I thoroughly enjoyed this piece. It captured the feeling of just about every RMS interview I've ever read.
I've always thought that satire was a more sincere form of flattery than imitation. But I know how Slashdotters react when their sacred oxen get skewered. I haven't read any replies yet. I'm almost afraid to.
I'm guessing that there will be three or four major threads about how RMS is our savior (no he isn't! yes he is!), one moderate thread mildly off topic and discussing gun-toting libertarians, several minor threads rehashing mischaracterizations of RMS, and fifteen threads that I have no idea on, since they got moderated below my threshold.
Oh, and several threads accusing TC of being the antichrist or one of his lackeys.
One thing not mentioned in this snippet, but which I've started to notice, is that KDE, and KOffice in particular, is moving more and more towards using the Artistic License.
There is a perception (right or wrong) that the GPL cannot be used with any non-GPL libraries. Since Qt is free and open, but not GPL, there were many unwilling to touch the KDE code base. Strangely enough, by making KDE code Artistic, it will perceived to be more compatible with the GPL than if it remained GPL.
By this logic, it's a waste of time to have Emacs, Xemacs, VI, Joe, Xedit, etc. all be separate projects. It's a waste of time for Enlightenment and WindowMaker to compete. It's a waste of time developing all these different Linux distributions to begin with.
The legal SYSTEM is not necessarily out of control, rather, it is the LAWYERS who are out of control. I'm not aware of much that ASCAP has won, most of it has been settled out of court and never been before a judge.
When Opera first started out, every other browser was free (gratis). Both MS and NS could do this because they considered their client browser to be a loss leader. They could make up lost revenues by selling the server end, etc.
But OperaSoft was a single application company. They couldn't give it away their only product and expect to eat. So they decided to make it the best possible client browser available, and charge a nominal fee for it. They couldn't give it away and then charge for support, because no one needs support for a "browser-only" browser.
What they ended up with was a browswer a tenth the size of NS or IE, with 99% of the features intact. This is still having repercussions in the browser industry. There is a growing perception that browsers should not be "applications", but should instead be "tools".
They've been very successful in the Windows world, and I have no doubt they'll do the same in the Linux, BeOS, Warp worlds as well. This is the type of prodect I expect to see in the "commercial" CD for SuSE, Caldera, Mandrake...
WordPerfect is not open source. Never has been. Probably never will be. And no one in the OSI claims that it is. The Open Source definition is also the Free Software definition. If it can't be free software, then it can't be open source software.
"Companies have and do turn out excellent quality material, and have even given away source code, but under NON-GPL terms. Doing this does not make them part of the Free-Source movement. A belief in the spirit of the GPL is the one, and ONLY qualification."
I sure hope that this isn't the "real" free software community speaking! What about BSD? What about Artistic? Are you saying that they're not "free software"?
Free software is not political liberty! No one's rights are being infringed because some code happens to be BSD, Artistic, QPL or even proprietary.
This post is precisely what ESR is fighting against, the fanatic zealotry of the Stallmanistas. Get a clue folks! RMS is not God! He's not Christ! He's not George Washington or Che Guevarra!
Do you really think that Mrs. Jones down the street will choose Linux over Windows because you're wearing a Red Beret and spouting revolutionary slogans from a little book? Or do you plan to send her to a "re-education" center after you've marched on Redmond?
Re:And we should listen to tom why?
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
"He however didn't want to hear anything contrary to his beliefs."
And neither did you! The "conversation" began cordially enough, until Tom's first rebuttal, then you wandered off into zealotry. After a few more posts of trying to be polite and persuasive, he realized that you did not wish a discussion, but that you only wished to harass him. It wasn't until then that you told you to bug off.
Re:People who believe the lie
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
"Can you produce any example of where either of these so called lies was believed by anyone..."
I certainly can. But do I really need to give a specific example? One needs only to look at the posts on Slashdot on any given day. I hereby offer up some random paraphrased quotes I have seen in the past...
"Why would you willingly enslave yourself to Microsoft?
"I will only use free(dom) software"
"If it's not free software, I have the right to copy it anyway."
"The BSD license does not protect your rights."
And finally, my favorite, "KDE is illegal."
