Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNOME GUI

RMS Running For GNOME Board Of Directors 439

Posted by timothy from the thus-could-the-circle-be-completed dept.
An anonymous reader points to this story at Newsforge which says that "RMS is throwing his hat in the ring as a candidate for the GNOME foundation board of directors. Speculation is that he's pissed because the GNOME summary keeps mentioning non-free software; now he's going to (try to) do something about it."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RMS Running For GNOME Board Of Directors More

RMS Running For GNOME Board Of Directors

Comments Filter:
  • It seems like virtually all of the Gnome news deals with pure GPL software. Is there a problem with non-free (as in speech) software?

  • Or maybe he just wants to work on GNOME? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dwonis ( 52652 ) on Thursday November 08, 2001 @10:30PM (#2541630)
    RMS is a programmer, so it's not unreasonable to believe that since he was partly behind the creation of GNOME (even if the reasons are no longer there), he might want GNOME to succeed. Since KDE has made leaps that GNOME hasn't (I don't know this myself, since I use Window Maker, but it's what I keep hearing), RMS might want to help make GNOME better.

    Of course, keeping it free will obviously be a concern of his, but it might not be his main concern.

    • Of course, keeping it free will obviously be a concern of his, but it might not be his main concern.

      AAACK! Here, sir, is a credit card, with no limit on it. I invite you to visit the clue store and purchase all you can. Alternatively, go to gnu.org and READ a bit of what RMS has written. I cannot believe that his concern will be anything BUT keeping it free. Freedom is more important than good, fast, or cheap to him...
    • Since KDE has made leaps that GNOME hasn't (I don't know this myself, since I use Window Maker, but it's what I keep hearing), RMS might want to help make GNOME better.

      FYI, both have made incredible leaps in the past year and are continuing to grow. I use GNOME, but have used KDE accasionally and am simply prefer a familiar environment (as a GNOME user).
    • Of course, keeping it free will obviously be a concern of his, but it might not be his main concern.

      You don't appear to have read his writings. Check out the philosophy section [gnu.org] of GNU.

  • Sheesh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Reality Master 101 ( 179095 ) <`moc.liamg' `ta' `101retsaMytilaeR'> on Thursday November 08, 2001 @10:30PM (#2541634) Homepage Journal

    It isn't enough for RMS to promote his ideas of what "free software" should be about. Now he has to censor everyone else and become the thought police?

    I agree with the mailing list poster who said if RMS doesn't like it, let him publish his own "pure" list, sanitized and "approved" for reading by the ignorant masses.

    • Re:Sheesh (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Brontosaurus Jim ( 528803 )
      So you're trying to censor him? Let the guy give it a shot. If they vote him in, that's apprently what they wanted.

      A agree though, that his call for censorship is pretty lame, but he still has a right to promote his ideals as he sees fit, so long as he doesn't screw with us.

    • Re:Sheesh (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jmv ( 93421 ) on Thursday November 08, 2001 @10:49PM (#2541717) Homepage
      It isn't enough for RMS to promote his ideas of what "free software" should be about. Now he has to censor everyone else and become the thought police?

      Who's censoring who here? Has he talked about censoring everyone? AFAIK this election is supposed to be democratic so you can vote against him if you like, but he's got the right to apply. Although I often disagree with him, I think it would probably good to have the two ends of the spectrum on the board: Stallman AND people from corporations (RedHat, Compaq, IBM?, ...).

      • Re:Sheesh (Score:3, Informative)

        by Reality Master 101 ( 179095 )
        Who's censoring who here? Has he talked about censoring everyone?

        Yes. That post was what I was specifically referring to. RMS is whining that non-free (by his definition) software is being mentioned in the context of "free" software. [gnome.org]

        You know, I've always resisted comparing RMS to a communist, but this sounds like what the Soviet Union would do. "We must expunge all references to evil Capitalism from our literature so the people are not poisoned with impure thoughts. They will only be exposed to the beauty that is the communist ideal."

        Sorry for pulling out the "instant flamebait" of the C-word, but I find this unbelievably appalling.

