"Sure, that's a commendable contribution to the computer using community. But on this basis alone, I don't find any reason to accept Stallman's inability to prove the success of his dogma in a business world."
What on earth is that supposed to mean? His philosophy is based entirely on moral choices. You may well disagree with his views on the morality of proprietary software (plenty of people do) but success or otherwise in business is irrelevant. Under most schemes of morality it's easy to find activities that are immoral but profitable or moral but unprofitable, because there's no intrinsic link between morality and "business success".
If you don't understand that his position is based on (his) morality then I think you fail to understand his position completely.
Interrupting to "correct" those who say "Linux" is exercising his freedom of speech, not restricting others from doing so - they can even "correct" him back if they like.
Refusing to answer questions unlees others comply ith his conditions would likewise be exercising his freedom of speech (or freedom not to speek).
I cannot see how you can possibly consider the behaviour you describe to involve force or coercion of others.
"I don't recall the poster saying that RMS can't call it whatever he wants. He objects to RMS spouting off about it to the press. It doesn't help that he is saying stuff like: "The GNU system, whether you call it GNU or whether you think it's Linux". THINK it's Linux?? The world has been calling it that for YEARS. What gives him the right to make a statement like that?"
The same thing that gives you the right to state your opinions. If you can work out what that is, just recognise the same rights for him.
"This is basicly saying that it's not Linux, and nobody should be calling it that."
That's right, he thinks people shouldn't call it that, and he's stating his opinion.
Personally I think linux is the easiest name, simply because it's the name that already has dominant usage. I think the main reason he should give up on the name issue is that he won't succeed. But that doesn't mean that telling people that he thinks it shouldn't be called Linux is forcing them not to use that name, and I don't understand why people so often say he is trying to force them to follow his views.
"Now, that said, I will be the first in line to praise RMS for what he has accomplished. All the GNU tools are great, I use them and like them. And if he wants to reffer to Linux as GNU/Linux or "The GNU system", then more power to him. I object to his insistance that the rest of us are wrong and HE is right, that HE should set the name for this system."
But of course he insists that he's right and that people who disagree with him are wrong - by definition his views are the ones that he considers to be right. Just like you insist that you're right and he's wrong.
"At this late satge of the game this type of thing is dissasterous. Regardless of your stance on the name issue, this infighting makes all of us look like petty, stupid children. The press is going to pick up on this and it could deal a nasty blow to the Linux momentum. I can see the M$ FUD now, "Linux is going to splinter just like the old UNIX systems, then you will have to worry about all kinds of incompatibilities. With M$ software you don't have that problem, we control it all." "
Do you seriously believe that Linux / Free Software / whatever you believe in is in danger from it being found out that people in the movement (even prominent people) act like humans?
Like i said, i think he should give up on the name because "Linux" has too much momentum as the name for the system, not just the kernel, for him to succeed. but important as he and the FSF are to the movement, I think the idea that the movement will be wrecked by his views on the name is totally implausible.
Some measure of public discussion before a licence can be certified as open Source doesn't seem like an impossible position, so far as I can see if you are still negotiating with Apple, as you mentioned in your essay, then that's effectively what's happened anyway.
Having reached a licence you're happy with you (or Apple / whoever the licensor is in the specific case) could post it publicly with your opinion and a request for public discussion before "official" certification.
Pointing out your position to the world at large seems a good idea if you're interested either in influencing the opinions of the world at large or in receiving the opinions of the world at large.
You make your opinions public, don't be surprised if people debate them publicly. Whether that's being good or bad at human relations probably depends on which (and how many) humans they're trying to relate to.
Okay, so OSI's opinion that the APSL is Open Source was made public - true or not? Others' opinions that the APSL is not Open Source was made public - true or not?
Both "sides" expressed themselves publicly, what's your problem?
And if they're interested in knowing not just what the Board of the OSI think about their opinions, but what the rest of us think about them too? Do you think that in that case a public statement might be the way to go?
ESR makes public statements and actions, and people who disagree with him follow with public statements, that seems reasonable to me (okay, some are pointless flames but not all).
You seem to be saying that to be polite you should send any disagreements to public statements privately, but the person to whom you were responding (and with whom you were disagreeing) had an email address shown. Did you email him privately or did you just respond publicly to his public comments? Why do you think others should behave differently to that?
