You seem to be under a serious delusion about primaries. Do you understand how people get on the ballot for a primary? By paying a fee to a political party. Political parties run the polling booths, thus they control who gets on the ballot. Yes, law requires them to allow write-in names, but to get an official position on a primary ballot, you are at the mercy of a party's rules.
Citizens who do not vote, and who do not make their ideas known to their representatives are not going to make a difference, by choice. Sure, corporations can spend a lot of money, but they can't vote. They spend all that money, by the way, in an attempt to influence voters.
Hooey. They spend money first to influence who gets on the ballot, then they spend money to determine who on the ballot gets the most propaganda. You do realize that the two political parties control who gets on the ballot? That this gives them defacto control over who gets into office? Of course these can be gotten around with the right amount of cash, but it is not an accident that Jesse Ventura's election is called an 'anomaly'.
After the official is elected, they then spend money to influence how he votes on laws--which are the votes that truly count in this country. You see, your vote as a citizen only matters if *who* gets elected affects the voting on laws in Congress. With the advent of the PAC, this is no longer true in any effective sense. That is the great evil of our two party system, and that is why businesses spend so much money on political parties.
One poster asked why this wasn't an issue two years ago. That answer is simple: Open Source.
Open Source is not compatible with the FSF's goals. OSS is about a development model. Freedom is literally a side benefit. The FSF is striving to completely eliminate proprietary software and the copyright laws that are used to protect it.
When Eric Raymond began saying that "Free Software" needs a better name, Stallman saw the real possibility that the FSF's ideas would be pushed to the background--and they have been.
"Open Source" is and always has been a bad idea. It's Free software. That's the goal, and the only way to get there is for companies to recognize that to obtain the benefits you have to change the business model. Open Source doesn't do that.
Money can be made with free software. It's the best model for users and the best model for developers. Only the MBA's and marketers are being hurt by this model, and I say good riddance.
Who cares if Linux is on every desktop in the world if all we can run on it are proprietary programs? I don't want to sell Open Source to companies. I want Free software, companies or not.
"We have been accumulating components for this system since 1984"
GNU has never claimed to have "written" every part of the "GNU System". The GNU Project has always been about gathering together (and writing) free software into a complete, comprehensive free OS--an OS called the GNU system.
Linus Torvalds arrived in shining armor and contributed a free kernel. There is now a complete GNU system called GNU/Linux. There are also a bunch of other mostly free operating systems based on the Linux kernel (i.e. Redhat, Caldera, SuSe, etc), as well as others based on the BSD foundation.
Some of us remember when having a Unix system at home was either expensive (SCO) or useless (Coherent). We tend to appreciate the work the GNU project has done--both writing *and* gathering together--a system which is free in every sense of the word, not to mention their continued proclamation of the "freedom" ideology. It is also my opinion that the success of GNU/Linux, as well as the other Linux distributions, helped create the push within the BSD community to create a no-cost version of their OS. Before FreeBSD, I know of no BSD distribution that didn't cost money (please correct me if I'm wrong about that).
P.S. To those on the BSD side of the fence, I intend no slight because I don't consider your license "free", but I agree with RMS's view that freedom of the user is more important than freedom of the developer. Thus, I want the stuff I use to be protected from usurpation, and the BSD license doesn't do that. I respect those who hold the BSD position, however.
It's truly a shame that RMS has such an abrasive manner. Part of it is certainly due to his passionate belief that software should be free of proprietary constraints. The fact is, he is fighting for something that can be nothing but *good* for both the software industry and for users.
Linux *is* a GNU system whether anyone admits it or not. The GNU project has always been about gathering free software together into a cohesive, free OS. Linus provided the final piece, giving us the first complete operating system by the GNU project. Few of us use this particular distribution.
Distribution? Yes, absolutely. GNU/Linux is simply another distribution of "Linux". Other distributions have much in common with the actual GNU/Linux (Debian being the closest), but all add non-GNU pieces to the puzzle, and thus create their own versions of this Linux-based OS.
The unfortunate reality is that this multitude of versions dilutes the message of the GNU Project and RMS. Open Source has actually become a rival to the FSF in the fight for media attention. The ideology of the FSF has for the first time in its life a sibling movement promoting freedom in software--but not the same freedom.
