Slashdot Mirror
Interview with Good Software Group Founder
[ The following is an interview by Hired, the monthly magazine devoted to commerce and trade, with Gilbert Oram Dawson, the founder of the Good Software Group. ]Hired: Gilbert, it's been fifteen years since you single-handedly created the Good Software movement and its spokesman and umbrella organization, the Good Software Group. How does it feel to be sitting in the catbird seat, now that Good Software is all the rage?
Dawson: It's a great feeling to see just about everyone either using or else wanting to use Good Software. It proves that I am the visionary I always told you I was. But I'll tell you this: it hurts me that most people don't realize that without the Good Software Group, they probably wouldn't even *have* any Good Software. In fact, most people who use Good Software have barely even heard of the GSG. It really wounds me to be so under-appreciated, even after all the Good Software that I've personally created for the world.
Hired: Maybe that has something to do with the common misunderstanding of what Good Software is really about. Not everyone uses "good" the way you do, you know.
Dawson: Listen, I'm getting really tired of that old refrain. You get the feeling that these people have never looked into a dictionary before. If you check, you'll find that it is perfectly legitimate to use "good" to refer to saleable commodities, merchandise, or wares.
For example, here's one from the dictionary: "All that follows will hold true of any storable good, like cotton, wool, rubber, tobacco, wheat, coffee, sugar, oil, copper, or tin." Here's another: "As a steady, cheap, business-making consumer good,..the book is out." And here's one more: "For example, the existence of stocks of goods which might have to be reduced in some amount before additional resources were guided to the favoured good were ignored." Those are right there in the Oxford English Dictionary, so there's no room for argument. I'm right, and they're wrong.
I have invested many many years of my life in promoting Good Software. I am not about to change what I call it now simply because a bunch of idiots who never even finished grad school can't understand simple English words.
Hired: I'm sorry. I didn't intend to argue. Perhaps for the sake of our readers, Gilbert, you might please explain just what it is that you *do* mean by "good software"?
Dawson: Sure, I'd be glad to. Everything I'm about to say, though, is clearly explained on the Good Software Group's website, including just exactly what we mean when we say "Good Software". I don't always have time to explain just what a good is to everyone the GSG comes in contact with. I wish when they heard about Good Software--which is admittedly a slightly ambiguous abbreviation for a much more elaborate concept--that they would look at our website, or at the very least, pick up a dictionary. Words mean different things to different people and in different contexts. In my case, a word means just exactly what I say it means, and if people care about what I say it means, they should visit my website.
Hired: Um, and what *does* it mean?
Dawson: Oh right. It's so simple a child could understand it. Good Software is software that is made for the express purpose of facilitating the exchange of any sort of good or service for the purposes of commerce or trade.
Hired: And why did you form the Good Software Group?
Dawson: I'm really glad you asked that. I founded the GSG because at the time, our nation's E-conomy [The editors believe that the interviewee was referring to "electronic economy", but in retrospect, it's unclear. --Hired] was in serious straits, and I thought that a lot of the problem stemmed from wasted programming effort that did not produce Good Software. When programmers waste all their nights creating fritterware and useless eye candy, they are not actually *producing* anything. And without a tangible good for consumers to beg, barter, or steal, not only our E-conomy but also our economy stagnate. Think of the innumerable hours wasted on writing screen-savers. Where are the goods that come of that? Everything is just bits; nothing is tangible. If you're not writing Good Software, your effort has been lost to all of mankind, because you've made *nothing*.
Hired: Is that why you created the the GPL?
Dawson: Yes, that's *exactly* why I created the Good-Software Permanent Licence. The GPL is a way to use copyright law to make absolutely sure that the next bit of oh, I don't know, maybe manufacturing software, for example, can't ever be turned into something non-Good like a screen-saver. You really should go read about the GPL on our website, but what it amounts to is that Good Software can never be subverted into non-Good Software. That way any fixes or changes won't be lost forever to the business community that created the Good Software in the first place. By making sure that all effort on Good Software produces more Good Software, we as a people, a nation, an entire planet all benefit as commerce and trade continue to grow.
