Bob Young is smart enough to do that the right way
on
Salon on Bruce Perens
·
· Score: 1
I think Bob would rather run his company, but yes, he makes a good spokesperson for free software. He knows better than to pose as a leader of the free software community while he is also someone who makes profit from it - that would be a conflict of interest, and Bob's smart enough to avoid them.
Bob has shown that he can find the balance between profit from the community and returning value to the community. That's important.
There are various kinds of relationships between businesses and the free software community, and they can be classed into Benefactors, Symbiotes, and Parisites. These are three labels on a scale that measures what they take vs. what they give back. Benefactors license free software without really caring if they profit from our community or not. Lots of free software authors belong in that category. Symbiotes give and take equally, Red Hat is a good example of that IMO. Parisites take more than they give, even when they are providing great products that are critically needed. They could be cured of this distinction by taking some Bob Young lessons.
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 acceptable. Thus, I am working on ways for hackers to take back the lead in providing information about free software, using the power of the internet and free software.
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 do this. I like the honest way that Bob Young presents himself as someone who profits from free software and returns value to it, but isn't one of the leaders. I think he's a great example for other free software merchants to emulate.
I am working a 100% free sequel to this book, called Copy This Book! It will contain the GPL-ed essays from the Open Sources book, and other essays that are under licenses that are compliant with the DFSG/OSD.
I'll have the first version online this evening. If you'd like to write for this, start writing, and e-mail me at copythis@hams.com.
I think it's time for hackers to take back charge of their information sources. This is my first step, there will be more.
Of the $35-$45 you pay, the store keeps some, Merisel (or whoever the distributor is) keeps some, and Red Hat gets a little, certainly less than half. They use part of that to pay for people working on GNOME, and they do write other GPL work as well. They also send free copies of Red Hat to people who have written packages in their distribution. I get one every time they make a release.
Actually, I find nothing wrong with the current Digital Creations license. They took out the advertising button requirement, now it's only a request, not a requirement. They were very nice about it - their VC spent a long time on the phone with me discussing it.
Also, Troll has fixed their QPL 0.92 license so that I have no complaint with it.
However, I believe that you are complaining that these licenses are not the GPL. I think it's best for me to encourage people to use GPL/LGPL in a positive way, rather than deprecate licenses that are free software: they meet every reqirement of the DFSG/OSD even though they are not the GPL.
I've not figured out yet how to discuss the OS trademark abuse without sounding "catty". I know from previous experience on slashdot that people hate me when I sound catty. Maybe it's best if I let OSI take care of their own public image from now on, without either adding to it or subtracting from it.
The license looks OK at first glance. I'll need more time and a pot of coffee to give it thorough going-over, but it looks MPL-inspired.
I am downloading now, so I don't know what is in the package. If it's the whole of Open GL and is really Open Source licensed it would kill Mesa.
SGI used stochastic dither antialiasing in their renderer, which is patented by Pixar (I left there last week to form a new company and am technically "on vacation" at the moment). That's just one of the areas where "infringement" might be a problem. I hate software patents.
I would have suggested Linus or RMS. Tim O'Reilly has never actually written any "collaborative software". Why not call it "free software" or "Open Source" rather than "collaborative software"? For the same reason they gave the award to O'Reilly - it's really an award for his trying to dilute the concept of Open Source and suck money from it. "Collaborative software" is Open Source without the messy ethics of the people who wrote it.
I would have suggested Linus or RMS. Tim O'Reilly has never actually written any "collaborative software". Why not call it "free software" or "Open Source" rather than "collaborative software"? For the same reason they gave the award to O'Reilly - it's really an award for his trying to dilute the concept of Open Source and suck money from it.
Jeeeez. I go to all the trouble of writing a GPL-ed chapter and when I post that you can read it online I'm flamed for trying to steal Eric Raymond's credit? Should I stop distributing my free software, too, for fear of stepping on toes? What are you inhaling? There are 10 or 20 authors, it's not just an ESR work.
The Rubbernecking Channel should be on cable, to give rubberneckers their dose of vicarious gore so that they don't slow down traffic on real highways.:-)
One of the nice things about speaking at Linux shows is that I get to meet most of the contributors. It's easy for me to differentiate them from the synthetic-nickname folks.
Yes, synthetic-nickname folks can me-too their own postings as well.
Sure, there are some smart people hiding behind an AC identity, but there is also a rather large contingent of pond scum . How do you know which one you're talking to? How do you know how many of them there are? How can you trust what they say about themselves (OK, this is a problem with non-ACs too, to a lesser extent). I think a lot of them me-too their own postings, as well, creating a synthetic contingent of syncophants around a lone ranter.
Pseudonyms would work better, as they'd give you a chance to learn something about the character of a poster.