Re:Clarity of Perception
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
As a libertarian, and one who has done a bit of study on politics and economics, the equation of "free software" to "free speech" has always grated on my sensibilities. Those who make such a comparison have no idea what free speech is. To furthermore call it "liberty" (as in the Gnome FAQ) illustrates a basic ignorance. I am justified in using deadly force to defend my liberties, but to think I have the same justification to force developers to release their source code is ludicrous.
I've given up calling this stuff "free software". I prefer open source or community software.
That would be true if capitalism were the opposite of socialism. Socialism is a political system, while capitalism is an economic system, that empasizes the utility of capital. The old Soviet Union and the new China were/are capitalist. Any economic system that depends on the existance of capital (a factory) is capitalist.
The confusion arises because of the Orwellian use of the words "socialism" and "capitalism". It would be just as accurate to use the words "statism" and "industrialism".
Nobody took much of an interest in the Qt license until KDE became popular. Before then, it was just another non-GPL library, like xforms. After KDE became popular, there was some worry that Qt might become essential for the GNU System. The reactions to this were varied. Some politely asked Troll to be a bit more liberal in their licensing. This action got Troll's attention, and they released Qt under the QPL open source license.
But other actions also got Troll's attentions. They were deluged in hate mail. By "hate mail" I mean vitriolic, obscene and threatening communications. Everytime the subject of Qt or KDE came up on a forum, religous bigots would crawl out of the net to lambast them yet again.
As a group, the GNU community told Troll, "you're not wanted."
Well, Troll Tech heard. In the future, Qt might be released under a BSD or Artistic like license. But it will never, ever be released under the GPL.
Re:Debian and KDE, the current situation (IIRC)
on
qt 2.0 released
·
· Score: 1
Where does it say this in the GPL? I'm being serious, I really want to know. I hear it proclaimed from thousands of people that the GPL is exclusionary, but where does it say in the license that it's a GPL-only club?
One must draw the line somewhere as to when one project ends and another begins. Since KDE and QT are made by two distinct development teams, I would think it logical that they are distinct.
As a counter-example, if I write a small little Gnome app, do I have to distribute all the Gnome libraries, the gtk library, and any other library I happened to have used? My 5K source code just became several megabytes. What if my tiny website only allows 5 megabytes? Am I now not "free" to redistribute someone's gnome application? ( I could of course send the application along with a written offer for the source code, but I only wanted to give the code to my friend, not start a Gnome distribution service).
Re:I thought the problem was GPL compatibility?
on
qt 2.0 released
·
· Score: 1
It's your code. You are the licensee. You can do whatever you want. The GPL imposes restrictions on the "licensee", but it is legally impossible for it to impose any on the original developer, the licensee. If it did, it would not be a license, it would be a contract.
But thinking of your users, go ahead and use the Qt library. You can certainly consider it a "system library" if it comes with your operating system. It comes with most (Debian, Redhat, Slack, SuSE, Mandrake,...).
But it really doesn't matter if it's a system libary or not. Qt is not part of your source code. It is not your module.
The GPL is very clear that you can dynamically link with any libary, GPL, QPL or anything else.
Re:Debian and KDE, the current situation (IIRC)
on
qt 2.0 released
·
· Score: 1
So, you're saying that a dynamic library is not "a separate program, exporting services"? Since you seem to be the expert on the GPL, where in it does it say you can't link to a non-GPL library?
KDE include *NO* code from the QT library. Again, if they have, and I am mistaken, please show me the QT source code that's inside the KDE CVS tree.
I have read the GPL and I have examined much of the KDE code. I've also read the QPL, and the previous Qt Free Edition License. I can find no evidence of licensing infringements.
Re:Debian and KDE, the current situation (IIRC)
on
qt 2.0 released
·
· Score: 1
There is no restriction in the GPL that you can't dynamically link to a non GPL library. I've read it through dozens of times, and it's just not there. Section zero of the GPL says that the license ONLY covers copying, distributing and modifying. It does not cover dynamic linking. It doesn't matter at all whether RMS doesn't like QT. All that matters is what the GPL says.
The clause cited above refers to distributing the source code. The QT library is not part of KDE's source code.
Re:Debian and KDE, the current situation (IIRC)
on
qt 2.0 released
·
· Score: 1
Gnome can do it because they have Richard's blessings to do so. KDE is not allowed to do it because Richard doesn't like KDE. Simple as that. This is the definition of free software in practice.
No, it's still not the GPL. What did you expect? The Artistic license isn't GPL either. Nor is the MPL. Come to think of it, the LGPL isn't the GPL either!