RMS sees this very clearly, as do others of us who have been around long enough to appreciate the persecution (not all of it undeserved) that the FSF has received since it was founded. He is terribly afraid that his hard-won freedoms will be taken away, and his fears are not totally unfounded. Not because there is a conspiracy to morph free software into something a little less free (the slippery slope problem), but because the rapidly growing base of free software users are no longer dependent upon the FSF for major pieces. Dilution is occuring, and RMS is fighting hard (and not always in a wise manner) to make sure his message is at least heard if not heeded.
While I agree that the clueless are painful and counterproductive elements, the conclusion drawn is extremely narrow in its vision. Why is it always a GUI vs CLI argument? As if these were the complete set of possible interfaces in the universe.
Unix is a powerful--and complex--paradigm of computing. It grew from a philosophy that emphasizes combining small tools to accomplish larger and more complex tasks. It works wonderfully, and it takes a great deal of time and effort to master the toolset. Worth it? Yes, but lets not be such luddites that we can't envision an interface that is both powerful and easier to work with!
GUI isn't the answer either, IMO. The basic GUI metaphor is almost as dated as the Unix shell. If one will honestly contemplate the stupefying lack of innovation in interface development, one must come to the conclusion that the GUI metaphor we are so familiar with is not the answer to ease of use questions.
I, for one, refuse to accept the notion that we cannot invent an interface which includes both the power of the Unix paradigm (tool combination) and the rich presentation abilities of a GUI (it's only current strongpoint). There is something better to be created, but we as an industry and as an academic community have grossly neglected this area.
Perhaps it is simply waiting a breakthrough in another field (holography?) to generate interest. Perhaps it is a lack of vision, or simply a growth-stunting fervor about command lines. As in all things, we benefit more by seeking answers to problems than by laying blame for them. Whatever the case may be, the point remains that we ought not to limit ourselves to current paradigms in our search for answers.
It is a challenge. Not all of us excel in every facet of computer technology. Most of us excel in only a few. We must therefore fight against our own tendencies to "think within the box," while continuing to fight for that which all scientists agree is the key to progress and discovery: the sharing of knowledge and the freedom which enables us to.
The problem with these new OSS licenses is that they aren't truly free...an indisputable point except to the raging-hormone-infested teeny boppers among us. These companies have only bitten on half of the OSS/FSF argument: software should be free because it is more reliable that way. The ugly part (and the part RMS gets chewed on for) is that software should be free because it is good for users.
The problem is that we have presented no alternative economic model for companies who truly want the advantages of the bazaar--but still have bills to pay. Unfortunately, I see no panacea for the problem, although there are certainly options.
Selling expertise is the most viable. Yes, it is far more costly than simply selling software, because expertise comes from people (us). On the other hand, we are fairly rare in the grand scheme of things, so we become more valuable to companies, and to the software industry as a whole in this scenario--a Very Good Thing IMO, and certainly worth relinquishing this antiquated and dubious concept of "intellectual rights" on software.
This model is generally how the business software industry works right now. Yes, there are license fees and maintenance costs at the moment, but the vast majority of revenue is in consulting services to clients. Source code often comes with the licensing fee (sometimes without additional cost) to allow the client to make modifications on site. In other cases, source code is placed on site to increase responsiveness to problems, as the software company can make quick fixes right on site. This is almost a necessity for production systems and the argument holds completely true for the operating systems these production environments run on. I can't even count the number of times that an OS bug brought down a production server and the answer was a "workaround". How much cleaner (and better for the customer) if the fix could be applied directly and the workaround avoided.
The end result? Companies selling software as their main business model would make a lot less money and possibly go under (the Symantec's of the world). Others would change their business model and move toward the consulting model--possibly making a lot less money, but surviving (the Microsoft's of the world). Some would concentrate on the hardware business and forego the software side completely (ala Sun). In any event, those employees who become extraneous at the software companies would most likely find employment at a business using his former software product where his expertise would be invaluable to daily operations. In the big picture, more of the software money would be going to us rather than to the MBA grads running these software companies. Also a Very Good Thing, IMO.
