The FSF's Bradley Kuhn Responds 370
on freedom?
by merlin_jim
How do you view FSF's goal, that stated on their website as The FSF promotes the development and use of free (as in freedom) software ---particularly the GNU operating system(used widely today in its GNU/Linux variant)--- and free (as in freedom) documentation. In particular, how do you interpret what the word free means in respect to software and programmer's rights?
Bradley Kuhn: I believe strongly that all published software should be Free Software. Users should get all the freedoms as defined in the Free Software Definition. Namely, each person who receives a copy of a software program should have the freedom to study, copy, share, modify, redistribute and (optionally) redistribute modified versions of that program.
But that's surely no surprise--if I didn't believe that, I certainly wouldn't enjoy working for the FSF. ;)
As for the other half of your question, "programmer's rights," I certainly think programmers, like all users, have a right to all those freedoms I mention above. However, programmers don't deserve any "rights" that infringe on the freedoms of others. Often in society, we decide that the right to act a certain way should be limited because it infringes on the freedom of others.
For example, in the USA, white people used to have the right to own slaves. As a society, we eventually decided that this right was too restrictive on the freedom of the people who served as slaves. Because of that decision, it is now illegal to own slaves in the USA.
Our society took away the "freedom" to own slaves. Today, no one would even argue that owning slaves is a freedom. People now say that slavery is an inappropriate power that one person holds over another person.
Today, some argue that the "right to choose your own software license" is the greatest software freedom. By contrast, I think that, like slavery, it is an inappropriate power, not a freedom. The two situations both cause harm, and they differ only in the degree of harm that each causes.
Proprietary software is an exercise of power, and it harms the users by denying their freedom. When users lack the freedoms that define Free Software, they can't tell what the software is doing, can't check for back doors, can't monitor possible viruses and worms, can't find out what personal information is being reported (or stop the reports, even if they do find out). If it breaks, they can't fix it; they have to wait for the developer to exercise its power to do so. If the software simply isn't quite what they need, they are stuck with it. They can't help each other improve it.
Discussions of rights and rules for software use have usually concentrated too much on the interests of programmers alone. Few people in the world program regularly, and fewer still are owners of proprietary software businesses. But the entire developed world now needs and uses software, so decisions about software determine what kind of world we have. Software developers now control the way the world lives, does business, communicates and is entertained. The ethical and political issues cannot be avoided under the slogan of "freedom of choice (for developers only)."
The real question we now face is: who should control the code you use--you, or an elite few? We (in the Free Software Movement) believe you are entitled to control the software you use, and giving you that control is the goal of Free Software.
Current copyright law places us in the position of dictator for our code, whether we like it or not. We cannot escape making some decisions for others, so our decision is to proclaim freedom for each user, just as the bill of rights exercises government power by guaranteeing each citizen's freedoms. That is what the GNU GPL is for: it puts you in control of your usage of the software, while protecting you from others exercising their dictatorial power. This is the ethical choice, in a situation where laws give us and others such power.
New term for "Free"?
by abischof
Is the FSF brainstorming any ideas on alternatives to the term "Free"? Unlike many other languages, it seems that English does not have separate words for "without cost" and "having freedom." So, we in the Open Source community end up using phrases such as "free as in beer" or "Free with a capital 'F'" (neither of which are immediately intuitive to the public at large).
Much better, I think, would be to come up with a new adjective to describe such Free software ("Free" with a capital "F", that is). One idea that has been batted about is "liberated software," but that has the connotation of "stolen software" to some people. Of course, this isn't to say that the term "Free" wouldn't be used anymore -- but it would be nice to have an alternative for use at, for example, picnics or family gatherings.
BK: I find it odd that you talk the question in terms of the "Open Source community". The term "Open Source" is typically used to focus the discussion away from talking about freedom. Thus, a question about the drawbacks of the adjective "free" seems strange when in the context of "Open Source". But, nevertheless, I am glad to see an Open Source supporter talking more about freedom! Thank you for doing that.
By the way, I don't think about the "Open Source community" as a distinct entity. There are two movements afoot: the Free Software Movement, whose focus is the political and ethical issues of software freedom, and the Open Source Movement, whose focus is to avoid political issues of freedom, and to talk about the technological benefits of "Open Source". The movements differ greatly because their fundamental philosophies and motivations are different.
However, together we form one community---the same community that started in 1984 when the Free Software Movement started. In 1998, within that community, we had another movement start up with a different focus, but we've always been together in one community. Thus, I hope you'll think of the community as including both the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement, and remember that it originally started as the Free Software community. At the very least, please call it the "Free Software and Open Source community", so that Free Software isn't left completely out of the picture.
As to your question about the adjective "free," we in the Free Software Movement have never come across a term that has any great advantage over the term "Free Software."
The term "liberated software", which you mention, has a clear drawback in that it only applies to software that was once proprietary software, and is now Free. GNU Emacs, for example, was never proprietary software, so it isn't "liberated software."
Fortunately, there are lots of ways to clear up the confusion, and make up for English's shortcomings. Many of us say "free (as in freedom) software" when there is ambiguity.
Others say "software libre" or "free (libre) software", using the Spanish word to make things clear. In fact, whenever I am speaking to an audience that I know will fully understand what "libre" is (in Europe, for example), I favor the term "Libre Software".
Also, when talking about the general concept of what we stand for, I always use the term "software freedom". This doesn't change what we call the software *itself*---that's Free Software---and there's really no other good term for it. But, the term "software freedom" gives an easy way of talking about the overall concept that is completely unambiguous.
So, while the term Free Software does have some drawbacks, the confusions are easy enough to clarify, and the drawbacks here are fewer than the other alternatives. Also, using the various methods that I mention here can work well together to help clear up any confusion.
Next big technical effort?
by Lumpish Scholar
Congratulations on the release of version 3.0 of the GNU Compiler Collection. This is the cumulation of a lot of work by contributors to the GNU project from all over the world. What do you see as the GNU project's next big release? Mono and DotGNU? Bayonne? Something else?
BK: You are quite correct that the GNU project is a collaborative work of contributors from around the world. It's the work of a cooperating community---no one person deserves the credit: the congratulations go to the GNU project as a whole. (BTW, I encourage you to thank the GNU project by reminding people that the system so often called "Linux" is actually the GNU system with Linux as its kernel).
As for the next "big" release: it's hard to say. We don't force any sort of schedules on GNU developers---they work as best they can, and put a release out when they see it as ready. So, I might be surprised to find out next week some major project is ready for a big release. So, I cannot make any prediction as to what the next big release will be, as I could easily end up being proven wrong later. (However, FWIW, a project that I know is getting close to a big release is GNU Emacs 21.)
FSF and the cause?
by Lumpy
What is your stance on Software protection? In the FSF stance, what would you do or recommend to be done if (check that if -- WHEN) a GNU program and programmer is attacked in a way that will be very like what we see with Dimitri. Many of the GNU programs and software packages are, as far as I am concerned, in real danger of being attacked or persecuted by large corporations. With laws like the DCMA and other unbelievable laws that are being drafted as bills every day, What do you think can be done to protect this freedom?
BK: We must all act politically and speak out to defend our freedom. I feel as you do that we are about to enter a rough period in the history of the Free Software Movement. Large corporations such as proprietary software companies and entertainment companies now have a financial interest in restricting various software freedoms that many of us currently take for granted.
We might very well have to fight for this freedom in courts in the USA or elsewhere. We are preparing ourselves for this possibility, and we will rise to the challenge if it comes to that. The FSF is saving up money in case we need to fight a legal battle. Eben Moglen is also working with large donors to set up a separate Free Software Legal Fund.
Meanwhile, the best thing we can do is to work hard to get laws like the DMCA repealed. We encourage everyone in the USA to contact their congressional representatives, and explain why the DMCA is harmful.
Another way you can help fight the DMCA is to attend the "Free Dmitry Sklyarov March" on the Federal Building in San Francisco on Thursday, 30 August 2001. The USA government is prosecuting Dmitry, under DMCA, for making a particular program available to the public. Please join the protest---everyone is meeting outside the Moscone center in San Francisco at 11:30 in the morning on August 30th.
On another matter, please make your congress-person aware of the threat of software patents! Software patents are harmful to Free Software, but they also hurt just about any software developer who doesn't work for a big corporation that has access to large patent pools. Let people know the threat that software patents have for small software businesses and Free Software.
If you live in Europe, please help fight the possible EU decision to approve software patents.
At home?
by cnkeller
So, what types of software do you use at home?
BK: I use only Free Software on all computers that are under my control, which include the ones I use for my work at the FSF and my home computer.
I use Official Debian GNU/Linux ("testing" on my work laptop, "stable" on my home desktop machine).
As for specific programs, I spend most of my day using an email client, and I use mutt running inside GNU Emacs' ansi-term. (It sounds weird, but it really works well for me.) I use GNU Emacs for all of my editing, text manipulation, and the like.
I have always been more command-line-oriented than GUI-oriented, so I run a minimal X Windowing System desktop. I use sawfish as my window manager, which I really like, because I can script it so I rarely have to use the mouse.
I use Mozilla when I need a graphical web browser, but also use a mix of links, lynx, and Emacs/w3 when graphics aren't needed.
I use GnuCash to manage my personal finances. I really enjoy that program, as I am pretty pedantic about keeping track of ever penny I spend. If you ever go to dinner with me, you'll notice that I ask for a receipt for everything: that's so I can come home and type it into GnuCash. ;)
Related to that, I'll mention this additional amusing story since someone else asked what my "position" is in the "Church of Emacs". I officially became a saint in the Church of Emacs on 31 December 1999. I had given up nearly all non-Free Software in April 1998, but until December 1999, I still used one non-Free Software program: Quicken running under WINE. I finally got the time to convert my files over to GnuCash, and decided that I'd make a clean break with the new year (2000), and fully switch to GnuCash.
Thus, GnuCash made it very easy for me to move into full sainthood. ;) And, I've never looked back. I feel so much better using and developing only Free Software now.
The one thing I am still missing is a "saint name". At one point, I'd thought of another existing saint whose name sounded good with a "gnu" in the middle (like IGNUcius). Sadly, I didn't write it down right away, and promptly forgot. If anyone has ideas for a saint name, let me know. ;)
But, please keep in mind the the entire idea of a "Church of Emacs" and saints therein is just a joke. Sometimes, people get confused and think that Emacs really is a religion. It's not a religion, even if it is a way of life for some of us. ;)
Apple and the FSF
by imac.usr
Now that Mac OS X and Darwin are out, Apple obviously has a vested interest in supporting the FSF. They have been trying to get changes to gcc for Altivec support and PPC optimization merged back into the tree, and they are showing at least some support for both Open Source and Free Software. Plus, development of more Cocoa software should in theory lead to better support of GNUStep in the future. With these changes, has the FSF's opinion of/relationship with Apple changed since the boycotting of the '80s, or is it still more or less adversarial?
BK: Today, our feeling toward Apple is like our feeling toward most software companies who do both Free Software and proprietary software. We thank them for their Free Software contributions, but still push them to go further in supporting software freedom. We have to judge each action separately. Some things that Apple does are good for the Free Software community, and some things it does are bad Free Software community.
Apple has allowed many of its employees to contribute to various GNU programs, and we are glad that they have done so. But Apple still develops lots of proprietary software and for that we criticize them.
Also, I wouldn't say that Apple "obviously has a vested interest in supporting the FSF". They clearly have some interest in helping certain Free Software projects (such as GCC and GDB), but I don't think they are really dedicated to the goal of software freedom. For them, it's likely only a pragmatic necessity that leads them to support some Free Software projects.
I also should mention that it was only a partial victory for freedom in January 2001 when Apple released APSL 1.2. They came much closer to a Free Software license than the APSL 1.0, but they fell short by continuing to require that "deployed" versions in an organization be published. Thus, they still restrict the important freedom of private modifications.
I hope that Apple will take that final step in the next version of the license and make the APSL into a Free Software license. I urge those of you who use code released by Apple under the APSL to work at convincing Apple to make the change.
How can you get the average person to support FSF?
by ColGraff
How is the FSF going to compete with Microsoft and other closed-source-companies in public relations with the non-tech-savvy masses? Microsoft has legions of corporate and individual clients (and partners in other projects) extolling the virtues of closed-source, and spreading all sorts of vile lies about the Free Software Movement. How do you and Stallman plan to bring the goals and ideology of the FSF to the average person in a way he/she can understand and appreciate? It seems to me that without widespread public support of the FSF, judges and legislatures will tend to support the big corporate interests that (in the case of the legislators) pay for their campaigns in any conflict, such as a GPL violation case or software laws.
So, how will you rally the non-techie public to the FSF and GPL, dispelling the image of both as the product of socialist, somewhat freaky nerds? And how will you pay for such a campaign?