        • Re:Sheesh (Score:2, Insightful)

          by The_egghead ( 17079 )
          You can't compare the actions of any individual to those of the communist state. Once you start putting guns behind your words, the game changes completely. If RMS believes that the GNOME foundation should be one that promotes exclusively free software, that's a perfectly valid belief. Calling his idea censorship is like saying that the NAACP is censoring the KKK because they don't publicize their meetings. RMS was simply saying that GNOME should only post about relevant software, for his values of relavant. You can disagree with his idea of relevance, but don't say that it is invalid to have any view at all.

        • Re:Sheesh (Score:3, Insightful)

          by hearingaid ( 216439 )

          RMS is complaining about non-free software being mentioned in the GNOME summaries.

          I don't agree with him, but he has a point: the GNOME summaries are news about GNOME. It's arguable that talking about things like StarOffice is off-topic.

          RMS is not trying to say that you should never discuss StarOffice, just not on this particular mailing list. Now, I still don't agree with him, but it's not because he's trying to act as a petty, McCarthy-esque censor (to avoid the Communist/Nazi reference): I think what he's trying to say is that you should promote free software by talking about how great it is, not about how well it interoperates with non-free software.

          I disagree because I think that talking about interoperability helps people focus on one of the major strengths of OSS. But it's a reasonable argument to make.

          And, FWIW, RMS is not a control freak: he's a fanatic. Control freaks do not come up with things like the GPL, something designed to reduce central control. He's an extremely skilled programmer and, given his pretty significant contribution not only to OSS but to computing at large, should at least be allowed to run.

          Dunno if I'd vote for him. I don't use GNOME though, so I can't say I'll lose sleep over it either way. :)

          • I've got news for you -- rms is a control freak and a fanatic. And the GPL is one of the most controlling licences in the world. It's not a licence written by someone who wants freedom, it's a licence written by someone who wants to ram his definition of freedom down peoples throats.

            But aside from that I have no strong opinions on the GPL.:-)

            If folks here are correct in implying he's running for the board so he can shut off discussion of non-GPL software (IMHO non-GPL != non-free), well, that's the actions of both a fanatic and a control freak. If the GNOME developers want to mention non-free software, they've already shown by their actions that's what they want to do. If someone thinks that discussion is a bad thing, then the right thing to do is to get in there as an equal and try to convince them.

            Running for the board so you can override others' will is, IMHO, a violation of freedom. But thus far all I've heard is rumor of his reasons. Sourceforge reports it as "speculation" (tho they offer some reasons as to why that speculation is being made). Until I hear a statement from Stallman as to his reasons, I'll withhold judgement on this particular issue.

            • Re:Sheesh (Score:3, Insightful)

              by hearingaid ( 216439 )

              Well, I read the reactions to RMS on the GNOME list. Most of them could be summarized as "no, RMS is wrong, keep on doing it like you're doing it." None of them were "RMS is The Definition of All Evil, fear him," which is more like what I'm seeing on /. :)

              IMO the fact that he's running for the board is by definition respecting the democratic process. Even if he's only doing it because of this rather minor issue, then - if he wins - it'll be a validation of his viewpoint, to some extent.

              And remember: There are a bunch of board members. RMS is not running for Potentate.

              Secondly, control freaks just don't engage in this kind of activity. RMS doesn't want to be In Charge: he wants people to do it His Way. It's a fine line but the difference is clear. If he really was a control freak, he would have been running for the board for some time now. He's presumably running because for some reason there's a bee under his bonnet and he sees some Injustice he can fix if he gets on the board.

              Control freaks, on the other hand, like to be in charge all the time. You see them constantly campaigning. No, RMS is more the missionary than the bishop type.

              As for the GPL: The GPL was designed to solve a problem that RMS had on a few occasions. I doubt he thought through in detail all of its implications then, and I doubt he has has thought it through all that well now. He's taken it up, and since he's a fanatic... well. :)

              And finally, I guess I disagree on one major point. Not everybody is equal in the OSS world. Some people have made greater contributions than others. For example, if Torvalds says something, a lot of people pay attention. Note the firestorm about Cox's DMCA protest of a week or so ago.

              RMS is one of those people. He's not an equal to an ordinary OSS developer. He's made extremely significant contributions, even if you only count emacs.

              • > RMS doesn't want to be In Charge: he wants people to do it His Way.


                IOW, he wants to be In Charge without the work involved :)


                hawk

          • Re:Sheesh (Score:3, Insightful)

            by nukebuddy ( 258109 )
            hearingaid wrote:
            And, FWIW, RMS is not a control freak: he's a fanatic. Control freaks do not come up with things like the GPL, something designed to reduce central control.

