Salon on Bruce Perens 43
Zippy the Pinhead writes "Salon has responded with Slashdot-like speed to Bruce Perens' announcement with this article.
Also, just below that item is an article entitled "Linux bandwagon starts to groan", about the flood(?) of Linux-port annoucements. "
Abuse of Certification mark ?? (Score:1)
Why decline to cite specific examples when the issue is so important to the community?
Does anyone have an idea what sort of abuse Bruce might be refering to here?
gwk
Why It's Time to Talk About Writing Free Software (Score:2)
Why It's Time to Talk About Writing Free Software Once Again
I'm someone you've probably never heard of. You may know me as the
primary author of some bits of software someone you might know might
have heard of and which is available from some other people you
probably haven't heard of, and as someone who's thrown in the odd
bugfix on other software here and there, but if you've even used
stuff I've done or fixed you probably used it without giving me a
single thought. Still, I have to establish my credibility somehow.
About a year ago, I watched with disbelief as "Open Source" began to
happen, and then I jumped on the bandwagon as quickly as I could. We
founded the Open Source Initiative as a sound career move that
captured the zeitgeist and surfed the wave of breaking publicity that
resulted from Netscape's sheer desperation for any form of strategy at
all. Well, the world has certainly noticed Eric, and Eric has worked
hard to achieve that for himself, at the obvious personal cost of his
sanity.
So, it's now time for the next stage: now that the world is watching
Eric and we've discovered how ruthlessly egotistically self-promoting
and increasingly odd he really is, it's time for us to explain that
the idea isn't _just_ about Eric, that Eric is not really typical of
us at _all_, and to get some much-needed distance between us and Eric
pronto before he does us any more damage.
We have to find another focal point to counter Eric. We need a
solid and stable personality as a spokesperson, because the media
thrives on personalities, and we needed that personality a week ago to
prepare for Microsoft Refund Day.
We don't have much choice in available people with a critical mass of
media attention. Linus has a real job and is far too sensible to get
involved in this. Alan Cox is a limey with a weird foreign accent most
Americans just can't understand either. We'll have to build on the
personality that we know we've got: Richard Stallman. At least he's
American.
Most hackers giggle when someone says that Free Software and Open
Source are just two words for the same thing, because they can count
and they can see four words. They can count and they can code. They're
logical. Unfortunately, though, Open Source has de-emphasized the
logical importance of writing code and raised expectations that other
people will do that for you and then just give it to you.
It's time for us to fix that. Richard must make it clear to the world
via media attention that this free software is still important, that
software like the increasingly renowned FSF Debian GNU/Linux would not
be around without it, but that there's no such thing as a free lunch
and we need more people that can actually code to write this stuff for
nothing.
Once _everyone_ is writing code for nothing, the no-free-lunch problem
will eventually vanish - but that won't happen until we at least have
people writing free documentation that teaches people how to write
free code. Spread the word! Encourage real computer literacy! Write
now!
One of the unfortunate things about Open Source is that it
overshadowed these important coding efforts with self-promotion
efforts, and the Open Source people are so busy promoting themselves
and taking credit that they've stopped coding. This is a net loss to
the community, and is never fair on the people writing the code -
although some may think Richard is a whacko and disagree with his
belief that _all_ software should be free, you have to ask yourself:
Just how much code have _they_ written and given away recently? How
_dare_ they criticize?
The Open Source Definition is entirely compatible with the Free
Software Foundation's goals because it says it is, and a schism
between the two groups should never have been allowed to develop, even
though marketing considerations and personal self-interest meant that
it was inevitable and everyone could see it coming. I objected to
people doing self-promotion rather than writing code, but was not able
to get the two parties - selfish marketers and selfless coders -
together in common cause, because no-one would agree with me about
anything.
Another unfortunate fact is the certification mark dispute which has
gone on between Software in the Public Interest and the Open Source
Initiative for a whole year. That was entirely our fault, because we
let Eric Raymond take ownership of that mark, and now we just can't
get rid of him and get it back. The Open Source certification mark
has already been abused in ways I find unconscionable and that I will
not abide, and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. Man, I'm
pissed.
Sadly, as I've always tended towards writing code and giving it away
rather than concentrating on marketing, promoting and branding myself,
I've lost touch with Eric because I'm no longer as important as him,
and he's too busy to answer email that isn't inviting him to speak at
events. He's completely out of control without my good advice. I mean,
did you see that cape-and-added-penguins getup on Refund Day at
Microsoft? He's going gaga with delusions of grandeur.
If we leave Eric a bit longer to shoot himself convincingly in his
public foot, gun nut that he is, and give Richard a decent haircut so
he can't spend entire interviews looking for even more split ends
instead of presenting logical arguments, Richard will be perceived as
more mainstream than and definitely saner than Eric. At that point
we'll have no trouble taking back the free software movement
leadership in the public eye and going on from there to market
_writing_ free code. And free documentation.
Admittedly, doing this marketing will take some time away from writing
code, but I think this is possible, that we can actually get the
write-some-code-for-others bits emphasised, and I'm willing to
sacrifice my important coding time for a worthy cause that might just
also bring me into the public eye.
