Slashdot Mirror
ESR Responds: 'Shut Up And Show Them The Code'
Gryphon writes "Eric S. Raymond has posted an interesting response to the RMS response to the Metcalf story. "
It's called 'Shut Up and Show Them the Code' and it addresses
RMSs comments about differences between the Open Source and
the Free Software movement.
It's worth noting that doscussions of far greater vehemence and viciousness go on behind closed doors all over the world each day, every day. The only difference here is that it's all out in the open, so we get all viewpoints, not just a polished, lowst-common denominator marketing spiel.
Personally, I like it.
--
Paul
I know, ESR has to make his voice heard.
Like it always is and has been....
One says one thing
then the other has to respond.
---------------------------------------------
I agree with both men, and some of the comments above that say we need both viewpoints. I am and an old GNU fan from way back and have always liked the GNU mindset. I also like what ESR's voice has done for the community, he has help it grow and gain acceptence more than RMS ever would have.
I just think it is funny the way the diatribes keep popping up. As for Metcalfe I hope he just sees the light.....
mmm..pizza Oh yeah..
GNU is inseperable from linux. And I like it that
way. ESR doesn't seem to be concerned with
freedom of software but obsessed with making
"open source" whatever that means, popular.
GNU means something. It's concrete in it's
description. It's a contract.
Open-source doesn't seems to have a dynamic
definition, depending on the open-sourcer. Dynamic morals? What good are those???
"Rock solid" here is much a matter of architecture. FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD might all run very well on an Intel machine, but even the latest release of the king of portability (NetBSD 1.4) won't boot right on my Sun 4/110. I'm using a 1.3.3 kernel and I can cause it to panic through pkg_add.
The BSD kernels aren't the operating system, and the fact that there exists now a three-way split between unencumbered BSD releases hints that there is still "a great deal of work to be done," at least in the minds of the project leaders and contributors.
"Companies have and do turn out excellent quality material, and have even given away source code, but under NON-GPL terms. Doing this does not make them part of the Free-Source movement. A belief in the spirit of the GPL is the one, and ONLY qualification."
I sure hope that this isn't the "real" free software community speaking! What about BSD? What about Artistic? Are you saying that they're not "free software"?
Free software is not political liberty! No one's rights are being infringed because some code happens to be BSD, Artistic, QPL or even proprietary.
This post is precisely what ESR is fighting against, the fanatic zealotry of the Stallmanistas. Get a clue folks! RMS is not God! He's not Christ! He's not George Washington or Che Guevarra!
Do you really think that Mrs. Jones down the street will choose Linux over Windows because you're wearing a Red Beret and spouting revolutionary slogans from a little book? Or do you plan to send her to a "re-education" center after you've marched on Redmond?
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I think the point was missed. The type of license is just completely irrelevant to whether or not most people use a software product.
Perl is popular and successful because it is a great piece of software (and Apache too), not because of the license or the hype of OSI or anyone else.
slashdot.com All the news that isn't.
But isn't the point made by RMS that with programs such as WordPerfect, there's no code to show! ESR says he embraces FSF but doesn't answer the question raised by RMS. Why are closed source programes such as Word Prefect embraced by the Open Source Initiative?
IMHO, ESR is full of rhetoric, RMS speeks the truth in plain english.
-- Raw --
I don't exactly know what you think RMS' "real job" was over the last twenty years; the FSF isn't exactly a cash cow.
Furthermore, RMS has always been within the ideological margins. You misunderstand what ESR said (of course, it's entirely possible that ESR misunderstands this as well), that none of us would be here without RMS. It's true that none of us would be here without RMS in terms of the sheer volume of code he has produced and made possible through the FSF.
More than that, however, is his role as an ideologue; by being at the fringe, the mainstream has stretched to the point where giving away source is no longer a revoutionary idea. Without RMS it never would have bee. If the wishy-washy ESR "Open Source" paradigm, rather than the hardline FSF paradigm, was the most radical available, then the mainstream would have been even closer to the proprietary model. That is what we owe, most of all, to RMS.
--
There is no premature anti-fascism. -Ernest Hemingway
Everyone is sick of your constant bullshit, you are just a leech, as with the rest of OSI riding on the popularity that of free software. It was going to happen whether you proclaimed yourself leader of the "opensource movement" or not, the only think you are helping in is making people think half-assed licenses that dont benefit the community are good.
Go away, we'ld be much better without your unfounded egotistical rants.
Another case of this happened during an OOPSLA
keynote address by Christopher Alexander, an
architecture researcher who is often quoted
in the patterns community. His speech
touched on the moral reasons for patterns and
outlined emerging risks as the software
community continues to ignore ethical issues.
The people in the audience were expecting
a "practical" discourse and shrugged their
shoulders as they were called "hired guns"
lacking respect for history. I don't think
he will be invited back.
RMS is neither hostile nor disagreeable. I have had a few short discussions with the man and I found him calm, extremely rational, and prone to rant (only about as often as I do). He has some interesting and somewhat revolutionary ideas about the nature of intellectual property and copyrights, and some very down to earth ideas about practicality and doing the right thing.
He's not in it for popularity or obscurity, or to make more people use free software. His goals are clear and obvious after hearing him and speaking with him: to promote personal freedom and mutually beneficial sharing among people who develop and use software (please note that sharing!=communism, no matter how you look at it). He tends to mostly ignore (sometimes alienate) people who don't seem to believe in sharing and freedom, presumably because he's found that it does little good to argue with them about such basic concepts.
If "his movement suddenly became successful and everybody adopted his principles," we would operate in an intellectual near-utopia of cooperative advancement. It might take a long time or might (due to the greedy selfish nature of so many humans who need to maximize their profits by putting their whole community at a disadvantage) never happen, but the more people who do understand RMS's beliefs and the base goals of the FSF, the closer we are.
You miss the point. The FSF is all about developers, not end-lusers. Just because you use Linux means nothing to RMS. He wants to attract people who will generate more free software, and all the commercial WP's and MP3 encoders in the world won't help much there.
This is incorrect. The original motivation for gtk+ had absolutely nothing what-so-ever to do with Qt. I'm not even sure gtk+ doesn't predate Qt. Gtk+ was written because Motif wasn't flexible enough to satisfy the developers of The Gimp so they took a while off developing it and tried to think of what would make the ultimate toolkit. After Gimp was finished a bunch of people looked at Gtk+ and said "Hey, This is a really awesome toolkit; why don't we make a consistent interface out of it?" and so then Gnome started. I don't remember hearing anything about Qt until a while after. There were a bunch of KDE vs. Gnome arguments centered around the fact that Qt wasn't free at the time, but I that had nothing to do with why Gtk+ was written.
Eric seems to have misconstrued Richard's post as a personal attack on his ethics. If he would only cool his jets a little, he would see that wasn't the point at all. Perhaps ironically, this post actually helps to substantiate Richard's point that the FSF and OSI have different emphases. Eric, however, seems to insist on raving about why his approach is better, while Richard seems content to acknowledge that the two see things differently, to clarify to others that he does not consider himself a member of the open source camp, and to leave it at that.
cat esr >/dev/null
Why does free software need to be marketed? I see a few reasons at the moment. (I'm sure others will fill in the rest.)
First, unless corporations can be convinced that "Free Software" or "Open Source" software is a viable alternative, there's a much slimmer chance that programmers can get paid for writing said software, which means a programmer also has to spend time at a paid job. More time on a paid job means less time devoted to writing free software.
Second, the general public should be made aware that alternatives to commercial software exist. Not only does this give free software substance--numbers for people to look at--but it also draws new talent in. More programmers makes for more options for users of free software. Consider that just because one is a hacker doesn't necessarily mean one knows about Linux. (I know from experience!)
Finally, there's the issue of getting commercial applications to talk to free software--something that won't happen without numbers behind us. Ideally, all software would be open source and free, but that's prob'ly not going to happen soon. So in the interim, we might as well have commercial apps which work in our open OS of choice. Or plugins that work with our free software. It's much less of a headache that way. Remember, kids: buggy Linux kernels never crash, they just panic.
That's all I can think of right now. Any other takers?
-W-
-W-
Is it all journey, or is there landfall?
--Ellison & van Vogt, 'The Human Operators'
The underlying difference between OSI and FSF is one of aim. Open Source is a marketing campaign which is aimed at the maximum take-up: analagous to the X license which looks for adoption over ideals. This is why OSI talks about being an umbrella organisation with a broad church of views. In some senses this is the ends deserve the means argument.
FSF is the opposite, fundamentally RMS and supporters want the adoption of the Free Software principle as much as the usage of the software. Clearly this is the driver behind copyleft. In such a system the ends are no good if the means deployed are against the principles.
Aside from the principle of Free Software my main concern with OSI is that we've seen a lot of talk but little action. Companies are getting headlines but who has added significantly to the community of software: apple being the worst case of cherry picking. I hope for those who follow the OSI's aims that they are not being taken for a ride.
On a personal level I don't care whether the Press talks about OSI/Free Software, nor do I care if you or anyone else uses it. All I care is that I can use it, and that because of the GPL the software will still be there for me long after everyone else has packed up and gone home.
blah
If it makes you feel better, you could release it under a free license so it is available to anyone who has an interest in souls. I'd recommend using the GPL, so Satan can't hoard it for himself.
ESR says RMS (wow, let the TLA's fly, and they're only regarding people...) is not a good "evangelist for the mainstream" (or some such approximation). That's because he's not trying to be! ESR is the one who's trying to use pretty words and silly-titled papers to change the image of the software in question (I think it's silly that now Open Source and Free Software are associated with rival .. camps). RMS isn't trying to be an evangelist to the mainstream! He's not trying to "adapt" Linux and other free software to the masses -- he's preaching the beliefs he's always had. Beliefs that don't appeal to the mainstream -- that's one of his strong points (in my opinion). He doesn't change his beliefs just to suit mainstream ideals. He's not trying to make himself "accepted" by the mainstream, he's just trying to make sure everyone knows about his beliefs.
And that is where they differ. ESR likes to lay claim to making "Open Source" popular, mainstream, written about in magazines, etc.
RMS does what he's always done, which is evangelize his beliefs that software should be free. And I respect him more for it.
(Plus, if RMS is an egomaniac it's because he so strongly believes in his views and finds it important to tell everyone about them. If ESR appears that way, it's cause he just wants attention, and needs to remind everyone how he made "Open Source" popular).
--- Where's my X.400 protocol decoder?
Did you expect that ESR and RMS would not have egos?
They are both human, they both believe what they are doing is right. Hell, most, if not all, the wars on this planet were fought because both sides believe that they were right. This is not surprising that we have a battle going on here.
I think the matter at the center of this argument is the evangelizing of Linux. ESR believes that Linux should become a dominant force in the world and could/should dethrone Microsoft. He is into marketing Linux as the best possible solution for all problems. ESR is a businessman.
RMS believes in a way of life. He believes that we need to stop wasting effort re-inventing the same code, and we should build upon what we already have. RMS is into using the best possible solution for a problem. RMS is a scientist and an idealist.
Which is right? It depends on where you stand. If you think money is the goal of life, then most likely, you think it's ESR. If you think that knowledge and uncompromising ideals are the goal of the life, then you probably believe RMS is right.
But don't fall into the trap of believing that either of them is absolutely right. Because that just starts wars.
(I was only an egg, but then I cracked)
The differences between GNU and OSI is defined by inclusive freedom verses exclusive freedom.
Inclusive freedom states that as long as we the communite have full and free access to the source code to do with (modify, redistribute) as we will, we don't realy care what anyone else does with it.
Exclusive freedom states that the source code can ONLY be used as fully free and open code, and cannot be used for other purposes (such as a revenue stream).
Both ESR and RMS promote freedom, but it's what else happens besides freedom that is the sticking point.
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
ESR's comments reminds me of the "changes" that went through the radical-cum-liberal movement at the end of the 60s and the early 70s. A certain group of people just felt that the extreme rhetoric of the radical movement just wasn't effective because it failed to attract supporters and failed to advance the agenda.
So some of them "sold out" and went a little more mainstream; they got law degrees, went into politics...like Bill Clinton. Of course in the early 70s they were considered sell-outs, tools of the man, and so on.
However, I think that the lesson of this experience for the Open Source movement is that while embracing a position other than FSF's "free software" may require a certain sacrifice of values it does so at the expense of getting somewhere.
