Stallman Responds To GNOME Questionaire 542
proclus writes: "Stallman's
response to the GNOME board election process
is a lesson in the application of free software principles. For Stallman, GNOME is a GNU project, and the main goal is to promote free software. His consistancy and ethics are admirable, but one wonders if GNOME has grown beyond its roots in the free software community. Is Stallman's view of GNOME too narrow?
The GNU-Darwin Distribution
and
The Fink
projects are a case in point. It is simply amazing how many people want to use GNOME together with Mac OSX, and yet in Stallman's view, this would be an example of GNOME falling short of its goals. If free software is used together with proprietary, then the movement has failed to displace proprietary software, and free the users. Is it possible to reach such users with free software ideals, and is it necessary to divorce free software from proprietary in order to accomplish that goal?"
Small victories... (Score:2, Interesting)
In other words, don't discount the small victories just because they're small. Keep going for the gold, but accept the bronze graciously.
Re:No! (Score:3, Interesting)
Cooperation with KDE forgotten ? (Score:5, Interesting)
I cannot understand why KDE is not even cited in this response. Is this only electoral bulls**t ?
Stallman's honesty (Score:5, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Stallman is an honest man (Score:5, Interesting)
I think this response says a lot about RMS's personal character. Some salient quotes:
and:
and especially:
Whatever people say about his being "out of touch", I think this shows that he is well aware of the criticisms levelled at him. He is also admirably aware of his own stubborn nature, and of the ideals he stands for. This guy knows what he's fighting for, knows his personal limits, and has no illusions about how he comes across to others.
Re:Cooperation with KDE forgotten ? (Score:3, Interesting)
A good co-operation between GNOME & KDE is more then welcome (look at freedesktop.org) but RMS pushing for this? I'll belive it when I see it.
Stallman is right (Score:5, Interesting)
The idea behind GNU software isn't "let's do something to help producers of propriatery software". Just on the contrary: the idea is: "let's do something AGAINST propriatery software".
Those who disagree are free to use software which is "freeware", or licenced under one of BSD licences, but the point of GNU licence has always been very clear: Even in the case where licence itself allows some kind of mixed propriatery and GNU-licenced software, this is clearly an "unwanted artefact" by whoever choose to put his/hers software under GNU licence, and one should not expect to be greated as a hero if doing so.
The fact that "oh so many people want to do it" is completely irrelevant, because these "oh-so-many-people" haven't written the programs in question, and thus have nothing to say about the way these should be used apart from kindly asking the author(s). Let me state this once more:
GNU != freeware
Coexistence is reasonable (Score:2, Interesting)
If you look at it the Microsoft way, then free software is only there to provide communities that you can sell to, providing it doesn't get in your way.
If you look at it the FSF way, commercial software is only a hindrance to the march of progress.
The truth is in between: freely-available and commercial software have lived side by side for years, and however Bill and Richard want to cancel each other out, its not going to change any time soon. Whether its GNOME or KDE on any proprietory OS isn't the point, its that users are getting something useful.
We currently have almost a symbiotic relationship that is producing great results, and excluding one from the other isn't realistic, much less productive.
Solaris? HP-UX? (Score:1, Interesting)
So what about the agreements between HP and Ximian to make Gnome the default desktop of HP-UX 11i (or any later version). Sun also already announced Gnome as default desktop for an upcoming Solaris version. Will RMS tell them "Sorry, you are proprietary and may not use Gnome"?
How is this different fron GNU on proprietary UNIX (Score:4, Interesting)
I think this is more of a purity issue than a political issue. Yes, in a perfect world users would prefer to run GNU tools on GNU operating systems and pass around GNU blessed formatted documents. We're closer to that goal if people become more familiar with the GNU tools, and not a moment before. I can't think how GNOME or other tools running on OSX hurts the end goal.
Extremism is detrimental to free software (Score:2, Interesting)
First of all, he should be commended for having the guts to go out and make the statements he does. Look at his responses - he's basically telling the GNOME Board "Look, you can get as enthusiastic as you want about GNOME, but it's an integral part of GNU software, and don't you forget it." Whether right or wrong, you have to believe strongly in something to say that to their [virtual] faces.
The problem is, Stallman's viewpoint only serves to support the stereotype of the free software movement: "A bunch of opinionated geeks, who have all these high and mighty principles, but won't actually help Joe User learn how to use this stuff, because they don't consider him worthy."
If you wish to obey both the letter and spirit of the "laws" of the free software community, then yes, Stallman's view that free is free, and proprietary is proprietary, and never the twain shall meet, is right on target. However, it's impossible to do that in the real world. In today's society of capitalism and instant gratificaton, you need to offer people an incentive to use your software. Simply appealing to their ideals isn't going to be that successful.
