 3D, computer-animated Penguin and make him our spokesman^H^H^Hbird
this is from www.gnu.org
>But Cygnus didn't actually say that these are
>``open source software'', they just made a vague
>statement to obtain the favorable impression that
>comes with that term for software that is not entitled
>to it.
i understand why this bothers stallman. it is irritating,
but when bruce talks about the abuse of the
certification mark, i immediately get the impression that
the certification mark was "officially" given to some piece
of software that he (bruce) did not believe was deemed
worthy of the mark.
i hope that bruce will eventually clarify this. stallman's
examples may be bothersome, but if the mark was officially
given to someone who didn't deserve it, well, that's a
lot more serious.
gwk
.
I see - Bruce is your Saint, and RMS is
his God. You don't get the point being
made - BP is now more interested in
politics and publicity than the "Purity
of the GPL" as handed down from on high
by RMS - even though that is the
convienient lip-service BP is using
this time.
I've watched BP from a distance - heard him
speak at a convention or two.. and basically
find that he is good at stirring up a
hornets nest...but when the stinging begins..
BYE.
RMS - though no doubt a truly great coder -
is indeed also quite looney! I've heard
him speak also - and read what he has
to say from time to time. Though he
truly believes what he says, and
apparently even lives his life consistant
with his philosophy - That philosophy
doesn't stand up to examination from
anyone with any sort of capitalist
beliefs.
You talk about a difference between dereliction
of duty and leaving a group whose actions
you no longer condone... BP has this habit
of Nuking the group as he walks out the door!
That is the part I object too. He also
likes sticking his nose where it wasn't
invited. His pronouncements about the KDE
project come immediately to mind.
That is the part of BP's behavior I don't care
for!
I'm left wondering how RMS in his St. Ignutious outfit is any more presentable to the public than ESR in his costume.
Aren't we just trading weirdos here?
There is an application pending at the US P&T office, and the application has not yet been published for opposition. The term Open Source Solutions Net is a registered service mark belonging to a Virginia company which first used it in 1993. OpenSource is also a Texas Corporation with a web site at opensource.com
Any questions?
That's not how MS operates though. They desperately want to keep tight control over the OS. Why do you think the Caldera lawsuit happened? MS couldn't stand the fact that they had a competitor to MS-DOS, so they set out to destroy it, not certify it as being compatible.
Reading about this so-called schism between two (or more) factions was...encouraging. For a while it seemed that my favorite OS and application software would grow up to be just like a particularly grotesque behemoth so many loathe. The strength of Open Source, whether GPL'd, copylefted, or whatever, is a curious form of natural selection culling the weak and the slow. Zebras got faster on account of faster lions, and lions got faster because the slow ones starved to death. We all know this.
So now an apparent schism and a bunch of people are suddenly talking about how the movement is doomed. I say this is the best thing that has happened recently. More diversity (even with more disagreement) makes the code pool stronger. No one ideology needs to emerge as the victor; lions would die without the zebras; zebras would get fat and eventually get eaten by roaches because they could no longer run.
And that nameless horror dwelling in Redmond, countless minions making rank obeisance to its bloat, can continue to rot in its excrement for all I care. Let it grow fat. Let it gloat.
We zebras and lions have learned karate and have begun to hone our skills on each other. Our knives are sharper too.
Kwan
Obviously you never had to work for a business where you were forced to use MS crap.
Anyway the FSF says that the GPL is not the only Free software license, but in effect you're saying it is?
ESR IS A LOONEY. I'm not a hacker, but guess what - I'm not stupid, either. I can figure this all out without ESR and without your suggestion that you need him to talk to people like me.
Hackers are not smarter or more unique, more ethical or more important than people who are not hackers.
We have figured out how to build economies, countries, cities, political systems and transportation systems. We have also figured out how to make use of Linux. When you give up this us vs them, geeks vs phbs, then you will have found out what freedom really means. Like John Lennon said, "you better free your mind instead".