If it were my choice, I'd have it be a meritocracy, at least as far as conversations about Linux and free software. Free software is all about a quid-pro-quo: you return the value you get by making more free software, or contributing to our community in some other way. I'm much more willing to listen to someone talk about where we should be heading when I know they've made a contribution to it, like writing a program or documenting something. That kind of person has paid their dues, and generally wants to be heard using their real identity because they are proud of their contribution. The kind who can't contribute and just wants us to give them stuff, who doesn't really understand the ethos of our community, makes up a good portion of the AC commenters.
It's not even an ability thing. Most people can document even if they can't program. It's more a willingness to contribute rather than just snipe at others from the protection of anonymity.
As far as I can tell, "OSS" was first used in the Microsoft Halloween documents to refer to Open Source. It happens that "OSS" is trademarked by someone else (see OSS.com). It would be nice if we could just refer to it as Open Source and not abbreviate.
Your freshmeat announcement and the MD5 checksum file need to be crypto signed. Otherwise, we have no idea of who it came from - it's easy enough for a cracker to make a false announcement to FreshMeat.
Check out how Debian handles this - project-wide key files, cross-signing by a trusted "security" key, automatic crypto and MD5 checks on uploads. This is what everyone needs to do.
I'm glad your GhostScript patch was accepted. I'm not sure you constitute a "wide developer community", though. I know that i'm not going to be submitting GhostScript patches, because I'm using the GPL version.
What did we get from businesses like Sybase et al this year? Recognition and publicity. Many of them didn't even ship a product. They decided our market was going to become significant, and thus they'd better get on board and say so publicly rather than get left behind. We got all of the way to that point without them. If Sybase decides to turn away from Linux, it might be bad publicity but we will go on.
Let's not forget that the overwhelming majority of our excellent free software has been developed by people who got no pay for doing it. Even if people can't figure out how to make money from it, free software will go on without them.
We welcome business, of course we'll go out of the way to help people succeed in Open Source(tm) businesses. However, if Red Hat were to go out of business, or if Linus were to take up another hobby, there'd still be people working on Linux. We do not depend on any business for our survival.
Yes, Spencer Kimball and Peter Matthis aren't working on the GIMP any longer. However, the GIMP team is taking up the load, and other people are ready to put in free time just as Spencer and Peter did, as a way of paying back with their time for all of the free software that others have contributed. Frankly, after Spencer and Peter spent all of that time on the project, working on something else is not a bad idea.
We should not feel ashamed if we happen to have non-Open-Source jobs or if we even make non-Open-Source products. Not everything has to be Open Source, and if we can finance Open Source developments with income from our non-Open-Source enterprises, that's fine. I think an honestly non-Open-Source product is much less of a problem than a fence-sitter, a product that attempts to take advantage of the benefits of the Open Source community without really engaging in the full quid-pro-quo of Open Source.
I really have to wonder if GhostScript would not be developed faster if the main source thread was GPL-ed and many people worked on it instead of mainly Peter. It's worked for Linux.
Russ Nelson could have retired if he'd used the Alladin license on the packet drivers, but only because they are sold into a market where proprietary software is the norm. Linus could not have retired if he'd used the Alladin license on Linux, because he would not have had the tremendous free developer participation that comes with Open Source, which is the only thing that has made Linux successful.
Stig, all of your interviews are editorials. Editorials are OK. Interviews are OK. Mixing the two is not the best of journalism.
A CD set with GRASS and the TIGER/Line data in the appropriate format should be nice. I'll work on that. I'll make the RPMs and.DEBs if nobody beats me to the task.
The raw TIGER data is about 25 GB uncompressed. It's in the form of ZIP archives on 6 CDs, and I have been recompressing it in the form of individual.bz2 files. That will probably get the data on 5 CDs instead of 6, there's about a 20% savings. However, my shell driving bzip2 -9 --repetitive-best has been running since Friday and is still not done (on a Pentium 120):-) .
GNOME doesn't need X, and should not make extensive use of X features in a non-portable way. GTK+ runs on Windows now, and should run on things like GGI, SVGAlib, or Berlin.
Am I the only person who thinks X should die and be replaced with a lightweight window system?
Slashdot Mirror
Bob has shown that he can find the balance between profit from the community and returning value to the community. That's important.
There are various kinds of relationships between businesses and the free software community, and they can be classed into Benefactors, Symbiotes, and Parisites. These are three labels on a scale that measures what they take vs. what they give back. Benefactors license free software without really caring if they profit from our community or not. Lots of free software authors belong in that category. Symbiotes give and take equally, Red Hat is a good example of that IMO. Parisites take more than they give, even when they are providing great products that are critically needed. They could be cured of this distinction by taking some Bob Young lessons.
Thanks
Bruce
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 acceptable. Thus, I am working on ways for hackers to take back the lead in providing information about free software, using the power of the internet and free software.
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 do this. I like the honest way that Bob Young presents himself as someone who profits from free software and returns value to it, but isn't one of the leaders. I think he's a great example for other free software merchants to emulate.
Thanks
Bruce
I am working a 100% free sequel to this book, called Copy This Book! It will contain the GPL-ed essays from the Open Sources book, and other essays that are under licenses that are compliant with the DFSG/OSD.