BK: Fortunately, we are fighting for rights of people---the same people who ultimately elect the legislators who represent us. Today, many people are beginning to feel corporate interests encroaching on their rights, and we simply need to empower them with tools to do something about it. We began our efforts reaching out to highly technical people and have been quite successful at creating momentum for Free Software alternatives to proprietary software.
Now, reaching non-technical people is an active goal for us, and we are open to ideas. I am a hacker (in the original, positive sense of the term), so I am much more comfortable talking to those who develop software. However, I am trying to retrain myself to learn how to think as non-hackers, politicians, and judges think, so that I can better deliver our message to them.
Recently, I changed my mode of dress to be a bit more traditional, and I cut my long hair. I did this in part because my fiancee wanted me to, but also in part because I realize that non-hackers are sometimes threatened by the "typical hacker style." This actually wasn't my idea; I got it from Jello Biafra, a social commentator and spoken-word artist (who is most famous for leading the now-defunct punk band "Dead Kennedys"). Jello pointed out that the "Halloween costume" approach (i.e., wearing clothes that seem like a costume to you, but are "normal" to most people) can really work when trying to reach people who don't agree with you. Some people are uncomfortable enough with our ideas, and if our dress, clothing, piercings, or mannerisms turn them off, they won't even take the time to listen to our ideas. Since I was never that attached to long hair and my "t-shirt and jeans," I decided to make the changes, in case it might help to reach such people who would otherwise be turned off. I kept the beard, though, because I really don't want to shave every morning!
That's an example of a superficial change that I've personally done to make myself more accessible to non-hackers. I also think a lot about how our work can improve everyone's life, and I always try to address my points to a person's individual concerns. For example, when talking to teachers, I often point out that proprietary software puts students at a disadvantage. The best way to learn to be a great programmer is to study the historical works of programming and to try to make them better. Only Free Software gives the freedoms required to learn well. Teachers often connect with this point, or at least it raises for them some cognitive dissonance about their school's use of proprietary software.
The point here is that you have to give each person reasons for software freedom that are relevant to her daily life. The best way I've found to do this is to imagine that person's use of software, and express to her how freedom could make her life better.
If you are trying to convince a large group of non-hackers about Free Software, please keep in mind that the FSF has a speakers' list and several on the list are excellent at reaching non-hackers. Eben Moglen, for example, is a law professor and is an excellent speaker on our behalf. Tony Stanco, who started FreeDevelopers, is also a lawyer and is good at reaching non-hackers. We also have Robert J. Chassell, who has been involved with the FSF since its inception, and he is very good at speaking with the non-hacker business community.
But, it's up to each of us to speak out about software freedom when we talk with others. Please help us. If anyone has additional ideas on how we can reach non-hackers with the message of software freedom, we'd love to hear from you.
As to the question of how we will pay for it, this is the reason we are 501(c)(3) charity. Part of what we use our funds for is these sorts of advocacy efforts.
BTW, just as "Open Source" is not what we advocate, "closed source" is not what we're against. The opposite of Free software is proprietary software. We have been working for 17 years now to replace proprietary (non-Free) software with Free software. All closed source software is non-Free, but some open source software is also non-Free.
GPL for web-apps
by webmaven
As both Bruce Perens and Tim O'Reilly have pointed out, it is possible to publicly deploy a web-app that is derived from GPL'd software without having to distribute your modifications.
While I certainly feel that it should be possible to do this for applications that are deployed internally without having the deployment count as 'distribution,' I am less happy about deployments on public websites. I would want web-applications that I create to have an additional 'public-performance' clause in their license that would require modifications that are publicly deployed to be made available in source form.
This is the so-called 'web-app loophole,' and I was wondering what your thoughts on the matter were?
BK: When a web application is run to provide a service to the public, I believe that the service provider has an ethical obligation to make the software available as Free Software to the users of that application.
Of course, we realize that the GNU GPL, version 2, does not require this. But, calling it a loophole is an exaggeration. The GPL does prohibit the worst possible wrongdoing, which is to publish a non-Free version of a Free program. In the case of web services, it doesn't prohibit a lesser form of wrongdoing.
As it turns out, it is a hard legal problem to figure out if a copyright license can even try to make this sort of requirement. This is something RMS and Eben Moglen are working on for the GPL, version 3.
Work on the GPL, version 3, has been on hiatus for nearly two years. First, work stopped so that we could do the GNU Free Documentation License (GNU FDL). After that was done, GPLv3 work was slowed substantially by personal matters that kept Eben Moglen from doing pro bono work for us during much of late 2000 and early 2001. Work on GPLv3 is just getting moving again.
I should note that it was well worth it to spend the time on the GNU FDL. It has gained adoption, as print publishers are discovering that there is a way to license their books that gives freedom and is profitable. For the first time, we can begin recommending that GNU users buy some books released by the commercial publishers. It's a very short list, but it is growing. (You can see this list on our website).
RMS
by Cirvam
How is working with RMS? If compromise is needed does he give in or does he stick to his line no matter what?
BK: RMS never compromises on matters of ethics. This is, of course, something that makes me quite glad. The last thing we want is the president of the FSF saying: "Oh, well, we might as well permit people to distribute proprietary versions of GPL'ed software." And, fortunately, I agree with the ethical positions that the FSF takes, so I never have disagreements on ethical matters with RMS.
RMS and I do disagree from time to time on matters of tactics, and on practical and technical matters. In these cases, I have found RMS to be strong-willed, but not uncompromising. In fact, when I compare RMS to other hackers that I know, he is among one of the most fair and even-handed. RMS always hears out the point of view of all sides and asks good questions to clarify the data and people's positions.
I have never known him to make a decision rashly, and he always seeks feedback from others before making any major decision. And, if we can prove to him that we have a better way to do something, and can back it up with evidence, he will change his mind.
In short, it's easy to lump "taking a firm ethical stance" together with "uncompromising". I believe these are separate issues, and I would say that RMS takes a firm ethical stance, but is willing to compromise on issues that don't impact an ethical position.
'Raving Lunatic' Image?
by Bilbo
In spite of all of RMS's great understanding of the working of Free Software, and his passion for promoting real Freedom, he has unfortunately picked up this image of a foaming-at-the-mouth raving lunatic pinko. How to you plan to combat this image, without compromising on the real issues behind Free Software, or the passion with which the FSF promotes these ideals?
BK: It's easy to dismiss someone as a "lunatic" if they are the only a few people standing up for a particular point of view. Some people once thought that abolitionists, suffragettes, and union organizers were "foaming-at-the-mouth raving lunatics", too.
For years, RMS stood up firmly for software freedom, and thus some people attacked RMS in that unfair and inaccurate way. He is still standing for software freedom all these years later, but now there are many more standing with him, including me. The best way for us in the Free Software community to combat the "lunatic" image is to stand for software freedom with him. As more people take a strong ethical stance for software freedom, those who use this underhanded tactic will find it less useful.
The ultimate solution is to change USA political sensibilities, so that USAmericans don't immediately label someone as a "lunatic" or "pinko" simply because (s)he puts freedom, community and goodwill as higher goals than the profits of shareholders. RMS has said publicly that he isn't a communist, and he isn't. As for "foaming-at-the-mouth" and "raving", those are just insults designed to turn those who don't know him away from what he stands for.
We responded to that attack by pointing out that our positions are actually in the spirit of what the USA is all about. I wrote an essay about this, and RMS did, too.
You know, when I hear the word "pinko", I can't help but associate it with the first time I ever heard that word. "Pinko" was the word that Archie Bunker always called his son-in-law, Mike "Meathead" Stivic, on the USA television show All in the Family.
It's interesting to me because, as a child in the early 1980s, that character, Mike Stivic, was the first person I ever saw on television talking about the kinds of social change and political views that I believed in. Of course, Mike wasn't a pinko, except in Archie's distorted thinking about the issues. Today, I can't hear the word "pinko" without thinking of Archie Bunker.
Your opinion on Java
by jsse
Your perljvm -- The Perl to Java Virtual Machine Compiler -- is impressive. I believe you've the authority to answer this question.
Sun has its sole control to their Java VM, and the control is extended to other JVM versions. As Richard said, free software build on non-free platform/program is useless to Free World.
We had much expectation on kaffe. However, it has halted its development long time ago, since Microsoft made business deals with Transvirtual. The only free JVM is basically dead now.
I'd like to have your opnion on this: do you have Java in your vision of Free World?
Thanks!
BK: You didn't ask the perljvm question that I was expecting: "Why isn't it done yet?" ;) (The answer to that one is: I've been working so much for my official duties at the FSF, I haven't had time to hack on it!)
But, your question is an interesting one. I certainly agree that we have to watch Sun, or any other company that exerts efforts over a 'de-facto' standard, closely, to make sure we can implement that standard in Free Software.
However, in the case of the Java environment, I am not too worried. I agree that Kaffe development seems to have slowed, but that is likely because the VM itself is quite stable and usable. (I use it as a development environment for perljvm.) I have heard they are pushing to make it compatible with newer versions of the Sun's proprietary software JVM, and I am happy to hear it.
In addition, now that GCJ has been fully integrated with GCC, Java, the language, is a first-class citizen in the GNU system. I think as time goes on, we'll see even more Java support on GNU systems. I recently saw, for example, that the GNOME-GCJ bindings are getting pretty good. So, I think that support for Java in the Free Software World is going to grow and get better, not wane. Eventually, I believe that the installed base of free Java platforms will grow enough that Sun won't be able to make incompatible changes without coordinating with the Free Software community, lest they have an outcry from the user base.
But, with Java, as with any software technology, we must keep watch for proprietary software twists that can leave the Free Software community constantly playing "catch-up". This threat exists for any technology, though, as long as we continue to live in a world with proprietary software.
In practical terms, for users of this technology, this means that we must only use those features of a technology supported with Free Software. If you are a Java programmer, make sure that your software runs in Kaffe and GCJ first, and don't make changes that require the use of a proprietary software Java environment.
Hardware Companies?
by 2400-n-8-1
Do you and/or the FSF support any certain hardware or hardware companies to go with free software?
Does the FSF have anything in mind to deal with hardware issues in the future?
BK: The important issue with hardware is to make sure that it can be controlled completely with Free Software. Some hardware companies are friendly enough to release their drivers as Free Software. Others cooperate enough to give full specifications, so that at least we can write our own drivers to compete with their proprietary ones. Sadly, some hardware companies still work against us, by keeping the interfaces to the hardware secret.
You, the hardware-buying public, have the power to change this situation by not purchasing any hardware that can't be run with Free Software. You can do even more to help by informing hardware companies that you would have bought their hardware if they'd only made a Free Software driver available.
There's a threat to freedom every time a new hardware device is released. We as a community have to watch closely and make sure that each exciting new hardware technology is fully supported with Free Software.
For a long time, we've wanted someone to build a full list of hardware vendors and note how friendly they were and are to Free Software. Compatibility HOWTOs exist, but this would be a list that gave reports of how much a given vendor helped us. If anyone wants to work on this, please let me know.
The Middle Initial
by Emil Brink
So, I notice that you share a middle initial of 'M' with RMS. The natural question then, becomes: what does your 'M' stand for? ;^) Also, for comparison's sake, what does RMS' stand for? I've actually wondered this for quite a while, but my (obviously worthless) attempts to surf it up have all failed. Thanks. BK: As people already noted on the slashdot comments, RMS' M stands for Matthew, or its pun variant: "Math You." ;) My M stands for "Michael," which sadly has no pun variant that I can think of. ;)
Food (ask, he'll understand)
by nowt
Gold Star or Skyline? Aglamesis or Graeters?
BK: I was amazed at how many people referenced my time in Cincinnati in the questions. I lived in Cincinnati for only four years before moving to Cambridge, MA. I lived in Baltimore for nearly 24 years, yet no one asked me my favorite restaurant in Baltimore ;), (which, BTW, is now closed: the Hacienda on Bel Air Road at Moravia).
But back to nowt's question: I never even went into Gold Star, but it seemed like they didn't have any vegetarian options on their menu. (I've been a vegetarian for about nine years.) Skyline had a few vegetarian items, so I ate there occasionally. My friend Matthew really hated eating there, so we stopped going on his account.
I heard of Aglamesis, but never went there. There was a Graeters not too far my apartment (I used to live near Clifton and Ludlow, as a slashdot comment mentioned), and my fiancee really loved Graeters' Chocolate cake with chocolate icing. We made sure we bought one a few weeks before leaving to have it one last time.
The Cincinnati food item that I miss most, though, is Adriatico's pizza. When he visited Cincinnati, RMS tried a piece and liked it too. I like Bertucci's, which is a brick oven pizza chain that started here in Somerville, MA, but I really miss that Adriatico's garlic crust.