I think recycling is a prime example. Most places nowadays have recycling -- do you think that the environmental radicals of the 1970s could have achieved that by refusing to go along and work with the 'system'? No, it took "sell outs" that went to work in governemnt to push their values into the mainstream.
In order for Open Source/Free Software/whatever you want to call it to be successful, it's going to require a sacrifice of some of the principals in order to work with the system to implement its goals.
Yes, they're both definitely necessary to the whole cause of world domination. Consider RMS the idea man and ESR the one who'll sell it.
However, I think that an article of this sort is necessary (though I prob'ly wouldn't have put it in the words ESR did). The fact is, they do have differing methods, and I think they shouldn't be considered interchangeable, as the popular media would have it..
-W-
-W-
Is it all journey, or is there landfall?
--Ellison & van Vogt, 'The Human Operators'
Look. You can have any kind of politics you want! Vaguely collectivist like RMS or highly individualist like ESR, it doesn't matter, as long as the software keep improving.
If you improve the software, it works, and you're a part of this thing. Free software isn't going to prevail because of politics, it'll win on its merits, or it won't win at all.
Hell, you can be a nazi for all I care, as long as you send patches.
/August.
If you think I'll use a shitty product because everyone is aware that it exists and talks it up... Then why aren't you using Microsoft Windows NT?
I didn't mean to imply that marketing should be allowed to brainwash people into using bad products. The point I was trying to make is that software, lik every other industry, needs to be noticed before it is used. I use Win98 and RH5.2, and I have no desire to use WinNT. I know about it, sure. But I wouldn't be using Linux if I didn't hear from many many people that "hey, this is pretty cool." That's what convinced me to get it. It's the superiority of that over Windows is why it _continues_ to occupy it's place on my hard drive.
I don't advocate "prostituting for the masses". I think that the software is good, and that is what needs to be told. Marketing doesn't neccessarily involve smoke and mirrors, and it isn't always illicit or unethical. We have the better product, and it would be a damned shame to watch it fall by the wayside with those other products I mentioned.
Micah McCurdy
Unless: unless it is a piece of software, that is.
A comparison: You buy a videotape. You're free to tear the tape out of it, yes. You can eat it if you want to, for all they care. But you can't copy that movie for other people; you can't splice scenes from it into another movie; there are restrictions on what you do with it.
Similarly, there are restrictions to what you can do with the software you buy. Consider the disks to be like the videotape, and the software to be like the movie. You can take apart the disks, you can eat them, you can make little dolls out of them. However, you can't take apart the software, you can't copy it, you can't reuse parts of it somewhere else.
Software isn't the only place this happens.
I'm not free to sell it or give it to my grandchildren when I get tired of it ("This license is for a single computer").
I think you're misreading that. The license is for that software to be used on a single computer. However, what single computer that is can change. If you completely remove it from your computer, you can put it on another. If you get a new computer, you can transfer it, for example. If you tire of it, you can delete it from your machine, and sell it to someone else, or give it to your granddaughter, or mail it to a stranger in Albuquerque.
-Snibor Eoj
You know, sometimes the people are more entertaining than the product! These guys crack me up!
Does anyone really care what we call it? Why don't we rename it the 'Let's kill Microsoft, and other bad commercial entities' project?
"I have no respect for a man who can only spell a word one way." - Mark Twain
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
WordPerfect is not open source. Never has been. Probably never will be. And no one in the OSI claims that it is. The Open Source definition is also the Free Software definition. If it can't be free software, then it can't be open source software.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
I believe you have a confused concept of the freedom of speech, as it relates to "free software". The freedom of speech is what gives us the right to speak our beliefs without fear of reprisal. Programmers who release their code are practicing a form of free speech. Aside form export or patent issues, this is not limited. "Free Software" is code that has been freely released to the public for the betterment of the community. [sic]
You seem to be confusing the freedom to "release" with the freedom to "take" and your comments seem to imply that you believe "you" have a right to "my" code. If you compare this with the analogy that "you" have a right to "my" printed works, books, or articles, other roughly equivalent forms of creative expression, you'll realize that this concept isn't supported or believed anywhere, with any degree of backing. When was the last time you heard a reasonable individual state that he felt Joe Public was entitled to a free copy of Stephen King's latest novel, or the Encyclopedia Britannica? It takes money and effort to produce these, and it should be the choice of the individual to determine whether they want to freely release their product or to expect remuneration.
This isn't a moral issue, and I don't believe many people will give you much credit if you say that you have a moral right to someone else's creative products. Our intellect and creativity is what separates us from many of the animals, and I think it's safe to say that many of us would have issues with having the results of these abilities raped from us. You do not have an inherent moral right to my mind.
Between ESR and RMS, who talks more and who has the most code to show?
- Sam Ruby
- FreeBSD
- Apache
- Perl
- XFree86
- Sendmail
- BIND
Since none of the above are "part of the Free-Source movement" by your definition, I'm curious exactly which GPLed equivalents you are using in their place. After all, heaven forfend you be tainted by the unholy aura of software that is RMS-free but not under the GPL.What a great encapsulation of everything that I feel about the RMS versus OSI debate. RMS is a great person, and we wouldn't be here without him, but man I wish he'd stop acting like a crackpot. St. Ignusious? That freaking song? Give me a break!
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
It is obvious to me that the current interest in linux has nothing to do with some buzzword like 'Open Source'. It has everything to do with the work that has been done by linux's developers over the past years, and a boost from Microsoft's overbearing attitude towards the industry.
:-)
Honestly, I think free enterprise can write better software. It's easy to underestimate the power of the dark si..uhh profit motive. To me, it remains to be seen whether corporations can really develop 'free software' for a profit.
Evangelism and marketing have nothing to do with the current success of linux.
PS:
In fact, I would say the most important turning point in the mainstream attention focussing on linux was last year when Linus spoke at the Silicon Valley Linux Users Group... When a surprise showing of 500+ people turned out... people (mainstream media) took notice. Kudo's to Sam Ockman for that effort, for better or worse.
After that, the windows 98 protest (kudos Chris Dibona I think)... things just steam rolled from there...
Wow, feel like I was at woodstock or something.
Disclaimer: Yes, I have an email address at gnu.org. This doesn't mean that I follow RMS in lock-step; this means that I have contributed to free software and needed an email alias and shell account.
Disclaimer: I have a lot of respect for ESR, for his code contributions, the Jargon File, and his work as an Open Source advocate.
I really don't understand how ESR could have written this response, if he really read what RMS wrote (and followed this link, where RMS lays out some of the differences between Free Software and Open Source). I would suggest that everyone here read this link, if you haven't yet.
ESR can claim all he wants that our community has only taken off in the last year or so with the advent of the term Open Source. This all depends on what you mean by taken off! If you mean, as a platform we've managed to attract the interest of developers who want to make money and push non-free software, than yes, I guess we have. But I think we were doing fine when we were writing software that we love, that works well, and that is *free*.
RMS may be a zealot, if that's a term you like. But I think RMS is lucky. He's lucky to be one of those people that really believes something, and can live by his beliefs. I would urge everyone to remember, while you're celebrating the newfound popularity of Linux and the GNU system, to remember what got us here. We wouldn't have such a solid, fully featured operating system without free software. The interests of big companies and investors with tons of money didn't get us here; we got ourselves here, by insisting on free software.
--
Ian Peters
Although you do choose what you consume, the way software licenses are handled are not good at all. After I buy the software, it's mine. You can't present the contract after the purchase. I have no moral obligation to follow or obey any contract presented after the sale, especially if it doesn't involve interaction with other people. I personally don't have a moral issue with lying to my computer. I'm a programmer, therefore lying to the computer is my job. As long as the information is not knowingly transmitted to the other parties, I always click on the "Yes I Agree" button, even if I don't, because lying to a computer is not bad. It's a different story if the information is transmitted to their computers, because then I'm lying to them. But as long as it's my software (because I bought it), I can do with it whatever I want.
Engineering and the Ultimate
ESR and OUI takes Credit for Success of Universe
Big Bang Burger Bar, Prime Material (Reuters) -
Today Eric S. Raymond officially dubbed the current incarnation of "The Universe"(tm) as a 'success'. Though lesser known powers, such as God, were occasionally referred to as having been influential in the evolution of the universe, ERS pointed out that without the trendy governing body OUI (Open Universe Initiative), the Universe's presence would have largely been ignored.
"Sure, our little community is very familiar with the Universe, but other people in the industry need a marketing-style interface to the Universe. Frankly all this talk about Big Bangs and background radiation makes our whole community of Universe lovers looks like communists in their eyes.", said an Obi-Wan Kenobi dressed ESR while speaking and whirling a hula hoop at the UniverseWorld Expo '99 keynote address.
"OUI brings the Universe to those who don't care about the principles of their existence. It gives it to them in a fashion they can deal with such that they don't have to agree with or for that matter understand the principles upon which the Universe was founded. Though the Universe would have continued to hum along as it was without us.. the OUI is solely responsible for people's awareness of it's existence."
"This is not about being the lap dog of corporations interested in leveraging the Universe against competitors, but rather making corporations aware."
The Universe is a lesser known reality put together and developed by a wide flung group of deities which communicate over the 'Internet'. Industry experts consider the Universe a significant challenger to the current reality market dominating 'Hell' developed by Satansoft..
Universe users are known to send vicious email messages to those who would threaten it's existence. "It really doesn't help when people misrepresent our community like that." said ESR.
We may need to "buzzword" a bit to get people to switch from Win98 to RedHat 6.0, but this should not be at the expense of dedication to the free software idea.
Open Source is, as ESR said, a marketing of free software, not a denial of it...
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
Even though software is not the only place this happens, I think that the freedom is still an issue in these other mediums. For example, if I have a trash can, I can build one just like it. I can then sell it to whoever I want. I can even build a trash can duplicating machine, and make and sell as many trash cans as I want. The same goes with hammers, desks, etc.
Let's take plants, for example. If I buy a plant, I can use the seeds to create more plants. I have not violated the intellectual property rights of the creator, even if he spent years genetically engineering the plant. Once its mine, I can do whatever I want with it.
Engineering and the Ultimate
He understands that there's almost no difference, but he sees a competing marketing organisation getting all the good press, and he fears that he may soon have to get a real job.
My Heart Is A Flower
...so Satan can't hoard it for himself
:-)
Whaddya mean himself you sexist pig you...
Ironically, GNOME, because it depends on the LGPLd Gtk libraries, could be described as less free than KDE, which depends on the QPLd Qt libraries. The QPL forbids binary-only distribution, and in many ways acts suspiciously like the GPL.
Now, I'm not going to say that people using GNOME are anti-Free Software. But, then again, it's just as silly to claim that KDE users are less committed to Free Software, as you did.
--
The OSI's tactics further the OSI's goals, just as the FSF's tactics further theirs. People like to hand wave over the differences, but they are important.
The FSF is committed to copyleft, because experience shows that it's a good way to protect an investment in the free software community. ESR pounds the open patch drum, claiming that it's a better business model, that a company will never look back.
ESR has demonstrated, by his acceptance of flawed licenses from TrollTech and Apple, that he's really not about free software. He says, "Open Source is a marketing program for free software." I say he's half right.
...how difficult we make it for someone to take a principled position. Could ESR be trying to convince himself that he hasn't sold out?
It seems to me that ESR decided to take the easy road instead of the hard road. What I mean is, not that ESR's job is easy, but that he is sacrificing the future of free software for success today. If you look around at the big businesses, few of them are creating software that is truly free. Instead they are just "opening up the source" which doesn't make the software any more free. Also, more and more people are using freedom-deducted software as an integral part of free software products like Linux. The problem is getting worse, not better. ESR is succeeding in publicity, but not publicity about the principals. Therefore, if people don't learn the principals, they won't know why its bad to put a lot of restrictions on how people use the software. Thus, everyone will show the source code, but take all of our freedoms away.
I am not saying I disagree with ESR's message of having the source available creates better products - neither does RMS. The problem is that if that's the only message the businessmen hear, all they will do is open up the source, and continue to restrict freedom. ESR's "tactics" show that he is about "us being better than them" and not about the freedom of the user. If the Open Source movement was meant to create more freedom, then it can't do so without being more public about it.
So, stick with GPL and X-Free type licenses, and don't let all the talk about "Open Source" forget what we really want, and that is freedom.
