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.
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
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).
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'
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."