If you're demanding that every license be the GPL, then methinks you have a lot of growing up to do. The QPL is open source. No, it's not 100% free, but neither is the GPL! I, for one, am grateful that Troll Tech is sharing their code with me.
The reason that Troll Tech has some difference from the GPL is that Troll Tech actually makes money off of Qt. The don't want someone going off and selling a different version of Qt. Neither do they want to support someone else's implementation of it. They are quite up front about this. Qt belongs to Troll Tech. They don't want code forks. Compare this to the continuing recriminations about XEmacs.
If everyone who bitched about Qt would have contributed to the Harmony project, it would have been done last year!
I can surmise at the reason Eric spent so little time on the "free" information idea. If he went right out and argued that intellectual property was good or necessary, we would have alienated those that admire the *copyrighted* GPL. If he would have argued that intellectual property was bad, he would have alienated the business audience who are a protecting their assets with copyrights.
Eric is arguing from a economic position. The vocal minority he refers to couch their arguments in political (or religious) manners. The point of the article was not whether copyrights are good or evil, but whether free software makes economic sense.
If it's undistributed, it can't be illegal. Reread the GPL. It only covers copying, distributing and modifying. They can do what every they want in their own labs. It's not until the release any of the software that they have to release the source code as well.
I think there are other reasons why the BSD camp is miffed over the GPL success. I believe that these are much more important than the "jealousy" reason.
1) Difference of culture. BSD advocates are more low-key. GPL advocates are gung-ho. BSD advocates see their license as an excellent choice. GPL advocates see their license as the only moral option.
2) The freedom issue. If freedom is paramount, why restrict the freedom of the user? In the mind of the BSD advocate, their software is free for everyone, but GPL software is only free for certain people. It truly does not bother the BSD advocate that a proprietary company might use their software.
3) The religous issue. This is probably the biggest visible difference between BSD and GPL. BSD types have no desire to proseletize. GPL types actively promote the GPL to the point of religious conviction. In disagreement between BSD and GPL is viewed by the BSD side as merely differences in opinion, but by the GPL side as outright blasphemy. A post that even slightly casts doubt upon the GPL will be vigorously flamed, but it takes a truly outrageous post against the BSD to get even a polite letter of disagreement.
Slashdot Mirror
I thoroughly enjoyed this piece. It captured the feeling of just about every RMS interview I've ever read.
I've always thought that satire was a more sincere form of flattery than imitation. But I know how Slashdotters react when their sacred oxen get skewered. I haven't read any replies yet. I'm almost afraid to.
I'm guessing that there will be three or four major threads about how RMS is our savior (no he isn't! yes he is!), one moderate thread mildly off topic and discussing gun-toting libertarians, several minor threads rehashing mischaracterizations of RMS, and fifteen threads that I have no idea on, since they got moderated below my threshold.
Oh, and several threads accusing TC of being the antichrist or one of his lackeys.
"Its a good baby step towards cooperation that may lead to one widget/library set being dropped"
Having a choice of widgets/libraries is as important to a developer as having a choice of desktops is to the user.
I said that it's a perception. That some people believe this to be reality is unfortunate.
One thing not mentioned in this snippet, but which I've started to notice, is that KDE, and KOffice in particular, is moving more and more towards using the Artistic License.
There is a perception (right or wrong) that the GPL cannot be used with any non-GPL libraries. Since Qt is free and open, but not GPL, there were many unwilling to touch the KDE code base. Strangely enough, by making KDE code Artistic, it will perceived to be more compatible with the GPL than if it remained GPL.
By this logic, it's a waste of time to have Emacs, Xemacs, VI, Joe, Xedit, etc. all be separate projects. It's a waste of time for Enlightenment and WindowMaker to compete. It's a waste of time developing all these different Linux distributions to begin with.
Linux isn't Unix because the people in charge of what Unix(tm) is haven't said so...yet. *BSD is Unix, because they were "born" Unix.
The legal SYSTEM is not necessarily out of control, rather, it is the LAWYERS who are out of control. I'm not aware of much that ASCAP has won, most of it has been settled out of court and never been before a judge.
When Opera first started out, every other browser was free (gratis). Both MS and NS could do this because they considered their client browser to be a loss leader. They could make up lost revenues by selling the server end, etc.