Of course, I'll have to give it all up if I go completely vegan, which I've been thinking about doing. (For now, I have just resolved to reduce my dairy and egg intake by about a half.)
"Why do you answer Richard's email for him?"
by Anonymous Coward
Bradley, I've heard that you read Richard Stallman's email and replies to it, signing Richard's name rather than your own with no indication that someone else wrote the reply. In fact, I've gotten a couple of emails from "Richard" that definitely seemed like they were not written by him -- they directly contradicted things he'd said in other emails and did not sound like his style. How can you ethically justify this? Isn't it totally dishonest to sign email with someone else's name?
I do not recall ever posting nor emailing something with RMS' name on it unless RMS himself specifically gave me the text and said: "Send this as me." I do this from time to time, since RMS' network connectivity is sometimes spotty when he travels. Once or twice, I may have made very trivial edits to the text, if I saw a typo or an incorrect URL, but if I did that, I sent the text back to RMS so he knew what change I made.
One of the tasks that I was originally hired to do at the FSF was help RMS handle his huge email spool. The original idea we had was that I'd compose candidate responses, send them to RMS, and he'd decide whether or not to use them.
This ended up not working out, because RMS had to spend time editing the candidates, and it didn't save much time. However, there may have been times that RMS sent a response that was mostly written by me. But, he always saw the text and agreed that he wanted to say that first.
We at the FSF never say something came from RMS unless he approved the text (save a very rare minor typo fix, which we always inform him of after the fact).
Note, though, that there have been a number of cases of people impersonating RMS, particularly on slashdot. I believe that the slashdot staff got this under control, but what you may have seen are RMS impostors.
Most of these impostors do make statements that contradict what RMS would say. However, there's one particular case of an RMS imposter who made good points about software freedom that we agreed with. We tried to get in touch with him, to enlist his help in a non-imposter way to make points about Free Software. But, sadly, we never found him.
BTW, I'd like to note that unless I am in a big hurry or not at my own machine (both of which are rare), I GPG-sign all my messages with my GPG key. Even when I answer a general-contact addresses, such as <gnu@gnu.org>, you'll know that I answered by the GPG-signature.
RMS also has a GPG key, and occasionally he might be willing to sign a message if you are unsure about whether or not he wrote it. But, it's somewhat inconvenient for him to GPG-sign messages, so if people ask for it too much, he will likely not be able to oblige everyone.
Great interview, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great interview, but... (Score:2)
The only way that saying that I think all software should be released under the GPL should threaten you, is if you're afraid someone might agree. Or maybe enough people will agree such that proprietary software will go the way of the dinasaurs. I hope people are afraid of that. But I don't think it's fair to criticize free speech, which is what you're doing when you say the movement is attempting to "force" people to abandon proprietary software.
Eric's Question... (Score:2)
if you two could get a law passed making proprietary licenses illegal, would you do it?
Re:Eric's Question... (Score:2)
You Slashdot Bitches... (Score:3, Insightful)
These "extremists" saved your asses. Or maybe you'd prefer having to drive to your local college to use the Internet, or worse yet, using a Windows box.
Up your a$$, all of ya.
Quantum Logic (Score:2, Interesting)
Same old FSF intolerance (Score:4, Troll)
It's exactly this sort of intolerance of other licenses and needs that has made me less and less supportive of the FSF and the GPL as time goes on. At least the BSD crowd acknowledges that users' needs differ and doesn't try to impose (and yes, "impose" is> the correct word) its worldview on all software universally. It's interesting that his very first words are so revealing of the FSF philosophy on this point.
BTW, I encourage you to thank the GNU project by reminding people that the system so often called "Linux" is actually the GNU system with Linux as its kernel
No, it's not. This is true for most distributions, but many of us prefer real Unix-flavored (usually derived from BSD) versions of the utilities for good reasons: 1) they're more compatible, and work as expected, 2) they are free from ridiculous GNU-isms like the hideous "--" options, and 3) they are also sometimes considerably more stable. I'm getting a little tired of the GNU/FSF folks trying to take all the credit for Linux. It's a crock, and they know it - there is not a single piece of GNU software that is completely essential to Linux - it would be a pain to replace it all (especially the compilers and thier ilk), but it *could* be done. Linux is Linux, GNU is a set of mediocre Unix utility ripoffs.
Let people know the threat that software patents have for small software businesses and Free Software.
This is just a flat-out lie. I know patents aren't popular here because so many in the community have learned from the FSF to hate them. The reality is that patents of *any* kind are a huge factor in levelling the playing field with the "big corporations" Kuhn so likes to demonize. A world without patents simply guarantees that companies like Microsoft will have total domination. (I do think that patents in fast-moving technology areas should have a much shorter term, say five years, but eliminating patents is NOT the answer - see my letter to LWN [lwn.net] last year on this subject for a full explanation.)
Sometimes, people get confused and think that Emacs really is a religion. It's not a religion, even if it is a way of life for some of us.
I'm not really sure he's joking here, despite the smiley...
I also should mention that it was only a partial victory for freedom in January 2001 when Apple released APSL 1.2. They
came much closer to a Free Software license than the APSL 1.0, but they fell short by continuing to require that "deployed"
versions in an organization be published. Thus, they still restrict the important freedom of private modifications.
An alternative view held by many would be that Apple has explicitly preserved the freedom of private modifications. In reality, the APSL is less restrictive and more free than the GPL in this regard.
Recently, I changed my mode of dress to be a bit more traditional, and I cut my long hair. I did this in part because my fiancee wanted me to, but also in part because I realize that non-hackers are sometimes threatened by the "typical hacker style."
This is very interesting to those of us that have long held that despite their protestations to the contrary, the free software movement is indeed inextricably tied to a communist worldview. RMS and others routinely deny this even though it's the only logical conclusion one can reach upon reading and thoughtful consideration of their positions on the issues. The fact that they are more aggressively pursuing subversive tactics should come as a sharp warning to those that are "a bit uncomfortable" with GPL/FSF/GNU.
Re:Same old FSF intolerance (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, it is, but that's because what he was describing was literally the operating system that consist of the GNU utilities, plus the Linux kernel.
Whereas you seem to be taking his statement as if, instead of "the system so often called Linux", he'd said "any system that includes Linux".
The naming issue has long been an emotional one (and poorly handled, IMO, by RMS, especially early on), but the cold, hard, technical question remains:
If the answer is "the Linux operating system", then I suspect you'll find most people find the name relatively useless in practice, since the utilities are what they most interact with (at a CLI level anyway).
If the answer is "BSD Unix", then you're excluding the importance of the Linux kernel, of course.
If the answer is "Unix", well, again, that name works just as well for pretty much any Linux, *BSD, Solaris, etc. system. I'm asking for a name that helps distinguish it from a system that shares just the kernel, but little else, with a GNU/Linux system.
So, are you going to call it "BSD/Linux"?
Great. That's why "GNU/Linux" isn't exactly out of bounds as a name.
(And, no, you can't just plug the Linux kernel into a BSD system in the complete sense that it's part of a GNU system, because it's way too dependent on GNU's extensions, some might say breakages, to the C language. For an up-and-running system without kernel recompilation as an important option, though, I don't know why a BSD/Linux system wouldn't be a workable option.)
Me, I'd rather be working on GNU/Solaris right now than Solaris, though I mitigate the pain somewhat by using XEmacs, even though I find it confusing, since I'm used to GNU Emacs.
Re:Same old FSF intolerance (Score:2)
Replacing the kernel in a Linux system is not a drop-in solution, but changing the kernel to a BSD kernel with Linux emulation, and pretty much only the kernel, could be done in probably under a day - definetly under a week.
How long would it take to replace GCC? Even the BSD's still use GCC! To replace the GNU C compiler for ix86 would probably take years of effort; to replace the GCC (with C, C++, Fortran, Java, and Objective C frontends) for every platform Linux runs on - heck, the GCJ frontend alone took several years by a bunch of full-time programmers. Why do you think so many companies use GCC instead of making thier own compiler? Because it's trivial to duplicate?
Linux is Linux, GNU is a set of mediocre Unix utility ripoffs.
Linux is just a mediocre Unix kernel ripoff, by that measure - there's many "ridiculous" Linux-isms, for example. I've heard many people say the first thing they do on a new Unix (no *) system is install all the GNU utilities, which many people find vastly improved over the Unix utilities. (I've met a couple compiler crashes, but I never seen any sign of instability in the GNU utilities.
Re:Same old FSF intolerance (Score:2, Informative)
Despite my concerns over how the FSF and RMS handled the naming issue, I can't recall a single example of them trying to "take all the credit for Linux". Seems like that claim is just extremism in the guise of claiming someone else is an extremist.
An assertion that is meaningless in context: one cannot tell what he means by "completely essential", since he seems to allow for an arbitrary amount of time to replace that software. (In which case, there is not a single piece of Linux that is completely essential to Linux!)
I find that hard to believe, given how "so many in the community" reject other statements the FSF makes.
Instead, I suggest that the reason software patents are so "hated" is that a bunch of people, including myself, actually researched the issue, observed the effects of software patents in practice, and came to the conclusion that, on the whole, granting this particular form of government monopoly has done more to retard progress than forward it; further, that the mere existence of software patents makes developing free software a very dangerous crapshoot, one in which the software author could lose his home, his lifestyle, etc., all because he dared release a GPL'd (or AL'd or public-domain) package that a) became popular and b) was later found to violate a patent that had not existed, or perhaps even been filed (in secret, of course) for, at the time of the software's release to the public.
(Note that I did read his letter to LWN, and didn't see him address the software-patent issue per se, other than to slap down anyone who thoughtfully questions whether software, aka mathematics and algorithms, should be patentable as engaging in a "knee-jerk reaction". Bradley Kuhn had, of course, referred only to software patents in his post. Perhaps "Dub" is unable to distinguish between a type of patent that prevents me building a factory and one that prevents me from using paper and pencil to compute an equation, but most of the rest of us understand the difference well enough.)
How anyone could come to the conclusion that the GPL disallows private modification without distribution, thus allowing modification only if immediately followed by distribution, is beyond me. Perhaps these "many" people who hold this belief could try actually reading the GPL, maybe with the help of a competent IP lawyer?
Normally I use the term "McCarthyism" only in conjunction with left-wing editorializing and political correctness, but, in this case, I gotta say, "Thank you for your opinion, Senator McCarthy".
I mean, really, this paragraph got written in response to a statement about how Bradley Kuhn has decided to dress and shave?? In what cave has "Dub" been living for the past couple of decades?
As a point of comparison, I was recently reminded, upon coming across an old photo ID of myself, that I used to go for a few months at a time without shaving. At all. I.e. not just a beard, but a wolfman face.
Needless to say, as any thoughtful examination of my web site and /. posts would reveal, I'm about as far from "communist" as one could be. Apparently "Dub" is less interested in joining forces with those of us who value freedom (whether in software usage or life generally) than with those who meet the strict requirements of his "Completely-Clean-Cut Party (CCCP)".
Only on slashdot... (Score:2)
Really man wake up red baiting went out a long time ago.
Scary implications (Score:4, Interesting)
Can't these guys see what has happened whenever government force has gotten involved in software licensing? You don't have to look too hard. Jon Johansen [slashdot.org] and 2600 [slashdot.org]. Dmitry Sklyarov [slashdot.org]. Edward Felten [slashdot.org]. And most frightening of all, Microsoft's vague threats about what should be done with software that "threatens the American way" [slashdot.org].
Let Free Software succeed on its own merits, as I believe it will. Don't use the gun. There is no real freedom down that path.
Re:Scary implications (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not Free Software advocates who are wielding the gun. It is "intellectual property" holders who are doing so. If you violate intellectual property laws, jackbooted government troops bearing firearms will break down your door and drag you to jail at gunpoint [google.com].
Free Software advocates want less force-based coercion in society, not more. To claim otherwise is simply Orwellian.
Re:Scary implications (Score:2)
Re:Scary implications (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't call for complete abolition of copyright and patent laws. I do think we should reevaluate all copyright and patent laws to see if they do what the constitution says they should: "promote Science and the Useful Arts". If copyright and patent laws do not do that, they are not in harmony with the original intent (at least in the USA).
Re:Scary implications (Score:2)
Not true. All that is needed are enforceable contracts. Imagine a world without copyright. I want a piece of software that Bob has written. Bob will sell it to me, but only under the condition that I don't redistribute it. Bob and I sign a contract to that effect, and I pay Bob and get the software. Now if I make copies of the software and start selling them, Bob sues me on the grounds of contract violation. Copyright never enters into the picture.
I do think we should reevaluate all copyright and patent laws to see if they do what the constitution says they should: "promote Science and the Useful Arts".
I agree completely. Extending copyrights to life+75 years was not done for the purpose of promoting the arts, but protecting Disney's profits.