Here's an example: Imagine Joe User is given a Windows PC. Let's pretend that Windows PC runs the GNOME desktop, but still runs Windows as the OS. Once Joe User figures it out, he's pretty happy with it. In a year or so, Microsoft wants to charge him some more money for his license. His friend says "Hey, you don't need to do that. Try installing Linux." Joe User sets it up, and when it boots up, he sees the familiar GNOME desktop. Joe User is a happy user, and sticks with Linux, and another ones bites the dust as far as MS is concerned. This is a good thing, right?
Now imagine another scenario: GNOME can't be used with any proprietary software. It doesn't exist for for Windows. Joe User's friend comes along, and installs Linux for him to alleviate Microsoft's licensing. Joe User is very confused. "WTF is this bear claw doing where the Start menu should be?" he says. "Well, I see Netscape, but damned if I know how to manage my windows. I'm a busy man - I don't have time to read this documentation when I'm supposed to be working. I can't get anything done.", he laments. "Screw it," he says. "I'll just pay Microsoft the extra money."
The difference between the two scenarios is that in the first case, the user can take his time to learn GNOME. It's not essential to get his work done. Joe User views the idea of having to learn about Windows as a done deal. To him, you can't use computers unless you can figure out Windows. Because of this, he can fall back onto Windows if GNOME is confusing. But he'll eventually master it, at his own pace. If you throw it at him, and say "You can't do squat until you figure out how to use this, he's going to be unhappy."
There's lots of free (speech, not beer) software available for commerical OS's. I love Apache, but because of some applications I use, I can't boot into Linux 24-7. Thank goodness Apache is available for Windows, and not just because it's more secure than IIS - it's also a better product.
Imagine if it wasn't available for anything but GNU/Linux.
The point is, if you irreparably sever the connections between free and proprietary software, it can only serve to be detrimental to the movement. It's like opening "Joe's Fast-Food Burgers" right between a McDonald's and a Burger King, and wondering why no one is showing up to buy your food. You need to offer the average person an incentive to come to YOU instead of competitors.
As much as we may hate it, "It runs under Windows" is a good incentive for some people. Then we can say: "Hey - why don't you try out CygWin? It looks a lot like a UN*X console, but it runs under Windows. If you get fed up with it, just click that "X" in the corner, and you can go back to what you were doing."
Now it's up to the free software community to take it to the next step. As in, "Hey, buddy. I noticed you've got cygwin, Apache, and StarOffice on that Windows box. Want to try installing Linux? You get the exact same thing, but without paying money to Microsoft. Give it a try."
The "free as in speech" idea will appeal to users once they're involved in the movement. The "free as in beer" is what is necessary to draw them into the movement. Stallman would do well to understand this.
Re:Doesn't Godwin's law apply here? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No! (Score:2, Interesting)
EX The Gimp has no pantone support because of the lisc on pantone colors. I know i few ppl who like gnome alot but never use it ti get real work done cause they cant send it to the publisher without converting it in an other app on windows. these ppl would gladly spend some $$$ for a plug-in that would allow just that function
So you see there are always parts in free software that could benifit from some non free involvment. because wheter we like it or not we cant just abolish all IP (IMHO)
no divorce (Score:3, Interesting)
It is simply amazing how many people want to use GNOME together with Mac OSX, and yet in Stallman's view, this would be an example of GNOME falling short of its goals
I agree with Stallman on that point.
Is it possible to reach such users with free software ideals, and is it necessary to divorce free software from proprietary in order to accomplish that goal?"
Stallman knows that divorcing free software from proprietary is not always the right choice. This is why he created the LGPL.
I think it is mandatory that free software not be divorced from proprietary in order to accomplish RMS's goals. But I'm not talking about OS X, I'm talking about Windows. OS X has very little market share, and can safely be ignored, but Gnome must work on Windows and work well, if a GNU system is to have any chance of replacing Windows. Perhaps if the Windows port is GPLed (Gnome is LGPLed) that would encourage free software even more.
After thinking about it, maybe that is the solution with Mac OS X. Release the OS X port of Gnome under the GPL. Then the displacement of users from GNU systems to OSX will almost surely be outshadowed by the displacement of proprietary software (which possibly runs only on OSX) to GPLed software (which can possibly be easily ported to GNU systems).
Re:What users want is what is best (Score:2, Interesting)
YAWN. How many times have we had to read this babble on Slashdot? It's getting pretty tiring. Who the $#@! moderates this up?
OK, one more time. Your statement is equivalent to the following: "What Gandhi was trying to do is ram his ideology (good aspects notwithstanding) down everyone's throat in much the same way that Saddam Hussain tries to ram his ideology down our throats."
If someone is using government power to bleed people dry that is really in no way comparable to someone who is trying to find ways to give people as much freedom as possible within an oppressive system.
Stop this nonsense now. Show the man some respect, he deserves it.
GNOME doesn't need to be tied to other GNU softwar (Score:2, Interesting)
What about Sun.. ? (Score:2, Interesting)
GNOME is not an independent software project; it is a part of the GNU system
Somehow, I don't see Sun agreeing with this. Sun was one of the major backers of Gnome, and it's adoption in SOlaris was going to expose a whole new class of people to Free Software. But if GNOME exists soley for the GNU system, surely this is a bad thing? Personally, I think RMS is a bit of a fanatic, and shoul not be elected to this board.