ESR saw that companies weren't going to bite off both ends, and thus tried the approach of selling the quality side without pointing out the ugly corollary--perhaps hoping it would sneak in on the coattails. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked, and we have companies trying to use the bazaar to pay for the cathedral. It isn't going to work that way. In fact, it's going to fail horribly with all the naysayers pointing their fingers and laughing at us.
We have to sell both points, gentlemen, and we have to provide alternative economic models. Until we do, we won't get what we really want (Free software), and users won't get what they need (reliable software).
The problem with these new OSS licenses is that they aren't truly free...an indisputable point except to the raging-hormone-infested teeny boppers among us. These companies have only bitten on half of the OSS/FSF argument: software should be free because it is more reliable that way. The ugly part (and the part RMS gets chewed on for) is that software should be free because it is good for users.
The problem is that we have presented no alternative economic model for companies who truly want the advantages of the bazaar--but still have bills to pay. Unfortunately, I see no panacea for the problem, although there are certainly options.
Selling expertise is the most viable. Yes, it is far more costly than simply selling software, because expertise comes from people (us). On the other hand, we are fairly rare in the grand scheme of things, so we become more valuable to companies, and to the software industry as a whole in this scenario--a Very Good Thing IMO, and certainly worth relinquishing this antiquated and dubious concept of "intellectual rights" on software.
This model is generally how the business software industry works right now. Yes, there are license fees and maintenance costs at the moment, but the vast majority of revenue is in consulting services to clients. Source code often comes with the licensing fee (sometimes without additional cost) to allow the client to make modifications on site. In other cases, source code is placed on site to increase responsiveness to problems, as the software company can make quick fixes right on site. This is almost a necessity for production systems and the argument holds completely true for the operating systems these production environments run on. I can't even count the number of times that an OS bug brought down a production server and the answer was a "workaround". How much cleaner (and better for the customer) if the fix could be applied directly and the workaround avoided.
The end result? Companies selling software as their main business model would make a lot less money and possibly go under (the Symantec's of the world). Others would change their business model and move toward the consulting model--possibly making a lot less money, but surviving (the Microsoft's of the world). Some would concentrate on the hardware business and forego the software side completely (ala Sun). In any event, those employees who become extraneous at the software companies would most likely find employment at a business using his former software product where his expertise would be invaluable to daily operations. In the big picture, more of the software money would be going to us rather than to the MBA grads running these software companies. Also a Very Good Thing, IMO.
ESR saw that companies weren't going to bite off both ends, and thus tried the approach of selling the quality side without pointing out the ugly corollary--perhaps hoping it would sneak in on the coattails. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked, and we have companies trying to use the bazaar to pay for the cathedral. It isn't going to work that way. In fact, it's going to fail horribly with all the naysayers pointing their fingers and laughing at us.
We have to sell both points, gentlemen, and we have to provide alternative economic models. Until we do, we won't get what we really want (Free software), and users won't get what they need (reliable software).
Seems to me that software represents perfectly the hypothetical unlimited use concrete item
I can make unlimited copies of it and have taken absolutely nothing from the source. A theoretically unlimited number of people can use it concurrently in a (theoretically) unlimited number of places
The conclusion (if we accept the article's assumptions) is that it is absurd to consider software in any way, shape or form intellectual property, because the restrictions on "use" are completely artificial.
Such idiocy presumes that controversy can only be expressed in the language of vulgarity and ad hominum. The fallacy of that position is self-evident.
What all these flame wars really represent is the fact that Linux and the Internet have superceded the old BBS nets as the forum of choice for the socially illiterate, self-proclaimed mavens of the computer "underground".
The truly sad result is that flaming is a self-perpetuating phenomenon that seems to engulf even the most civil and intelligent of individuals once they have become the brunt of it. Civil debate and discussion require effort and thought; flames only a keyboard and a command of the cruder elements of language.
Fortunately, there seem to be relatively few flame-baiting topics in the Linux universe so far. Sadly, these subjects seem to be in the forefront of conversation far too often.