The world is fine. It is you hackers and geeks who have to learn to fit in. You have a lot to learn.
You're right, that's the gist of the FSF philosophy. What I don't understand is why you "don't think it would work well", given that it seems to work just fine with Free Software. The situation with book publishing is exactly analogous to the publishing of Linux distros, which seems to work just fine.
If the content of technical books was all GPLed, *any* printer/publisher of books could take the source and re-sell it. Sure they wouldn't have monopoly printing rights, and that might not be as lucrative as conventional, proprietary publishing, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't work.
You seem to forget that there is a real market demand for printed documentation, and people *are* willing to pay for hardcopy versions, in the same way that people pay Red Hat $50 for the convenience of having Linux and Red Hat's docs provided on CD, even though it's all available free on-line. Also, do you really think that the possibility of people photocopying books is a threat to printed books? Right now, I purchase books rather than photocopying them from a library copy, and it's not the immoral copyright laws that are stopping me! Instead, it's a question of cost and convenience. It's simply cheaper (both in terms of $ and time) to buy a book than it is to photocopy it, and the end result is much more useful.
The price of technical publications under this model would gradually fall to the cost of printing, binding, and distributing the manuals (plus a *reasonable* profit), due to competition among the printers, in the same way that a $2 CheapBytes Linux distro keeps Red Hat's prices in line. This would be a *GREAT* model for book publishing (from a consumer's point of view, anyway).
Another great thing about this model is that publishers would have an incentive to print enhanced versions of the free texts in order to have the best printed version on the market. Since these improvements would be free for other printers to adopt, the advantage would be temporary, but still meaningful for the publisher. Consumers would get steady improvements in the quality of documentation, in the same way that software improves, and people might actually get *paid* by the companies for the improvements. Copyright laws only stifle these possibilities, just as they do with proprietary software.
If only O'Reilly *really* cared about Free/OSS Software (rather than merely pretending to), they'd be following this model for their own publishing. Unfortunately, the corporate desire to maximize profits interferes here, just as with proprietary software. Unless/until they start facing competition from a "free publishing" movement and consumers have the choice to not accept proprietary printed materials, I don't think they'll change their ways.
"And I'm not going to be marketing me. I'm going to be marketing Richard; he'll be the media star, and I'll simply be his manager and agent. "
It is foolish that one would even attempt to market RMS. Yes, he will get mindshare-- I don't doubt that at all. The man is a complete wing nut!
I want to see Linux become the dominant OS and to achieve this end will require corporate acceptance. If one closely observes the recent events, yes corporations are becoming very enthusiastic towards Linux and Open Source! The term "free software" has been around for as long as I remember and unfortunately has been dismissed as free software.
If you accept my argument regarding corporate acceptance and the need for the suits to embrace it, then it only follows that RMS is the last person for the job. Just look at the last conference he was invitied to speak in NY. He didn't even adress many of the questions directed towards him but rather go on a long diatrabe on Social Justice, tax breaks are for the rich, and how all the corporations sux (my paraphase!) All one had to do is to look at the industry reaction to this clown in that room.
If you focused your effors by choosing some random penguin in a zoo, it would produce a favorable reaction-- unlike the RMS option!
Patrick H.
A lot of people write free software for the pure joy of it. However, there is much less in writing manuals. A lot of people will do it for money, however.
Under the FSF model, the publisher can pay the author to write a manual, as long as the manual is Free to be copied.
So publisher A pays the Author a sum of money for the manual.
Publisher B (who is wise to all this) copies the manual, sells it for a lower price, sells more. (And don't think this won't happen, it's human nature.) Publisher B does this legally, since the manual has no copyright.
Publisher A doesn't recoup the cost of the manual, and quits the publishing business.
Yeah sure it works on a limited scale, ie Red Hat.
