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.
Libre (Score:4, Informative)
Free beer software: Gratis software
Roll it around on your tongue. It's not hard to get used to.
-russ
Ego meets ego... (Score:2, Informative)
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: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!
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]
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.
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).
Re:Something I'd like to know... (Score:1, Informative)
It seems that the worm is turning against RMS. In spite of his insistance on prepending GNU to everyone elses work, and being the self-crowned emperor of the free-as-in-speech software movement, he seems to have trouble making friends. There's a bit of an ideaological split going on in the community.
If I were you Miguel, on my next visit to Mexico City I'd be on the lookout for suspicious looking strangers bearing ice-picks.
GCJ also has a JVM (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Black people owned slaves, too (Score:2, Informative)
remove the word "white" from the phrase "white people" in my interview.
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: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: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: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)".
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.