Re:Scary implications (Score:4, Insightful)
No he is not. Making something illegal means putting more legal restrictions in place. Kuhn's argument is to remove restrictions that current legal systems have which prioprietary software makers use on their products.
This is quite akin to the trend in the distribution of CDs and DVDs. I no longer buy the DVD with a copy of its contents for my use; instead I license the contents for my use as prescribed by the license holder (say, by restricting the environment in which I can use said DVD...must run on an approved device using approved software in the region of the world they license it for, etc...).
So, no, Kuhn is not asking for more laws...he is asking for less!
Re:Scary implications (Score:2)
Combined with
Today, some argue that the "right to choose your own software license" is the greatest software freedom. By contrast, I think that, like slavery, it is an inappropriate power, not a freedom. The two situations both cause harm, and they differ only in the degree of harm that each causes.
Means he is against my right to choose how I wish software I produce is to be licensed.
I cannot, and will not take any action to support him in that. It is unethical in my opinion.
Freedom For All(Or Why Should Authors Get More?) (Score:3, Insightful)
invenustus' quote: This is a path that leads to less freedom, not more, I fear. Yes, most of us believe that the government should intervene in acts of violence or acts that violate other people's rights to life or property. But Kuhn is implying here that proprietary software should be illegal, and that's dangerous....
You misunderstand. Making a license that puts *everyone* (users, creators, learners) on equal footing is the only way to be fair. This leads to more cooperation and more software and code that is free(as in bear and freedom) for everyone.
This "fear" of the GPL taking freedom and rights away from authors of code is bizare and unfounded. Why do authors instinctively want and think they deserve "more rights" than everyone else when it comes to the stuff they create to freely distribute? Trying to get more rights for a group of people takes away rights from all the rest.
The idea that one group can have more rights and more freedom over a thing that is Free is silly. That is more dangerous than you think. Its what keeps all of the players in close software like Microsoft in power.
Just a thought (Score:2)
Chris Beckenbach
Adriatico's Pizza! Hurrah! (Score:3, Informative)
When I was an undergrad at the University of Cincinnati my physics professor would order in Adiaticos when my small honors class would take exams... that was my first experience with Adriatico's... grrreeeaat pizza.
Unless you want to spend the evening on the toilet, I suggest you stay away from both Skyline and Gold Star. Cincinnati chili is good, but a bit purging. :)
Re: Cincinnati lore and more... (Score:4, Informative)
For non-Cincinnatians... Skyline and Gold Star are two competing chili franchises. Skyline's the hometown classic and Gold Star is the upstart. Their main ingredient is Cincinnati-style (less thick, more flavorful and spicy) chili, and they put it on everything. Skyline pioneered the cheese coney, a hot dog with Cincinnati-style chili and cheese, and it's probably the best food ever dreamed up by a person. For more information, check out their website [skylinechili.com]. Gold Star.. ugh.
I do live in Clifton, though, and I must agree that Adriatico's is the best pizza in the city. LaRosa's is of course a close second. And how can ANYTHING compete with Graeter's?
On a side note, I used to work for the ISP young Bradley here used when he lived in Cincinnati, and I remember some of the more interesting discussions he was involved in on our local newsgroups. He was just about as... uh.. passionate.. then about free software. One of our systems admins actually wrote a script to place the prefix "GNU/" before random words in his newsgroup posts... Bradley wasn't thrilled, but it was one of the funnier things I've ever seen.
Feeling good and hungry? It's Skyline time.
Re: Cincinnati lore and more... (Score:2, Funny)
Brent's still useless, though. That'll never change.
Why I don't use the term "GNU/Linux" (Score:3, Insightful)
"GNU/Linux" is just a lame FSF marketing ploy (Score:2)
The FSF doesn't help its credibility with these sort of tactics.
Re:Why I don't use the term "GNU/Linux" (Score:2)
The three biggest components of the Linux OS (and I use the acronym "OS" loosely) from GNU are the build-tool chain, the libc, and the file/text utilities. I cannot consider the presence and use of the GNU compiler to constitute renaming the OS. Otherwise we would have to do around talking about "Mac GNU/OSX" and "GNU/FreeBSD". That's ridiculous.
The file/text utilities might make a case for the operating environment to be called GNU if the majority of low level utilities in LinuxOS were from GNU. But they're not. The Linux operating environment derives from GNU, BSD, Linux-specific projects, and a multitude of independent projects.
Finally, glibc. Funny, but glibc 2.0 and above was written specifically *for* Linux. Perhaps it should be called "Linux/glibc"?
To quote from Ulrich Drepper, primary author of glibc: "I consider none of the code I contributed to glibc (which is quite a lot) to be as part of the GNU project".
If Linus Torvalds and Company had done what RMS said they did, which was to take an existing GNU System and merely supply the missing kernel, then RMS would be somewhat justified in insisting that it be called "GNU/Linux". But that is NOT what transpired almost ten years ago. Instead, Linus decided to write his own operating system because 386BSD was in court and GNU was far from finished. So he wrote a kernel, a few other components and then a million of his friends stepped in and either wrote additional components or grabbed existing ones from various locations. One of those locations was GNU, but it was not the only source.
In fact, much of GNU was written to conform to Linux, and not the other way around! It was Linux that make a home for GNU, and now the house guest has the temerity to rename the estate!
Code is Law - We have POWER and RESPONSIBILITY (Score:2, Interesting)
One of the primary abilities that we humans have is the extension of self beyond our cells. This ability to extend our physical self to more abstract patterns of information and relationships around us makes us quite different than animals and other living things. This extended self includes our ideas and the tools we use to express them. More and more, these tools are being extended from a simple set of words to ones that enable more sophisticated forms of dialogue. When I think of my extended self, I tend to include my expressions that take the form of my creative expressions that end up in digital form on my home and office computer.
Centuries ago, free speech was illegal. Ensuring it as a human right for all has taken centuries, and it still isn't always available. With the advent of more sophisticated communications tools, we have entered a world in which our rights to free speech may need to be extended to more sophisticated forms of self expression. Free speech for me is a human right. I couldn't imagine a world without it.
I began expressing myself in the software that I wrote when I was 14 years old. I began by learning software languages that others had written, and by learning to use tools that others controlled. Once I incorporated those tools into my own forms of self expression, I found that I could only fully express myself by conforming to the laws of those previous authors. In effect, my freedom to extend myself through the software that I created was limited by the original authors choice of a license. If the license restricted me from the freedom to redistribute my work, then my ability to free expression was limited.
Today, thanks to RMS, the FSF, and more importantly, the GPL, I have an institution that fights for my rights to extend myself in the form of software. Now, thanks to a group of idealists, I have a good set of tools that protects me and my liberty and you and yours.
If my software ends up being used by others to extend their self...do I have any ethical right to control them by restricting their redistribution? According to copyright law and our societies current interpretation of it I do. This is the ethical question that haunts me. I understand the need to make income in a world where money puts food on the plate and shelter over the heads of myself, my wife and my two sons, but I'm concerned that the license that I choose may end up hurting another person by restricting their ability to extend their self to their fullest potential.
For this reason, I fully support the FSF and the GPL. I would suggest that we each seriously consider that our code can end up being an important component in another human beings image of self. I would suggest that we each seriously consider that the license we choose is the law we are imposing on these others. We cannot escape responsiblity.
Henri Poole
"The love of liberty is the love of others; the love of power is the love of ourselves." - William Hazlitt
Black people owned slaves, too (Score:2)
-russ
Re:Black people owned slaves, too (Score:2, Informative)
remove the word "white" from the phrase "white people" in my interview.
Re:Black people owned slaves, too (Score:2)
the Hacienda (Score:2)
Re:the Hacienda (Score:2, Interesting)
is no more.
White people owning slaves (Score:2)
Re:White people owning slaves (Score:2)
-russ
Spreading free software (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the way I found out about FSF and GNU and Linux and all that jazz was best. I heard about it from my nextdoor neighbor in my college dorm. But he did more than just show me it, he got me to install it and practive with it. While I am still in college, Linux has sparked interest in my girlfriend, a hotel management major and total computer illiterate. It's because I use it in front of her, and she sees that I can use the free software for non-technical courses. Now she sometimes uses MY machine for HER work! While it pisses me off sometimes that I cant do my work whie she's there, it means that another person has been exposed to free software and sees you can still reach your bottom line: getting work done and being productive.
Point is, my neighbor got me using linux and other gnu stuff by showing me it. My girlfriend has started using the apps open-source has produced for actual real life uses, because she saw me doing the same.
Ideas for others: Teach your spouse on how to use free software, even if the software runs on proprietary OSs. Teach co-workers and friends the same. By teaching others real life uses for FSF/Gnu/OSS/etc software, word will spread to get others on the bandwagon. The story from Largo, FL, can be used as an excellent start.
a lot more free-as-in-speech books (Score:3, Informative)
Their list of free-as-in-speech books [gnu.org] is pretty short. A much bigger catalog is here [theassayer.org]
Bradley, I've told you this is wrong. Stop it! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is complete, total, and utter nonsense, as I've told you repeatedly. Freedom is just as important to the Open Source Initiative as it is to the Free Software Foundation. It's just that we don't clobber people over the head with the insistance that all code must be free, that anyone who doesn't free code their immediately is an unethical software hoarder. That is NOT HOW YOU CHANGE THE WORLD.
Speaking of slaves, you would do well to follow the instruction of John Woolman. He was a Quaker who convinced, practically single-handedly, the entire Religious Society of Friends to stop owning slaves decades before the rest of America came around to that idea. How did he do it? Not by pounding everyone on the idea with the idea that slavery is immoral, unethical, people-hoarding.
He did it by convincing Quaker slave owners that slavery was bad for THEM. We have a model for success, and we're pursing it, by quietly talking to software users about the benefits to THEM of the open source process. You, on the other hand, have a model for failure. And as much as I've tried to talk you out of it, you continue down the same path that kept the FSF mired in obscurity (except among programmers, natch) for a decade and a half.
-russ
Cooperation of different groups is key (Score:3, Interesting)
However, I meet many Open Source supporters who think that a mixed model---some proprietary software and some Free Software, is acceptable and even required. We in the Free Software Movement something fundamentally disagree with that.
To the extent that the Open Source Movement does a good job at convincing business people and others that would not agree with the message of the Free Software Movement, I think that's great. There are many ways to get a job done, and I even refer people to the Open Source Movement if they are trying to convince people who fundamentally disagree with the Free Software Movement.
What I'm calling for is to keep in mind that this is a big community that includes both the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement. Calling the whole thing the "Open Source community" leaves us Free Software folks out of the picture, and that's not really fair.
I am glad that there are people like you, Russ, convincing people that we don't reach in the Free Software Movement. But, the Free Software Movement takes a firm ethical stance, and we aren't going to change that. You mentioned the Quakers doing a good job on abolition of slavery. But, there were many different abolitionists all using different ways of talking about the issues, and that's what finally ended slavery.
It takes many points of view, cooperating together, to change the world. When our goals overlap, I call for the Open Source Movement and the Free Software Movement to cooperate, and I am open to any form of fair cooperation on common goals.
Re:Cooperation of different groups is key (Score:4, Insightful)
But what the FSF (and more specifically RMS) advocates is not cooperating with others of differing POV. They advocate their view is the one truth. The only way. RMS has said that if he had the power to force every software developer to release their code under the GPL he would. (emphasis mine) RMS' "vision" is just as Orwellian as BillG's.
We all need to read between the lines and realize the FSF is not a religion but that it very much stands for communism. The basic premise is that the community outweighs the individual. Communal freedoms overrule individual freedoms. Software is not the property of the individual or corporation that develops it but rather the community that uses it.
The GPL is a grand thing. I love its existence. The BSD license is a grand thing and I love its existence. Same goes for MPL, Artistic License, etc.
The point is choice. Where the FSF and GPL provide people with choice, they are beautiful. Where the advocates of same seek to limit choice, they are dictatorial and oppresive.
If I have a need for a program, I write it. It is mine. If others want to use it, I have the right to choose what terms I will let them use it under if at all. If they do not agree with my terms, they have the right to choose another path...be it writing their own or getting it elsewhere.
If what I have written is the only program with the functionality desired and they can't buy it elsewhere, they still have the right to choose to pay another person to make a different program with the same functionality or even to develop it themselves.
If I act in a way that impedes their ability to develop (or pay someone to develop) a separate program with the same functionality, THEN AND ONLY THEN HAVE I INFRINGED UPON THEIR RIGHTS.
Whatever you're smoking, I'd like some. A slave is a person. A program is a program. It is a bunch of zeroes and ones arranged in a specific order. Likening a person's right to control another human to a person's right to control an inanimate creation of his own design is folly.