However, Red Hat doesn't have a ruthless, cut-throat competitor. Imagine trying this economic model on a larger scale, where ruthless corporations like MS get involved.
In short, the FSF model only works in a world where people are nice to and respect each other.
This is not the same world that we live in.
How about James Earl Jones?
Or maybe Gilbert Godfrey, or Frank Oz...
Is the biggest piece of horseshit on the web. I cringe every time i read it.
This spectre of Red Hat rising up as The New Microsoft has raised its lantern more than once, but it's still just as insubstancial as it always was.
The GPL protects us from _any_ distro ever having the monopoly power that our friends in Redmond do with Windows.
No matter how agressively RH produce new products, cross-licence into new technologies and distribution channels; no matter how big the RH juggernaut ever gets, everything it touches is still GPL. Anyone with enough funding can grab RH's distro VERBATIM, repackage it, and resell it - LEGALLY.
Ol' Bob's not stupid, he knows that to the marrow of his bones. He knows that ensuring his survival in the forthcoming years means building brand identity and a reputation for quality and service. After all, Miscrosoft could start selling RedHat 5.2 as "Microsoft Linux 2000" tomorrow.
That means it is in Bob's best interests to be seen funding OSS projects, giving back to the community, and generally being a Good Neighbor. In the world of commercial Open Source, you win by playing nice - the nicest guy wins.
Incidently, this means that there is NO conflict of interest if Bob becomes the "new ESR" Sure, it means he has the opportunity to flog RH as much as he wants, but doining anything outrageous will be percieved as not "playing nice" and will backfire on him. You can trust him to keep our best interests at heart, becuase there's a gun - our gun - pointed in his face all the time.
Compare this to Billy Gates, who we saw being nasty all the time, but couldn't do anything about, because he had the sole access to the source.
The GPL really is magic.
Hey Bruce, why don't you show him this thread....
DG
Perens is not being disingenuous; he's pushing Stallmanism in all its quixotic, anti-business "glory." This approach doesn't win either, though, because for Open Source to truly succeed and not generate a major backlash it must be compatible with the making of money from software (yes, from licensing it and owning the rights to it, not just from selling copies as Red Hat does).
What's needed is a third way.
That third way is truly "free" licensing of software, a la the MIT X license. Once source is opened, there's really no protecting it; it's tough to tell whether it's been copied outright, and it's easy to "clean-room." So we must give up on the notion that it's possible (or even desirable!) to stop companies from using open source in their own commercial and proprietary products. Let them! With our blessings! The potential synergism is enormous, and (despite Stallman's preachings) there is no downside.
And with that, a suggestion for a spokesman if one is needed: Jordan Hubbard, of the FreeBSD Project. Jordan is diplomatic, tactful, and a great spokesman for open source software; he's also free of the harsh, childish, spiteful anti-business and anti-IP attitudes that permeate the FSF. Warning: he may hesitate to accept. But he's the right man for the job.
--Brett Glass
Because it's usually better. I *don't* like it because I'm a professional programer and I feel that only the most famous programmers (like RMS) would still be able to make a good living at it in a free software world.
I'd rather work with worse software and make more money than better software and rent a 500 sq. ft. apartment the rest of my life. Up to a point, that is. I won't program in VB for anything. Linux is a good platform for commercial software too.
Then, just out of a vague sense of morbid curiosity, why do you read it? Or is that the reason?
oh im sorry, if i had said that in
15 paragraphs using haughty english it would
be 'respectable'
this is BRILLIANT!
all this time for ego control speech making
and public relations spin mastering is at an end
we are back to the 'very old' anonymously
written saga/epic poem age where the product
itself is more important than the fame or fortune
of the people who built it.
>>> "The Open Source certification mark has already been abused in ways I find unconscionable and that I will not abide." Perens declined to cite specific examples of such abuse.
Why decline to cite specific examples when the issue is so important to the community?