Also, just as a rant, I'd like to say that RMS is NOT a communist, and the free software community is not communistic. In fact, it's the other way around. In the free software community, you get full control over your personal posssessions. Big brother has no control over how you use the software. In the commercial software community, your personal property rights are violated because your rights to YOUR OWN PERSONAL PROPERTY are being violated. VIOLATING PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IS NOT CAPITALISTIC, IT'S COMMUNISTIC. I always get frustrated when people compare intellectual property rights to personal property rights. They are not the same, in fact PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE IN DIRECT CONFLICT. You can have one, but not the other. Personally, I'd rather have the rights to my own stuff than some software corporation.
Engineering and the Ultimate
bash$ RMS ...
...
/dev/null & /dev/null &
Open Software is NOT Free Software
because Blah Blah Blah. And ESR is a
bash$ ESR
Free Software IS Open Software because Blah Blah Blah. And RMS is a
bash$ RMS >
bash$ ESR >
bash$ echo "Lets just code!!"
Lets just code!!
I think it'd be better if this response
never saw the light of day. As it stands
it is beginning to look like Metcalfe was
making a rather valid point.
Especially seeing as he tends to do far more talking than coding, especially compared to RMS.
Oh, I forgot, he maintains fetchmail, whip-de-frigging-ding-dong.
When was the last time these two had a face-to-face / heart-to-heart talk about what they're doing and where they're going?
Someone should get these two guys together over a beer/soda/coffee and let them figure out where they can agree to disagree.
****
"I'd never want to join a club that would have me as a member" - G. Marx
Fighting (disagreeing) is a necesary part of a healthy relationship...
As long as this doesn't result in a flame war, and I believe that RMS and ESR both have enough dignity and common sense not to let it go to that, I think that everything will turn out just peachy keen.
In my book, the free software definition is stricter than the open source definition.
An example of an Open Source license that doesn't guarantee my freedom is the new, Open Source Qt license. I cannot incorporate small bits of Qt code into my own projects, nor can I do a number of other things. Yes, I am aware that RMS and a few others have finally called it free enough for them; it is still not as free as GPL. Freedom comes in levels.
To give an example where the main advocates of each clashed (if people argue that we should listen to authority instead of common sense): the Open Source includes thing like the original Apple community license before Apple fixed it. Free software advocates didn't consider it free enough.
When ESR makes his pitch to the "suits" (his word), he argues reason. But when he talks to those he would call his "tribe", he brags about the success of his rhetoric. Which is it?
ESR makes me sick. I've been using free software, and promoting and deploying it at work since long before I heard of Raymond, for good reasons. I didn't need his rhetoric to sway me, or my company.
RMS and the FSF gave us the software we needed to get off the ground. They gave us the license we needed to keep things free. OSI almost gave us a legal tool to use to keep marketing honest. But they quietly abandoned that tool (after weakening it to appease Apple), and now all OSI can hope to claim is gains in "mindshare", due to superior "rhetoric" and press coverage. Woo hoo.
I can't shake the feeling that what really attracts him to the FSF is its obscurity.
Pardon me for mentioning it, but RMS wasn't attracted to the FSF, he was a part of founding the FSF.
People like ESR were attracted to the FSF. Like flies to honey.
my guardian angel turns away.
Sisters of Mercy, Temple of Love. Damn good song (available on both Some girls wander by mistake and A slight case of overbombing, both good `hits' albums).
Bill - aka taniwha
--
Leave others their otherness. -- Aratak
maybe satan == gates? gates is certainly male, and certainly damned for his evil life of software hoarding.
I submit that software hoarding is worse than murder, for the same reason that censorship is worse than murder.
-Dave Turner
in the reply by ESR he states "we'd have gotten where we are now five or ten years sooner and OSI would have been completely unnecessary (and I could be writing code, which I'd much rather be doing than this...)."
I can't help but think that he's not sincere. I've heard that whine many times in the past year while watching the various three-lettered ones bicker over terms. Sure, it is necessary for someone to "evangelize the mission", but ESR took that lock, stock, and barrel.
If he wanted to code, he would. Yes, I read "Take my job" and a good amount of the other articles appearing in the Jargon. But then again ESR forgot something.
I'm fairly certain that he's nowhere near being the only person involved with OSI to go to companies to start their OSS strategy. Otherwise we'd be moving at snails' pace because only one man would be doing the work with all these companies.
Thus, there are other people already doing the important work! My point of this argument is that if he just wanted to code he should "Shut Up and Sit Down To Code."
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
"Sceptic tank" is gone?
There seems to be several communities out there that represent the /. community. We have the "Open Source" community, the "Free Software" community, the "Linux" community, the "BSD Community", the greater "*nux" community (which holds some of the previous communities I've mentioned). And then we have the total encapsulating "Computer" community. This last community includes the Microsoft crowd as well.
:) But don't be afraid, Linux and GNU will always be around because it doesn't work in the realm of the business world. It doesn't need money to survive. It only needs a few devoted hackers and a way to distribute (like the Internet).
Which ever community you belong to, it's good to have ESR and RMS as well as any outspoken individual. Good natured conflicts help advance society. But flames always impede the growth of society. That's why I now spell out Microsoft instead of using M$ or other.
It's good to have opinions, but it is even more important to have respect for others opinions. If you disagree, that's great, but try to back up your disagreements with facts or at least intelligent arguments. ESR and RMS attack each other in this way. They are friends but also compete well against each other.
There is a lot I agree with ESR and RMS. But there is a lot I disagree with. I believe that Open Source is good, but code should be owned(but not controlled) by the one who buys it. I like to know what a program is doing in the background when I am working with it. I've talked with both Eric and Richard at the Linux World Expo back in March. RMS seems to be for having full control of what you buy. He did not say, "you programmed code so you must give it to me". but more or less said, "I bought code from you, I should be able to do what I please".
It's funny because in my business (Military Defense) we almost always give away the source. Of course the Government pays for the development. But we give the source away and the Government owns it. Not us. I don't believe that everyone can afford to pay for someone to develop code for there needs (customize). But have a middle ground where we can help share in development and still get paid. Start out with giving the source, but you need to pay for any enhancements. Of course it comes down to everyone getting the benefits from one persons/company's purchase. But this can easily work. A lot came from Bell Labs and they were still at the top. If you donate a large amount of source code to GNU and it is top quality, you will be the one that most companies will ask for for support.
This also keeps you (the programmer) from getting to lazy. You have to keep improving code to stay working. You can't just write some code and say everyone must use this whether it completely works or not. This is the position that Microsoft is in. They can get away with writing code and not having to make it better. It wasn't until the threat of the Open Source/GNU that Microsoft started working harder for better quality. Yes they are now actually working harder (maybe not that much harder but they do feel the threat). If Microsoft comes out with better products then it is a partial win for the Open Source/GNU community. Not what RMS wanted but at least we don't get software that "sucks" (ESR quote, not a flame by me
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
Ok. So far we've determined that everyone wants to prove that they have a bigger penis than the other guy. . .
How 'bout we all just shut up and show the code?
This whole bickering thing bothers me. Those who care about who they want to listen to will research everyone and come up with their own ideas. Those who don't care will look at the good code and use it! Either way, we all win!
Lets face it, EVERY SINGLE ONE of us is a zealot.
** Martin
1 - ESR has in fact achived the opposite. Netscape's decision to release Mozilla as open source was in order to have more programmers working on it without being paid. This is what ESRs bazaar is all about.
2 - Why do the public need to know? Free Software should be for the free software community, not for those who want to take without giving back (yeah I know someone will point out I've only written a dozen lines of free code myself, but it's something).
3 - The aim of GNU is to make a COMPLETELY free system, one where proprietary apps are obsolete.
--
enterfornone - logging in for a change
I think I feel a Segfault story coming on.....
No sig.
I don't like ESR, never had and probably never will. It feels like he has no values and wants to take the credits for something that is obviously not thanks to him. When I think of ESR, I get all cold inside. To me, RMS feels like a merry Santa Clause that you can hug and that is always nice to you. ESR is more like a thug in a dark alley that wouldn't hesitate to shoot you in the head.
I wish they'd stay off the soap box and spend more time coding
This is entirely the point of the essay. The idea is that we should spend less time on rhetoric and more time on code. Granted, ESR does indulge himself slightly when describing the successes of linux et al. as being the successes of OSI. Also granted, he defeats himself slightly spewing doctrine to the effect of "don't spew doctrine."
However, this is a very clear cut case of "do as I say, not as I do", because it is clear (to me) that the community needs such a direct method, be it hypocritical (sp?) or not.
ESR is a definitely feeling the need to take credit
Then how do you explain that he is stepping down? A ploy to gain more media spotlight? Go talk to some of th people in alt.ESR.consipiracy instead. It simply seems unlikely that he really needs to take credit.
I think [...] that most of us [...] would agree that Linux, Perl, [and] Apache, [...] are driven not by the candy wrapper of marketing and press coverage, but by content
Moving from paranoia to naivate. It is childish to believe that these successes are the simple result of good content and such. The most crucial part in a technology taking hold is awareness, followed closely by good marketing. Think BetaMax, think Amiga, OS/2, commodore, etc., yadda, yadda, yadda. Do not be sucked into believing that we got here based on the merits of the product. That takes over after you have awareness. Marketing gets customers, and good products keep them.
Micah McCurdy
After reading much of RMS's stuff, I can't shake the feeling that what really attracts him to the FSF is its obscurity. If his movement suddently became successful and everybody adopted his principles, he would probably run screaming for the hills and completely distance himself from the FSF.
Where have we seen that before? Oh yeah, Cobain and Nirvana. When people actually started liking the band, the guy couldn't handle it anymore and offed himself. Luckily RMS doesn't have that problem.
Besides, after reading several interviews with RMS, he strikes me as a highly hostile and disagreeable person, out to alienate the interviewer regardless of his/her intentions. How do you expect a guy like that to advance any cause whatsoever?
Seems like everyone is afraid to talk against the paranoia of RMS. Every programmer who wants to be respectable it too scared and always sais "thank RMS, we would not exist withou him".
But if you do some research, you 'll see that exept from gcc, RMS is always just putting his name next to other hackers (McGarth..) who would not need help anyway (writting 'ls'?). In a paranoid way RMS is doing everything possible to gain fame.
But actually there _is_ a crime here.
That is buring the hall of fame of the coders of programs behing 'THIS is GNU - FSF - RMS'.
Check it out.
Unless RMS can be mentioned, noone else will in the FSF stuff. Do you know of any other FSFrs? Its hard to find the rest but oh so easy to find a "RMS is the man we all love and respect".
If only the true FSF programmers could come out and say that RMS doesn't know shit! He wouldn't brag about contributing 'getopt' to glibc if he knew indeed!
Here's a very incomplete list of GNU contributors:
http://www.gnu.org/people/people.html
If you've contributed to the project, contact webmasters@gnu.org.
-joyspring (forgot my password!)
>This post is precisely what ESR is fighting against, the fanatic zealotry of the Stallmanistas. No, ESR seems to be against even people like me who mention first that Linux is libre, then that it's gratis, then that it never crashes. I consider the GPL the only choice for my own software, and wish *all* software was GPL. But I use software under any "free" license. When I install commercial software, and sign my soul away in one of those license agreements, I feel like I want to barf. Next time, I think I will. >Get a clue folks! RMS is not God! He's not Christ! He's not George Washington or Che Guevarra! He's more like Christ than anyone else I can think of, but without the silly religious convictions to bog him down (RMS is an atheist). He's also more like Che than most anyone in the movement. Remember that picture of Che with the crown of thorns? Well, R MS died for your sins. (joke). RMS is very radical, like Che or Jesus. Everyone should read his writings, THEN decide. Like the bible. -Dave Turner
Personally I think it's about time ESR just
sat down and shut up himself. Any doubts that
he is completely self-obsessed and stricken
with delusions of grandeur should be laid to
rest by this latest brain fart.. I mean essay,
in which he pats himself on the back for
bringing FSF ideals into the mainstream simply
by using different semantics to express what
he desperately wants us to believe is the
"same" idea, but which is in fact a watered-down
version fit for corporate consumption..
Eric, you can continue to pander to suits who
can only think in terms of profits and losses..
you can continue to whip up the OSI sheep
with your tiresome, self-congradulating essays,
and you can lead them all on to corporate
nirvana...
RMS knows that a man absolutely cannot compromise
his ideals no matter what the reason or situation.