Hired: Do you feel that the Good Software Group is neglected when the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal mentions E-commerce but doesn't talk about how important Good Software and the GSG in particular have been to it?
Dawson: I don't care for the word "E-commerce", and you've put your finger on exactly why. It disrespects how important we are. Don't you realize that without Good Software, the E-conomy would be nowhere? It's the very foundation of the entire system! Oh, there isn't always a lot of our stuff there, but we were the guiding light behind it all. That's why I insist upon the term "Good/E-commerce" instead. However, if you really find that difficult, I shall permit you to use the term "E/Good-Commerce" in my presence as a tolerable but not a preferable alternative. The reason I don't care for it as much is that you've placed the Good part too far back, even though I really started it all. At least you give the GSG some credit that way, though.
Hired: I'm sorry -- I'll try to more careful from now on. I'd like to thank you for this interview. I'm sure that this will clarify for our readers your role in the goodware movement--
Dawson: Stop right there! I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the so-called "goodware" movement. I am the founding father of "Good Software" movement, which is completely different. "Goodware" is the despicable term used by a sham libertarian outfit who's trying to reach out to the not-for-profit community. When they say "goodware", they just mean software that's not bad. Can you believe it? Do you realize that they actually support letting people take what was originally Good Software and convert it into something that will never be used for one single good or service? That no longer will money change hands? Why, if everyone did that, our whole country would fall apart! That's not Good Software, and I shall have nothing to do with them. Fortunately, the GPL prohibits them from doing that with GPL'd software, which is why I strongly advocate slapping the GPL on every bit of software you can. It's the only way to keep those gun-toting libertarians off our backs and to keep our nation's E-conomy strong!
Hired: You know, Gilbert, if you were to legally change your name to add a second middle name like "Outspoken", then your initials would be a lot more meaningful for mail. Not only could you get mail sent to "good@gsg.com", but you could make your login a trademark to protect your unique use of the term "GOOD SOFTWARE".
Dawson: That's an intriguing idea -- it would certainly help me in my current legal battles with those pesky lawyers which the liberatian goodware people keep throwing up at me when I tell them they can't say "goodware" because I have prior art in using my own personal standard definition of "good".
But I'd really have to keep the old mail alias. For some reason, folks tend to put more weight into my writings under the current login. And it makes me feel good--er, I mean, important.
Q: How many FSFers does it take to define `free'?
A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!
I've observed this principle in everything from technical discussions to religious debates. The people who do all of the yelling are either ignorant and hope noise covers their lack of understanding, or they are hypocritical and trying to deflect attention from their own problems.
Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately?) the Internet lets these people spout off to thousands of people as opposed to the 2 or 3 who happened to be stuck next to them. The result is that people decide that the "gnashing of teeth" is normal behavior for the group, when in reality the majority of people are quite calm and normal. They just don't speak up that often.
The Free Software movement has just as many screaming groupies as any other mildly interesting organization. Just ignore them.
Hehe. That's the real Tom we all know and love.
Just go do a DejaNews search on Tom C.'s rantings in the gnu.misc.discuss group and elsewhere. He's definitely got a huge chip on his shoulder about RMS, GNU, and the GPL. I can't believe that a guy as tolerant and understanding of other people as Larry Wall puts up with Tom as a perl community leader.
Yes. Then maybe we'll be embarrassed enough to stop behaving like a bunch of immature 11-year-olds.
Disclaimer: I don't speak for Rob, of course.
--
--
=8^
Richard Stallman might bore or offend you with his vocalization of his beliefs about free software. Some people fight for what they believe in, and often good things come from it. I think I can thank Richard Stallman for what he's given to the community, under a license perfectly acceptable to me for all the things I'd wish to do with the software.