            Yes, they do. This is typical behavior of authoritarians. Authoritarians can't stand to be told what to do, so, often, they will form or work strongly within anti-oppression movements. Look at Frank Zappa. Look at Karl Marx.

            All activists, of any stripe, are authoritarians. If they weren't authoritarians, they wouldn't care about changing the world. You have to look past their arguments about how morally wrong a situation is (and therefore deserves to be forcefully changed), and see that they use this supposed moral wrongness as a pretext for authoritarian intervention.

            Non-authoritarians take the world at face value. Therefore, you don't see them forming or active within liberation movements. This is not a paradox. It's perfectly logical.

            You can see right through Marx; you can see right through Zappa; and you can see right through RMS. You can also see right through authoritarian Eric Hoffer, author of _True Believer [amazon.com]_, a treatise on authoritarians' attractions to mass movements. It takes one to know one, and he must have realized this soon after the book was published because he never wrote on the subject again (even though he later authored many other books).

            -nukebuddy

            • Can't say I know much about Zappa, except as a musician. Also, I can't say I know much about Hoffer (as in, never heard of. :)

              Marx, though? There... I've actually read a lot of Marx's stuff. He's not an authoritarian. The man's an anarchist. It's true that some of his ideas were used by authoritarians such as Stalin, but that doesn't make him an authoritarian any more than it makes Nietzsche an anti-Semite because some of his writings were used by the Nazis.

              In any case, your argument seems to be that anyone who cares about the world is an authoritarian. I guess that would make Tom Paine an authoritarian too.

            • Re:Sheesh (Score:2, Informative)

              by Bongo ( 13261 )

              All activists, of any stripe, are authoritarians. ... Non-authoritarians take the world at face value. Therefore, you don't see them forming or active within liberation movements. This is not a paradox. It's perfectly logical.

              Hm. Have you by any chance read some Krishnamurti? I recall him saying something about people wanting to Revolt against the system, only to create a new system for others to revolt against... (which is not to say that some systems aren't better than others... it's just that some people are more keen on revolting than they are on rethinking.)

              Mod. me 'Offtopic', you anal nerd who can't connect two simple ideas...

            • This is typical behavior of authoritarians. Authoritarians can't stand to be told what to do, so, often, they will form or work strongly within anti-oppression movements.

              So what? This whole topic is useless. What does it matter why people do what they do, if they do something that is considered good for the society?

              One might say: "Computer geeks usually do programming because they can show their intellectual superiority through it. Their (unrealistic) fantasy is that this helps them get women, because intelligence is often appreciated. Therefore, programmers program to get sex."

              So what? Does this animal motivation lessen the value of programming somehow?

              Only situation where motivations might be useful to know, is knowing if there is motivation for deception, a hidden agenda. This applies to some politicians (such as Stallman) poorly, because they would not win much with deception.

              Stallman'sagenda is perfectly well known and he follows it rather consistently. He is respected because his ideas and arguments about freedom of software are considered mostly good by many people. His motivations don't matter, as long as they don't direct him to act against his public agenda.

              Now, if Stallman is against non-free software in Gnome (or whatever is the issue), he speaks with the voice of rather many.

              If you disagree with him, use good arguments, not ad hominem attacks.
            • If they weren't authoritarians, they wouldn't care about changing the world.

              This is essentially an assertion that one can't desire to improve the world without being an authoritarian. Given thet any expression of a strongly-held opinion about how a given subject should be dealt with could be considered "a desire to improve the world," this essentially leaves us with a choice between inaction--more than inaction, a virtual silence--and oppression.

              You're not just dismissing Marx and Zappa (a curious combination, if I may say so) but everyone who's urged one approach to anything in preference to another. You dismiss disparate icons such as Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman, Martin Luther King and Mahatma Ghandi in one fell swoop.

              That's a pretty dismal view of the world, honestly. It's also implicitly founded on the false premise that arguing a point is the same as forcing a point. Obviously, anyyone who favors one approach to a problem over another approach will be at odds with people who don't, and when someone in a position of power favors a given approach he will impose it on others. This is a hardly a sign of bias or authoritarianism; choosing to leave something alone (whether that means to the whims of nature, the whims of market forces or whatever) is just as much a moral choice as intervention is, and thus just as subject to controversy.

