Stallman was not claiming that it be called GNU/Linux because of the byte-count of FSF-owned software, but because much of that software had been written as a contribution to the GNU Project - this even includes some software that isn't under the GPL. As Eric Raymond said at Linux World, "We probably wouldn't be here without Richard Stallman".
While I agree that Richard's pissed off some people with his rhetorical style, we have bigger problems to solve than this.
Steve Jobs once told me that there had only been three good desktops, and he'd had a lot to do with making two of them. I suspect he feels that a good desktop is too difficult for the Open Source crowd to achieve and he wants Apple to provide that desktop. If that's really his intent, he's mistaken.
I can't believe how garbled Wired got this story. The next time they call with a question, I'm going to ask them to put Andrew Leonard on the story, he understands this stuff better.
I would consider this software donation to be good Mac documentation. I don't really think that cleanroom techniques will be necessary to use it to develop other drivers, if you are not copying verbatim, you can consider it a published work and not trade-secret.
Don't worry. First, I'd never suggest doing this without having much better language. And again, I don't know how Stallman feels about the issue today and I suspect he might have come to the same conclusions as you. Nothing like that sort of change would happen without a lot of discussion.
How do you feel about that provision as it exists today in the NPL draft?
Your argument is flawed. Regular re-design is indeed beneficial, but the fact that the old software continues to work and be maintained is no impediment to regular re-design! Were that the case, Sendmail would have blocked the development of smail, exim, qmail, and postfix.
The fact that Sendmail continues to be maintained only assures us that its competition will be better, because we won't accept less from a new product than we can already from Sendmail!
Surely, both KDE and GNOME are both better for their competition, and we are better off because we have a choice between two products.
Let's not rule IBM's participation out entirely. We just need them to fix their license a bit. Sure, lots of people like pure GPL/LGPL stuff better, myself included, but even Richard Stallman acknowledges that some of these GPL-incompatible licenses are still Free Software.
I would not have written this article if I thought the only worthwhile strategy was for us to turn our back on IBM and other large companies. It's not time to burn our bridges.
We should encourage Dan B. to put a better license on Qmail, especially now that it's losing market share to Secure Mailer. But Dan is very stubborn, and he's resisted this plea before.
Actually, I just ended a lawsuit. The other party settled, but it cost me $20,000 to get there. I got it back. But you have a point. So, what do you and your lawyer friends suggest?
The matter of whether a claim is likely or not need not come into the issue, because by accepting the license you have agreed to comply with its termination if IBM leaves a notice on their web site.
But, even if we don't argue that point, contesting the likelyhood of a claim is an extremely weak defense. It's so easy for anyone to enter a claim in court that you'd never succeed in preserving your license from termination that way. Suppose, for example, that someone served process on IBM. That's cheap to do, and it would be incontestable evidence of a claim.
Requiring a court decision (or at least a settlement recorded in court, so that people have a way to bail out of a lawsuit) is better than what is in the license now, but it should also terminate only those pieces of the software than infringe, not the entire license on the whole program, so that the free software community can write its way around the problem.
Red Hat's current policies are very advantageous to free software. They GPL everything they write. They give their distribution away. They don't distribute much non-free stuff at all. They support good free software efforts like GNOME. As long as their policies stay the way they are now, they are fine with me.
Qt's free software now, and KDE is in Debian because it's real free software now. I'm proud of having something to do with making that happen. All of the KDE coders were very glad when Qt went free.
I was testing a new DSL when I got first post. I'm going to serve some nice free software sites off of it. I bet you won't like that either.
We really need this. Are the Willows TWIN folks still working for Caldera's holding company? If so, those guys should be thanked for supporting the work.
The problem is that as new technologies are patented, free software is effectively locked out of them for 20 years (it used to be 17, but an international treaty makes it 20 now). The owner of a patent can charge us a license fee that effectively makes free software not free any longer. The patent owner can also refuse to license the patent, and they can sue us for an infringement that has already taken place - so I could be sued for principles that are used in my free software today.
As a volunteer contributor of free software, I can't afford an expensive lawsuit with a deep-pockets corporation as the plaintiff. Something must be done about this if free software is to continue to be viable in the future.
The Open Source Definition, on the Open Source Initiative's own web site, requires that software be freely redistributable. Thus, Open Source(TM) is free software.
O'Reilly completely ignores the OSD to put his own definition on Open Source. Eric Raymond stands by, letting it happen.
I like O'Reilly books and I have quite a few of them. That's not where my complaint is.
The main problem I see is that while we need people like Eric Raymond to speak to the non-hackers, hackers need to stay in control of the work they produced. There are a few ways in which hackers are losing control:
We no longer control our information sources. Hacker-produced web sites, news groups, and mailing lists are being displaced by commercial news sources and book publishers. That would be OK, except they seem to want to control the information, too. That part isn't acceptabe.