But OperaSoft was a single application company. They couldn't give it away their only product and expect to eat. So they decided to make it the best possible client browser available, and charge a nominal fee for it. They couldn't give it away and then charge for support, because no one needs support for a "browser-only" browser.
What they ended up with was a browswer a tenth the size of NS or IE, with 99% of the features intact. This is still having repercussions in the browser industry. There is a growing perception that browsers should not be "applications", but should instead be "tools".
They've been very successful in the Windows world, and I have no doubt they'll do the same in the Linux, BeOS, Warp worlds as well. This is the type of prodect I expect to see in the "commercial" CD for SuSE, Caldera, Mandrake...
WordPerfect is not open source. Never has been. Probably never will be. And no one in the OSI claims that it is. The Open Source definition is also the Free Software definition. If it can't be free software, then it can't be open source software.
"Companies have and do turn out excellent quality material, and have even given away source code, but under NON-GPL terms. Doing this does not make them part of the Free-Source movement. A belief in the spirit of the GPL is the one, and ONLY qualification."
I sure hope that this isn't the "real" free software community speaking! What about BSD? What about Artistic? Are you saying that they're not "free software"?
Free software is not political liberty! No one's rights are being infringed because some code happens to be BSD, Artistic, QPL or even proprietary.
This post is precisely what ESR is fighting against, the fanatic zealotry of the Stallmanistas. Get a clue folks! RMS is not God! He's not Christ! He's not George Washington or Che Guevarra!
Do you really think that Mrs. Jones down the street will choose Linux over Windows because you're wearing a Red Beret and spouting revolutionary slogans from a little book? Or do you plan to send her to a "re-education" center after you've marched on Redmond?
"He however didn't want to hear anything contrary to his beliefs."
And neither did you! The "conversation" began cordially enough, until Tom's first rebuttal, then you wandered off into zealotry. After a few more posts of trying to be polite and persuasive, he realized that you did not wish a discussion, but that you only wished to harass him. It wasn't until then that you told you to bug off.
"Can you produce any example of where either of these so called lies was believed by anyone..."
I certainly can. But do I really need to give a specific example? One needs only to look at the posts on Slashdot on any given day. I hereby offer up some random paraphrased quotes I have seen in the past...
"Why would you willingly enslave yourself to Microsoft?
"I will only use free(dom) software"
"If it's not free software, I have the right to copy it anyway."
"The BSD license does not protect your rights."
And finally, my favorite, "KDE is illegal."
As a libertarian, and one who has done a bit of study on politics and economics, the equation of "free software" to "free speech" has always grated on my sensibilities. Those who make such a comparison have no idea what free speech is. To furthermore call it "liberty" (as in the Gnome FAQ) illustrates a basic ignorance. I am justified in using deadly force to defend my liberties, but to think I have the same justification to force developers to release their source code is ludicrous.
I've given up calling this stuff "free software". I prefer open source or community software.
That would be true if capitalism were the opposite of socialism. Socialism is a political system, while capitalism is an economic system, that empasizes the utility of capital. The old Soviet Union and the new China were/are capitalist. Any economic system that depends on the existance of capital (a factory) is capitalist.
The confusion arises because of the Orwellian use of the words "socialism" and "capitalism". It would be just as accurate to use the words "statism" and "industrialism".
Nobody took much of an interest in the Qt license until KDE became popular. Before then, it was just another non-GPL library, like xforms. After KDE became popular, there was some worry that Qt might become essential for the GNU System. The reactions to this were varied. Some politely asked Troll to be a bit more liberal in their licensing. This action got Troll's attention, and they released Qt under the QPL open source license.
But other actions also got Troll's attentions. They were deluged in hate mail. By "hate mail" I mean vitriolic, obscene and threatening communications. Everytime the subject of Qt or KDE came up on a forum, religous bigots would crawl out of the net to lambast them yet again.
As a group, the GNU community told Troll, "you're not wanted."
Well, Troll Tech heard. In the future, Qt might be released under a BSD or Artistic like license. But it will never, ever be released under the GPL.
Where does it say this in the GPL? I'm being serious, I really want to know. I hear it proclaimed from thousands of people that the GPL is exclusionary, but where does it say in the license that it's a GPL-only club?
One must draw the line somewhere as to when one project ends and another begins. Since KDE and QT are made by two distinct development teams, I would think it logical that they are distinct.