            • Authoritarians can't stand to be told what to do, so, often, they will form or work strongly within anti-oppression movements. Look at Frank Zappa. Look at Karl Marx.

              A implies B.

              All activists, of any stripe, are authoritarians. If they weren't authoritarians, they wouldn't care about changing the world.

              Therefore, B implies A.

              This is not a paradox. It's perfectly logical.

              You should visit a course on Logic 101. There the difference between implication and equivalence is taught. Seems to be time for you to learn that.

    • Re:Sheesh (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Jason Earl ( 1894 )

      It's not censorship unless you have the power to force people to follow your edicts. RMS believes that Free Software shouldn't promote proprietary software. That's all. He isn't saying that we should shut down www.staroffice.com, or that people who use WordPerfect should have their hands cut off. He is simply saying that the GNU project shouldn't be telling it's users, "Hey, look at this neat proprietary software. Who cares if it is not free it runs on Linux so it must be good."

      Personally, I am much more of a pragmatist than RMS, but I can understand where he is coming from. It is much harder to get a community together to build a truly free piece of software if all of the end users and developers simply give in and use a proprietary one. It's only common sense if you are the head of the FSF to only want to promote Free Software.

      Microsoft doesn't go out of it's way to promote the GPLed software that they distribute (yes they do distribute some GPLed software). After all, they don't really want you to use those particular tools. Likewise RMS doesn't want GNU to promote the proprietary software that just happens to work with Gnome. He would rather promote the Free Software equivalent even if it wasn't as good. This is no different than Microsoft promoting SQL Server even though Oracle and DB2 both run on Windows (and are better databases).

      Basically it is ludicrous to think that the average Gnome user doesn't know about StarOffice. RMS knows that all of us are aware of Sun's proprietary version of OpenOffice. He just feels that the Gnome Foundation should use their resources to promote StarOffice.

      • He isn't saying that we should shut down www.staroffice.com, or that people who use WordPerfect should have their hands cut off.

        Yet.

        I'm still waiting for him to announce a need for "breathing room".

      • RMS believes that Free Software shouldn't promote proprietary software. That's all. He isn't saying that we should shut down www.staroffice.com, or that people who use WordPerfect should have their hands cut off

        What would you say if he advocated that free software development be subsidized by compelling manufacturers and purchasers under the force of law to fund its development? All right here in black and white [gnu.org]. I have no problem with Free Software, I just have a problem with him speaking for my views.
    • He's outdone imselve this time:


      >Later, around 1988, we
      >obtained X, but we found out that X only did the lower-level half
      >of the job,


      Excuse me??? X is part of the mythical GNU operating system, too, now. Is he *trying* to become a parody of himself (OK, so it worked for John Madden . . .)


      hawk

  • good thing (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 08, 2001 @10:33PM (#2541648)
    I know I'll get flamed to all hell for this, but I think this move is a good thing (and don't worry, I'll keep it short).

    Gnome was born not out of technical need but a conflict of ideology.

    If RMS is chosen it will show that Gnome has continued with it's root cause - creating Free software.

    If RMS is not chosen it will show that Gnome has moved on from a base cause of creating free software and is perhaps a bit more open minded about mere open source.

    This will be interesting to watch. Imagine the diminished relevance of GNU if he doesn't get it!

    • You make a good point: namely that Gnome was created as free alternative to non-free desktops. But you don't really explain how you come to your conclusion. If Gnome exists because people want a free desktop, it would seem more probable that Gnome would suffer, not GNU, if their focus changes. There are plenty of non-free desktops already. I don't think Gnome ranks very high among those who select their desktop applications for purely pragmatic reasons.

  • Experienced Advocate (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dgrage ( 214118 ) on Thursday November 08, 2001 @10:39PM (#2541668)
    Whether or not you like RMS' political views ...

    Having an experienced advocate of free/open source as a member of the GNOME Foundation will be a much needed shot in the arm towards GPL, (et. al.) acceptance across the business community. His philosophies aside, he could leverage this position and the visibility to showcase the benefits of free/open source.

    GNOME, and to a lesser degree - the GNOME Foundation - is certainly being discussed more and more across the industry. Especially in light of Sun's choice to adopt GNOME for future Solaris versions.