Freedom of speech is a vital part of the Net. It carries with it the responsibility to use that freedom properly. Express your opinions. Do it forcefully when necessary. But recognize that flaming is not speech but assault. It presents no opinion, but rather attacks those whose opinion differs from yours, and in so doing, spits upon the very freedom that allows it to occurs. It is the ultimate hypocrisy.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to be under a serious delusion about primaries. Do you understand how people get on the ballot for a primary? By paying a fee to a political party. Political parties run the polling booths, thus they control who gets on the ballot. Yes, law requires them to allow write-in names, but to get an official position on a primary ballot, you are at the mercy of a party's rules.
Hooey. They spend money first to influence who gets on the ballot, then they spend money to determine who on the ballot gets the most propaganda. You do realize that the two political parties control who gets on the ballot? That this gives them defacto control over who gets into office? Of course these can be gotten around with the right amount of cash, but it is not an accident that Jesse Ventura's election is called an 'anomaly'.
After the official is elected, they then spend money to influence how he votes on laws--which are the votes that truly count in this country. You see, your vote as a citizen only matters if *who* gets elected affects the voting on laws in Congress. With the advent of the PAC, this is no longer true in any effective sense. That is the great evil of our two party system, and that is why businesses spend so much money on political parties.
One poster asked why this wasn't an issue two years ago. That answer is simple: Open Source.
Open Source is not compatible with the FSF's goals. OSS is about a development model. Freedom is literally a side benefit. The FSF is striving to completely eliminate proprietary software and the copyright laws that are used to protect it.
When Eric Raymond began saying that "Free Software" needs a better name, Stallman saw the real possibility that the FSF's ideas would be pushed to the background--and they have been.
"Open Source" is and always has been a bad idea. It's Free software. That's the goal, and the only way to get there is for companies to recognize that to obtain the benefits you have to change the business model. Open Source doesn't do that.
Money can be made with free software. It's the best model for users and the best model for developers. Only the MBA's and marketers are being hurt by this model, and I say good riddance.
Who cares if Linux is on every desktop in the world if all we can run on it are proprietary programs? I don't want to sell Open Source to companies. I want Free software, companies or not.
"We have been accumulating components for this system since 1984"
GNU has never claimed to have "written" every part of the "GNU System". The GNU Project has always been about gathering together (and writing) free software into a complete, comprehensive free OS--an OS called the GNU system.
Linus Torvalds arrived in shining armor and contributed a free kernel. There is now a complete GNU system called GNU/Linux. There are also a bunch of other mostly free operating systems based on the Linux kernel (i.e. Redhat, Caldera, SuSe, etc), as well as others based on the BSD foundation.
Some of us remember when having a Unix system at home was either expensive (SCO) or useless (Coherent). We tend to appreciate the work the GNU project has done--both writing *and* gathering together--a system which is free in every sense of the word, not to mention their continued proclamation of the "freedom" ideology. It is also my opinion that the success of GNU/Linux, as well as the other Linux distributions, helped create the push within the BSD community to create a no-cost version of their OS. Before FreeBSD, I know of no BSD distribution that didn't cost money (please correct me if I'm wrong about that).
P.S.
To those on the BSD side of the fence, I intend no slight because I don't consider your license "free", but I agree with RMS's view that freedom of the user is more important than freedom of the developer. Thus, I want the stuff I use to be protected from usurpation, and the BSD license doesn't do that. I respect those who hold the BSD position, however.
It's truly a shame that RMS has such an abrasive manner. Part of it is certainly due to his passionate belief that software should be free of proprietary constraints. The fact is, he is fighting for something that can be nothing but *good* for both the software industry and for users.
Linux *is* a GNU system whether anyone admits it or not. The GNU project has always been about gathering free software together into a cohesive, free OS. Linus provided the final piece, giving us the first complete operating system by the GNU project. Few of us use this particular distribution.
Distribution? Yes, absolutely. GNU/Linux is simply another distribution of "Linux". Other distributions have much in common with the actual GNU/Linux (Debian being the closest), but all add non-GNU pieces to the puzzle, and thus create their own versions of this Linux-based OS.
The unfortunate reality is that this multitude of versions dilutes the message of the GNU Project and RMS. Open Source has actually become a rival to the FSF in the fight for media attention. The ideology of the FSF has for the first time in its life a sibling movement promoting freedom in software--but not the same freedom.