Does anyone have an idea what sort of abuse Bruce might be refering to here?
gwk
Since you've read... http://x4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=445570753
Why It's Time to Talk About Writing Free Software Once Again
I'm someone you've probably never heard of. You may know me as the
primary author of some bits of software someone you might know might
have heard of and which is available from some other people you
probably haven't heard of, and as someone who's thrown in the odd
bugfix on other software here and there, but if you've even used
stuff I've done or fixed you probably used it without giving me a
single thought. Still, I have to establish my credibility somehow.
About a year ago, I watched with disbelief as "Open Source" began to
happen, and then I jumped on the bandwagon as quickly as I could. We
founded the Open Source Initiative as a sound career move that
captured the zeitgeist and surfed the wave of breaking publicity that
resulted from Netscape's sheer desperation for any form of strategy at
all. Well, the world has certainly noticed Eric, and Eric has worked
hard to achieve that for himself, at the obvious personal cost of his
sanity.
So, it's now time for the next stage: now that the world is watching
Eric and we've discovered how ruthlessly egotistically self-promoting
and increasingly odd he really is, it's time for us to explain that
the idea isn't _just_ about Eric, that Eric is not really typical of
us at _all_, and to get some much-needed distance between us and Eric
pronto before he does us any more damage.
We have to find another focal point to counter Eric. We need a
solid and stable personality as a spokesperson, because the media
thrives on personalities, and we needed that personality a week ago to
prepare for Microsoft Refund Day.
We don't have much choice in available people with a critical mass of
media attention. Linus has a real job and is far too sensible to get
involved in this. Alan Cox is a limey with a weird foreign accent most
Americans just can't understand either. We'll have to build on the
personality that we know we've got: Richard Stallman. At least he's
American.
Most hackers giggle when someone says that Free Software and Open
Source are just two words for the same thing, because they can count
and they can see four words. They can count and they can code. They're
logical. Unfortunately, though, Open Source has de-emphasized the
logical importance of writing code and raised expectations that other
people will do that for you and then just give it to you.
It's time for us to fix that. Richard must make it clear to the world
via media attention that this free software is still important, that
software like the increasingly renowned FSF Debian GNU/Linux would not
be around without it, but that there's no such thing as a free lunch
and we need more people that can actually code to write this stuff for
nothing.
Once _everyone_ is writing code for nothing, the no-free-lunch problem
will eventually vanish - but that won't happen until we at least have
people writing free documentation that teaches people how to write
free code. Spread the word! Encourage real computer literacy! Write
now!
One of the unfortunate things about Open Source is that it
overshadowed these important coding efforts with self-promotion
efforts, and the Open Source people are so busy promoting themselves
and taking credit that they've stopped coding. This is a net loss to
the community, and is never fair on the people writing the code -
although some may think Richard is a whacko and disagree with his
belief that _all_ software should be free, you have to ask yourself:
Just how much code have _they_ written and given away recently? How
_dare_ they criticize?
The Open Source Definition is entirely compatible with the Free
Software Foundation's goals because it says it is, and a schism
between the two groups should never have been allowed to develop, even
though marketing considerations and personal self-interest meant that
it was inevitable and everyone could see it coming. I objected to
people doing self-promotion rather than writing code, but was not able
to get the two parties - selfish marketers and selfless coders -
together in common cause, because no-one would agree with me about
anything.
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 our fault, because we
let Eric Raymond take ownership of that mark, and now we just can't
get rid of him and get it back. The Open Source certification mark
has already been abused in ways I find unconscionable and that I will
not abide, and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. Man, I'm
pissed.
Sadly, as I've always tended towards writing code and giving it away
rather than concentrating on marketing, promoting and branding myself,
I've lost touch with Eric because I'm no longer as important as him,
and he's too busy to answer email that isn't inviting him to speak at
events. He's completely out of control without my good advice. I mean,
did you see that cape-and-added-penguins getup on Refund Day at
Microsoft? He's going gaga with delusions of grandeur.