If anything, it indicates your perception that inanimate creations of an individual or group are not that person or group's personal property, should not be considered personal property, and if anything should belong to the whole of society...in other words, that you are a communist.
If I went around saying that a person who created a fine sculpture in his art studio has no right to sell it because it does not belong to him...it belongs to his community, people would say I was loony. Hence, people often say the FSF and RMS are loony. There is no mystery here.
Aah! Finally a point I can agree with. The person who should control the code I use is ME, not some "elite few" which certainly INCLUDES RMS and his FSF cronies.
I think the FSF (and likewise the GPL) provides a valuable choice for people who decide to make programs available and want to protect those programs from being usurped by someone bent on using that program AGAINST THE INTENTIONS OF ITS CREATOR.
But the fact remains, the creator is the one who decides. If I decide to give the same rights I have to the community, that's great. But if I decide I want to eat and have shelter and clothes to cover my butt, I have a right to choose to maintain my rights to my software. And you have the right not to use it.
Re:Cooperation of different groups is key (Score:2)
We all need to read between the lines and realize the FSF is not a religion but that it very much stands for communism. The basic premise is that the community outweighs the individual. Communal freedoms overrule individual freedoms. Software is not the property of the individual or corporation that develops it but rather the community that uses it.
Ok, McCarthy.
The Free Software movement simply puts forth the idea that copyright shouldn't be extended to software. Nobody's restricting anyone's right to write software, they're simply saying don't think you can control your software after it leaves your hands. If you don't want anyone else to use it, or copy off it, or reverse engineer it, keep a single copy in your safe.
Re:Cooperation of different groups is key (Score:2)
Wow what a whiner. So what? Can't you take a little name calling? RMS gets called everything from a pinko communist un-american to a raving lunatic for speaking his mind. Whatever you do you have to be ready to defend it.
It's OK for you to call him a communist but not OK if he says you are being greedy?
Re:Bradley, I've told you this is wrong. Stop it! (Score:2)
-russ
Yee gads. (Score:5, Insightful)
I like freedom too, but this is a bit of a stretch. People have rights, including their own freedom. Software does not have its own freedom, it is a tool used by people. Controlling software is like controlling your own car or your own bank account. It won't do anything by itself. It needs someone to use it. This is not even in the same conversation as slavery!
Stating arbitrarily that noone should be allowed to determine the outcome of their own work is nuts. Patents are abused heavily, but copyright has its place. Copyright cannot prevent competition by alternative implementation, patents can.
The best action for Free and OS is to compete with a better implementation, not to take away what the competition (Closed source) has. Taking away their basis for existance is as bad as them trying to take ours through IP, patents and crazy restrictive laws. Its no more right for us than it is for them. Open competition on features/licence terms is good. Restriction on what licence terms/implementation restrictions/legal activities are available is no good for either side.
(software|speech) (Score:2)
Try this on for size:Controlling software is like controlling your own speech. It won't do anything by itself. It needs someone to hear it.
It puts me of a mind of two things: the key requirement of totalitarian regimes to control speech; the danger inherent in the intentional falacy, the idea that locutor's intention can be relied on in the interpretation of his language. Copyright is only another subtle attempt to legislate this control. Tyrants and fools (public|private) lose because they build on the shifting sand of their dream of control. The wise (programmer|writer) knows that her content is not originary, her intent is unclear and the potential utility of her artifacts is ambiguous.
Software, like speech, is always already libre. The fight is not *for* freedom, it is *against* fools and tyrants who conspire to impose short-sighted limits and their dreams of control.
Re:Yee gads. (Score:2)
He is not talking about denial of the rights of the software itself, but denial of the rights of those who would use it. He feels that if you try to control the distribution of software in certain ways, you are violating the fundamental rights of the people who use it. I happen to agree with him.
I find your attempt to twist the issue to be amusing and annoying at the same time.
As for determining the outcome of your own work, that is a fundamental right that you currently and always will have. You're doing the work. What is created is under your control, and always will be. It can't possibly be otherwise. Attempting to say that simply because you originally created something, that other people should be restricted in what they can do with it is wrong. Once you let something out into the world, your fundamental control is lost, and the only control you have is a legal fiction who's enforcement both the FSF and I consider unethical.
Re:Yee gads. (Score:2)
Isn't the FSF implementation *controlling*? I believe the GPL controls me by enforcing in your words "legal fiction". Would not the restrictions within the GPL be "control", it says that there are things "I CAN NOT DO" that sure seems like control to me. You are *CONTROLLING* me by not allowing me to take your code and do what I want with it and put it back out into the work anyway that I see fit. You make like that I am forced to give back to the common good, but you sure the hell are controlling me, and your public code.
Let's really take a look at your example and put in exactly what should be in there... you let something out into the world, your fundamental control is maintained, and the control you have is a legal enforcement of what both FSF and you consider ethical. If I were able to truely be able to *any* thing at all with the code then your original statement would be correct, but it's not.
Re:Yee gads. (Score:2)
If copyright didn't exist, the GPL would be largely necessary. Yeah, the GPL turns the idea of copyright against itself. What of it? I'm tired of hearing this non-argument.
Re:Yee gads. (Score:2)
I was thinking that if I'm just another Joe on the net, who downloads some code, I modify it & post it in binary only format on my website (don't release the code because he's lazy, just doesn't want to, whatever reason).
Under the FSF the original coder is "controlling" his public code by not allowing my above example. The FSF *wants* the ability to control code after it's been released (for good or bad). The FSF license requires all others to release their changes also, which again is obviously controlling the code after it has entered to the wild and wooly public space.
I was just pointing out the incorrectness of your statement, that (paraphrasing) once code is released to the public, no laws govern it anymore and it can not be controlled, and that is what the FSF believe in. Which from the above example shows this.
I personally really don't care too much either way with licenses, but your statement was so incorrect to the point of being exactly opposite of what the FSF says that I had to point it out (I'm kinda kooky that way), before someone else incorrectly believed it.
Re:Yee gads. (Score:4, Informative)
People have rights, including their own freedom. Software does not have its own freedom, it is a tool used by people. Controlling software is like controlling your own car or your own bank account. It won't do anything by itself. It needs someone to use it. This is not even in the same conversation as slavery!
I think you missed his point. His point isn't that those who release proprietary software are taking away the rights of the software. Rather, by releasing software with a restrictive proprietary license, they are taking away the rights of the people who use the software. The FSF sees the rights of users of software as important and fundamental; some others do not. But he's certainly not talking about enslaving software!
Re: control over your own creations, the FSF does support a sort of control over that. You always have the right not to release your own code or modifications. Indeed, the FSF objects to software licenses that require people to release private modifications. However, once you release your software to other people, the FSF asserts that it is not ethical to restrict the freedom of other people to use that software. It's part of the social contract of free democracies; your freedom only extends so far as it does not infringe on the freedoms of others. The hard part, and the point of disagreement, is where to draw that line. The FSF thinks that proprietary software goes too far infringing on the rights of others.
Rather than a car or a bank account, a better analogy might be a workplace. An employer who owns the workplace and employs nobody can do an awful lot with that workplace. But once he starts hiring employees-- opening it up to the public-- he's got certain restrictions in what he can do, so as not to infringe on the fundamental rights of his employees.
-Rob
Re:Yee gads. (Score:2)
You always have the right not to release your own code or modifications. Indeed, the FSF objects to software licenses that require people to release private modifications. However, once you release your software to other people, the FSF asserts that it is not ethical to restrict the freedom of other people to use that software.
The problem I have with the FSF's position is that their goal is to rid the world of proprietary software -- it's not enough that people have the opportunity to use free software, but proprietary software is off-limits. If they had their way, I wouldn't even be able to let someone have a binary-only release of software for free ... I'd be required to provide sources for it as well. Exactly why should I be forced to provide source for something that I want to give away?
Sure, we'll have a few companies selling and developing free software (After all, it's certainly proven itself as an effective business model so far. Right.) And everyone else ... goes into support for free software? Maybe everyone in the software industry can get jobs flipping burgers, and develop free software on their off-hours, just like they do now. (Quick check ... can I have a show of hands of how many people here are employed making or otherwise involved in the creation of proprietary software? At the moment, how easy will it be for you to find another job?)
I like using free software, and I write it as well, but peoples' "rights" aren't infringed by proprietary software. The slavery analogy is terminally flawed, because I can always choose not to use proprietary software. Unless the day comes when that isn't true (and we seem to be moving farther away from it all the time, as Linux becomes better and better), those who create the content are perfectly within their rights to enforce software licenses.
Re:Yee gads. (Score:2, Informative)
What you seem to be unaware of is the fact that, in the USA, slavery is illegal even if the slave agrees to become one while still "free".
It is the ability to enter into a contract involving voluntarily restricting your own freedom to do what you want with software that he's talking about restricting, either by government fiat, or by society deciding, individual by individual, that we will neither accept such arrangements nor seek to get others to accept them for our own profit or convenience.
So, for example, absent any government restriction on slavery, there would still be plenty of people who would, under no circumstances, willingly become a slave, and plenty of people who would, under no circumstances, willingly offer to make someone else their slave.
In my opinion, the general lack of fringe-level violation of a millenia-long practice (slavery) suggests the US ban on slavery reflects, rather than imposes, society's morality on this topic.
The FSF would like to see society develop a similar "morality" regarding a person's right to share information, even if it's in the form of computer software. (This is my opinion, of course; I don't speak or work for the FSF.)
It's not as far-fetched as it sounds: in some ways, information that's useful to you in almost any form requiring you to agree to not share it (e.g. a computer program, but not a microwave's embedded computer's ROM so much), will make its way into your brain, via its user interface, its responsiveness, its "gestalt", and so on. (That's why Apple and Lotus long-ago launched their "look-and-feel" litigation, essentially seeking to restrict the ability of others to reproduce an "experience" using a computer system even by writing all their own code from scratch, especially since that experience would be usefully, and profitably, be sold to others who also wanted to enjoy it without having to pay just Apple or just Lotus.) Agreeing to never share stuff that has found its way into your brain with anyone else amounts to a (very) limited form of self-imposed slavery, in that the "portions" of your brain, or thinking, that touch sufficiently on the copyrighted matter are unavailable for the rest of your conscious being to willingly employ in, say, conversation with a neighbor.
(Having signed a few NDA's in my life, I know how silly this sounds, and how true it is, even though it is, in practice, a rather minor thing, especially because I try to avoid work that involves signing NDA's. I like sharing info, helping people, drawing analogies, etc., so having to erect mental walls around portions of my brain to satisfy my legal, and some would say moral, commitments is not something I enjoy.)
Also, just as many people violated the laws against slavery in various ways, it's pretty clear most Americans don't see intellectual privilege (aka intellectual property) as anywhere near the "property right" they do the right to own and keep real property. Based on observation, I'd say many Americans would be willing to "pirate" a copy or two of proprietary software yet not shoplift even if they could just as easily get away with it. (Don't know how it compares it to ripping off insurance companies, workman's compensation, etc. But I'd guess, the easier it is to convince oneself that the "ripped-off party" didn't really "lose" anything, the easier it is to rationalize the "theft", among other factors.)
So, while the quest to raise American morality sufficiently to marginalize proprietary software may seem quixotic, I'd say the quest (by organizations such as the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA) to marginalize freely sharing copies of information (software) with one's neighbor is within an order of magnitude (plus or minus) of the FSF's quixoticness.
Myself, while I don't dismiss the possibilities, I prefer to stress a more practical aspect of the issue, namely, I question whether contract law should allow individuals (and/or corporate bodies) to voluntarily enter into agreements to not do things that are, put simply, nearly impossible to avoid doing in practice, and believe that some forms of copyright infringement are, especially in today's computing environment, in that category of "nearly impossible to avoid".
E.g. it's one thing to agree to not make physical, i.e. paper, copies of that NDA'd document and send it to competitors, so contract law can, at least from a feasability point of view, restrict that. (That is, having entered into a contract, one party has a reasonable opportunity to avoid acting contrary to it, and the other party has a reasonable ability to prove, in a court of law, that the other has acted contrary to it.)
But it's entirely another thing to expect someone to not let one or another detail of a new computer chip's performance envelope slip in casual conversation, or to expect someone to somehow remember to not share a song's tune with others (by whistling or singing it), or to expect someone to remember to exclude proprietary documents on their computer from a list of files needing to be backed up (onto a web site that serves as a backup, onto a CD-R to send to a friend for them to hold onto "just in case", etc), or to assume that a programmer can "forget" some "inside info" on how an operating-system interface actually works when writing an app for someone else down the road.