And for that he will forever have the respect of
myself and what has now sadly become a minority
within the *nix community.. ESR can write a
million evangelic essays tooled to please 'the
Man', but at the end of the day, when Time and
Wired are praising him as the messiah of this
bold new approach to writing software, we THE
PEOPLE will remember who really started it all..
and we will remember that he 'failed' because he
refused to reduce his ideas into pablum as those
who came after did.
ESR has tried to trademark an OSI stamp with the
intention of an 'enlightened' organization
being responsible for doling it out to software
which is idealogically Pure (tm).. just another
goddamn hierarchy.. ESR is about as imaginative
as the corporate wags he is trying to seduce..
I have worked the last year for a corporation,
slaved 7 days a week for them without complaint,
innovated for them only to have the credit stolen
by my 'superiors' within their kludgy bureaucracy.
The other day I was essentially told to, for a
moment, abandon my principles and free will and
do as instructed or I would be 'terminated'. I refused, and I was fired.
I strongly suspect a man like ESR
would stop.. think about the phat pension.. the
benefits.. the good base salary, the ample
overtime.. the job security he could have in
return for just a little bit of his soul, for
just a little moral compromise.. hmm, what to
do? RATIONALIZE, of course! That's the post-mod
way!
But I _know_ what RMS would do, and I love the
man like a brother for his commitment to the
dream of REAL FREEDOM. I loathe ESR for being
such a simpleton that he can believe we already
have freedom, democracy, equality, etc in this
'best of all possible worlds'. That is a lie.
I find it really sad when smart people get out of their area of expertize and start talking out of their asses. Yes, yes it was a rant, and I suppose I should let it go, but what on earth has FSF/OSI have to do with 19th century sosio-economic theories? Metcalf called RMS a communist, so? That just shows that inventing something techical doesn't require very deep understanding of other fields.
Communisism and capitalism, while being rather opposite to eachother, are not the whole extent of the possible variety and their differences are not very relevant in today's world in general or to the "Software with Full Rights Attached" movements. For example, neither deals with sub-societies nor gift cultures.
FSF and OSI are about better software, software with source code, not having to invent the wheel again and intellectual property rights. Communisism and capitalism are about something else.
--Flam
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers - Pablo Picasso
Disclaimer: I am associated with OSI's 'rival' SPI via the Debian project.
ESR seems to see himself as something greater than the whole of us. Sure, he has been around during this whole "Open Source" fiasco, but face it. That would have happened anyway. Linux has become so widespread that it was a matter of time before someone noticed. ESR has made many contributions to our community, but he also has the maturity of a 2 year old. I've seen the bullshit he's pulled with BP (not to say that BP is a saint) and it seems to me that he is more interested in publicity and corporate acceptance of himself then contributing to our community.
Why am I NOT surprised that this is an AC post? Hmmm....
I always find it funny when nerds try to be politic, and try to get the world of marketing and spin to work to their advantage. I mean, aren't we nerds because we don't know how to sell ourselves to begin with, and think there's better things to do than go around kissing babies all day? ESR is wasting his breath trying to play the marketing game and make free software palatable to the popular kids in the business world. In the end, nerds and their vision are going to lose if they play that way.
Doh! I guess that means I don't have a right to request that Guinuess release the recipe and instructions for making Harp. Come to think of it, why don't we have a "Free Beer" movement (note: that's "free" as in "free speech", not as in "free beer". (notice the subtle capitalization differences))!
...
Anyhow, I'm glad someone else finally understood why "Free Software" has absolutely nothing to do with free speech. Oh, and speaking of ironies, has anyone else here noticed that RMS's beliefs as applied to "Free Techical Manuals" are actually far more restrictive than his views towards Free Software? Go figure!
Seriously, the only real complement I've ever heard for RMS has been that he displays a lot of integrity in that he both has strong beliefs and practices them. Yes, his fanatical idealism is something to be emulated by all of us -- ESPECIALLY at the expense of reason.
...
(more seriously)
The reason why Open Source works and Free Software doesn't is that Open Source is based on cooperation (and, to a point, utilitarianism), while Free Software is based on moralism. An Open Source advocate (take ESR, for instance) claims that cooperation in software development, aided by peer review and motivated by "itchiness" works well to create good software. On the flipside, a Free Software advocate (take RMS, for instance) would preach that it is morally wrong for you not to share your knowledge with me.
Damn -- I fucking hate dogmatism.
-noOM
I find it fascinating that in more than a screenful of text, Eric never touches on one of Stallman's main points: the fact that some open source projects are only partially open source.
This business of only allowing access to PART of the code on an open source project is disturbing. If a project is going to be open source let it be open source. Don't do it half way. As an example, imagine an open source unix where everything was open source except for the init package. Or the window manager. Not too cool.
If you'd ever see ESR v. RMS on that show, you'd know linux is finally popular, otherwise don't hold your breath. =)
I wasn't making a claim - I was making a generalization (without picking apart the QPL and LGPL - a lot of GNOME users use GNOME because of an early perception that KDE was "unfree" because of the old Qt license). Part of the original motivation behind Gtk was that the original Qt license was very restrictive - although Troll Tech has rectified the situation with the QPL the religious schism between the GNOME and KDE camps had already happened. That doesn't make KDE users anti-Free, it just means that strict Free Software people are more likely to have settled on GNOME early, and hey - why change horses in midstream? I like KDE myself, because it seems to be better polished for now. Personally, I'm a fan of licenses like LGPL - they give the developer the best kind of freedom of all: the freedom to decide for themselves whether or not Open Source is right for them.
My own view:
Software should be Free whenever possible. When it's not completely free, it should be Open Source. And only if it can't be (for reasons of internal business security, perhaps), should it be closed. Then again, I run NT on my desktops at the office, the software I need to use to get the job done at my shop mainly does not exist in Open Source or Free form, unfortunately. I use Linux to serve my intranet, though (and I use it for everything at home)...
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
I'm not really responding to your comment, but it brought a great question to mind...
If, as GNU claims, software should not have owners, that it should be free for anyone to use, modify, and repackage (with source), then why in GNU's name, does RMS claim that "GNU software and the GNU operating system come from the Free Software movement." To me, this essentially is claiming ownership of a whole tankerfull of code. Why not just say it came from a bunch of hackers, some of whom decided they'd like to code on a GNU project, not because of ideals, but because they wanted to code a good piece of software. This conflict also branches to the idea that Linux doesn't exist. It is GNU/Linux!! Such Hubris!!
Stop squabbling and give credit to everyone but yourself, that is the best way to do things. Do we see Linus saying that the code he writes should be printed in gold and called Linus/Linux?? Huh? What about RMS/Linux? That is probably the best name for this propaganda RMS is sending our way.
-B
But ROB I just saw a banner ad for OFFICE 2000??!!?? WTF?
I thought your ads were served up by adfu, and that we wouldn't see MS products advertised.
I'm worried.
ALL HAIL BRAK!!!
I have a tremendous amount of respect for RMS. He's an amazing coder, and he's committed and passionate about his beliefs in an industry where loyalty is all too often sold to the highest bidder. I've read his work; I've heard him speak; I've even been cornered by him face-to-face at a reception.
/.), I'm left with the same conclusion as ESR: the world isn't ready for RMS, regardless of whether he's morally right.
RMS represents the (legal) extreme on the spectrum of freedom in software. As I examine my own values, coloured with mainstream coverage (i.e. not
This is a huge industry, and it's growing faster every day; there's room for more than one leader with slightly different goals (especially if neither of them is Steve Ballmer). If I understand the terms correctly, it's tough for open source software to exist without some measure of freedom (not as much as RMS' ultimate goal, but better than nothing), and it's at least as difficult for free software to fail to qualify as open source.
Has it occurred to anyone that maybe they have exactly the same goal, but that ESR is simply trying to make it more palatable by feeding it to the world in small doses?
I don't think the computer industry's momentum can or should be redirected as quickly as RMS does, so I support the idea of steering carefully and meaningfully away from the freedomless culture it could become. Pick the path that you like, and encourage the people around you to evaluate their beliefs and make a similarly informed decision.
This is ridiculous, ESR keeps trying to lay claim on all of the success of Linux, GNU et al. As if OSI magically made this all happen, and we should thank him dearly for giving us our operating systems.
Can he really *believe* that? ESR is an outspoken advocate, but that is about all as for as I am concered. RMS created this movement to begin with, and wrote a big chunk of the software himself. I don't take GNU lightly.
ESR thinks that RMS is too extreme to be an effective advocate. He is right, but I don't think that advocacy is first on RMS's mind. He wants to write the software, and share it with other hackers. He also wants to get his message across, but his message is "freedom is important, don't give it up", rather than "please, please use this software".
Who's talking and who's coding? RMS's responce was short and to the point. I expect after hitting "send" he went straight back to hacking. What did ESR do?
--Lenny
Why do so many people seem to have a problem with "free software" as a term? The ambiguity in English that leads to the "free speech, not free beer" distinction serves "us." The vast majority of end-users -- the ones who will kill Windows for us, right? -- don't have the tools to make use of the freedom of study, or the freedom of improvement. (#1 and #3 from the FSF definition.)
The target of the the free software rhetoric can not be the general public, because the general public does not code. They don't care about freedom to study and freedom to change -- what the process is by which "free software" (e.g. "Linux," by which they mean the linux kernel, the GNU utilities, and somebody wrap them up prettily in a distribution) has become better in a concrete technical sense, which leads to a better end-user "experience" -- than conventional software. The vast majority of people will buy a boxed distro at their computer store and be happy to pay $50 for it to get thirty days of hand-holding.
To the vast majority, free software means that it's cheap, (Freedom #2 (redistribution), the the "free beer" freedom) and that's fine by me -- anything that gets someone using Linux (er, a GNU/Linux distro); I have enough confidence in its superiority to the alternatives that I think people will stay with it. And, like most people who don't care about how their car works, as long as it does, it won't be important to them why free software (#1 and #3, here) is better -- just that it is. The more curious we can greet with open arms and explanations.
"Open source" is, without doubt, a business term -- the explanation that the vast majority is content to ignore. The problem lies when it's used as marketing, and not as a tool to achieve the results (better software) that the marketroids talk about; the term extracts freedoms #1 and #3 and calls them a new name. That open source emphasises the not-free-beer aspect is a good thing when you're dealing with questions about why GNU utils and linux are better; the problem is that it -- and the businesses -- have missed an important part of the "magic formula" -- no cost. Charging for your open source product is a bad idea, because it cripples the strength of open source development -- the enourmous pool of developers willing to improve something they work with; by charging for the product, you limit that pool tremendously.
That's not to say that open source but costed products won't get better faster than they would otherwise; the end-users always outnumber the developers for any commercial enterprise, and any appreciable fraction of those end-users being developers substantially increases the number of people working on the product. What it does mean is that free software -- in both senses of the term -- will get better faster. Getting back to my original question: is having two levels of meaning for a phrase such a terrible thing? Most people aren't equipped to understand, and won't even ask about, the second (open source) meaning, and will be content with the first.
There's no need to aggressively proselytize free software; the advantages of a free software approach to development lead to technically superior products, and it sufficient to let the fruit speak for the tree. Technical superiority, I'll admit, will only win by itself on server platforms; but it is much easier to add the necessary to chrome to a healthy car than replace the engine of a sick one.
The objective is always to do useful work. For the longest time in software, that meant adding more to the software -- but that time is past. Nobody uses -- or even tries to -- all the "features" of every program they own (er, liscense). The most common line I hear is, "I just need it for some word-processing." (And maybe a few games on the side.) "The computer" (its O/S and the word-processing app) just need to work, all the time, any time. The attempt to make things just work that had the media's attention for a while was the "information appliance," an attempt to simplify the software to the point where a single company could write and fully debug the software, both O/S and application.
This is obviously the Wrong Way. The Right Way -- which the press has caught on to -- is to use an O/S that already works (Linux, FreeBSD, etc) and free software that already works (Apache, X, etc). The question you keep seeing in the media is a very good one, and it boils down to this: "Can free software write a better Word?" What GUI that better Word runs under is completely immaterial -- though KDE or GNOME have the looks and facilities to make writing such an application simpler than doing it with, say, twm.