I just don't get your point. You seem to be saying that the big corporation can get the software, use it, and not have to distribute it - so what? In that scenario the software is just as widely and easily available as if the big corporation had never appeared on the scene. The big corporation gets no advantage that isn't also available to everyone else.
The "little guys" also get the software on the same terms as everyone else. They can use the software, modify it and distribute it, provided that if they distribute it, modified or not, they do so also under terms of the GPL. This is the same for them as for the big corporation, for an individual, or for a government, so what's the problem?
So far as I can see in the scenarios you describe the GPL acts exactly as intended, so how can it be "broken"?
If you want a licence that discrimates against big corporations, or in favour of shoestring operations then write one. That's simply not what the GPL is for.
What you've missed, I would think is that the statement is almost meaningless unless you state what criteria is being used to compare them.
Biggest by unit sales, biggest by total value of sales, biggest by profits, biggest by net assets, biggest by number of employees, biggest by square footage of premises, biggest by combined shoe sizes of employees....
I don't know about human nature in general, it seems to be your nature to reduce idologies to personalities. At least, if I understood your point you seemed to be saying that inability to name multiple people who speak for feminism means that having multiple people speak for something doesn't work.
The important question about the effectiveness of the public voices of either feminism or open source should surely be whether their message is heard and remembered, not whether the names of the people delivering the message are.
"Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. When I go the the fsf web-site, I see arguments against copyright, and IP, so I assume that the GPL gives the authors no more rights than others"
Just for clarity, the GPL does not give the authors this right, but they already have it and the GPL does not take it away.
Read the GPL, shouldn't be too hard to get hold of:)
Seriously, the GPL does not prevent the author from issuing the same code under non-GPL licences. In a large project though, or one built on GPL roots, often there will be too many authors for gaining agreement to be practical. i don't think that's a problem that can be overcome without compromising te whole authors-must-agree principle.
The FSF might prefer you not to issue multiple licences that way but the GPL doesn't stop you.
But GPL does exactly what you describe. the authors of the code can always release it under other licences as well, including proprietary ones. So the ocde can be "used in proprietary projects only if the authors of the code agree to such", just as you wish.
Of course, if your code builds on the work of existing GPLd code then permission must come from the authors of the original work as well as the later development, but that's inhernet in a requirement to have the authors' permission to include the code.
What??? You must be one of these adolescents that keep criticising poor Jack. Well have you done half as much for the squirrel slaying community as he has?
How dare you express views different to his when it's your views that he's representing?
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
How is this consistent with an employment contract restricting the rights granted by the GPL?
And how does the GPL restrict "two guys with a little shoestring operation"? They can use the code on the same terms as anyone else.
To all who didn't ask ESR to represent "us"
on
ESR Wants to Retire
·
· Score: 1
I certainly didn't ask him to represent ME, and since you ask I do do a much better job of representing myself than he does - hardly surprising really.
Do you really feel that if someone steps forwards and claims to represent "us" that I should refrain from disagreeing with him? Wouldn't that have the problem of leaving people to think that maybe he really is representing me?
Too much for one? SCALE IT AND INCREASE BWIDTH.
on
ESR Wants to Retire
·
· Score: 1
Of course it sounded like a resume', he's applying for the job that he's given himself. At the begining of the essay that job is spokesperson. At the end it's Leader.
I don't see how having competing suppliers of Windows would help.
Either they'd all get together to agree standards, in which case since they're all cooperating so closely anyway there's no way to prevent a cartel emerging with the situation for the consumer being the same as ever.
Or alternatively one market leader will emerge as most people will want to look to the biggest to set a de facto standard, probably Microsoft but if not then "the next Microfoft". They'll effectively control the market and the situation will be the same for the consumer.
Allowing licences that exclude distribution to specific countries as Open Source is a bad precedent to set.
Potentially this could mean accepting licences that exclude significant nations (and any country is significant to the people that live there).
If a Ruritanian student writes a program today, with a clause restricting distribution to countries that Ruritania has on its embargo list, then 10 years down the road that program may have been built on by thousands of people, possibly relied upon by millions. If at that point Ruritania fell out with (Finland / United Kingdom / USA / France / or whatever country you feel matters) and added them to their embargo list then this could mean that the licences for all derivatives of that original program were prohibited from being distributed to a significant part of the community.
I don't think that making an exception because it's a big company or because it's America's embargo list is a good idea. Licences with these types of restrictions should not be considered Open Source.