RMS sees this very clearly, as do others of us who have been around long enough to appreciate the persecution (not all of it undeserved) that the FSF has received since it was founded. He is terribly afraid that his hard-won freedoms will be taken away, and his fears are not totally unfounded. Not because there is a conspiracy to morph free software into something a little less free (the slippery slope problem), but because the rapidly growing base of free software users are no longer dependent upon the FSF for major pieces. Dilution is occuring, and RMS is fighting hard (and not always in a wise manner) to make sure his message is at least heard if not heeded.
While I agree that the clueless are painful and counterproductive elements, the conclusion drawn is extremely narrow in its vision. Why is it always a GUI vs CLI argument? As if these were the complete set of possible interfaces in the universe.
Unix is a powerful--and complex--paradigm of computing. It grew from a philosophy that emphasizes combining small tools to accomplish larger and more complex tasks. It works wonderfully, and it takes a great deal of time and effort to master the toolset. Worth it? Yes, but lets not be such luddites that we can't envision an interface that is both powerful and easier to work with!
GUI isn't the answer either, IMO. The basic GUI metaphor is almost as dated as the Unix shell. If one will honestly contemplate the stupefying lack of innovation in interface development, one must come to the conclusion that the GUI metaphor we are so familiar with is not the answer to ease of use questions.
I, for one, refuse to accept the notion that we cannot invent an interface which includes both the power of the Unix paradigm (tool combination) and the rich presentation abilities of a GUI (it's only current strongpoint). There is something better to be created, but we as an industry and as an academic community have grossly neglected this area.
Perhaps it is simply waiting a breakthrough in another field (holography?) to generate interest. Perhaps it is a lack of vision, or simply a growth-stunting fervor about command lines. As in all things, we benefit more by seeking answers to problems than by laying blame for them. Whatever the case may be, the point remains that we ought not to limit ourselves to current paradigms in our search for answers.
It is a challenge. Not all of us excel in every facet of computer technology. Most of us excel in only a few. We must therefore fight against our own tendencies to "think within the box," while continuing to fight for that which all scientists agree is the key to progress and discovery: the sharing of knowledge and the freedom which enables us to.
The problem with these new OSS licenses is that they aren't truly free...an indisputable point except to the raging-hormone-infested teeny boppers among us. These companies have only bitten on half of the OSS/FSF argument: software should be free because it is more reliable that way. The ugly part (and the part RMS gets chewed on for) is that software should be free because it is good for users.
The problem is that we have presented no alternative economic model for companies who truly want the advantages of the bazaar--but still have bills to pay. Unfortunately, I see no panacea for the problem, although there are certainly options.
Selling expertise is the most viable. Yes, it is far more costly than simply selling software, because expertise comes from people (us). On the other hand, we are fairly rare in the grand scheme of things, so we become more valuable to companies, and to the software industry as a whole in this scenario--a Very Good Thing IMO, and certainly worth relinquishing this antiquated and dubious concept of "intellectual rights" on software.
This model is generally how the business software industry works right now. Yes, there are license fees and maintenance costs at the moment, but the vast majority of revenue is in consulting services to clients. Source code often comes with the licensing fee (sometimes without additional cost) to allow the client to make modifications on site. In other cases, source code is placed on site to increase responsiveness to problems, as the software company can make quick fixes right on site. This is almost a necessity for production systems and the argument holds completely true for the operating systems these production environments run on. I can't even count the number of times that an OS bug brought down a production server and the answer was a "workaround". How much cleaner (and better for the customer) if the fix could be applied directly and the workaround avoided.
The end result? Companies selling software as their main business model would make a lot less money and possibly go under (the Symantec's of the world). Others would change their business model and move toward the consulting model--possibly making a lot less money, but surviving (the Microsoft's of the world). Some would concentrate on the hardware business and forego the software side completely (ala Sun). In any event, those employees who become extraneous at the software companies would most likely find employment at a business using his former software product where his expertise would be invaluable to daily operations. In the big picture, more of the software money would be going to us rather than to the MBA grads running these software companies. Also a Very Good Thing, IMO.
ESR saw that companies weren't going to bite off both ends, and thus tried the approach of selling the quality side without pointing out the ugly corollary--perhaps hoping it would sneak in on the coattails. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked, and we have companies trying to use the bazaar to pay for the cathedral. It isn't going to work that way. In fact, it's going to fail horribly with all the naysayers pointing their fingers and laughing at us.