I happen to believe that "we" (free software developers) can write that "better Word." We can crow about our achievements in writing a better O/S -- we, without a doubt, have, and it continues to get better -- but the information appliance idea contains an important truth: people don't care about the O/S, only what they can do with "their computer." (I.e. the "desktop market" that Office -- not Windows! -- owns so thoroughly.) If we want "the people" to accept free software in all its meanings, we have to do to the desktop what we did to the server -- which was not proselytize.
-_Quinn
Reality Maintenance Group, Silver City Construction Co., Ltd.
Are we both talking about Bill "I just levelled a country to get them to agree to the same peace terms that they would have before we bombed them" Clinton? I thought so.
Getting somewhere without compromising your ideals is a lot harder work than getting that law degree and entering politics, but the final result is a lot more desirable.
Clinton is certainly not the guy I'd use to support your argument. The fact that he "didn't inhale" (and if you believe that... but anyway) suggests that at one time, he wasn't too anti-drug. This attitude sure doesn't show up in the current War on Drugs, where a hit of acid will land you a mandatory 5-20 years (correct me if I'm wrong). There are countless other examples.
BTW, If you'd like to read some well-informed critiques of American foreign policy in Kosovo and elsewhere, check out the Z Magazine Network.
JoshA main axis around which this debate revolves seems to be the idealism of RMS, vs. the "hard realities of a free market".
ERS wants to cozy up to the "market forces" and states that he "just wants just code that does not suck". In the long run running the risk of disillusioning a lot of the altruism which ultimately makes this thing work...
As I perceive it there is a certain hope that we are working on an open frontier here, we can contribute something positive to the future in the face of all the shit happening in the rest of the world. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think a lot of good coders would not work half as hard on their OSS projects if they knew that "the man" would be the one to prosper the most for it.
RMS would probably be one of those people. He seems to think that free software is on a roll, and with it we will be able to shoehorn some decency and ideals back into society, and that "open source" is basically playing out this card way to cheap.
Problem about this is that it's a dog eat dog world out there currently, and morals is basically a dirty word, if not in what is preached, so definitely in practice.
Their is one thing that jumps in my face about this whole debate however as a proponent of alternative currencies, and that is all the agonizing over the various merits of all sorts of licenses and "software philosophy" , but not one word uttered about our money system, which is just as much a pice of software as anything written in C.
It is a social information system, nothing more. An agreement among people to use some particular token as a medium of exchange.
Why on earth is everybody taking today's system of managing this medium as a given natural fact? And then people either despise it and get branded as starry eyed utopians, or they maintain that "resistance is futile" and idealism is just waste...
This is just like saying that all OSes are bad/god depending on the first one that you happen to come into contact with....
Oh.. how I wish some of all this clever analysis would be spent on exploring fixes to the current money system.
In my opinion there is literally at least two bugs in it.. Bugs that would cause memory leaks and overflow in any normal software. In stead they cause money overflow for some, and total deprivation for others. This is NOT the natural sate of affairs.
ESR writes of open source as a "gift economy" and the regular one as a "scarcity economy" is it only me that wonders why there has to be scarcity of something that is essentially information?
Digital cash is just around the corner, and with it private currencies a real possibility, a technical fix may not be that far out of reach.
If I have sparked anyone's curiosity with this post please check out http://www.transaction.net/money/book/index.html
Quote "There is probably nothing that humans make more efforts for, and understand less about, than money."
Gaute
-- We plunge for the slipstream the realness to find
-- We plunge for the slipstream the realness to find
The incredible String Band
There is a danger, and it is one only touched upon in the essays I've read by Stallman.
/. have you heard someone say how Linux is missing this or that feature, only to have someone else say something to the effect of "well you've got the source, go write it yourself"?
Raymond and the "open source" advocates point to the inherent superiority of "open source" software products compared to proprietary products. The problem is that if the only reason to use open source is that it is expected to perform better and more stable, then as soon as a proprietary software product is shown to perform better and more stable the whole argument falls apart.
We all have seen the Mindcraft tests which show NT performing better in certain (however unlikely) situations. NT has a higher performance, multithreaded IP stack which scales to mulitprocessor systems better than the unithreaded version in Linux, for example. BeOS, by many indications, can handle high-bandwidth media better than most any other consumer OS on the market. And, of course, there are many proprietary Unices such as Solaris, AIX, HP-UX, Digital UNIX which tout better reliability and higher performance on high-end machines.
In many ways, despite the outcries of free software advocates and zealots, free software suffers more from the "good enough" syndrome than commercial software. Commercial software (often) must remain competitive, so "good enough" means "good enough to match or exceed our competitor's product"; in other words, good enough to get people to buy your product. With free software, "good enough" typically means "good enough to do what I (the developer) originally wanted a program for"; that is, good enough to "scratch the itch" of the developers working on the product. Meeting other, non-developers', needs are almost exclusively a second priority and done when there is time. How many times on
So, there is evidence that there is nothing inherently superior about the performance, stability, or functionality of "open source" or "free" software. Thus, making these issues the cornerstone of free software is dangerous to the movement as a whole, because once it is shown these facts are not *necessarily* true, free software no longer has any appeal to those who bought those arguments in the first place.
No one would be sweating the Mindcraft "failures" if free software were valued because it is free, rather than out-performing non-free software.
Advocating free software in the way Eric Raymond has done is like advocating democracy for its levels of production it can achieve. None of us hold democracy so dear (assuming that most of us do hold democracy dear) because of its commercial value. We hold democracy dear because it elevates us all to equal status (in theory) in society, and adorns its citizens with rights protected by a government in which all citizens have an equal say (again, in theory).
We admire free software for the same reason we admire freedom itself, not for any benchmarks of production. Any such mundane benefits of free software (performance, stability, ingenuity) should be considered side effects of free software, and the benificial outcome of the application of its principles.
Raymond could be a successful disciple of free software if he confined himself to analyzing the processes in the way the "Three Amigos" have done and helping to formulate a repeatable and more or less standard method of development. This seems to be his forte, I think unfortunately his ego has been thrust into the advocacy spotlight by the apparent success of the "Cathedral and the Bazaar".
I see Stallman as a sort of software libertarian, whereas Raymond is a free software economist, and the two could certainly co-exist. The problem is that the two characters have been pushed into advocacy either by perception or reality, and in the light of advocacy neither is a good man for the job.
--
Aaron Gaudio
"The fool finds ignorance all around him.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
Shut Up And Show Them The Code.
Ditto.
So what exactly are OSI's accomplishments? True to your suggestion, I expect the answer in terms of written code. Show me OSI your copylefted code, you the teachers of freedom. Not for a moment do I doubt that you are indeed the leaders in freedom. That you are the leaders of free software I do not dispute. But it is not freedom for the users, it is freedom of businesses who do not wish to pay their programmers and quickly find find shelter under the open source 'model'. What copylefted programs did Netscape, Apple, and the like, give us in return? Nothing, except for few paragraphs in newspapers. ( And half of the these references were not even about free software, they were about Eric S. Raymond...) Don't ask me were is my code, I have been around.
APSL. The people will not forget who is ESR!
and use emacs for everything but web browsing (and maybe even that).
But not XEmacs....
And people wonder why GNU fanatics are interpreted as freaks...
I think he meant GNOME's use of GTK+.
I cannot consider RMS a zealot, just because he is assertive of his achievements and his brainchild(ren). What has ESR done for free software besides write essays? I recall cathedral/bazaar harped on about the virtues of the GPL model in preference to BSD/closed house and proprietary models.
How dare he then turn around and bag GPL ideals?
I couldn't care less that Joe Average doesn't "get it", so what? I couldn't care less if commercial companies don't get it either. RMS knows his mind, and the greatest social changes take time.
The only reason commercial offerings like Corel are jumping on the bandwagon is to be the proprietary standard. It's only a matter of time before a free alternative becomes available and all of these companies know it.
Case, who would buy photoshop or such when there's Gimp? I'd like to see analagous products to compete in all facets.
The OpenSource semantic isn't what's putting free software in the the enterprise, it's the grassroots actions of sysadmins such as myself who have run GNU tools for years on whatever *ix machines they're working with.
Screw you ESR, and screw commercial moneygrabbers. If you want to spend money and sacrifice freedom, you may as well stick with the competition.
FTR, what sort of moron could possibly label RMS as a communist? Can't you see the self-regulating anarchy he's espousing?
POKE 36879,8
if you look at the accomplishments of 1999 so far you will see that they are totally marketting accomplishments and not software accomplishments. Linux gets the big 2.2. GNOME switches to 1.0. X11Amp gets bought and a name change (which is god awful IMO). Oh.. and we got a few Windows cloned toys to play with. Big fsck'n deal. Everyone is so stuck with killing that one company and rising to the top that they miss the point of software.
Software isn't this glorious thing that very few people can create--like Microsoft has made you believe. Software is simple to create. Software is just instructions for doing a certain task. You don't need to own your own factory to create it. So why does ESR insist on turning _free software_ into the Microsoft vision of software. Why won't people accept RMS' view of software? If it looks like a dog and smells like a dog then why does ESR want you to believe it's a cat?
Get off the wagon and start helping us pull. The more people on the wagon and the less pulling means the wagon isn't going too far.
Perl just has a weaker license. This is fine, but not suitable in all cases.
gcc is probably the best example of how a good product only got better, and STAYED FREE as a direct result of its license, rather than being proprietised. If it had been under a weaker license like the Artistic or BSD license, then it would not be the product it is today.
__// `Thinking is an exercise to which all too few brains
_
\\/ are accustomed' - First Lensman
ESR propounds the Theory of Towels
And waves his arms towards the vision.
RMS knows where his towel is,
And locates it with considerable precision.
el bid
It seems that you misunderstand principles of
communism, Probably you know it only from
publications in western press. I should know
better becouse I lived in Soviet Union 22 years
(and then it falled).
Principle of communism is quite clear "get from
anybody up to their abilities, and give anybody
up to their needs". It is exactly what RMS proposes. All bad things you've cited are not
inherent properties of communism, they are just
design flaws of attempt to implement communism
in scarce goods economy world.
In the "virtual" world where if something is
once created it is available for anybody, communists just are less harmful than in real world.
Although, even in software world they can violate
people's righs by putting restrictions on software, once they feel they have enough power
to do so. Late RMS's idea about developing libraries under GPL, and not LGPL is perfect example, becouse it causes problems for people
who just want to earn their living by writing
good commercial software. It requires them not
to use good free(?) libraries, so their customers
suffer. Troll Tech behaves much better in this
aspect, saying "If you want to develop non-free
sofware, share profit with us". Stallman doesn't
leave such option. If this isn't hardcore communism, I never passed "Scientific communism"
course in University.
>Both types are important to the advancement of Linux.
bingo. its not about linux. its about freedom.
philosophical father?
:) Anyone whose arguments for/against something sound like little more than religious evangelism needs to find a better way to argue.
I guess Locke, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, and anybody else who ever wrote anything about freedoms and rights never existed, eh?
we here at slashdot?
Which we is that?
A belief in the spirit of the GPL is the one, and ONLY qualification.
Belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the one and only qualification for Christianity... (well, not really, but...
That said, I do have to agree with your statement of companies turning out decent, usable products. However, the argument that the GPL is the be all and end all of software licensing is... weak. I agree with Linus, that "whoever writes the code gets to choose the license, and nobody else gets to complain."
have given away source code
Given away? Such a statement implies that you do not understand the terms of the GPL. It is a license agreement, of the same sort of agreement one might make for use of a commercial software package. It permits redistribution if you distribue source with it. Others have different terms. That's all it is. Holding the GPL as holy writ is short-sighted and closed-minded.
--
The Future: Some assembly required; batteries not included.
RMS is lucky that he doesn't have a family; lucky that he doesn't have a mortgage; and lucky that he has an endowment. He's lucky that he has no temptation for compromise his principles at the end of every month. The rest of us are not so pure.
Basically, you completely missed ESR's point. His point is that RMS speaks to us about issues important to us. He is very bad at speaking to non-hackers. Quote: "RMS is a lunatic."
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
ESR is listening to his own rhetoric a bit too much.
Open Source has received some media attention recently because of the _products_. Apache and Perl are too good examples of programs that have a proven track record of working; working without any hype from ESR or the OSI.
Linux is beginning to get media and corporate attention due to the markeying efforts of companies like RedHat and Caldera. Really, Intel made an investment in a company with a _product_, not a movement.