Slashdot Mirror
"Sure, that's a commendable contribution to the computer using community. But on this basis alone, I don't find any reason to accept Stallman's inability to prove the success of his dogma in a business world."
What on earth is that supposed to mean? His philosophy is based entirely on moral choices. You may well disagree with his views on the morality of proprietary software (plenty of people do) but success or otherwise in business is irrelevant. Under most schemes of morality it's easy to find activities that are immoral but profitable or moral but unprofitable, because there's no intrinsic link between morality and "business success".
If you don't understand that his position is based on (his) morality then I think you fail to understand his position completely.
Interrupting to "correct" those who say "Linux" is exercising his freedom of speech, not restricting others from doing so - they can even "correct" him back if they like.
Refusing to answer questions unlees others comply ith his conditions would likewise be exercising his freedom of speech (or freedom not to speek).
I cannot see how you can possibly consider the behaviour you describe to involve force or coercion of others.
"I don't recall the poster saying that RMS can't call it whatever he wants. He objects to RMS spouting off about it to the press. It doesn't help that he is saying stuff like: "The GNU system, whether you call it GNU or whether you think it's Linux". THINK it's Linux?? The world has been calling it that for YEARS. What gives him the right to make a statement like that?"
The same thing that gives you the right to state your opinions. If you can work out what that is, just recognise the same rights for him.
"This is basicly saying that it's not Linux, and nobody should be calling it that."
That's right, he thinks people shouldn't call it that, and he's stating his opinion.
Personally I think linux is the easiest name, simply because it's the name that already has dominant usage. I think the main reason he should give up on the name issue is that he won't succeed. But that doesn't mean that telling people that he thinks it shouldn't be called Linux is forcing them not to use that name, and I don't understand why people so often say he is trying to force them to follow his views.
"Now, that said, I will be the first in line to praise RMS for what he has accomplished. All the GNU tools are great, I use them and like them. And if he wants to reffer to Linux as GNU/Linux or "The GNU system", then more power to him. I object to his insistance that the rest of us are wrong and HE is right, that HE should set the name for this system."
But of course he insists that he's right and that people who disagree with him are wrong - by definition his views are the ones that he considers to be right. Just like you insist that you're right and he's wrong.
"At this late satge of the game this type of thing is dissasterous. Regardless of your stance on the name issue, this infighting makes all of us look like petty, stupid children. The press is going to pick up on this and it could deal a nasty blow to the Linux momentum. I can see the M$ FUD now, "Linux is going to splinter just like the old UNIX systems, then you will have to worry about all kinds of incompatibilities. With M$ software you don't have that problem, we control it all." "
Do you seriously believe that Linux / Free Software / whatever you believe in is in danger from it being found out that people in the movement (even prominent people) act like humans?
Like i said, i think he should give up on the name because "Linux" has too much momentum as the name for the system, not just the kernel, for him to succeed. but important as he and the FSF are to the movement, I think the idea that the movement will be wrecked by his views on the name is totally implausible.
Some measure of public discussion before a licence can be certified as open Source doesn't seem like an impossible position, so far as I can see if you are still negotiating with Apple, as you mentioned in your essay, then that's effectively what's happened anyway.
Having reached a licence you're happy with you (or Apple / whoever the licensor is in the specific case) could post it publicly with your opinion and a request for public discussion before "official" certification.
Pointing out your position to the world at large seems a good idea if you're interested either in influencing the opinions of the world at large or in receiving the opinions of the world at large.
You make your opinions public, don't be surprised if people debate them publicly. Whether that's being good or bad at human relations probably depends on which (and how many) humans they're trying to relate to.
The very idea that someone should need an "excuse" to disagree with you in public is the problem.
Okay, so OSI's opinion that the APSL is Open Source was made public - true or not? Others' opinions that the APSL is not Open Source was made public - true or not?
Both "sides" expressed themselves publicly, what's your problem?
And if they're interested in knowing not just what the Board of the OSI think about their opinions, but what the rest of us think about them too? Do you think that in that case a public statement might be the way to go?
ESR makes public statements and actions, and people who disagree with him follow with public statements, that seems reasonable to me (okay, some are pointless flames but not all).
You seem to be saying that to be polite you should send any disagreements to public statements privately, but the person to whom you were responding (and with whom you were disagreeing) had an email address shown. Did you email him privately or did you just respond publicly to his public comments? Why do you think others should behave differently to that?