Tom Christiansen has also given work to the community. Not being a perl-head, my appreciation of his efforts are constrained mostly to watching him protect his name on Slashdot. Tom also believes very much in what he does and isn't afriad to tell the world what he thinks.
The difference in the application of these beliefs. Richard Stallman attacks non-free software. His goal seems to be the demise of proprietary software and the widespread use of software you can share with your neighbor. I'm all for this goal, and I'm sure even Tom would prefer this future over many possible others (I'll leave his definition of "free" for another time).
Instead of attacking software, Tom attacks people. This is the difference. Instead of composing a well-researched criticism of the licenses that offend him, or of Richard's software which isn't technically suited for its use, or even the foundation's principles which he can't appreciate, he parodies a person and his character.
Tom, you're no Larry Wall.
Someone needs the code, someone pays you to write it. This is how the majority of programming jobs works.
For a minority of programming jobs, the need is distributed on a large number of people, so no single one can pay you. Read the other replies for ideas for how make money on these situations.
Also, there just might be situations where the current model of proprietary code works best. Time will tell.
You are absolutely correct. Which makes TC's current campaign even more of an overreaction.
Please do not put ESR and TC in the same category. ESR has a sense of humor, an even better sense of the community, and are able to disagree in a civil manner. Sure, sometimes ESR says things that he probably wouldn't have said a day later, but does never do that?
Sigh.
Tom Christiansen got insulted when Stallman asked for a free replacement for Toms gratis Perl documentation for use in GNU.
Result: TC is trying by all means to rewrite history, so the whole "free software" thing is a devious plot invented by RMS to decieve people. He has tried various strawmans, used insults, and now he is trying satire. Not to mention his _other_ projects to "get even" on RMS, such as creating a GNU free BSD/Linux.
It doesn't change the fact that the free software community is both older than the GNU project, and much larger includes people who doesn't even consider GNU to be "real" free software, since the GPL contains too many restrictions.
Judging by the replies so far, it looks like quite a few people are seeing why this really is funny. (It *had* to take some time for Tom to come up with this.)
;)
:-)
I think most of the people who disagree with RMS mainly disagree with his focus... It seems like it is much more important to him that a) everyone agree with him (and his definition of "free") and b) everyone understand that *he* is responsible the free software movement. (Before anyone flames me, I'm not saying that *is* how he is, just that it's the impression he gives me.)
What I'm quite sure RMS doesn't understand is that most of us really want the same thing he wants. From what I've read of his original reasons for starting the GNU project, RMS wants free and open exchange of ideas, with source code being just one part of that. Publishing source code helps put the "science" back in "computer science", I suppose.
Unlike Tom, I personally believe that the GPL is a Good Thing, since it forces what I consider to be moral behavior on anyone who wants to use code that I've written. Unlike RMS, I don't think that people are evil if they disagree with me, choose not to use my code, and instead use a more restrictive license (including not releasing source at all).
I heard a quote the other day... It went something along the lines of "someone who agrees with me 80% of the time is not my enemy." RMS really needs to understand that many of us are on his side, really, but we get very turned off by the near-religious rhetoric. (Tom might want to think about that a little too...
Now, let's all get back to writing some code.
2) RMS says he does not oppose commercial distribution of software.
So how exactly am I supposed to write a piece of software for economic gain? If somebody decides they don't like me, they can redistribute my software for free and kill my income (I'm assuming for the moment that software income is separate from any support or subscription fees I might charge).
I feel like I'm missing something here.
-- Old Man Kensey
Listen to what RMS says, not how he says it. Leave translating it into more mainstream acceptable speech to other people if they feel inclined to do it. But don't bash RMS for his non-software political views, and use that to score cheap points.
Remember, this is an international movement, and collectivist and leftwing views are much more prevalent outside the United States, so you'll be alienating the rest of the world if you try to make RMS more acceptable to the States.