Anti-Proprietary means Anti-Handicapped to me (Score:2, Interesting)
I guess they don't want disabled programmers working on free software for them.
I have ulnar neropathy. My arms are pretty toasted from computer use. For the majority of my work (writing, quality assurance, and documentation) I use proprietary speech recognition software. Until there is a free replacement, I will continue to pay for and use such software.
When Stallman refuses to work with or talk about proprietary software I hear him say that he feels my possible contributions aren't worth anything.
As such I refuse to work on gnu projects, and put my efforts towards other open source and free projects.
-Jeff
Just Say No To Stallman (Score:2, Interesting)
If I were to put Stallman's writings and opinions in front of someone that was not acquainted with Open Source/Free Software movement, I think that they would find Bill Gates' opinion to be reasonable. The problem, as I see it, is the "GNU System" is more about a political goal than providing a system that I can plop down in front of my Grandmother on her fixed income that she could use without making me her full time tech support agent. My Grandmother is worried about sending e-mail not about some NAZI goose stepping through her operating system and limiting her right to source code (what the hell is she going to do with it? Needlepoint it into a sweater?).
I really don't have a problem with Stallman's idea of Free Speech for individuals but I think he should listen to voices besides his own echoing around his skull. I frankly would rather deal with the megalomania of Steve Jobs than Richard Stallman. At least with Jobs, I get something very useful at the end and it doesn't come burdened by his extreme leftist political beliefs. The couple of bucks I have to pay for it is entirely worth it and the lack of source code, so far, has not prevented me in reaching my goals with my computer.
If the GNOME community knows what is good for ITS future, I hope they vote NO on Stallman or GNOME will end up to be another HURD which barely anyone has HEARD about.
The following strikes me as contradictory: (Score:2, Interesting)
This is all well and good. However, consider it in light of the answer to question number 3:
I'm sorry, Mr. Stallman, but it does not seem to make sense to say that you want a closer connection to a project whose mailing lists you have not even been involved with. Or maybe it's just me.
Also, the answer to the following is a bit ivory tower:
I'm sorry, but this doesn't compute, either. "free software" has been shown, time and time again, to be more even than a belief, but also a personal crusade; If GNOME were best served by somehow being non-free (I personally can't see a case in which this would be true, but bear with me) then you would have conflicting interests, and you've already stated that your personal interests in free software and the GNU project overall would come before GNOME. Therefore, the answer to this question must be "no".
Supporting paragraph for my previous assertion follows:
Now look, they asked you if your highest goal, at least in terms of representing GNOME, would be GNOME. You just said it wasn't, and that your highest goal is that software should be free. What gives?
In any case, let's wrap up:
Why even qualify this? This would have been much better without the "My time is tight" statement; Without it, it's an unequivocal "yes"; With it, it sounds more like a "maybe" to me.
Now, before I write my closing statements, let me set the stage so you can see where I'm coming from; I've been using UNIX for a decade. I started using Linux relatively early on; I think the current kernel at the time was 1.1.47. Obviously many people pre-date me in this. I occasonally dash off a small utility in perl or something, and I formerly released them under the BSD license, but now use the MIT license (mostly since OSI considers them to be functionally identical and the MIT license is a simplest case.) I do believe in free software, of course, but what that means varies from person to person. I definitely believe in open source, even in non-free software.
These days, I run only Windows on my desktop. For a server OS, I generally use OpenBSD. Since it's a server, I don't need a windowing system, so I am not using GNOME or in fact even using X at all. And in fact I have no real hope that I will be able to run everything I want to run on any UNIX for the next two to five years at least; I want the gaming performance delivered by windows, and I'm willing to suffer with the reliability delivered by windows to get it. While ultimately it would be nice if there were free versions of all commercial software, I don't think that getting rid of commercial software would be good for the world - With less money coming in, less money can go out to programmers, which means we will have less programmers on the job, and less quality software.
But I DO want to preserve GNOME because I think it's the best shot at a free desktop which doesn't suck. I haven't used GNOME in a little while, but the last time I used it it was quite slick. If its evolution continues then a UNIX desktop can continue to become more of a reality, and ultimately I would like to be free of Microsoft on the desktop, as it is a mishmash of various only-partially-working proprietary systems and nightmarishly crafted APIs. So GNOME is important to me, and I don't want to see it caught up in the RMS holy war against programmers getting paid for writing code.
Re:Tough Medicine (Score:5, Interesting)
As a businessman, I think you can't appreciate what GNU is about, what Gnome can be, and what is important for the project. There will always be arguments and negotiations -- RMS will argue about important things, like freedom, while the businesses will be more apt to argue about territory.
Wanted: Leader for Linux.... (Score:1, Interesting)