If we leave Eric a bit longer to shoot himself convincingly in his
public foot, gun nut that he is, and give Richard a decent haircut so
he can't spend entire interviews looking for even more split ends
instead of presenting logical arguments, Richard will be perceived as
more mainstream than and definitely saner than Eric. At that point
we'll have no trouble taking back the free software movement
leadership in the public eye and going on from there to market
_writing_ free code. And free documentation.
Admittedly, doing this marketing will take some time away from writing
code, but I think this is possible, that we can actually get the
write-some-code-for-others bits emphasised, and I'm willing to
sacrifice my important coding time for a worthy cause that might just
also bring me into the public eye.
Remember, it's only writing free code that matters, but making my
career out of marketing the rising star of actually _writing_ free
code is where I can make this important difference. And I'm not going
to be marketing me. I'm going to be marketing Richard; he'll be the
media star, and I'll simply be his manager and agent.
We may have only just discovered that Eric can't market concepts
without his own personal foibles and appalling dress sense messing up
the message and getting in the way, but we've known that about Richard
for years. Richard's not going to surprise us by changing his dogmatic
stance now. He's a known quantity: a touchstone that we always know we
can rely on. He's nuts, but at least he's consistent and predictable
with it.
Well, apart from that Tcl thing. And the don't-call-those-emacs-calls
'win' break-everything thing. But those are merely details that are
only of interest to a couple of programming minorities; far more
people got peeved about how the Hacker's Dictionary turned out, so I
think we still come out ahead with Richard.
I've learned a lot about how and how not to do marketing from the open
source effort, and I believe I'm the man to do this. If Noam Chomsky -
consistent, predictable, obviously nuts - can make a successful career
out of denigrating every existing political system and economy,
there's definitely a bigger place in the public eye for Richard while
he denigrates every existing economic method of software distribution.
After all, more people use software than vote, right? Just count those
Chinese and all their free software! Richard will be bigger than
Chomsky, mark my words.
I'll be working to promote Richard as someone that fits the definition
of Free Software Spokesperson. I'll be managing and taking credit for
his media appearances, much as I ironically failed to manage and take
credit for Eric's. And is currently
being reworked to reflect my new role.
So, my question is: who's going to break this news to Richard?
Thanks,
Me.
(ongoing spats in claiming leadership of the movement can be
just as entertaining as watching Eric Raymond perform:
http://x4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=435811714
or taking the mickey out of Jon Katz's many mistakes, for that
matter.
L.)
Anyone, and I mean *ANYONE* who thinks that Richard Stallman is a good advocate of "Open Source" is wrong. Just plain wrong.
He's not. He's an advocate of GNU CopyLeft, and fuck all else, really. You're worried about people who seem strange in the public media, and you want to advocate Stallman? The man is practically a rabid dog when it comes to anything even *remotely* commercial, including the occasional rip on the idea of people getting paid to work on open source.
Good grief. Few things could be as bad for the freedom of the movement as RS, who represents the Stalin of open source ideals.
Find someone a bit more open-minded about the diversity *within* Open Source.
"The copyright system was created expressly for the purpose of encouraging authorship. In the domain for which it was invented--books, which could be copied economically only on a printing press--it did little harm, and did not obstruct most of the individuals who read the books. "
Next, RMS talks about how programmers can make a living and still write free software:
"There are plenty of ways that programmers could make a living without selling the right to use a program. This way is customary now because it brings programmers and businessmen the most money, not because it is the only way to make a living. It is easy to find other ways if you want to find them. Here are a number of examples.
"A manufacturer introducing a new computer will pay for the porting of operating systems onto the new hardware... The sale of teaching, hand-holding and maintenance services could also employ programmers... People with new ideas could distribute programs as freeware, asking for donations from satisfied users, or selling hand-holding services."