Remember, it's only writing free code that matters, but making my
career out of marketing the rising star of actually _writing_ free
code is where I can make this important difference. And I'm not going
to be marketing me. I'm going to be marketing Richard; he'll be the
media star, and I'll simply be his manager and agent.
We may have only just discovered that Eric can't market concepts
without his own personal foibles and appalling dress sense messing up
the message and getting in the way, but we've known that about Richard
for years. Richard's not going to surprise us by changing his dogmatic
stance now. He's a known quantity: a touchstone that we always know we
can rely on. He's nuts, but at least he's consistent and predictable
with it.
Well, apart from that Tcl thing. And the don't-call-those-emacs-calls
'win' break-everything thing. But those are merely details that are
only of interest to a couple of programming minorities; far more
people got peeved about how the Hacker's Dictionary turned out, so I
think we still come out ahead with Richard.
I've learned a lot about how and how not to do marketing from the open
source effort, and I believe I'm the man to do this. If Noam Chomsky -
consistent, predictable, obviously nuts - can make a successful career
out of denigrating every existing political system and economy,
there's definitely a bigger place in the public eye for Richard while
he denigrates every existing economic method of software distribution.
After all, more people use software than vote, right? Just count those
Chinese and all their free software! Richard will be bigger than
Chomsky, mark my words.
I'll be working to promote Richard as someone that fits the definition
of Free Software Spokesperson. I'll be managing and taking credit for
his media appearances, much as I ironically failed to manage and take
credit for Eric's. And is currently
being reworked to reflect my new role.
So, my question is: who's going to break this news to Richard?
Thanks,
Me.
(ongoing spats in claiming leadership of the movement can be
just as entertaining as watching Eric Raymond perform:
http://x4.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=435811714
or taking the mickey out of Jon Katz's many mistakes, for that
matter.
L.)
Richard Stallman???? Lost your effing mind? (Score:2)
He's not. He's an advocate of GNU CopyLeft, and fuck all else, really. You're worried about people who seem strange in the public media, and you want to advocate Stallman? The man is practically a rabid dog when it comes to anything even *remotely* commercial, including the occasional rip on the idea of people getting paid to work on open source.
Good grief. Few things could be as bad for the freedom of the movement as RS, who represents the Stalin of open source ideals.
Find someone a bit more open-minded about the diversity *within* Open Source.
Selling Books Is Wrong? OF COURSE NOT! READ PLS (Score:1)
"The copyright system was created expressly for the purpose of encouraging authorship. In the domain for which it was invented--books, which could be copied economically only on a printing press--it did little harm, and did not obstruct most of the individuals who read the books. "
Next, RMS talks about how programmers can make a living and still write free software:
"There are plenty of ways that programmers could make a living without selling the right to use a program. This way is customary now because it brings programmers and businessmen the most money, not because it is the only way to make a living. It is easy to find other ways if you want to find them. Here are a number of examples.
"A manufacturer introducing a new computer will pay for the porting of operating systems onto the new hardware... The sale of teaching, hand-holding and maintenance services could also employ programmers... People with new ideas could distribute programs as freeware, asking for donations from satisfied users, or selling hand-holding services."
So, nothing less than the very GNU Manifesto says that selling teaching services is OK - selling hand-holding is OK - and copyrights on books are OK. So why do the flipping purists have their shorts in a bind?
One can only assume it is, at root, an ego problem. Their movement has been yanked from under their feet, and the only recourse they have is to throw a fit over what are, in essence, relatively minor tresgressions of their original vision.
And the fact that Perens has hurt the movement with this kind of fuss is apparently a non-factor. For purists, if the movement isn't pure in their vision, it doesn't count. So one cannot go quietly into the night - one must publicly announce one's departure, gain attention, throw tantrums, send global e-mails, etc.
With these kinds of moral leaders we'll soon be back to 1989 - Windows as king, the FSF as a minor speck in the eye of 100% proprietary software. But at least their movement will be pure.
early morning comedy (Score:1)
Who would you cast?
Selling Books Is Wrong? (Score:1)
But O'Reilly's role in the open-source movement has long riled some hardcore free software hackers, who perceive O'Reilly & Associates as profiting unfairly from free software by selling "non-free" manuals.
Um ... wasn't part of the point of free software that you could still sell support? I personally consider a well-written manual as support, so I'm not sure why it's not right for O'Reilly to sell manuals that they've contracted people to write.
And Bruce also... (Score:1)
* took off from SPI with the Open Source Trademark under his arm which the SPI says he didn't have the right to do.
* if he has indeed called Tim O'reilly a parasite, worked for a parasite
* announced he was quitting to the SPI (but didn't quit really, or not right then)
* quitted from debian (and told rather unpleasant things to them, which sadly I can't quote)
He seems to have joined again?
* announced he was founding a Red Hat based distribution when quitting from debian.
And this is only what *I* remember.
I have no quarrel with Mr. Perens, but I would take anything he says with a grain of salt a little larger than the usual one.
You want to tell me that over the phone?? (Score:1)
But you won't, because you're an anonymous coward, coward.