First, a minor point: RMS has done useful things for the free software movement, such as, I don't know, write a free compiler, EMACS, and provide a rallying point and the planning for a complete, free system. RMS himself points out that he is not a part of the open source movement.
Yes, people get tired of his ranting about GNU/Linux and Free Software. I get tired of it, too. But that doesn't mean it's not important. Don't disregard the message because of the messenger. It's no accident that we find ourselves here with a high quality, free operating system (note, that's an entire system, not just a kernel) to use. RMS didn't write it all. FSF-sponsored projects didn't write it all. But GNU played a large part in making sure it all got written.
As to your last point, Tom is welcome to poke all the fun he wants to. But this is a discussion community, where people discuss things. So everyone is welcome to a reaction, and if that happens to be that Tom is exploring new ways to carry out his vendetta against RMS, well, sorry. As to myself, if Tom's article was humour, well, then I guess I'm just dour.
--
Ian Peters
I don't understand what Tom has against RMS, but I wish he would come right out and say it. This "satire" was merely insulting, rather than clever, and it failed to make any point, except that Tom has a problem with RMS.
Yes, Stallman can be annoying. Yes, he can be stubborn. Yes, sometimes we all wish he'd just shut up. But he's an idealist, he believes in something, and he follows his beliefs. If you look at what RMS has done, you won't find any ulterior motives, or hidden agendas. He believes in free software, he promotes free software (not himself, as many believe), and most of all, he has worked for (and written!) free software.
Please, compare the rude, offensive, selfish nature of this post with the eloquence of RMS's post of several days ago. I think you'll find a world of difference.
Standard disclaimers: I don't work for the FSF or GNU, I have an email address @gnu.org because I write free software. My beliefs are my own, yada yada yada.
--
Ian Peters
Yes, it's exactly like a religion. RMS is their God, and as such he is above criticism, the FSF web page is their Bible, and FSF Evangilists dispense URLs the same way Christian Evangilists dispense Bible chapter references. (e.g. John 1:20).
I can feel Tom's frustration with them, I have read much of their web site, and I agree with alot of it, but there are things there that I find very disturbing, so I can't agree with them 100%. But if you try to state your opinion (even in a non-flamebait manner) you will attract flames. (Ok, there are reasonable people in the GNU camp, but they tend to get drowned out amid the flames)
Looking through the comments, there are a disturbing number of "That's not funny/Why is Tom so mean/How can anyone like RMS" comments, showing that these people do truly seem to lack a sense of humor when it comes to this stuff.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
Looking at the piece without any knowledge of TC and RMS's past, it appears to be a satire of both sides of Open Source/Free Software lampooned at once -- RMS's high horse and ESR's relentless commercial angle. Scylla and Charybdis, all in one, and both sides accused of claiming to be "GOD".
Looked at this way, I find the piece instructive (as good satire should be) -- there are aspects of both that should be avoided. Certainly, we shouldn't alienate the mainstream, but neither should we look to it for salvation. Capitalism, after all, has a long history of sacrificing the long-term for the short. (See Also: pre-WWI radio industry, the early days of the sewing machine industry. Le plus ce change...)
phil
In a slashdot article last week, I posted a question trying to understand the logic of the root philosophies of RMS camp (versus the ESR camp, which I understand).
:).
My question (which basically boiled down to "if I can trade the program I just wrote to a company in exchange for a mini-van, how can you say it has no value?"), resulted in a caustic email from an individual that apparently felt strongly enough to write me and accuse me of first being an idiot and secondly never reading any RMS material.
Note that as an author of an LGPL released package (backburner, see freshmeat.net), this is a pretty silly accusation to make (the never having read the RMS material that is... he may be right about the idiot part
When I pressed him for explanations of the parts of the philosopy that confused me... he kept simply pointing me to the web site.
When I tried to get clarifications on the parts of the logic that escape me, his responses alternated between "if you can't see it, you must be stupid" and "it's on the website, go read it", and "it says what I said it says because I said so".
Plus, the whole exchange was pretty mean spirited.