It seems to me this angle, of considering the burden on the legal system (and the rest of the government) to support detailed, work-by-work, party-by-party copyright-infringement law, is rarely considered, but, to me, it's important, since I'd rather have FBI agents help stop the purported rush of briefcase-with-nuke-inside-carrying terrorists (you know, the ones that supposedly render missile defense impotent) than arrest people like Dmitry Sklyarov. Our legal system is too important, in protecting our lives, limbs, and real property, to burden it with the quixotic task of preserving intellectual "property" at a fine-grained level.
And since it's even sillier to keep people from possessing floppy disks or CD-RW drives and using an open network than it is to keep them from keeping and bearing arms, I believe the best approach, in terms of relieving law enforcement of an unnecessary burden, is to allow some kind of blanket-level copying of digital data, with exceptions made only for cases where the parties have entered into an explicitly signed agreement, and then only if the data, as well as the mechanisms (such as computer programs that manipulate it), reflect a sincere effort to make it natural and easy for the parties to remain in conformance with the contract.
(And, no, I don't consider clicking on an "I Accept" button some software program sticks in a dialog box when you run it to be an explicitly signed agreement under contract law, any more than I consider the father of a three-year-old girl to have entered into a contract when he answers her question "Daddy, when I grow up, will you marry me?" with "Yes, dear". Those who want to restrict IP beyond the simple, blanket level that society widely understands and agrees to will have to bear the burden of arranging proper contractual agreements. No more free lunches like the DMCA, which makes things easier for corporations, but far more confusing, threatening, and worrisome -- all needlessly, from the point of view of the security of the state and its people -- for the ordinary citizen.)
Re:Yee gads. (Score:2)
I think they are not working at that level, but at a deeper level. The concept of intellectual property is a fairly new one - maybe a few hundred years old, but some would say even more recent.
I'd say it came out of three streams. The first is the idea of acedemic honesty, the second commercial copyright, and the third European property theory.
Academic honesty is most often encountered when it is breached, in cases of plagurism. The idea is simple - people that come up with ideas should be credited, and it is wrong to claim other's ideas as your own. That's why research papers include the authors, why Newton and Leibniz [angelfire.com] fought over who invented the calculus, and why plagurist who get A's get kicked out of college faster than those who honestly get F's. Acedemic honesty is based on giving credit where credit is due, not on ownership of ideas.
Copyright is a business proposition, to allow an author to enter into a contract with a publisher, and have the law enforce that only those the author has contracts with can publish the works. It prevents McPublisher from copying the text and making copies without entering into a contract with the author. It simply recognizes a political fact: authors and artists create works, but others are good at publishing and distrubiting, and the two should be allowed to enter into a mutually benefical contract, and prevent others from nullifing the benefits of that contract. Still, there's no real property changing hands - rights are given, other's rights are defined, and the contract may just happen to include money changing hands, and restrictions for the two parties. It doesn't have to be exclusive or costly - the GNU copyright is an example of one that is not costly, but restrictive, and public domain is neither costly nor restrictive.
Property, in many ways, is a European concept, that justifies the actions of the powerful and allows for some interesting innovations. Property implies ownership and legal facts, which means that the government , by force, will defend those "facts". "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Property" means that the government has to recognize that property is a basic right, and can't seize that property without being in the wrong. It only has effect when being are willing to fight for their "right to property".
I agree with all these, in isolation. It's when they come together to make "Intellectual Property" that I start getting a little tense. Ideas aren't really property, in that when I give some away, I have as much as I started with. Even the strict requirements of academic honesty are met simply by acknowledging who came up with the idea. What about copyright? If I "take" an idea, then publish it and make money off of it, I'm clearly in the wrong. But if I simply use it for myself? Is Newton any poorer because I learned the calculus? Is Jefferson any poorer because every American History book has a copy of the Declaration of Independance? Is Metalica any poorer because I have a copy of a song I wouldn't have paid for, anyway?
I don't buy the arguement "code = factories". The manufacturer has real property in factory equipment with a real dollar value, gets a real electric bill at the end of the month, and has to pay real money for employees. I have a similar situation. My computer is real property, with a (rapidly declining) value, I get a real electricity bill at the end of the month, and I donate my "expertise" to operate my computer, as a hobby. At work, they pay me to do a similar thing with their equipment. Code Factory Equipment, Computers = Factory Equipment.
I've rambled for too long, without really making a point. Basically, property is a good thing, but I'm not sure if "Intellectual Property" really fits in the scheme of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness / Property" that I would fight and die for. I think this is a distinction that needs to be made, before my company starts worrying about their "air property" that I'm consuming without compensating them.
Re:Yee gads. (Score:2)
Utilitarian analogy: User Alice does not have the Fubar++ software. Developer Bob does, and he is the only one who does. Total utility == 100. Bob sells a copy of Fubar++ to Alice for the sum of $50 and the promise that the source code will not be disclosed. Total utility == (200 - 50). Net gain for the world.
Anarcho/capitalist analogy: Alice has no rights with regards to Bob's copy of Fubar++ on his physical CD. Bob sells the CD to Alice under the terms of the Standard Vinge/Schulman Copyholder Contract, which forbids unauthorized distribution of other contractees works.
Realistic analogy: Alice goes to the store to buys a copy of Bob's software, fully cognizant of the the existance of a defacto and implicit contract known as Copyright. If she agrees with those defacto terms of use, she will buy the software. If she disagrees, she will not.
I don't like copyright law. It's a statist solution to a problem best left to a free society to solve using voluntary means. However, that does not nullify the fact that a creator has the right to control the distribution of his or her works. Copyright certainly makes it easier for the creator, but the lack of copyright won't make control impossible or even difficult.
Re:Yee gads. (Score:2)
Property is in NO way a European concept, and your assertion is base slander (or even racism) of the worst sort. Nearly *every* society has a concept of property, and it's quite easily demonstrable that property was a well-established and understood concept historically literally *thousands* of years before there was any civilization to speak of in Europe. (If you doubt me, look up the Code of Hammurabi, which deals with property issues at considerable length.)
Finally, any one belonging to one of the three largest religions in the world, Judaism, Islam, or Christianity, recognizes that the concept of property is one that has been implicit in God's covenants with man since the very beginning: Go back and read the Ten Commandments (or better yet, Proverbs) with an eye toward property rights - you'll find that any possible rational interpretation presupposes both the existence and the validity of property rights.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to slight Europeans, but you couldn't be more wrong! BTW, other than from a factual point of view, I couldn't care less if you insult Europeans, as I consider myself to be ethnically Texan.
Re:Yee gads. (Score:2, Insightful)
Not that I don't agree with you, but I'll point out the obvious contradiction: many people in the past felt that slaves weren't intelligent or driven enough to govern their own lives, and that controlling and using them for someone else's good was beneficial to everyone involved. The big difference was deciding that slaves were people and not property; as long as slaves were property then you could make the same argument about a slave that you have just made about software.
I don't expect that software will become people any time soon (although maybe by the end of my lifetime), so I still agree with you, just for different reasons.
Software freedom for users (Score:2, Insightful)
many people in the past felt that slaves weren't intelligent or driven enough to govern their own lives, and that controlling and using them for someone else's good was beneficial to everyone involved.
Actually, this introduces another interesting part of the slavery/proprietary software analogy. Some people argue that proprietary software is appropriate, because "users aren't intelligent or driven enough" to make use of the freedoms to modify and study the software. This is terribly unfair. Programmers are in the class of users. Some users program a little, some program a lot, some don't program at all. But even those who don't program often know who the good programmers are, and can ask them to modify a program on their behalf. Users deserve these freedoms, and it's wrong to think that they don't under the guise that they aren't smart enough to make good use of software freedom.
I know it wasn't ethereal who was making this argument, but I thought it was an interesting point to introduce to the discussion.
Re:Software freedom for users (Score:2)
This is a strawman. Very few people make this argument. It looks to me like you're only bringing it up because it gives you an opportunity to cast supporters of copyright as elitist.
Programming morally wrong? (Score:4, Insightful)
If people's freedoms are limited by the fact that they do not have access to the source code of my proprietary software, they are in no way harmed. They are certainly no worse off than they were before I wrote it, are they? In fact, the only people whose lives were affected in any way by the fact that I released a proprietary software package are those who benefitted enough from using it that they were willing to pay for it.
In spending my own available time, energy, and resources to help other people by writing some proprietary software, yes it's true that I am taking some power over the people I help when I limit the way they use my creation. But that is not morally wrong in itself. Comparing proprietary software developers to slave owners is obviously just designed to dramatize the issue, but it's extremely offensive to many of us developers who write both Free and proprietary software. Apparently the FSF has decided that rational argument is not as effective as hyperbole. Well, hyperbole cuts both ways, guys. Here's a little bit of my own:
If I ran a halfway house for homeless teenagers, you're damn right I would exert power over them and limit their freedoms, in the interest of ensuring that I could continue to provide a service to help as many of them as possible. If I didn't limit their freedoms, the police would shut the place down and all the kids would be completely free again - but without a place to sleep. Is it morally wrong to run a halfway house?
Limiting other people's freedoms is not inherently wrong - that's what laws are for. Taking away someone's freedom to steal, rape, and kill is a very good idea. The FSF has made a golden calf of "preserving peoples freedoms" without looking any deeper than that. No wonder they are commonly viewed as extremists. They have turned a blind eye to common sense.
I applaud the FSF and all Free Software developers who have donated their time to the community and have worked to create the wonderful variety of Free software that is available today. But don't tell me that the way I feed my kids is morally wrong.
Ack, too many italics! (Score:3, Funny)
Remember, if the posted story looks wrong, you should have used Preview :)
GCJ also has a JVM (Score:2, Informative)
Comments and Corrections (Score:4, Insightful)
I liked this interview and wish Bradley all the best in his FSF work. However, I must take issue with a couple of his remarks.
No, they differ in a lot more than just that. The two situations are incomparable. Slavery results in the removal of freedoms from people. Developing proprietary software does not. Users still have the choice of whether or not to actually purchase and/or use the software. Victims of slavery have no choice in their situation.
Bradley is confusing the actions of the developer with those of the user. Developers can code under whatever license they choose. This does not mean users must make use of the product.
I still can't believe this analogy was made.
I've always liked this term and its counterpart, "Gratis Software." Using them in combination makes a clear distinction for the receiver. "Free" is just too loaded a term, at least in the US.
Its ironic that Bradley makes this statement given his wonderful explanation of how to connect with non-hackers about Free Software. This is exactly the sort of statement that turns people off and creates the impression of a raving lunatic rebellious dangerous hacker culture.
Not everyone who develops or supports the option to develop proprietary software is working in the interests of corporations. Moreover, I'd bet that most people in the USA are quite concerned about excessive corporate power and have been for quite some time, something that Bradley has obviously missed given the above statement.
Please don't stereotype and generalize. Stereotyping and generalizing is what made Archie Bunker, and makes us, raving lunatics.
Many jobs require proprietary software (Score:2, Interesting)
However, that difference is rapidly disappearing. More and more, it's becoming difficult to get a job in the USA that doesn't require the use of proprietary software. For example, I always used to cite "waiting tables" as a profession that never required using proprietary software. The other night, I made that point, and someone pointed out that the restaurant we were at had a proprietary software point-of-sale system. Even in that profession, people are required to use proprietary software when they weren't before.
In the industrialized world, we are rapidly approaching a day when you cannot work in any field without using software---and in nearly all cases, that software is proprietary software. The difference in the analogy you introduce disappears completely when that is the case. It's nearly disappeared already.
Re:Many jobs require proprietary software (Score:2, Insightful)
But what freedoms have been removed here? Just because it's hard to completely suit your ideal doesn't mean freedom has been eroded. The POS system does not affect the workers at the restaurant. It affects the business. It was a business decision to use a proprietary software package. The business is equally free to use a Free alternative or to develop one. Choice hasn't been eliminated here.
The waiters at the restaurant don't have any say about which POS system is used because they're not in charge. It's a matter of hierarchy, not freedom.
No, it doesn't. You're confused about the identity of the "user." In those cases the "user" is the business as an entity. The individual workers are a part of that business. The people in charge are still free to make use of whatever software they choose. Hence the push to get Free Software into government offices, schools, etc.
It's silly to talk about proprietary software taking away freedom. Software doesn't take away freedom. Programmers don't take away freedom. Marketers don't take away freedom. Users take away their own freedom by choice.
Of course, this doesn't cover stupid laws that really do take away freedom. Comparing the two situations only takes away from our fight for the things that really matter.
I like Free Software. I use it in my daily work because it does what I need and is developed more rapidly than proprietary alternatives. I'm even hoping to contriute some not insignificant code to the collection of Free Software because I believe the benefits of open development make for a good product. What worries me about the FSF's rhetoric is that they want to take choice away from developers and users. The choice of license and the choice of software.
Re:Many jobs require proprietary software (Score:2)
They may very well have the full source code to it. They may have the right to make changes to it as well.