Yes, the efforts of ESR and other OSI advocates have helped to increase the mind share of open source software; but what really did the trick is a few high quality products (which just happen to have been in production long before OSI existed).
slashdot.com All the news that isn't.
All hail Discordia!
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wagn'nagl fhtagn!
IO PAN! IO IO PAN!!!
nmarshall
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
R.U. SIRIUS: THE ONLY POSSIBLE RESPONSE
nmarshall
The law is that which it boldly asserted and plausibly maintained..
--Colonel Burr 1783
Obviously ESR has a point, businesses feel more comfortable with Open Source terminology, and some practise it, to whatever extent. Obviously RMS has a point, we are where we are. But I didn't think it necessary for ESR to end a to-the-point letter with a taunt, such as "Shut up, and show them the code", because that is something RMS has already done. It never hurts to be civil, more so when respect is due.
1 - Netscape's decision to release Mozilla was because they realized they were losing the browser war. Plain and simple. Sure, theorectically, more programmers could work on it now that it's open source'd but anyone who's paying attention to the project knows that only around 30 non-Netscape developers (compared to the hundreds inside Netscape) have worked on the project since it was released.
2 - Because not everyone has the ability (or desire) to code. Should you not be using a computer because you can't build one from scratch like the Woz? Or not drive cars because you can't make a frame from pigiron? Thanks for taking us back to the pre-Industrial Revolution days.
As one who constantly uses free/open/convenient software, having the "public" know occassionally makes my life easier. Now, when I suggest using Linux on a project, I don't have to spend 1/2 day explaining what Linux, GNU & BSD are and then days trying to convince them that it's considered a "real" OS and that other people use it too. As far as I'm concerned, ESR is doing me a favor by marketing free software for me so I don't have to repeat the same rationalizations over and over again.
Regardless of the situation, someone will always "take without giving back". And for code that's being offered as "free", it seems to be a fairly silly to complain that people don't give back becaue they're just "using" (running) the code.
Sure, when you write code, it's your sandbox and you make the rules. But don't start complaining when
a) someone decides to start building their own sandbox (non-GPL'd licenses, commercial code, or even proprietary code)
b) starts using the sand that you let *everyone* use (abiding the license, of course)
and
c) other people who don't build sandboxes say the other one looks better and decides to play in it.
3 -He didn't say anything about proprietary applications. He said commercial. Not all commercial apps have to be proprietary. This shouldn't need repeating but someone always seems to want to blur the two.
I noted that ESR's title was 'show' them the code, rather than 'give' them the code. subtle wordings can mean a lot, y'know?
ggoebel wrote:
ESR is a definitely feeling the need to take credit
mbmccurdy wrote:
Then how do you explain that he is stepping down? A ploy to gain more media spotlight? Go talk to some of th people in alt.ESR.consipiracy instead. It simply seems unlikely that he really needs to take credit.
I'll explain it when he actually steps down. I remember Eric from his pre-Linux days, and I'll wager that the day he'll step down from the limelight is the day that every major open source code developer that he respects stands up in a line and asks him to stand down.
mbmccurdy wrote:
The most crucial part in a technology taking hold is awareness, followed closely by good marketing. Think BetaMax, think Amiga, OS/2, commodore, etc., yadda, yadda, yadda. [...]Marketing gets customers, and good products keep them.
I would point out that RedHat, Caldera, SuSe, VA Research, and IBM have customers. "Open Source Software" does not.
mbmccurdy wrote:
Do not be sucked into believing that we got here based on the merits of the product. That takes over after you have awareness.
If you think I'll use a shitty product because everyone is aware that it exists and talks it up... Then why aren't you using Microsoft Windows NT?
Besides, the "We" that wrote the code that got "Us" "Here" are using open source software. "We" don't need to prostitute it on the masses. If the masses want to use it... fine. If you are worried about convincing your manager that open source software is better, you damned well ought to do it on technical merit rather than smoke and mirrors.
Life is like an egg better scrambled than fried. -- Ken Sawatari
Six years ago when I first encountered RMS's rhetoric I found it to be rather idealistic (to put is politely). It was ineffectual in the sense that I was content with a rather superficial understanding of the principles that are so dear to RMS. It was ESR's writings that provided the insights into free software that allowed me to realize that I never really got what RMS was saying and how truly unfortunate that was.
The confrontation between ideas and approaches is a necessary foundation for any community in order for it to grow and thrive. If we were to censor such conflicts I have no doubt that the community would only be poorer as a consequence. In my opinion it would be better if we had more people like RMS and ESR who are passionate enough to repeatedly state their case and to defend their convictions; especially when they disagree. It can only help to clarify the issues and ensure a broader appeal.
Rhetoric is like a knife; it is more effective after it has been sharpened.
Robb
Raymond starts a movement - open source - and Stallman says he doesn't want to be a part of that movement because it doesn't match with his ideals. Raymond says "Shut up!" and wants Stallman to quietly allow the Open Source people to trumpet the accomplishments of the GNU project as part of the Open Source movement. This is certainly odd. Why should anyone be forced to allow themselves to be classified with a movement that they don't agree with? I certainly wouldn't. I am not a proponent of the open source movement and do not wish to be lumped in with it either. I'm a free software guy. I personally don't consider the two equivalent.
Interestingly, Raymond claims to believe in freedom for software, but it appears that he believes in it for utilitarian reasons only. I suspect he has a quite different reason for supporting other freedoms. For example, does he think free speech is good only because free speech leads to better government or does he believe it is an inherent moral right of all men? I put free software in the same classifications of rights as free speech and others we hold dear. (Though of course free software is probably not as important).
Your mindshare. Not mine, and not that of a large part of the community. If making effective use of Linux and other stuff that goes with it were to require buying into RMS' utopia, as you seem to want, then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all: Linux would be a laboratory curiosity.
OSI was completely unnecessary; maybe even harmful. The only thing OSI's tactics did was draw in a few commercial companies, a few clueless users, and a bit of attention from Microsoft before we're ready for it. We don't really need commercial companies.
Speak for yourself. Without OSI and the idea that open source software could be liberated from RMS' utopia, Linux wouldn't even be close to the point it is now...where major corporations are using it more and more for real, mission-critical work, and where those who speak it are in more and more demand to provide their professional expertise.
I can't think of any polite way to say this: Fuck you ESR. You're the last person I expected to make this statement, and RMS was the last person I expected this statement to be made about. RMS has written more code than any other person in the community. He spends an insane amount of time coding. He wrote Emacs, the original gcc, and a dozen other free software projects. No offense, but you've written jack squat in terms of useful code.
Ignoring for now that fetchmail is a complete rewrite of popclient, and one of the most stable programs on my system, I would say that ESR's saying just what you are: RMS' contributions in the area of the code itself far, far outshine anyone's, and those contributions alone make a better and more eloquent case than his code plus his political writings (which include the GPV) make. In other words, his political writings detract from his massive contributions, not add to them. Thus, were RMS to indeed "shut up and show us the code", we'd all be farther ahead.
--
Disinfect the GNU General Public Virus!
When I buy something, I own it. I can take it apart and use its pieces to build other stuff, I can sell it to other people, I can give it to my grandchildren, whatever.
Unless: unless it is a piece of software, that is. Never mind that I walk into CompUSA and buy a piece of software the same way that I'd buy a rutabaga or cabbage at the grocery store. I'm not free to take it apart and use its pieces to build other stuff, and according to the 'shrink wrap license' that was put into my face when I tried to run the software (and remember, CompUSA will NOT take the software back, even if I say "Hey, I bought software, not a license"), I'm not free to sell it or give it to my grandchildren when I get tired of it ("This license is for a single computer").
I think this is what the original poster was talking about, not the whole notion of contracts. As far as contracts go, I'll note that the concept of "good faith" is important there. A contract signed at the point of a gun is not valid in a court of law because both parties were not operating in good faith. A 'shrink wrap' license where I've put out my money and then suddenly I'm told 'no, you didn't buy me, and you can't get your money back' is not good faith.
-E
Send mail here if you want to reach me.
If making effective use of Linux and other stuff that goes with it were to require buying into RMS' utopia, as you seem to want, then we wouldn't be having this discussion at all: Linux would be a laboratory curiosity.
I don't think it requires or should require buying into it. But I do think it would be a good thing if most of the users at least knew and understood what RMS' philosophy was. Thanks to OSI, this is not the case.
Without OSI and the idea that open source software could be liberated from RMS' utopia, Linux wouldn't even be close to the point it is now...where major corporations are using it more and more for real, mission-critical work, and where those who speak it are in more and more demand to provide their professional expertise.
Who really cares if major corporations use it? In the end, what I want is a good, strong, free, working product. In the case of commercial software, this requires marketshare. In the case of free software, it doesn't. And if we consistently maintain a better product for a couple of years, corporations will come over even without this type of evangalism. That's how capitalism works; if corporations fail to use a better product, and their competitors do, they'll go out of business.
By the way, where the heck do you get your ideas about MIT? That place has more startups than New Zealand has sheep.
This is pathetic!! Arguing over open source and free software... hmmmmm
Exactly what the subject says, I'll say they knock eachother out in the 5th.
- A/C
If ESR and his minions really sympathize with Stallman's position, then all commercial entities who've been suckered into releasing their code as Open Source should really start to take notice. I find it hard to believe that ESR himself would call his down-to-earth approach 'tactics' and then proceed to identify himself with RMS's ideals. Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
If you purchase the software, then you are right. But in most cases you are not purchasing the software. You are purchasing a license. The same holds true with GNU software -- you don't *own* the software, you accept the license. The fact that money does or does not change hands does not alter the fact that you are obtaining a license, and not possession of the software itself.
(I consider the excuse of lying to the computer versus lying to the software publisher silly at best, but that's another matter entirely.)
No Laughing Allowed!
This is an important point, but not in the way you intended. You *chose* to buy the license to the software, just as you chose to buy the cabbage. Others might make different choices (I would choose, for example, to buy Fritos and to acquire a license to free software). You made the choice, so why point the finger at others for your choice of what to consume?
I sure don't see any pointing of fingers at others for a choice of what to consume. If there is, please show me where. The way I understand it is that he was pointing the finger at others for restricting how he consumes something after he has made the decision to consume it. In the interest of following my own suggestions:
I'm not free to take it apart and use its pieces to build other stuff ...
Are you implying that your software license purchases are made at gunpoint? Do you also buy cabbage at gunpoint, since you said you buy your software license the same way you buy groceries?
I doubt it. Please note what he said, in context:
A contract signed at the point of a gun is not valid in a court of law because both parties were not operating in good faith. A 'shrink wrap' license where I've put out my money and then suddenly I'm told 'no, you didn't buy me, and you can't get your money back' is not good faith.
I really don't think you had to stoop low enough to mangle his worlds like that.
I can't think of a shrink wrap license that was not available prior to opening the media, and which did not include a clause that you could return the product unopened if you disagreed.
And I can't think of a major software retailer that will accept such a return.
Likewise, I can't think of a shrink-wrap license that hasn't included the option to transfer the license.
If I'm not mistaken, a number of OEM Windows installations have licenses which tie the license to the computer.
We need both ESR and RMS, and both their styles of
rhetoric. ESR has a practical appeal, gunning for
businesses to Open Source. ESR has an emotional,
ethical appeal which draws in the intellectual,
philosophy reading crowd.
Together, they attack Open Source or Free Software
from two different angles to two different types
of people. Both types are important to the
advancement of Linux.
They are different sides of the same coin.
To me, the point of ESR's article was that one needs to adjust the message to the recipient. Be sensitive to where people are coming from, and use tactics that work with people in that situation.
Sorta like the Aikido someone mentioned earlier, and this Sufi Teaching Story:
Now, has ESR adjusted his message to the recipient in addressing RMS? I gather that RMS feels that his ideals are not being heard, that they are being drowned out by the excitement of "open source" and "Linux" media buzz. "Success" has been redefined as "commercial and/or widespread popular interest" rather than adherence to or pursuit of ideals. How effective is it to tell such a person publically to "Shut up"?
I'm a little confused as to why ESR would have any need to post a response. The response to Metcalf had nothing to do with him, only a kind word from Stallman. It's like the interview at linuxworld which was billed as an interview with Bruce Perens, which later on included a response (more like a staged email confrontation) from ESR. I'd be happy if more people would just ignore his ramblings, until he can play nice and accept the fact that this isn't a two year old world and we can work toward different ends without being confrontational all the time.