We have to sell both points, gentlemen, and we have to provide alternative economic models. Until we do, we won't get what we really want (Free software), and users won't get what they need (reliable software).
The problem with these new OSS licenses is that they aren't truly free...an indisputable point except to the raging-hormone-infested teeny boppers among us. These companies have only bitten on half of the OSS/FSF argument: software should be free because it is more reliable that way. The ugly part (and the part RMS gets chewed on for) is that software should be free because it is good for users.
The problem is that we have presented no alternative economic model for companies who truly want the advantages of the bazaar--but still have bills to pay. Unfortunately, I see no panacea for the problem, although there are certainly options.
Selling expertise is the most viable. Yes, it is far more costly than simply selling software, because expertise comes from people (us). On the other hand, we are fairly rare in the grand scheme of things, so we become more valuable to companies, and to the software industry as a whole in this scenario--a Very Good Thing IMO, and certainly worth relinquishing this antiquated and dubious concept of "intellectual rights" on software.
This model is generally how the business software industry works right now. Yes, there are license fees and maintenance costs at the moment, but the vast majority of revenue is in consulting services to clients. Source code often comes with the licensing fee (sometimes without additional cost) to allow the client to make modifications on site. In other cases, source code is placed on site to increase responsiveness to problems, as the software company can make quick fixes right on site. This is almost a necessity for production systems and the argument holds completely true for the operating systems these production environments run on. I can't even count the number of times that an OS bug brought down a production server and the answer was a "workaround". How much cleaner (and better for the customer) if the fix could be applied directly and the workaround avoided.
The end result? Companies selling software as their main business model would make a lot less money and possibly go under (the Symantec's of the world). Others would change their business model and move toward the consulting model--possibly making a lot less money, but surviving (the Microsoft's of the world). Some would concentrate on the hardware business and forego the software side completely (ala Sun). In any event, those employees who become extraneous at the software companies would most likely find employment at a business using his former software product where his expertise would be invaluable to daily operations. In the big picture, more of the software money would be going to us rather than to the MBA grads running these software companies. Also a Very Good Thing, IMO.
ESR saw that companies weren't going to bite off both ends, and thus tried the approach of selling the quality side without pointing out the ugly corollary--perhaps hoping it would sneak in on the coattails. Unfortunately, it hasn't worked, and we have companies trying to use the bazaar to pay for the cathedral. It isn't going to work that way. In fact, it's going to fail horribly with all the naysayers pointing their fingers and laughing at us.
We have to sell both points, gentlemen, and we have to provide alternative economic models. Until we do, we won't get what we really want (Free software), and users won't get what they need (reliable software).
Seems to me that software represents perfectly the hypothetical unlimited use concrete item
I can make unlimited copies of it and have taken absolutely nothing from the source. A theoretically unlimited number of people can use it concurrently in a (theoretically) unlimited number of places
The conclusion (if we accept the article's assumptions) is that it is absurd to consider software in any way, shape or form intellectual property, because the restrictions on "use" are completely artificial.
Such idiocy presumes that controversy can only be expressed in the language of vulgarity and ad hominum. The fallacy of that position is self-evident.
What all these flame wars really represent is the fact that Linux and the Internet have superceded the old BBS nets as the forum of choice for the socially illiterate, self-proclaimed mavens of the computer "underground".
The truly sad result is that flaming is a self-perpetuating phenomenon that seems to engulf even the most civil and intelligent of individuals once they have become the brunt of it. Civil debate and discussion require effort and thought; flames only a keyboard and a command of the cruder elements of language.
Fortunately, there seem to be relatively few flame-baiting topics in the Linux universe so far. Sadly, these subjects seem to be in the forefront of conversation far too often.
Freedom of speech is a vital part of the Net. It carries with it the responsibility to use that freedom properly. Express your opinions. Do it forcefully when necessary. But recognize that flaming is not speech but assault. It presents no opinion, but rather attacks those whose opinion differs from yours, and in so doing, spits upon the very freedom that allows it to occurs. It is the ultimate hypocrisy.