So, nothing less than the very GNU Manifesto says that selling teaching services is OK - selling hand-holding is OK - and copyrights on books are OK. So why do the flipping purists have their shorts in a bind?
One can only assume it is, at root, an ego problem. Their movement has been yanked from under their feet, and the only recourse they have is to throw a fit over what are, in essence, relatively minor tresgressions of their original vision.
And the fact that Perens has hurt the movement with this kind of fuss is apparently a non-factor. For purists, if the movement isn't pure in their vision, it doesn't count. So one cannot go quietly into the night - one must publicly announce one's departure, gain attention, throw tantrums, send global e-mails, etc.
With these kinds of moral leaders we'll soon be back to 1989 - Windows as king, the FSF as a minor speck in the eye of 100% proprietary software. But at least their movement will be pure.
Who would you cast?
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
But O'Reilly's role in the open-source movement has long riled some hardcore free software hackers, who perceive O'Reilly & Associates as profiting unfairly from free software by selling "non-free" manuals.
Um ... wasn't part of the point of free software that you could still sell support? I personally consider a well-written manual as support, so I'm not sure why it's not right for O'Reilly to sell manuals that they've contracted people to write.
* spreaded the false news about the KDE free Qt foundation being unexistant.
* took off from SPI with the Open Source Trademark under his arm which the SPI says he didn't have the right to do.
* if he has indeed called Tim O'reilly a parasite, worked for a parasite
* announced he was quitting to the SPI (but didn't quit really, or not right then)
* quitted from debian (and told rather unpleasant things to them, which sadly I can't quote)
He seems to have joined again?
* announced he was founding a Red Hat based distribution when quitting from debian.
And this is only what *I* remember.
I have no quarrel with Mr. Perens, but I would take anything he says with a grain of salt a little larger than the usual one.
I dare you to phone me and call me a dumbfuck in my ear. 1-800-233-7351.
But you won't, because you're an anonymous coward, coward.
-russ
I like O'Reilly books and I have quite a few of them. That's not where my complaint is.
The main problem I see is that while we need people like Eric Raymond to speak to the non-hackers, hackers need to stay in control of the work they produced. There are a few ways in which hackers are losing control:
We no longer control our information sources. Hacker-produced web sites, news groups, and mailing lists are being displaced by commercial news sources and book publishers. That would be OK, except they seem to want to control the information, too. That part isn't acceptable. Thus, I am working on ways for hackers to take back the lead in providing information about free software, using the power of the internet and free software.
One person who I feel is mainly interested in profiting from the community is posing as a leader of the community. Most free software merchants know better than to do this. I like the honest way that Bob Young presents himself as someone who profits from free software and returns value to it, but isn't one of the leaders. I think he's a great example for other free software merchants to emulate.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Bob has shown that he can find the balance between profit from the community and returning value to the community. That's important.
There are various kinds of relationships between businesses and the free software community, and they can be classed into Benefactors, Symbiotes, and Parisites. These are three labels on a scale that measures what they take vs. what they give back. Benefactors license free software without really caring if they profit from our community or not. Lots of free software authors belong in that category. Symbiotes give and take equally, Red Hat is a good example of that IMO. Parisites take more than they give, even when they are providing great products that are critically needed. They could be cured of this distinction by taking some Bob Young lessons.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Andrew Leonard seems to be a nice guy and does the best job he can. He also seems to be sincerely sympathetic to our community.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
I think that the essence of the complaint against O'Reilly isn't about all his books. It's about the core documentation for a Free Software project, specifically Perl. rms' stance is that the core documentation for free software should also be free (in the same way.) Selling tutorials, cookbooks, and learn-in-24-minutes books under more restrictive models would still be acceptable.
I don't know if you're still following this thread, but I could be interested; please email me.
It occurs to me that other aspects of "World Domination" include training end-users to work in Free Software environments. Perhaps that would be a good project to coordinate - developing GNU training materials and courseware.