Brian Seppanen
Minister of Information and Propaganda
Area 54 The Secret Government Disco Labs Provo
There's no whining to it. My skills are ALREADY transferable, and I HAVE a job where I get paid to program. I'm a lot more worried that Bill Clinton might be beaten in a pro-wrestling "Mr. President" title match, and the country plunged into chaos, than I am that a bunch of amateurs and students are going to deprive me of my income.
Show us the code, indeed. I'm sure the Initial Twins are great guys, but I've seen their work, and if they DID want to get the big bucks from a big corporation I'm afraid they'd have to kick out the jams a little harder. Bragging about how many people use a program you wrote five years ago, plus fifty cents, will buy a cup of bad coffee from the commissary down the hall; Danish is extra.
Why does free software (or whatever you want to call it) need to be marketed? There was plenty of readily available good free software before ESR started his crusade, and frankly Linux and FreeBSD (to pick a couple of well-known examples) seem pretty much able to sell themselves.
Put bluntly: what has ESR done for the rest of us?
All hail Saint IGNUcius.
All hail ESR, who is his Luther.
All hail Discordia.
...but I have to agree with you about the song.
Although several of my non-hacker friends tend to get really scared of RMS' phrasing (see the essay entitled Why Software Should Not Have Owners for an example of something that made at least three people uneasy), I find it somewhat ironic that they respond better to the idea of a "free software" movement rather than an "open source" movement. Next on the agenda: dig up some of ESR's stuff to show them.
Naturally, the immediate utility of open source is to hackers who want to tinker with the functionality of a program. (Which would indirectly benefit ordinary consumers who would get products with fewer "features" and more features.) As for the ordinary person? The price matters more than a few tens of thousands of lines of C++.
At least the corporations respond better to the idea of "open source."
-W-
-W-
Is it all journey, or is there landfall?
--Ellison & van Vogt, 'The Human Operators'
... and I mean this in the best possible way. Hasn't anyone else read ESR's interview at linux.com where he talks about calibrating for media interest? The media are pathetically poor at reporting subtle (or even not-so-subtle) philosophical nuances. The media are great at reporting conflict and personality clashes -- it's their bread and butter. So, if RMS and ESR let their subtle (though not necessarily unimportant) clash over strategy and tactics into the media, they sustain interest in both "free" and "open source" software, and more folks end up actually reading the GNU Manifesto and the Open Source Definition.
I would also like to note that part of the "clash" between RMS and ESR probably relates to the fact that RMS is an ethicist and a philosopher, and ESR is an aikidoka. RMS is concerned that the ethical imperitive and philosophical underpinnings of free software are not lost in the new emphasis on "open source" as a marketing strategy. ESR is a student of Aikido. In Aikido, you don't confront your opponent with force-vs-force, but you redirect your opponent's engergy in a less destructive way. Also, it is believed that simply doing Aikido is the primary way to absorb and begin to practice the philosophy of peaceableness, rather than beginning by studying the writings of O-Sensei.
So, RMS is trying intellectual and moral persuasion in order to promote free software. ESR is trying to get more corporations to do free software, and trusting that the philosophy will follow. Both approaches are complementary, not contradictory. I'm glad we have both RMS and ESR.
He would have you believe that the
FSF and OSI have diverged over vast matters of principle, when in fact the OSI (and the Open Source movement as a whole) is carefully designed to be able to include people with beliefs like RMS's.
I think the point RMS was trying to make is that the OSI failed at this. It's been trying to convert people en masse without teaching them the principles. This is quite the opposite of what the FSF wants to do (which prefers even fewer people who understand the ideals behind free software than huge masses that cluelessly use it).
Is this justified? Well -- consider the 180-degree turnaround in press and mainstream perception that has taken place in the last fourteen months, since many people in our tribe started pushing the same licenses and the same code we used to call "free software" under the "open source" banner.
Maybe this is because only now GNU/Linux has reached useablity for mainstream use. Without a GUI or a word processor (14 months ago), it was mostly good as a hacker's tool. It was certainly useless on the desktop. The press is and was what is to be expected given the relative maturity of the product now and then.
Our market share and mind share have both zoomed to a level that would have seemed the stuff of delirious fancy as recently as January of last year.
Marketshare, yes. Mindshare, no. People were converted without ever being tought the mindshare, and because of this you get licenses like the Sun Community License, which have all the benefits of Open Source, and none of the benefits of Free Software.
OSI's tactics work. That's the easy part of the lesson. The hard part is that the FSF's tactics don't work, and never did. If RMS's rhetoric had been effective outside the hacker community, we'd have gotten where we are now five or ten years sooner and OSI would have been completely unnecessary (and I could be writing code, which I'd much rather be doing than
this...).
No. Code works. Advocacy helps, but it's code that brought these people over. Writing an operating system is, to some extent, a sequential process. Before someone could start work on the kernel, we needed a framework to develop it in (gcc, et al). Before we could win over any real number of programmers, we needed to have a useable system. It's really the development of GTK and Qt that caused the sudden growth. At that point, programmers could easily develop GUI apps, and we gained a huge developerbase. Add two years for those apps to mature, and we get a useable OS. That's why we are here as late as we are.
OSI was completely unnecessary; maybe even harmful. The only thing OSI's tactics did was draw in a few commercial companies, a few clueless users, and a bit of attention from Microsoft before we're ready for it. We don't really need commercial companies. Other than Netscape and WordPerfect, what commercial programs do you use, ESR? WordPerfect for Linux has existed for ages; it was just not as advertised.
So he next time RMS, or anybody else, urges you to "talk about freedom", I urge you to reply
"Shut up and show them the code."
I can't think of any polite way to say this: Fuck you ESR. You're the last person I expected to make this statement, and RMS was the last person I expected this statement to be made about. RMS has written more code than any other person in the community. He spends an insane amount of time coding. He wrote Emacs, the original gcc, and a dozen other free software projects. No offense, but you've written jack squat in terms of useful code. You should try coding something one of these days instead of yelling about how Linux succeeded because of you. And I ain't talking about a useless compilers for purposely stupid/joke languages like Intercal.
Note: To my knowledge, the real coding work ESR has done was to take popclient, add a few features, call it Fetchmain, and take credit for the whole thing. Other than that he's only written tiny utilities and joke programs.
- pmitros at mit.edu (not associated with the FSF)
What ESR is saying is that RMS is a class coder and a visionary, but he is not a n effective evangalist--he is not effective as a leader of men, and that his abrasive confrontational style is not effective in getting the world at large to adopt his views. Why? Because he is preoccupied with "purity" of licenses. GNU languished in an obscure corner for years and then along came a Finnish CS student who brought it out into the light of day--and if you look at a lot of the interpretations that Linus has taken of the GNU license (e.g., re modules are not covered by the GNu license) you will understand that this is objectionable to RMS as "impure" even though it gets the job done and lets a lot of people who are unsure about how their business can survive in the real world and yet contribute to open/free software (e.g., release a driver binary). There are a lot of similar examples associated with Linux, if you actually look at the various licenses involved, and their **interpretation**. The point is that after a period of uncertainty, as the contributers found their way, almost all of these BUSINESSES were willing to release their code under some variant of the open/free license scheme acceptable to most of the community.
The comparative roles of RMS and ESR in the recent Apple license debate is a recent case in point. RMS and his minions only managed to piss people at Apple off (and had a lot of other people like IBM, SGI, etc. deeply wondering). ESR got them to change their license to something acceptable (not RMS's platonic ideal, but something acceptable) in spite of RMS's efforts to spread ill will! ESR is an evangalist to the real world, capable of producing effects in the real world. RMS is an ivory tower CS professor, with a strong vision of where he wants the programming world to go. The real world is unlikely to follow RMS **all** of the way to his vision, and the real world will probably always be more complicated than RMS likes. We can share RMS's vision as an ideal, but the reality is that we will have to decide for ourselves if a particular license , or a particular version of a license (QT, APSL, etc.) is acceptable to us. If you don't like it, don't play their game.
RMS and the FSF seem also to not understand that the words that you use (and the timing with which you use them, as in the recent Apple license debates) can have a profoundly negative effect on the people whom you most want to proselytize--sounding like some kind of "communist" scares people whom many in the community really want as friends. MOst of us covet code like Jikes and can see a benefit to the general community from Darwin, and these and other are now covered by licenses that are "open" and sufficiently "free" to be acceptable, and RMS and the FSF didn't do a damn thing to get those licenses put in their present form, and there is no sign they will do anythine in the future to get those licenses opened up to be even "freer" than they are now (and closer the the truly"free" ideal).
I guess I should stop and summarize by saying I think RMS is preaching to the choir, while ESR is preaching on street corners and evangalizing to the unbeleiving and doubtful. Both have very similar messages, but ESR is willing to tolerate a longer conversion process.
RMS would be the anchor- like a stake in the ground- symbolizing where we have 'no ground to give'. He can be untroubled more easily- his purpose is to _stand_ _his_ _ground_ and though he might not agree with distractions, he can stand his ground whatever else happens.
ESR would be like a bird, for instance a hawk out looking for prey to capture into the Open Source Way. He's willing to make concessions- because he is totally unconcerned with 'ground' and is mostly interested in the next tactical victory. It wouldn't trouble him if the whole landscape got moved to somewhere else as long as he could still catch business for Open Source.
This is why they will never agree, and why ESR's going to always be more frazzled by it- RMS can be irate or serene about this far-ranging ESR, but his job is to stand his ground and keep part of the movement anchored, which he does, and knows it. ESR, on the other hand, has an easy time when the prey is near home territory, but what about when there are opportunities far afield? There's a _stake_ driven into the other end of the movement, and when ESR tries to take it all on the road in search of greener pastures, it _doesn't_ _move_! So ESR is doomed to frustration, because he speaks for (or on behalf of) a movement that simply will not leave its own territory to search for more opportunity. RMS is trying to guarantee an ideological homeland, and can do it (does do it) merely by standing his ground and sticking by his popular licenses- ESR is trying to maximise acquisitions and cares nothing for land-based values, and he _can't_ grab every opportunity because some people refuse to let go of that 'homeland'.
I sympathise with ESR's plight, even though I am (for reasons of my own) quite seriously anchored with RMS. I think it's a shame that ESR can't move and negotiate as freely as he'd clearly like to. It's like keeping a hawk and tying a long string to its leg- *yank*.
However, I do think that if we were all hawks, we'd end up scattered before the wind, eventually exterminated as pests for lack of any strong place to hold our ground from. ESR's vision alone is like open source as countless flocks of passenger pigeons. Certainly there was a time when these darkened the skies with their flocks- but where are they now?
RMS's vision, alone, is an enclave. I prefer that to the potential extinction of the competing vision- but I do think it's useful to have both around, and to be able to pick a spot between the anchor and the hawk that suits my comfort.
RMS will probably never just "shut up and show the code". And i fully admire him for that. Because all of us must understand that RMS and ESR are two different powers in our software world, and they are both doing two different things, both necessary to the survival and development of 'Open Source', 'Free Software', or whatever name you might find for it.
They are like the two hemispheres of our brains, each performing a different function. It is from balancing these movements and from their coexistence that what people today call GNU/Linux was formed.
If people just understood that and listened and supported both, and formed their opinions by thinking for themselvs, instead of blindly rallying for one side, like in a juveline wrestling match, this community would probably be a happier place.
I don't pretend i am perfectly right, or that i know the absolute truth. But this is how i see it.
Good day.
>It simply seems unlikely that he really needs to
;) He seems not simply pretend for a credit, but particularly pretent for RMS's credit, for my credit, for Your credit(if You happen to have some FS projects)...
>take credit.
It seems more likely he wants to get a credit and avoid responsibility. Look at Mozilla project: a clear example of company misled by ESR's ideas. Where it is now ? Is it a successful company ? Is it a successful Free Software project ? IMNSHO, it's neither.
So, several years from now ESR will tell You something like: I did a great thing, success of Linux and GNU was just because I marketed it... Only, after I stepped down it went wrong... and no company was able to profit on it as I promised them.
Otherwise reading ESR is fun.
The term "Open Source" is great for You, english speakers, because it removes ambiguity of the "Free Software" term. BUT IT'S NO MORE THAN THAT, and it is the main reason why, as ESR mentioned, sometimes "Free Software" is replaced with "Open Source"...
to tell another man how to live his life?