I just don't get your point. You seem to be saying that the big corporation can get the software, use it, and not have to distribute it - so what? In that scenario the software is just as widely and easily available as if the big corporation had never appeared on the scene. The big corporation gets no advantage that isn't also available to everyone else.
The "little guys" also get the software on the same terms as everyone else. They can use the software, modify it and distribute it, provided that if they distribute it, modified or not, they do so also under terms of the GPL. This is the same for them as for the big corporation, for an individual, or for a government, so what's the problem?
So far as I can see in the scenarios you describe the GPL acts exactly as intended, so how can it be "broken"?
If you want a licence that discrimates against big corporations, or in favour of shoestring operations then write one. That's simply not what the GPL is for.
What you've missed, I would think is that the statement is almost meaningless unless you state what criteria is being used to compare them.
Biggest by unit sales, biggest by total value of sales, biggest by profits, biggest by net assets, biggest by number of employees, biggest by square footage of premises, biggest by combined shoe sizes of employees....
I don't know about human nature in general, it seems to be your nature to reduce idologies to personalities. At least, if I understood your point you seemed to be saying that inability to name multiple people who speak for feminism means that having multiple people speak for something doesn't work.
The important question about the effectiveness of the public voices of either feminism or open source should surely be whether their message is heard and remembered, not whether the names of the people delivering the message are.
"Yes, that's exactly what I had in mind. When I go the the fsf web-site, I see arguments against copyright, and IP, so I assume that the GPL gives the authors no more rights than others"
Just for clarity, the GPL does not give the authors this right, but they already have it and the GPL does not take it away.
Read the GPL, shouldn't be too hard to get hold of :)
Seriously, the GPL does not prevent the author from issuing the same code under non-GPL licences. In a large project though, or one built on GPL roots, often there will be too many authors for gaining agreement to be practical. i don't think that's a problem that can be overcome without compromising te whole authors-must-agree principle.
The FSF might prefer you not to issue multiple licences that way but the GPL doesn't stop you.
But GPL does exactly what you describe. the authors of the code can always release it under other licences as well, including proprietary ones. So the ocde can be "used in proprietary projects only if the authors of the code agree to such", just as you wish.
Of course, if your code builds on the work of existing GPLd code then permission must come from the authors of the original work as well as the later development, but that's inhernet in a requirement to have the authors' permission to include the code.
What??? You must be one of these adolescents that keep criticising poor Jack. Well have you done half as much for the squirrel slaying community as he has?
How dare you express views different to his when it's your views that he's representing?
From Clause 6 of the GPL :
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
How is this consistent with an employment contract restricting the rights granted by the GPL?
And how does the GPL restrict "two guys with a little shoestring operation"? They can use the code on the same terms as anyone else.
I certainly didn't ask him to represent ME, and since you ask I do do a much better job of representing myself than he does - hardly surprising really.
Do you really feel that if someone steps forwards and claims to represent "us" that I should refrain from disagreeing with him? Wouldn't that have the problem of leaving people to think that maybe he really is representing me?
Of course it sounded like a resume', he's applying for the job that he's given himself. At the begining of the essay that job is spokesperson. At the end it's Leader.
I don't see how having competing suppliers of Windows would help.
Either they'd all get together to agree standards, in which case since they're all cooperating so closely anyway there's no way to prevent a cartel emerging with the situation for the consumer being the same as ever.
Or alternatively one market leader will emerge as most people will want to look to the biggest to set a de facto standard, probably Microsoft but if not then "the next Microfoft". They'll effectively control the market and the situation will be the same for the consumer.
Allowing licences that exclude distribution to specific countries as Open Source is a bad precedent to set.
Potentially this could mean accepting licences that exclude significant nations (and any country is significant to the people that live there).
If a Ruritanian student writes a program today, with a clause restricting distribution to countries that Ruritania has on its embargo list, then 10 years down the road that program may have been built on by thousands of people, possibly relied upon by millions. If at that point Ruritania fell out with (Finland / United Kingdom / USA / France / or whatever country you feel matters) and added them to their embargo list then this could mean that the licences for all derivatives of that original program were prohibited from being distributed to a significant part of the community.
I don't think that making an exception because it's a big company or because it's America's embargo list is a good idea. Licences with these types of restrictions should not be considered Open Source.