One person who I feel is mainly interested in profiting from the community is posing as a leader of the community. Most free software merchants know better than to get in a conflict of interest like that.
It must really be a slow news day. I think that if the Impeachement trial was still going on, you'd never hear of this tempest in a teapot.
Gee, those Open Source folks have arguments. As long as we're not run by a totalitarian regime, we're going to have them. I'd hesitate to call any software company a totalitarian regime, but isn't it funny how this illustrates the difference between us and them?
Want to see an argument? Hit www.nocode.org to see info on a ham radio organization I founded that is trying to get rid of the laws that require Morse Code tests for radio hams. The arguments I get from hams are much more virulent than anything that ever happens in the free software arena.
Slashdot Mirror
While I agree that Richard's pissed off some people with his rhetorical style, we have bigger problems to solve than this.
Bruce Perens
Well, at least it makes good hardware documentation.
Bruce
Wired wrote me and said they'd fix the way they garbled the definitions of free software and Open Source. They are editing the story now.
I can't believe how garbled Wired got this story. The next time they call with a question, I'm going to ask them to put Andrew Leonard on the story, he understands this stuff better.
I would consider this software donation to be good Mac documentation. I don't really think that cleanroom techniques will be necessary to use it to develop other drivers, if you are not copying verbatim, you can consider it a published work and not trade-secret.
Thanks
Bruce
How do you feel about that provision as it exists today in the NPL draft?
Thanks
Bruce
I think Stallman was once considering something like this. I don't know if he still is.
Thanks
Bruce
The fact that Sendmail continues to be maintained only assures us that its competition will be better, because we won't accept less from a new product than we can already from Sendmail!
Surely, both KDE and GNOME are both better for their competition, and we are better off because we have a choice between two products.
Thanks
Bruce
I would not have written this article if I thought the only worthwhile strategy was for us to turn our back on IBM and other large companies. It's not time to burn our bridges.
Thanks
Bruce
It's definitely the case for commercial software. A major point of Free Software / Open Source is that the software lives longer.
Thanks
Bruce
We should encourage Dan B. to put a better license on Qmail, especially now that it's losing market share to Secure Mailer. But Dan is very stubborn, and he's resisted this plea before.
Rob didn't post it. His automatic software did. He didn't tear open any license.
Thanks
Bruce
But, even if we don't argue that point, contesting the likelyhood of a claim is an extremely weak defense. It's so easy for anyone to enter a claim in court that you'd never succeed in preserving your license from termination that way. Suppose, for example, that someone served process on IBM. That's cheap to do, and it would be incontestable evidence of a claim.
Thanks
Bruce
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
I was testing a new DSL when I got first post. I'm going to serve some nice free software sites off of it. I bet you won't like that either.
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
The problem is that as new technologies are patented, free software is effectively locked out of them for 20 years (it used to be 17, but an international treaty makes it 20 now). The owner of a patent can charge us a license fee that effectively makes free software not free any longer. The patent owner can also refuse to license the patent, and they can sue us for an infringement that has already taken place - so I could be sued for principles that are used in my free software today.
As a volunteer contributor of free software, I can't afford an expensive lawsuit with a deep-pockets corporation as the plaintiff. Something must be done about this if free software is to continue to be viable in the future.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
O'Reilly completely ignores the OSD to put his own definition on Open Source. Eric Raymond stands by, letting it happen.
Bruce Perens
I like O'Reilly books and I have quite a few of them. That's not where my complaint is.
The main problem I see is that while we need people like Eric Raymond to speak to the non-hackers, hackers need to stay in control of the work they produced. There are a few ways in which hackers are losing control:
We no longer control our information sources. Hacker-produced web sites, news groups, and mailing lists are being displaced by commercial news sources and book publishers. That would be OK, except they seem to want to control the information, too. That part isn't acceptabe.
One person who I feel is mainly interested in profiting from the community is posing as a leader of the community. Most free software merchants know better than to get in a conflict of interest like that.
Thanks
Bruce
Andrew Leonard seems to be a nice guy and does the best job he can. He also seems to be sincerely sympathetic to our community.
Bruce
Gee, those Open Source folks have arguments. As long as we're not run by a totalitarian regime, we're going to have them. I'd hesitate to call any software company a totalitarian regime, but isn't it funny how this illustrates the difference between us and them?
Want to see an argument? Hit www.nocode.org to see info on a ham radio organization I founded that is trying to get rid of the laws that require Morse Code tests for radio hams. The arguments I get from hams are much more virulent than anything that ever happens in the free software arena.
Thanks
Bruce