So anyway, I have experienced exactly what this article is parodying... so like most better parody, I can't decide if it is funny or disturbing...
Please... no email flames already...
Bill Kilgallon
Mathematically impossible requirements are technically not against policy.
Jesus, Christiansen, grow up already. Stallman may be an annoying monomaniac about software, but software is at least interesting -- you on the other hand are an annoying monomaniac about Stallman, which is just plain childish. Fine, you hate the guy. We got the picture. Grow out of it already.
"Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --
Has anyone else noticed that the whole open source methodology, the FSF, the GNU license, Linux, Apache, etc. has been under a huge attack lately? That may be a dumb question, but I have been reading slashdot for about 2 years now & I have noticed a number of the discussions being clouded with political crap & a bunch of opinions being presented by people who don't have their facts straight-usually because they DIDN'T read the article. If you ask me, I think that this is Bill Gates & every other major commercial software player's way of attacking the open source movement. All of the attacks seem to be at a technical level. We have the guy that invented ethernet call open source a fad & the discussions on slashdot and other sources have become so clouded with criticism, FUD, & pointless discussion that it is almost not even worth reading some of the slashdot posts. A bunch of people have been posting replies now for the last 6-8 months that don't make sense. They are full of directionless emotion without indicating any clear purpose or though behind it. It is my opinion that what we are seeing is Bill & his buddies attack on open source. Open Source people want to see code & action, not mindless, emotional pratal. And that seems to be exactly what Bill & his buddies are giving us. Call me paranoid, but you know Bill is paranoid. Look how he reacted to JAVA & the newtons, palm pilot craze (e.g. Windows CE-he wrote an operating system!!! He takes these things seriously.) Open Source is even more threatening to him than the other two combined. It attacks the very fabric of what Gates & his company stands for. And open source has been producing equal to or superior code in a shorter amount of time than M$ can hope to keep up with. Linus started what, back in 1991 (may have that wrong). If so, that is 8 years--linux is 8 yrs old! How long has Bill been working on Windows? And he still doesn't have it right. Bill has a lot of programming talent & he has had seasoned veterans for a while. Open Source WILL produce superior code in every area of software if it is allowed to continue. A simple comparison between commerical & free software proves that. That is what Bill is afraid of. Not so much of what we have now, but of what we will have in the future. He knows he cannot win by competing. Open source will beat him as time goes by. So he has to do his best-to kill it now. And he is doing it by flooding the tech realm w/ FUD & fighting. A house divided against itself cannot stand. Quit squabbling & keep coding!!! Well that is my 2 cents. Correct me at any point that you wish. I welcome it. I am seeking the truth as you all are. But don't waste my time or anyone else's by posting a piece of thoughless, emotion-filled dribble. Let's find the best solution w/o the dribble & code like their is no tomorrow. Bill knows he can't win-let's wipe him out...Remember the GHANDI quote:
First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
This comment, while good, is not Good. Well, it's not bad.
Fuck off!! We're the People's Front of Judea; that's the Judean People's Front, sitting over there. Splitter!
etc.
etc.
etc.
Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
I wonder why both ESR and Tom have such animosity against RMS and the FSF. Anything that RMS says is criticized by then, often in personal tones.
/dev/null all this personal nitpickings! If at least they were really fun...
Everyone and your father know that RMS is a
polemist sparing no one, but his critics are always to the point, never personal -- even when he calls Tim O'Reilly a "parasite", he has before him the objective situation of non-free documentation about free software.
Not so with Tom. He seems to grudge that many people do consider GNU GPL the ultimate free software license. Also ESR seems to grudge the moral stance ESR has taken outside of the Open Source thing.
I consider this one to be the most detrimental issue in free software politics these days. It is highly visible to the outside world and generates much ill will. Even I myself, a non-coder with no personal interest in the matter, have been personally attacked with dirty words by both ESR and Tom while trying to write them about these issue, showing that the thing has gone much farther than the uninterested ideas discussion.