As a counter-example, if I write a small little Gnome app, do I have to distribute all the Gnome libraries, the gtk library, and any other library I happened to have used? My 5K source code just became several megabytes. What if my tiny website only allows 5 megabytes? Am I now not "free" to redistribute someone's gnome application? ( I could of course send the application along with a written offer for the source code, but I only wanted to give the code to my friend, not start a Gnome distribution service).
It's your code. You are the licensee. You can do whatever you want. The GPL imposes restrictions on the "licensee", but it is legally impossible for it to impose any on the original developer, the licensee. If it did, it would not be a license, it would be a contract.
But thinking of your users, go ahead and use the Qt library. You can certainly consider it a "system library" if it comes with your operating system. It comes with most (Debian, Redhat, Slack, SuSE, Mandrake,...).
But it really doesn't matter if it's a system libary or not. Qt is not part of your source code. It is not your module.
The GPL is very clear that you can dynamically link with any libary, GPL, QPL or anything else.
So, you're saying that a dynamic library is not "a separate program, exporting services"? Since you seem to be the expert on the GPL, where in it does it say you can't link to a non-GPL library?
KDE include *NO* code from the QT library. Again, if they have, and I am mistaken, please show me the QT source code that's inside the KDE CVS tree.
I have read the GPL and I have examined much of the KDE code. I've also read the QPL, and the previous Qt Free Edition License. I can find no evidence of licensing infringements.
There is no restriction in the GPL that you can't dynamically link to a non GPL library. I've read it through dozens of times, and it's just not there. Section zero of the GPL says that the license ONLY covers copying, distributing and modifying. It does not cover dynamic linking. It doesn't matter at all whether RMS doesn't like QT. All that matters is what the GPL says.
The clause cited above refers to distributing the source code. The QT library is not part of KDE's source code.
Gnome can do it because they have Richard's blessings to do so. KDE is not allowed to do it because Richard doesn't like KDE. Simple as that. This is the definition of free software in practice.
No, it's still not the GPL. What did you expect? The Artistic license isn't GPL either. Nor is the MPL. Come to think of it, the LGPL isn't the GPL either!
If you're demanding that every license be the GPL, then methinks you have a lot of growing up to do. The QPL is open source. No, it's not 100% free, but neither is the GPL! I, for one, am grateful that Troll Tech is sharing their code with me.
The reason that Troll Tech has some difference from the GPL is that Troll Tech actually makes money off of Qt. The don't want someone going off and selling a different version of Qt. Neither do they want to support someone else's implementation of it. They are quite up front about this. Qt belongs to Troll Tech. They don't want code forks. Compare this to the continuing recriminations about XEmacs.
If everyone who bitched about Qt would have contributed to the Harmony project, it would have been done last year!
Okay, when will gtk and qt have widgets for this?
I can surmise at the reason Eric spent so little time on the "free" information idea. If he went right out and argued that intellectual property was good or necessary, we would have alienated those that admire the *copyrighted* GPL. If he would have argued that intellectual property was bad, he would have alienated the business audience who are a protecting their assets with copyrights.
Eric is arguing from a economic position. The vocal minority he refers to couch their arguments in political (or religious) manners. The point of the article was not whether copyrights are good or evil, but whether free software makes economic sense.
If it's undistributed, it can't be illegal. Reread the GPL. It only covers copying, distributing and modifying. They can do what every they want in their own labs. It's not until the release any of the software that they have to release the source code as well.
I think there are other reasons why the BSD camp is miffed over the GPL success. I believe that these are much more important than the "jealousy" reason.
1) Difference of culture. BSD advocates are more low-key. GPL advocates are gung-ho. BSD advocates see their license as an excellent choice. GPL advocates see their license as the only moral option.
2) The freedom issue. If freedom is paramount, why restrict the freedom of the user? In the mind of the BSD advocate, their software is free for everyone, but GPL software is only free for certain people. It truly does not bother the BSD advocate that a proprietary company might use their software.
3) The religous issue. This is probably the biggest visible difference between BSD and GPL. BSD types have no desire to proseletize. GPL types actively promote the GPL to the point of religious conviction. In disagreement between BSD and GPL is viewed by the BSD side as merely differences in opinion, but by the GPL side as outright blasphemy. A post that even slightly casts doubt upon the GPL will be vigorously flamed, but it takes a truly outrageous post against the BSD to get even a polite letter of disagreement.