-russ
Andrew's piece is pretty fair (Score:1)
I like O'Reilly books and I have quite a few of them. That's not where my complaint is.
The main problem I see is that while we need people like Eric Raymond to speak to the non-hackers, hackers need to stay in control of the work they produced. There are a few ways in which hackers are losing control:
We no longer control our information sources. Hacker-produced web sites, news groups, and mailing lists are being displaced by commercial news sources and book publishers. That would be OK, except they seem to want to control the information, too. That part isn't acceptable. Thus, I am working on ways for hackers to take back the lead in providing information about free software, using the power of the internet and free software.
One person who I feel is mainly interested in profiting from the community is posing as a leader of the community. Most free software merchants know better than to do this. I like the honest way that Bob Young presents himself as someone who profits from free software and returns value to it, but isn't one of the leaders. I think he's a great example for other free software merchants to emulate.
Thanks
Bruce
Bob Young is smart enough to do that the right way (Score:1)
Bob has shown that he can find the balance between profit from the community and returning value to the community. That's important.
There are various kinds of relationships between businesses and the free software community, and they can be classed into Benefactors, Symbiotes, and Parisites. These are three labels on a scale that measures what they take vs. what they give back. Benefactors license free software without really caring if they profit from our community or not. Lots of free software authors belong in that category. Symbiotes give and take equally, Red Hat is a good example of that IMO. Parisites take more than they give, even when they are providing great products that are critically needed. They could be cured of this distinction by taking some Bob Young lessons.
Thanks
Bruce
That's a troll. (Score:1)
Andrew Leonard seems to be a nice guy and does the best job he can. He also seems to be sincerely sympathetic to our community.
Bruce
Selling Books Is Wrong? (Score:1)
Selling Books Is Wrong? (Score:1)
It occurs to me that other aspects of "World Domination" include training end-users to work in Free Software environments. Perhaps that would be a good project to coordinate - developing GNU training materials and courseware.
Best advocates and diversity (Score:1)
As for media representation, while I'd prefer the community to be the focus, but the press _have_ to have a spokesman. What time of person, and who that should be, needs to be addressed RSN.
RMS accepts other licenses as free. He just thinks that the GPL is the best one, which isn't surprising considering it represents his vision. Often times RMS will go to what some people view as an extreme on an issue. I might not agree with everything he says, but I pay attention to _what_ he is talking about and form an opinion on it. RMS is invaluable to the free software community because he stirs up debate on issues that someone with less conviction might accept. He's an uneasy conscience that we might not agree with, but we certainly should listen to and reflect how we feel on the topics he raises. People who dismiss RMS as a loony should not be as quick to dismiss what he is taking issue to as they are to call names.
If you're looking for people who look past the license and more at the freedom of the software, look for people like Bruce and the legal eagles in the Debian group. They have repeatedly resolved issues with software that was "open-source" but not free. Look at their work on Zope, for example. They thought that the forced recognition of their product was an acceptable clause on their license. Bruce and the Debian people disagreed and gave arguments for their disagreement. The whole issue was resolved and now the clause has been dropped. Textbook diplomacy.
Biting the bait (Score:1)
Can you read? No? Just basic english? You think so? So go here [fsf.org] and spend some time leraning about the subject you so forcefully babble about.
Now go up in this same page and read the transcript of Bruce's post in the comment "Why It's Time to Talk About Writing Free Software (Score:2)".
Then stop suffering your ignorance upon us:
Anyone, and I mean *ANYONE* who thinks that Richard Stallman is a good advocate of "Open Source" is wrong. Just plain wrong.
Anyone, I mean *ANYONE* who thinks Richard Sallman would even consider being an "Open Source" advocate has probably been away from the planet during the past year.
He's not. He's an advocate of GNU CopyLeft, and fuck all else, really. You're worried about people who seem strange in the public media, and you want to advocate Stallman?
I fail to remember the name of your last code contribution to the communitary pool, AC. Please enlighten me before barking about programmmers and ideals far beyond your level of understanding.
The man is practically a rabid dog when it comes to anything even *remotely* commercial, including the occasional rip on the idea of people getting paid to work on open source.
I dont even think this plain LIE must be answered. Check the link above.
Good grief. Few things could be as bad for the freedom of the movement as RS, who represents the Stalin of open source ideals.
Against the enlighted enterprise CEOs, the freedom fighters of modern day, I guess. And again, stop using Stallman name and the expression Open Source in the same phrase. Learn to say Free Software. Learn to live with it.
Biting the bait (Score:1)
Does that sound like satire?
What is posted here is not the essay by Bruce
Perens, but a satire of it.
I am well aware of that, sir.
Before you go insulting people you know nothing about and telling them they can't read
Hard to know (or to want to know) someone who wont bother to back a comment with a name.
Biting the bait (Score:1)
And I don't really have anything against ACs. I was just refering to the original poster (the AC you were NOT defending).
Cheers
Microsoft & commercial apps for Linux (Score:1)
They'd take over the linux desktop market, would be able to control the linux threat to win9x, and could make corporate types happy with something like "Certified NT Compatible" linux.
Evil.
Salon Magazine (Score:1)
Just my two cents.