This has become like a personal vendetta agains RMS, and as such quite childish and destructive. Both Tom and ESR claim that it is not like that, but then it really seeems like that -- and appearances are enough to poison a community. Let's >
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
which makes this satire mean, pure and simple. Tom seems convinced that RMS is a glory-seeker -- everything I read by and about RMS, indicates that he pushes GNU (as opposed to RMS) because he wants the issue of freedom to be prominent.
Yes, RMS is a political man: duh, humans are political animals! The point is not to escape politics and just quietly make good software -- you can't, because then someone who has NOT escaped politics, will swindle you; the point is to be political in the right direction.
The entire objectivist and libertarian (well, for SOME, more extreme, libertatians) apolitical schtick is much more of a hollow dream than communism ever was. What RMS is doing is The Right Thing, IMO, despite his abrasiveness -- he pushes a political issue that is critical to our (software geeks') survival as a culture. The fact that Tom tries to turn this into personal glory-seeking shows, I think, either misunderstanding of what RMS is talking about, or a personal agenda which Tom is not willing to [publicly] admit to.
Ultimately, it is pure and simple: What RMS is doing is not merely good, is it necessary. What Tom is doing (in this article at least) is partisan and mean.
--
--
Victor Danilchenko
Very funny, but also rather catty. I think someone annoyed Tom once too much :-)
I've noticed this correlation too. I suspect many Slashdotters have. It's summed up rather well at the end of the Jargon File.
I'm an average coder with average people skills. I find this to be an acceptable tradeoff.
and touche! One of the things I've found about most or all of the discussions surrounding FSF and GPL, is a serious and frightening lack of humour. Like a religion (shudder), people here can not seem to laugh at themselves. Humour puts things into perspective, and allows serious, calm, and rational discussion to occur after a good laugh. Instead, we have an immediate and unavoidable flame war.
Ah well...
Michael Gentili
- He's just some guy, you know?
If you ask me, this whole RMS sucks/ESR sucks, free software/open software, I dont like your beliefs so I will attack the things you have accopmlished flamewar is a bunch of dick fear. These people are terrified that their dicks are inadequate and so they must try to destroy each other to make themselves feel better. The entire linux/gnu/bsd/anything else that's good and free and open movement is being given a bad name because people want to build up their own self esteem. This is nothing more than people standing in a field waving their pricks at one another. So please people, put away your penis and work together. It's about the software, not the genitals. Stop the big prickwaving dickfight before it's too late.
Tell a man that there are 400 Billion stars and he'll believe you
rms sure spends a lot of time repeating the
same old things, but he is too. Actually
I'm going to create a Tom Christiansen-free
distribution as a reaction. And that's much
easier than a GNU-free distribution.
Reminds me a news post where said Tom
Christiansen was proudly declaring
"I didn't put the examples in my [Perl]
documentation because the GPL is bad, the
GPL is a virus, blah blah blah", except
that he didn't put any other kind of
authorisation, so his examples were protected
by the copyright law, which is much more
restrictive than the GPL.
Also, he was blaming rms because standard
distributions did not include his documentation
about Perl in the "core" (non-distrib).
He thought, but without ever having
stated it in writting, that even
though he had put restrictions on the
redistribution on his work, these did not apply
when bundling his docs with Perl.
So all the distributions of Perl were
"crippled", because everybody should have been
reading his thoughts and guessing that he
meant that there were special conditions
were distribution with a fee was allowed,
and he blamed rms for it!
I don't think that RedHat takes much advice from
rms, but I guess it's useful to have someone
to blame everything wrong on.
Fine, RMS has done some useful things for the open source movement, that's not in contention. But who doesn't get tired of his ranting about Gnu/Linux or "Free" Software. Regardless of what you think of Stallman, someone should be able to poke a little fun without everyone getting up in arms. It's a revolutionary new concept known as humor, some of you should try it.