The best advocates of free software are the users themselves. RMS,ESR,Bruce,or anyone else isn't going to give the GNU/Linux demo to your boss. You,the user, are.
As for media representation, while I'd prefer the community to be the focus, but the press _have_ to have a spokesman. What time of person, and who that should be, needs to be addressed RSN.
RMS accepts other licenses as free. He just thinks that the GPL is the best one, which isn't surprising considering it represents his vision. Often times RMS will go to what some people view as an extreme on an issue. I might not agree with everything he says, but I pay attention to _what_ he is talking about and form an opinion on it. RMS is invaluable to the free software community because he stirs up debate on issues that someone with less conviction might accept. He's an uneasy conscience that we might not agree with, but we certainly should listen to and reflect how we feel on the topics he raises. People who dismiss RMS as a loony should not be as quick to dismiss what he is taking issue to as they are to call names.
If you're looking for people who look past the license and more at the freedom of the software, look for people like Bruce and the legal eagles in the Debian group. They have repeatedly resolved issues with software that was "open-source" but not free. Look at their work on Zope, for example. They thought that the forced recognition of their product was an acceptable clause on their license. Bruce and the Debian people disagreed and gave arguments for their disagreement. The whole issue was resolved and now the clause has been dropped. Textbook diplomacy.
Dear AC,
Can you read? No? Just basic english? You think so? So go here and spend some time leraning about the subject you so forcefully babble about.
Now go up in this same page and read the transcript of Bruce's post in the comment "Why It's Time to Talk About Writing Free Software (Score:2)".
Then stop suffering your ignorance upon us:
Anyone, and I mean *ANYONE* who thinks that Richard Stallman is a good advocate of "Open Source" is wrong. Just plain wrong.
Anyone, I mean *ANYONE* who thinks Richard Sallman would even consider being an "Open Source" advocate has probably been away from the planet during the past year.
He's not. He's an advocate of GNU CopyLeft, and fuck all else, really. You're worried about people who seem strange in the public media, and you want to advocate Stallman?
I fail to remember the name of your last code contribution to the communitary pool, AC. Please enlighten me before barking about programmmers and ideals far beyond your level of understanding.
The man is practically a rabid dog when it comes to anything even *remotely* commercial, including the occasional rip on the idea of people getting paid to work on open source.
I dont even think this plain LIE must be answered. Check the link above.
Good grief. Few things could be as bad for the freedom of the movement as RS, who represents the Stalin of open source ideals.
Against the enlighted enterprise CEOs, the freedom fighters of modern day, I guess. And again, stop using Stallman name and the expression Open Source in the same phrase. Learn to say Free Software. Learn to live with it.
I was replying to the AC above (the one the threading of my post indicates I am replying to, not the one immediately above my post).
Does that sound like satire?
What is posted here is not the essay by Bruce
Perens, but a satire of it.
I am well aware of that, sir.
Before you go insulting people you know nothing about and telling them they can't read
Hard to know (or to want to know) someone who wont bother to back a comment with a name.
Apologies accepted, no offense taken.... :))
And I don't really have anything against ACs. I was just refering to the original poster (the AC you were NOT defending).
Cheers
Microsoft could do some major damage to Linux and its users, indeed. Suppose they decided to come out with their own distribution, drop in a win32 emulation layer that'll play the office suite with a non-X gui, and charge 50 bucks for it?
They'd take over the linux desktop market, would be able to control the linux threat to win9x, and could make corporate types happy with something like "Certified NT Compatible" linux.
Evil.
As a long time reader of Salon (since around their first issue or so) I must take issue with your statement. Of all the many sources of reading material online (websites, USNET, mailing lists) Salon is consistently the most interesting, most amusing, and one of the best written things online. Heck, they are far better than most magazines off-line.
Just my two cents.
-- Join us in Chicago May 1-4th for MeshForum -- writer, historian, tech geek, entrepreneur, internet junky since '91 --