I work with a product which inherently is more usable when the source code is supplied (not providing source makes things much more complicated, even if the customer has no intention of ever making any changes).
The customer may pay extra for the privledge (depends on the requirements) but they can often get the source code.
I'm often hired to make changes to software I didn't write. Software that the company I work for didn't write either.
The only restriction on the software is the customer doesn't have the right to redistribute it. (On the other hand, there are many groups within the comunity which exchange code snippets and patches freely without concern.).
While none of this software would qualify under the Open Source/Free Software description (not in the general sense anyway) it actually does provide benefits to those who use it very similar to the Open Software movement.
Interestingly enough, the end users benefit in a similar fashion but some people actually get paid in a fashion that works consistantly.
Re:Comments and Corrections (Score:2)
People who share software with their friends risk high fines and jailterms. People who reverse engineer software to get the source code face lawsuits, and, if UCITA passes, high fines and jailterms. These things may then also be viewed as acts of civil disobedience.
The existence of software does not take it away. The existence of copyrights, liscenses and a government to enforce them does.
I think the DMCA is useful because it shows something close to the ultimate end of blindly enforcing copyright laws past the time they make sense. They no longer make sense. The freedoms they traded away were once rather pointless, and are now vital.
Something I'd like to know... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you scroll down to the bottom of that page (or just search for the words "not so nice things") you'll see Ulrich Drepper, a Red Hat programmer, discussing his own personal involvement with Stallman.
I submitted this as an article and it got rejected, but I really think that it's a good glimpse into the behind-the-scenes power struggles that go on.
Thoughts?
Ego meets ego... (Score:2, Informative)
Mirror in case of slashdotting (Score:5, Informative)
Stallman recently tried what I would call a hostile takeover of the
glibc development. He tried to conspire behind my back and persuade
the other main developers to take control so that in the end he is in
control and can dictate whatever pleases him. This attempt failed but
he kept on pressuring people everywhere and it got really ugly. In
the end I agreed to the creation of a so-called "steering committee"
(SC). The SC is different from the SC in projects like gcc in that it
does not make decisions. On this front nothing changed. The only
difference is that Stallman now has no right to complain anymore since
the SC he wanted acknowledged the status quo. I hope he will now shut
up forever.
The morale of this is that people will hopefully realize what a
control freak and raging manic Stallman is. Don't trust him. As soon
as something isn't in line with his view he'll stab you in the back.
NEVER voluntarily put a project you work on under the GNU umbrella
since this means in Stallman's opinion that he has the right to make
decisions for the project.
The glibc situation is even more frightening if one realizes the story
behind it. When I started porting glibc 1.09 to Linux (which
eventually became glibc 2.0) Stallman threatened me and tried to force
me to contribute rather to the work on the Hurd. Work on Linux would
be counter-productive to the Free Software course. Then came, what
would be called embrace-and-extend if performed by the Evil of the
North-West, and his claim for everything which lead to Linux's
success.
Which brings us to the second point. One change the SC forced to
happen against my will was to use LGPL 2.1 instead of LGPL 2. The
argument was that the poor lawyers cannot see that LGPL 2 is
sufficient. Guess who were the driving forces behind this.
The most remarkable thing is that Stallman was all for this despite
the clear motivation of commercialization. The reason: he finally got
the provocative changes he made to the license through. In case you
forgot or haven't heard, here's an excerpt:
[...] For example, permission to use the GNU C Library in non-free
programs enables many more people to use the whole GNU operating
system, as well as its variant, the GNU/Linux operating system.
This $&%$& demands everything to be labeled in a way which credits him
and he does not stop before making completely wrong statements like
"its variant". I find this completely unacceptable and can assure
everybody that I consider none of the code I contributed to glibc
(which is quite a lot) to be as part of the GNU project and so a major
part of what Stallman claims credit for is simply going away.
This part has a morale, too, and it is almost the same: don't trust
this person. Read the licenses carefully and rip out parts which give
Stallman any possibility to influence your future. Phrases like
[...] GNU Lesser General Public License as published by the Free
Software Foundation; either version 2.1 of the License, or (at your
option) any later version.
just invites him to screw you when it pleases him. Rip out the "any
later version" part and make your own decisions when to use a
different license since otherwise he can potentially do you or your
work harm.
In case you are interested why the SC could make this decision I'll
give a bit more background. When this SC idea came up I wanted to
fork glibc (out of Stallman's control) or resign from any work. The
former was not welcome this it was feared to cause fragmentation. I
didn't agree but if nobody would use a fork it's of no use. There
also wasn't much interest in me resigning so we ended up with the SC
arrangement where the SC does nothing except the things I am not doing
myself at all: handling political issues. All technical discussions
happens as before on the mailing list of the core developers and I
reserve the right of the final decision.
The LGPL 2.1 issue was declared political and therefore in scope of
the SC. I didn't feel this was reason enough to leave the project for
good so I tolerated the changes. Especially since I didn't realize
the mistake with the wording of the copyright statements which allow
applying later license versions before.
I cannot see this repeating, though. Despite what Stallman believes,
maintaining a GNU project is NOT a privilege. It's a burden, and
the bigger the project the bigger the burden. I have no interest to
allow somebody else to tell me what to do and not to do if this is
part of my free time. There are plenty of others interesting things to
do and I'll immediately walk away from glibc if I see a situation like
this coming up again. I will always be able to fix my own system (and
if the company I work for wants it, their systems).
This says more about the author than RMS. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know Ulrich Drepper personally, though I am aware he is a well-intentioned man and a uber-hacker. I am glad that he is working on glibc, and that I can enjoy the fruits of his efforts.
Having said that, I have to say that his anger seems to stem from not anything specific that RMS has done, but the connotations that he assigns to RMS' actions. Reading Mr. Drepper's article, it appears that RMS has acted democratically and ethically at every turn. Mr. Drepper himself admits that there was no effort to displace him from his position. Also, I see no issue with the new license wording: in fact, like Mr. Drepper admits, it seems more "commerce-friendly" than the previous one, thus refuting RMS' anti-commerce image. It seems, at least to me, that Mr. Drepper is guilty in no little way of the same fault he attributes to RMS... the obsessive need to control his environment.
Magnus.Re:This says more about the author than RMS. (Score:2)
Excuse me, were you reading the same thing I was? If so, I'm not sure how you square the assertion above with what Drepper actually wrote, to wit:
Re:Mirror in case of slashdotting (Score:2)
and he does not stop before making completely wrong statements like
"its variant".
A, the old conflicts just never die, do they?
That said, I recently installed the full suite of Cygwin tools on my Win2K development machine, and it gave me a slightly different perspective on the Linux vs. GNU/Linux debate. If I could only get rid of my Windows desktop altogether I'd be happy indeed.
Re:Mirror in case of slashdotting (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Mirror in case of slashdotting (Score:2)
If you take out glibc, gcc and gdb (because the sources are not primarily from the GNU project, even though they were donated to it) you find that GNU software actually plays only a minor part in a normal Linux system.
Re:Mirror in case of slashdotting (Score:2)
EGCS was a short fork that was remerged over a year ago. The GNU project may not have written a lot of the code (any more than the Apache group wrote all of Apache, or Linus wrote all of Linux), but they did the merging and releasing, awesome projects for something as large and complex as GCC. If the FSF had not been there, there would be ten thousand GCCs, with poorly maintained forks for every system out there.
Also, it's a huge project to get any open-source project started. Whatever anyone else may have done to GCC or glibc or gdb, the structure and framework were built by RMS (for GCC and GDB) or by someone working for the FSF (as in getting paid) (for glibc), and that structure was obviously valuable enough to build on.
Re:Mirror in case of slashdotting (Score:2)
But, as the old saying goes: success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan. I think a fair case can be made for the GNU project to be at least an equal parent with the kernel to the current success of the Linux phenomenon. Subsequently there are a number of very important free software projects that have also been extremely important. I would argue that Apache was very important in the rapid adoption of Linux -- hey, here's a free OS and here's a killer app to run on it. Samba is very important now to the current adoption of Linux. KDE and Gnome or both may have a hand in much future growth. But the usable OS came into existence when the GNU sperm found the Linux egg -- or vice versa (on second thought, I don't want to think too much about that image).
What I was trying to say is that I have a lot of sympathy for the desire of the GNU people to have equal billing in the success of Linux. However, I think that the insistance on this does more mischief to their reputation than good, whatever the justice of their claims.
Re:Mirror in case of slashdotting (Score:4, Informative)
I'd have to disagree. I'd say the GNU project was an important enabler of the "phenomenon", which was due primarily to the dynamism of the Linux-kernel community, which was unique.
I'd been working on Project GNU (specifically, GNU Fortran, or g77) for a few years when Linux came along, and the difference in attitude between maintainers of the "big" GNU projects and Linus and his cohorts was definitely a big factor in why the latter become the focus of the free-software phenomenon in the average person's view.
Sure, the fact that Linux ran on popular PCs was also a factor, but other Unix kernels could do that. And the FSF could have had a Unix kernel that did that earlier, if they'd decided to focus on that goal rather than a much more elegant, portable, high-fallutin' kernel (and especially if RMS had answered "yes" to my offering to write the kernel instead of asking me to write g77 instead).
But while project leaders/maintainers like myself were trying very hard to produce "clean", elegant releases, to keep ugly stuff out of "our" code, and, generally, to keep the uneducated, unwashed masses of budding hackers at arms' length (some would say ten-foot-poles' length ;-) from our precious projects, Linus invited a much closer relationship.
This might partly have been due to his inexperience (he started out much younger and less experienced on his project than I did on g77, RMS did on GCC or Emacs, etc.), but I perceived a much more welcoming, casual attitude in the early Linux discussions than I tended to see elsewhere. (And, remember, "elsewhere" includes my own project.)
So, the "Linux phenomenon" is properly named, in my view, even if "the Linux Operating System" ain't necessarily so. With Linux, "we" (the GNU, or free-software, advocates) not only had a decent-performing free kernel usable on 386s and up, we had a project that nearly anybody could contibute to, and feel as though they were part of "something big".
Yes, "the rest of us" muddled along, and our projects (especially GCC and Emacs, plus the FSF as an organization, since it created and maintained the GPL) were important, perhaps crucial, components of the system being developed around the Linux kernel, just as they were (or were becoming) in many other venues.
I'm not arguing that "we" should be forgotten, just that the "something-special" quality of Linux, and of Linus' running of the Linux project, should always be remembered. I've never thought of the Linux code as being particularly "special", and I still have plenty of reservations about running an "important project" the way Linus did (he might have them too, by now ;-), but I can't deny the excitement and breadth-of-buzz that he created.
The result? To my knowledge, he's the only free-software author whose supporters insisted, against his own recommendation, to name the project's output -- the Linux kernel -- after him. (Well, let's face it, if his name was "Mortimer", "Linux" would still be a cool name, but I think that shows how highly valued and appreciated he was, not just as a coder or project administrator, but as a leader.)
As to the GNU/Linux debate -- while I think the name has technical and cultural advantages (it describes the Unix variant concisely, and it helps remind "the children" from whence it came), of all the cases where the "last component to arrive" got to be the one that named the whole system, this has got to be the best example of that being appropriate.
After all, even if it's the GNU/Linux system, it is the Linux phenomenon that launched a thousand media events, IPOs, and the like, and there's an important cultural touchstone in the "Linux" name being the sole identifier: that, more important to many people than the details of software freedoms, was the welcoming arms of a sort of meritocracy, i.e. a bazaar rather than a cathedral, in participating in the creation of something not so much awe-inspiring, but practical and even, at times, enjoyable dirty, as well.
Put another way: while the rest of his "elders" were carefully writing symphonies and conducting performances, in which each participant was expected to play his or her carefully-outlined part, Linus played bass in the biggest, baddest blues jam session going, where nearly anyone could solo, even if just for a few bars, and most everyone knew the chord progressions by heart.
No amount of technical acumen (or jumping around on stage like a lunatic, *cough*Ballmer*cough* ;-) can substitute for inspiring leadership.
Re:Mirror in case of slashdotting (Score:2)
Re:Something I'd like to know... (Score:5, Interesting)
I do not want to work with RMS anymore (for other, but similar reasons). I realized too late that I should have listened from other people who had been burned in the past.
I will keep writing free software and I appreciate some of RMS's comments and his early vision. But his new vision is now blurred with different objectives that I do not agree with or am sick of.
Miguel.
Re:Something I'd like to know... (Score:3, Interesting)
The leader during the revolution, is not necessarily the leader _after_ the revolution. Each stage demands different skills/convictions. RMS drove this movement for a long time. It is not at all surprising (nor necessarily valid) to me that he'd be increasingly ignored. Though he may remain the conscience of the movement, his role may increasingly become a symbolic one -- at best!
