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.
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
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.
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)
Between ESR and RMS, who talks more and who has the most code to show?
- Sam Ruby
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
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.
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
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.
The endless "But I wanna get paid" whines are very annoying to people like me who actually (shock!) read the FSF position on this. If you want to be paid to write software, find someone who'll pay you to write Free software. Don't try to confuse Commercial with Proprietary.
What are you being paid for anyway? To write MS Windows? Like most programmers you're probably getting to paid to write something because your company NEEDS that software. Even if it was Free instead of Proprietary, they'd still need it, and they'd still need to employ someone to write it. You.
The GNU web pages make it perfectly clear that they neither expect nor desire a future where no-one is paid to write code. In fact when your skills are easily transferable, and customisation is the number one employer, there will likely be *more* well paid jobs, because more companies can use your talents.
The spin on Free Software created by ESR's Open Source name doesn't affect the ability for you to get a job, it just changes the media perception (which is less relevant than ESR would like you to think). Business isn't looking at charities like the FSF anyway -- it's looking at Red Hat. So the business model for Free Software isn't the FSF's model, but the Red Hat model.
Nick.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.