I'll have the first version online this evening. If you'd like to write for this, start writing, and e-mail me at copythis@hams.com.
I think it's time for hackers to take back charge of their information sources. This is my first step, there will be more.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
I think they've really found the right balance.
Bruce
Also, Troll has fixed their QPL 0.92 license so that I have no complaint with it.
However, I believe that you are complaining that these licenses are not the GPL. I think it's best for me to encourage people to use GPL/LGPL in a positive way, rather than deprecate licenses that are free software: they meet every reqirement of the DFSG/OSD even though they are not the GPL.
I've not figured out yet how to discuss the OS trademark abuse without sounding "catty". I know from previous experience on slashdot that people hate me when I sound catty. Maybe it's best if I let OSI take care of their own public image from now on, without either adding to it or subtracting from it.
Thanks
Bruce
I am downloading now, so I don't know what is in the package. If it's the whole of Open GL and is really Open Source licensed it would kill Mesa.
SGI used stochastic dither antialiasing in their renderer, which is patented by Pixar (I left there last week to form a new company and am technically "on vacation" at the moment). That's just one of the areas where "infringement" might be a problem. I hate software patents.
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
I'm still trying to figure out why O'Reilly would be accepting the award. It's very ironic.
Bruce Perens
Read the thing and judge. It's here.
Bruce
Bruce
Bruce
Yes, synthetic-nickname folks can me-too their own postings as well.
Bruce
Pseudonyms would work better, as they'd give you a chance to learn something about the character of a poster.
If it were my choice, I'd have it be a meritocracy, at least as far as conversations about Linux and free software. Free software is all about a quid-pro-quo: you return the value you get by making more free software, or contributing to our community in some other way. I'm much more willing to listen to someone talk about where we should be heading when I know they've made a contribution to it, like writing a program or documenting something. That kind of person has paid their dues, and generally wants to be heard using their real identity because they are proud of their contribution. The kind who can't contribute and just wants us to give them stuff, who doesn't really understand the ethos of our community, makes up a good portion of the AC commenters.
It's not even an ability thing. Most people can document even if they can't program. It's more a willingness to contribute rather than just snipe at others from the protection of anonymity.
Bruce Perens
Bruce Perens
Check out how Debian handles this - project-wide key files, cross-signing by a trusted "security" key, automatic crypto and MD5 checks on uploads. This is what everyone needs to do.
Bruce
Bruce
Maybe a problem with cachedot?
We know how to handle this. Cryptographicaly sign everything, have good cross-signings on your keys, and check the signatures when you download.
A tool to automate signature checks during downloads might be nice.
Bruce Perens
What did we get from businesses like Sybase et al this year? Recognition and publicity. Many of them didn't even ship a product. They decided our market was going to become significant, and thus they'd better get on board and say so publicly rather than get left behind. We got all of the way to that point without them. If Sybase decides to turn away from Linux, it might be bad publicity but we will go on.
Bruce
We welcome business, of course we'll go out of the way to help people succeed in Open Source(tm) businesses. However, if Red Hat were to go out of business, or if Linus were to take up another hobby, there'd still be people working on Linux. We do not depend on any business for our survival.
Yes, Spencer Kimball and Peter Matthis aren't working on the GIMP any longer. However, the GIMP team is taking up the load, and other people are ready to put in free time just as Spencer and Peter did, as a way of paying back with their time for all of the free software that others have contributed. Frankly, after Spencer and Peter spent all of that time on the project, working on something else is not a bad idea.
We should not feel ashamed if we happen to have non-Open-Source jobs or if we even make non-Open-Source products. Not everything has to be Open Source, and if we can finance Open Source developments with income from our non-Open-Source enterprises, that's fine. I think an honestly non-Open-Source product is much less of a problem than a fence-sitter, a product that attempts to take advantage of the benefits of the Open Source community without really engaging in the full quid-pro-quo of Open Source.
I really have to wonder if GhostScript would not be developed faster if the main source thread was GPL-ed and many people worked on it instead of mainly Peter. It's worked for Linux.
Russ Nelson could have retired if he'd used the Alladin license on the packet drivers, but only because they are sold into a market where proprietary software is the norm. Linus could not have retired if he'd used the Alladin license on Linux, because he would not have had the tremendous free developer participation that comes with Open Source, which is the only thing that has made Linux successful.
Stig, all of your interviews are editorials. Editorials are OK. Interviews are OK. Mixing the two is not the best of journalism.
Thanks
Bruce Perens
The raw TIGER data is about 25 GB uncompressed. It's in the form of ZIP archives on 6 CDs, and I have been recompressing it in the form of individual .bz2 files. That will probably get the data on 5 CDs instead of 6, there's about a 20% savings. However, my shell driving bzip2 -9 --repetitive-best has been running since Friday and is still not done (on a Pentium 120) :-) .
Bruce
Am I the only person who thinks X should die and be replaced with a lightweight window system?
Bruce