But I hope that such a possibility, will not discourage/detract us from the larger goal. Ulrich is right that free s/w is a burden, but it's one that I hope extremely talented individuals -- such as yourself, Miguel, and Drepper -- will not abandon.
Celebrity deathmatch.. (Score:4, Interesting)
As for Ulrich's comments, I don't agree about the remarks he made on the license thing. The addition made to the 2.1 version of the LGPL compared to the 2.0 version is only a clarification, just as RMS said. Also, the upwards compatibility clause is very important, if it wasn't for that a program's license could never be changed (unless every single contributor granted written permission). Upgrading would of course be necessary if a bug was found in the GPL2 or for those cases where the GPL2 isn't clear enough (say Java linking, Bonobo components, etc.).
As for Ulrich's statements of the hostile takeover, Stallman threatening him as well as for Stallman's so called embrace-and-extend tactics, I'm unsure what is meant. Those whole paragraphs are way to vague to me.
So Miguel... (Score:2)
Are you saying you prefer the name "Linux" rather than "GNU/Linux" ?
Is that what this basically boils down to? (I'm just guessing here)
In all of Ulrich's rant he doesn't explicitly say what issue it is he finds objectionable, or what decision he would like to see made that would satisfy him. (you are similarly ambiguous)
Its hard to agree or disagree with someone if its not clear what they think.
Re:Something I'd like to know... (Score:2)
I was going to submit that story too, but figured the queue already had it hundreds of times. It's hard for me to see how feuding over the control of glibc and threats of a Red Hat fork are less newsworthy here than yet another forum for pointless Microsoft bashing taken straight from CNN's front page.
I thought the most interesting bit was:
The glibc situation is even more frightening if one realizes the story behind it. When I started porting glibc 1.09 to Linux (which eventually became glibc 2.0) Stallman threatened me and tried to force me to contribute rather to the work on the Hurd. Work on Linux would be counter-productive to the Free Software course. Then came, what would be called embrace-and-extend if performed by the Evil of the North-West, and his claim for everything which lead to Linux's success.
Ironically... (Score:3, Interesting)
...this was just touched on yesterday in a slashdot post [slashdot.org]... anyhow.
Ulrich is only one of the maintainers of glibc; there are many others. All of them (including Ulrich) are very very skilled programmers, and all of them (including Ulrich) are basically decent people.
I've worked with Ulrich a very little bit before, for the GNU C++ library. Personally, I found him to be a bit abrupt and condescending, but there's no question that he knew what he was talking about.
I am a little surprised that he would post his rant as part of the glibc release notes, rather than as a separate message. That does seem rather unprofessional.
Enh... none of us are perfect. I too have ranted in public inappropriately, and I didn't contribute a kernel or system library to make up for it. :-) Those members of the OSS community who perform great service are entitled to some leeway.
Re:P.S. (Score:2, Informative)
Don't believe me? I've had it happen before. I had 50 karma and went straight to -25, but I've clawed my way back. My user info contains all the details. But I still have to use proxies to access slashdot.
Enjoy!
Re:P.S. (Score:2)
I really don't think it's an editor that does this. This it how I see it happening:
Someone posts an EXTREMELY off-topic response to a popular thread, very early in the game. Any moderator coming along would mod it down, but many who read it respond. Eventually, the original post get to -1 teritory, and everyone who responded to the off-topic post looks like they responded to the original topic. While I think any post that respond to the parent is on topic, others believe that responces to an off-topic post are off-topic as well, and I can't argue with that. For whatever reason, those get modded down as well. It's no bitchslapping editor - it's normal folks with mod points, perhaps acting in a less than ideal way.
Why are you doing this? The only thing I can think of is some game, where you try to go from 50 to -25 as fast as possible (pretty easy with this tactic), then go back the way you came. Hard, but not impossible, especially when you have friends / other accounts with mod points.
So, I think Slashdot is right in banning your IP address. There's a good chance that you are using multiple account to play this game, or have co-conspirators. I think it's a good thing that the Slashdot crew has made it harder for you to play the game - doesn't that make it more challenging?
However, I don't agree with automatic promotion. If a parent gets modded down below my filter, then all responces should be invisible as well. You should have to select -1 comments to see the trolls AND the biters.
So there. Moderators, be aware of this "automatic promotion", click on the Parent links, and do what you think best.
Rewriting history (Score:2, Interesting)
By the way, I don't think about the "Open Source community" as a distinct entity. There are two movements afoot: the Free Software Movement, whose focus is the political and ethical issues of software freedom, and the Open Source Movement, whose focus is to avoid political issues of freedom, and to talk about the technological benefits of "Open Source". The movements differ greatly because their fundamental philosophies and motivations are different.
However, together we form one community---the same community that started in 1984 when the Free Software Movement started. In 1998, within that community, we had another movement start up with a different focus, but we've always been together in one community. Thus, I hope you'll think of the community as including both the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement, and remember that it originally started as the Free Software community. At the very least, please call it the "Free Software and Open Source community", so that Free Software isn't left completely out of the picture.
One of the reasons I have been hesitant to put my software under the GPL is that increasingly, the FSF seems intent on drawing battle lines between the ``true believers'' and the ``unbelievers'' of the Giving Away Software (GAS) movement[*]. In support of this goal, RMS, BMK, and others seem to be attempting to rewrite history in two important ways.
First, they claim that the genesis of the GAS movement was the Free Software movement. As someone who was there, I assure you that this is just silly. I suspect I gave away as much software before there was an FSF as I have given away since. In those days, we didn't worry much about software licenses: recall that it's only been since Apple v. Franklin [cwru.edu] in 1983 that has even been clear that copyright applies to binary-format software!
The second myth being propagated is that the GAS software we use today is mostly FSF, or originated with FSF software. In particular, the FSF would like you to forget that GNU stands for ``GNU's Not UNIX,'' and that this was as much a protest against the UNIX philosophy as it was against AT&T's proprietary kernels (which were in any case distributed to educational institutions under an essentially GAS license). I know the authors of a few of the GNU utilities, and can assure you that their contributions had as much to do with the existence of a supporting umbrella for their work as any deep philosophical ideas about Software Freedom.
I am unsure what I believe about the idea that ``software should be free.'' But I am sure that those who claim the work of others as their own deserve no respect in an intellectual community. IMHO, RMS and his followers have recently verged dangerously upon the margin of this tactic.
---
* Another unfortunate tactic of the FSF is to take words like ``free'' that are potentially ambiguous but have accepted meanings within the software community, adapt them to their own ends, and then claim that those who ``misuse'' them are in error. The ``Open Source'' movement was in large part an attempt to give a name to the GAS concept inclusive of Free software. Of course, now BMK wants us to distinguish between these two (and give ``Free Software'' the pride of first place, no less), forcing me to change terminology yet again...
In other words... (Score:2)
If all software can be distributed freely, then there is no money to be had writing software. None. Nada. All you can make money on is support/service, which isn't working so well for Redhat right now.
I agree with some of what the FSF proposes, but I must also say that individuals deserve the right to dictate how their works are used. If that means under a GNU license, great. If that means for-sale, that's great too.
Here are the freedoms they propose:
-The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).- Great! I agree.
-The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. - Again, I agree. I have no opposition to a law requiring all software to be sold in source-code form, or requiring source to be made available upon request.
-The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). - Here is where the problem comes. I'm supposed to spend three weeks developing an application, only to have someone give it away? No thanks -- I've got rent to pay and food to buy. If I choose to program on my spare time and give that away, great. But I shouldn't be forced to.
-The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. - Again, we have an issue here. This so-called "freedom" actually restricts my right to control what I have created.
I also thought his comparisons to slavery were a poor attempt to evoke an emotional response. If anything, allowing anyone to distribute any software freely is more akin to slavery... Forcing all programmers to give their work away for free, much as the slaves were forced to work for free. And despite RMS' desire to distance himself from communism, what the FSF proposes is exactly that... except only applied to programmers. It requires all programmers to program only for the good of all of our society, allowing them no personal benefit, and thus removing the incentive to program.
Corporations will always need some things done, so they will hire programmers on staff to do them. But that puts us back at the mercy of big corporations, who's business is NOT software, which means they do NOT have to answer to my software needs. That leaves my only option to writing it myself and gaining nothing from it, or waiting for someone else on a project funded by people's personal time to develop it, from which they gain nothing.
Perhaps in an ideal world... but in reality, if all software were of the FSF's vision, or all software were closed/commercial, then it just wouldn't work. The only system that works is the one we have now: a healthy mix of everything from closed-source, commercial to open-source GNU/FSF.
Re:In other words... (Score:2)
Right now I depend on the patronage of the corporation which employs me to develop software for their own internal use. Nowhere does the FSF claim that in house software should be free.
Features or Freedom? (Score:3, Insightful)
This could just as easily read in the following manner, which hopefully illustrates the fallacy of this position.
The colonel's secret recipe is an exercise of power, and it harms consumers by denying their freedom. When consumers lack the freedoms that define Free Recipe, they can't tell if the chicken was cooked correctly, can't check for inappropriate ingredients, can't monitor quality control, can't monitor fat content (or lower the fat content, if it's too high). If it gets lost, they can't cook more themselves; they have to wait for the restaurant to exercise its power to cook more. If the chicken simply isn't quite what they need, they are stuck with it. They can't help each other improve it.
Proprietary software does not limit our freedom. When you purchase and use proprietary software, you, the user, are making an informed decision. You implicitly agree to the limitiations of using such software, and can always uninstall it, and choose an alternative. If no alternatives exist, you are free to develop your own alternative.
Free (speech) software just makes more sense to users. More and more, the decision to use proprietary software becomes untenable, because of the lack of features, namely, the ability to enhance the product, to find bugs, to sniff out backdoors.
Let's not confuse features with freedom.
Re:wake me when the preaching is over (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:wake me when the preaching is over (Score:2)
There is no point in which Bradley Kuhn tried to make an anaolgy between the severity and repercussions of slavery's freedom lost and the severity and repercussions of people who have no choice but to use non-free software. The analogy was given in order to assist the reader in finding an objective comparison between which freedoms are the rights of citizens and which freedoms impose on others. (The right to swing your fist stops where my face starts.)
I love the benefits of free software(linux, etc) but there is a place for closed proprietary software and there is nothing wrong with using them.
Right now there is a place for free software and proprietary software in the same world. However, in many cases, the philosophies of the two cannot naturally coincide, and there is conflict. If, in the future, we are left with one of the two, it will be because of the efforts of the people fighting(working) for the philosophy that they choose. Advocacy starts now.
Libre (Score:4, Informative)
Free beer software: Gratis software
Roll it around on your tongue. It's not hard to get used to.
-russ
Re:Gratis (Score:2, Interesting)
"available without price".
Re:How about 'Freed' Software? (Score:2, Interesting)
software that wasn't Free, but now is. GNU Emacs isn't Freed Software; it
was always Free Software.
Re:How about 'Freed' Software? (Score:2)
Again, the PETA-like conotation of stealing from the wrongful owners. People that didn't like it could call it 'Peed' software. And some software, like Emacs, was never "not free".
How about "Liberty Software", as in "Liberty and Justice For All"?
Re:How about 'Freed' Software? (Score:2)
-russ
Re:Tyranny of the majority (Score:2)
I would disagree. I would say, quite simply, that a person who owns a computer and runs software has the right to see the source code for that software, and the right to modify the softwares instructions to do what he wants.
Software is a list of instructions for a computer. As the owner of the computer I should have the absolute right to Audit and/or modify any set of instructions that my computer is being given.
Since software must first exist in human readable form and binaries are NOT human readable, the computer owner has the right to see the program, and modify the program, in the only reasonable form for doing so - the source code form.
I see it as fundamentally no different than requiring ingredients labels on food packaging.
and yes, I write code as part of what I do for a living. I woul dnever think of handing someone a binary alone and saying "here you go, just run this, trust me".
-Steve
Re:Tyranny of the majority (Score:2)
You conveniently gloss over the fact that for 99.99(9?)% of the world's computer users, being handed a binary is far preferable to being handed the source and being told, "Here you go, you'll have to compile this, after figuring out which libraries it needs, then getting those and installing them, resolve obscure dependencies, and then install and configure the app itself while adjusting for the idiosyncracies of the particular distribution and environment you have. Trust me, this way is better. No Really. Hey, put down that stick! Ow! Ouch!"
Some things aren't better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick...
Re:comments (Score:3, Interesting)
impression that in most states, when slavery was legal, only white people
could own slaves. Now it appears I was mistaken. My apologies.
Re:Bad news about Adriaticos in Clifton (Score:2, Insightful)
It's still there. I would have noticed if it closed.
513.281.4344. Don't forget, $12 Bearcat pizzas the size of my car on Monday and Tuesday.