FSF is about the domain of FSF software and the definition of what Free Software is.
ESR seems to see his post as to "coordinate" and set priorities for, i.e. control, that which he defines falling within OSI, FSF included.
The measure of success of FSF has been the development of the "greater" Linux O.S. with FSF tools.
Is this success lesser than the OSI political initiatives? I for one do not think so.
Have you ever actually tried to say "gnumeric"?
Bob seems to have done a good job at fragmenting the various movements inside our commnity, this is sad indeed. If this continues, I guess his predicitions have a higher chance of becomming true.
BTW, One of his other prediction was the collapse of the internet in 96, when this didnt come true, he had to eat his column in front of 1000 ppl.
--
The only people who can care about (or understand) free (beer/speech) software is programers. Everyone else couldnt care less. If your not a mechanic you dont care if you can open up you engine and fiddle around.
Everyone can understand the promis of better products. Everyone wants better products.
RMS is hard enough to agree with (on a personal level), and when he is speeking of freedoms that you cant understand (or do, but dont care about) then is east to ignore. ESRs message can be grasped by everyone - and it has been.
A short term lease at obscenely high rates is always good.. :)
Geek-grrl in training
To truly understand recursion, you must first truly understand recursion.
He may not be, but far more people are using NT then linux.
Honestly, does Eric S. Raymond think he can take credit for the popularity of Open Source Software (OSS) just because of recent press coverage? -Not to say that his self-publicizing hasn't been useful But it ain't the cat's meow. He, Bruce, and RMS certainly make for a lot of embarrassing in-fighting. I wish they'd stay off the soap box and spend more time coding. Politicians will take credit for which ever way the wind blows, and ESR is a definitely feeling the need to take credit.
I'm also entertained by the use of "We" whenever he wishes to contrast his views versus those of another person. ESR is skilled at the rhetoric he accuses RMS of misusing.
Further I think that it is funny that most of us (note the royal use of "us") would agree that Linux, Perl, Apache, and the countless un-named "OSS" success stories are driven not by the candy wrapper of marketing and press coverage, but by content. -When the press grows tired of covering freely transmitted source code, it will go on. Why does Eric feel that it must be prostituted to the masses for them to accept it?
As for ESR's comments about not sticking to his beliefs when it doesn't fit strategically and rhetorically with the goal of the day... I'll misquote Benjamin Franklin when I say "Those who would relinquish a bit of their liberty for security deserve neither"
Life is like an egg better scrambled than fried. -- Ken Sawatari
I think this is pretty simple to define (this from the man who gave the world the word "SCOGNUX", so use a grain of salt):
Free Software is in the best interests of many, if not most users. Ideally, Free means "free beer" AND "free speech", because the best tools should be given away for the good of the community. At the very minimum, the free speech form is a necessity to the Free Software community.
Then there's the Open Source group. They agree strongly with Free Software, but they'll settle for free speech (though they do enjoy their free beer), so long as the speech isn't too convoluted or restricted. If a company decides to treat their Open Source system as a market for unfree software, they can live with it, but they'd really like to see as much software Open Sourced as possible.
Open Sourcers will compromise on their ideals for the benefit of the larger goal: more Open Source (and Free) software. Free Software people won't.
An Open Source devotee will run Linux, and load KDE, WordPerfect, and Navigator on it, and consider that a win. A Free Software follower will run Linux, but call it GNU/Linux (regardless of the damage to their tongue it can cause...), GNOME, and use emacs for everything but web browsing (and maybe even that).
ESR (and probably a majority of the community) are Open Sourcers. ESR speaks for them frequently, but not exclusively. He's the visible one, though.
RMS (and a vocal, talented minority) are Free Software advocates. To most, RMS is Free Software, and he's done more than anyone else. But his preaching tends to turn off the masses (as do most prophets and idealists).
ESR and RMS are friends. ESR and RMS are friendly rivals. ESR and RMS are bitter rivals. It depends on the day, the cause, and the mood. They both have talent, and they both have egos. Unfortunately, because of that, they will never both pull quite in the same direction, and that's too bad for the community - because as much as they've both accomplished, if they could meet in the middle they'd probably accomplish even more.
It could be worse, though - in many societies they's have gone into the hills with weapons (of which ESR has many) and their followers (of which RMS' are truly devoted to the Cause) and waged a Guerrila war between the Nerds. Scary thought, huh?
-- Josh Turiel
"2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
Look at the testosterone fly! Anyone else think we are getting bogged down in politics here? If you agree with ESR or not, the title of that reponse says it all. Lets code and be happy.
may seem distasteful, but such public disagreements are what makes free software or open source (call it what you like) so strong. It is annoying that chattering outsiders (read, news media) thoroughly misinterpret the noise, but they just don't get it. Because at the end of the day, after the shouting, both RMS and ESR produce working code. And thats damn fine.
Its the whole Malcom X and MLKjr. thing all over again. One is pushing a very extreame and frightening view (to some), the other a more sugar coated version. Both are needed. If RMS wasn't around, ESR (given he somehow held the same ideals) would sound like a crackpot.
I think ESR is really trying to deny the fact that THE ONLY REAL difference between Gnu/Linux(and other GPL stuff), and M$ crap, are the RMS principles. Companies have and do turn out excellent quality material, and have even given away source code, but under NON-GPL terms. Doing this does not make them part of the Free-Source movement. A belief in the spirit of the GPL is the one, and ONLY qualification. And for me, 'RMS Free Source' is the only true movement. Everything else is just an attempt to cash in on its success.
Also, to all those people who hate RMS's rhetoric, please remember that he is, actually the philosophical father of all the values we here at slashdot believe in. Even if u don't like his style of advocacy, take a few minutes to realize that 'freedom' in its most basic form, is that of speech, and he has a right to any way he chooses to express it. Don't like it? well, do it ur way, but don't be such a thankless jerk.
LinuxGhoul
Sigura Non Grata
I think RMS and ESR should just cut anything between them and start growing up.
Free software is good. Open source software is good. Combine them both for a real killer combo.
This isn't a case of "my way or the highway". Both things are very good, and have the potential to greatly build each other up. Lately all it seems is quabbling.
RMS and ESR have their differences. Great. But they should honestly not fight over it! They should hone and focus against closed, proprietary software. ESR is a saw, RMS is a hammer. Wouldn't a hammer and a saw be better put to use building things up, instead of the hammer whacking the saw and the saw cutting up the hammer?
We need these two gents... and we need them to stop any sort of dispute between them. Let's lock them in a room with Nerf bats for a few hours so they can settle things, and just agree to disagree.
The way I see it, there really isn't a whole lot of difference between the two 'camps.'
Stallman is the voice of idealism, sometimes a bit extreme, yes...but he's there to get in our face and remind us what the underlying principles are, or at least *should be.* His views aren't popular, because he won't fsck around trying to sugar coat the message for the masses.
Raymond, on the other hand, seems to be the voice of practicality. "Let's put this out there in front of the suits in terms they can understand and will adopt...that they'll get used to and embrace."
Call it a difference in psychology. Stallman's message is one of 'slap you in face and yell this is how is ought to be dammit! *whack*' While Raymond's is more 'C'mon...this really is a good thing...you *know* you want it...mmmm...good...mmm. C'mon...open up...that's a good PHB...mmmm.'
It's nothing we should be throwing "outbursts" like this one about for, though. IMHO, this article was a step backwards in unifying the two 'camps.'
Blech. Signatures.
I am often amazed at how infuriating RMS's writings are to many people. His concise response to Bob Metcalfe's article has done it again.
ESR's thesis seems to be that the "propaganda" of Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation has only hurt the cause of free software. ESR claims that their contribution to the community is the software itself, rather than the rhetoric. However, he then goes on to congratulate himself and the rest of the "Open Source advocates" for their particular brand of propaganda: "OSI's tactics work."
Setting aside the presumptuousness of claiming that ESR et al. are wholly responsible for the degree of acceptance that free software has today ("consider the 180-degree turnaround in press and mainstream perception that has taken place in the last fourteen months, since many
people in our tribe started pushing the same licenses and the same code we used to call "free software" under the "open source" banner"), I think it makes sense to ask what "success" means to ESR. Apparently, it involves "market share" and "mind share" amongst "opinion leaders" and "executives." What will the free software movement have to compromise, or what has been compromised already, in the rush towards corporate acceptance? (I hope that "Open Source advocates," with their chumminess with "opinion leaders," haven't gotten too comfortable with jet-setting speaking engagements, despite their protestations to the contrary.)
Ultimately, the FSF philosophy that is so roundly criticized is not about the end product -- if such a thing even exists in the software industry. Rather, it concerns itself with the process of its creation. Whether the software is ignored or widely used is ultimately unimportant. What matters in Richard Stallman's moral calculus is the way that the software is written and the way those pieces are distributed: for a programmer, this is the way you live your life.
Perhaps this is why people dislike RMS so much: he is proposing a set of ethics for hackers, a modern text on how to better the community as a whole through the act of programming. And perhaps the lesson of the last twenty years of the 20th century is that many people just don't want to be bothered with contributing to their community when they could spend that time making more money.
-- Paul Walmsley, shag@nicar.org
Oddly ESR has the gaul to publicly tell RMS to "shut up and show them the code" while RMS has written far more Free Software than ESR. Furthermore, ESR writes long-winded psuedo-science which real scientist find embarassingly simplistic and reveal ESR's lack of education. While in contrast, RMS writes concise and clearly worded statements that convey exactly what he is trying to communicate. ESR is the one who needs to "shut up and show them the code!" What ESR is doing is counter-productive to the goals of Freedom for all users of software.
True enough.
It would be wrong to say that individuals (myself included) are not influenced by smoke and mirrors, but we ought not to compromise the inherent nature of "open" source code by obfuscating it in smoke and mirrors marketing tactics that redefine and blur the meaning of "open" when-ever it is convenient
Life is like an egg better scrambled than fried. -- Ken Sawatari
Erik no more begat the "open [sic] source movement" than did Richard beget the "free [sic] software movement". Both existed before them, and would continue to exist without them. We've always had software that was gratis, or software that was unencumbered, or software with politically and/or economically motivated restrictive licences, or software that always had the source code available. Sometimes more than one of these applies to the same software suite. (Except of course for encumbered and unencumbered, which are mutually exclusive if you deem them boolean properties.)
Let's not confuse the spokeman with the thing. The thing has been with us always.
> Never mind that I... buy a piece of software the
> same way that I'd buy a rutabaga or cabbage
This is an important point, but not in the way you intended. You *chose* to buy the license to the software, just as you chose to buy the cabbage. Others might make different choices (I would choose, for example, to buy Fritos and to acquire a license to free software). You made the choice, so why point the finger at others for your choice of what to consume?
> I'm not free to take it apart...
Of what use would it be to take apart a license? If you make an uninformed decision to buy broccoli instead of cabbage, do you complain that the grocer is not allowing you to make coleslaw? You think you are buying software, but that is not the fault of the software publisher, reseller, etc., it is your fault for not understanding what you are buying.
> A contract signed at the point of a gun...
Are you implying that your software license purchases are made at gunpoint? Do you also buy cabbage at gunpoint, since you said you buy your software license the same way you buy groceries?
> A 'shrink wrap' license where I've put out my
> money and then suddenly I'm told 'no, you didn't
> buy me, and you can't get your money back' is
> not good faith.
I can't think of a shrink wrap license that was not available prior to opening the media, and which did not include a clause that you could return the product unopened if you disagreed. (If you have such a license, you're probably right, it probably wouldn't stand up in court.) But what I suspect is really the case is that you want the software enough to open the product -- and it goes back to what you are choosing to consume.
> I'm not free to sell it or give it to my
> grandchildren when I get tired of it
Likewise, I can't think of a shrink-wrap license that hasn't included the option to transfer the license. But in this case, lack of such a clause probably would not render the license unenforceable. It would just make it a worse choice for something to purchase.
You have the freedom -- and responsibility -- to choose how you spend your money. I suggest you not complain about how others are at fault for the choices you make.
No Laughing Allowed!
If bullshit were music these two wouldn't be dualing banjos....
They'd be dualing orchestras!
Can't we all just get along?
Can you market your soul without selling it ?
No-one is waving a gun in an airplane or blowing up the World Trade Center. This is about as relevant as comparing RMS to Stalin. By extension, Godwin's law means that you lose :-)
Daniel