    His membership would be a welcomed aid to combat the negative rhetoric we are seeing ala Bill Gate's grossly negligent comments at the recent stock holder's meeting.

    • Re:Experienced Advocate (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Asic Eng ( 193332 ) on Friday November 09, 2001 @05:55AM (#2542571)
      I like his political views, I do however think he does a very bad job as an advocate.

      Being impolite, rude and easily sidetracked don't make you liked by other people. If other people don't like you, then you have a hard time convincing them of your ideas, they'll be less likely to want to listen to you. RMS seems convinced that his personality should not have any bearing on his views, and he expects others to filter that out, when evaluating his ideas.

      Well he's right, that's what *should* happen, but it's equally clear that it does not.

      I think, just looking at the reactions of the slashdot crowd to his actions shows that he is not doing terribly well as an advocate. There seem to be quite a number of people who have nearly identical views to his, and still dislike him.

      Imagine a manager who listens to a speech by RMS, hears about "freedom more important than features", "President Bush not really elected" and then gets rebuked for calling Linux "Linux".

      Imagine the same manager asking his IT department to switch their webservers to Apache. Imagine it if you can, because honestly, I can't.

  • Isn't this what open source is all about? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DaoudaW ( 533025 ) on Thursday November 08, 2001 @10:44PM (#2541693)
    When I first started running linux, I checked out the various wordprocessor available. Abiword, kword, emacs, wp and staroffice. For awhile I used different ones for different projects. I've now settled on staroffice for heavy duty work and kword for light duty work. I've now started using Open Office. While I'm not convinced of the wisdom of Java as a development language, I'm quite pleased with the results. Now you tell me that Richard Stallman doesn't like StarOffice, so what??? The cool thing about open source is we don't all have to be clones of each other. The open source community has benefited from both Richard and Linus. Even the current $100 million "open courseware" project at MIT is in some ways of legacy of Richard Stallman. I believe he'd make a good board member even if I disagree with him on StarOffice. RMS has enough karma to last several lifetimes!!!

  • ego? (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by Sabalon ( 1684 )
    Okay...so in 1983 when he started thinking about his OS, and that it should have a GUI interface, therefore he is the grand-father of GNOME?

    • Re:ego? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Greg Lindahl ( 37568 )

      No, that's not it. How about reading up about RMS and the beginnings of GNOME before you attack RMS?

  • Heh (Score:3, Funny)

    by fault0 ( 514452 ) on Thursday November 08, 2001 @10:48PM (#2541714) Homepage Journal
    If the GNOME folks are not going to listen to RMS and he doesn't get on the board, what is he going to do?

    Start the movement for ANOTHER desktop environment?

    If he was crazy enough to do it once, don't think he wouldn't consider it twice.

  • Let me see if I undestand (Score:5, Informative)

    by DVega ( 211997 ) on Thursday November 08, 2001 @10:49PM (#2541718)

    So RMS wanted an alternative to KDE bacause it was not "Free Enough" and created GNOME. They build the proyect on GTK Toolkit which is LGPL. LGPL allows to be used by non-Free products (see why LPGL is bad [fsf.org])

    But now KDE is completely GPL and Free (Qt Toolkit now is GPL). So it is the perfect Free Desktop. Meanwhile GNOME have walk the oposite path and now is commercial.

    I think RMS should join KDE team :-)

    • KDE is not the perfect desktop. I can't create a KDE application and sell it without buying a QT license for over $2000. Since my budget is tight, I plan on developing my killer application in GTK/Gnome. Then I will be rich enough to buy a QT license.

      • O.B.E. = Other Bugger's Efforts (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Mandelbrute ( 308591 ) on Friday November 09, 2001 @02:13AM (#2542204)
        I can't create a KDE application and sell it without buying a QT license for over $2000
        So you can't get rich on the efforts of others without giving them something back? Tough.

        Your killer app is just going to have to be open source isn't it?

        Somehow I think all of the people that want to get rich on open source software without giving anything back (Trolltech has given a lot back) are missing the point entirely.

        • >>I can't create a KDE application and sell it without buying a QT license for over $2000

          >So you can't get rich on the efforts of others without giving them something back? Tough.
          Your killer app is just going to have to be open source isn't it?

          Yeah, it's all about giving NOTHING back... that's what he said right? NO. This is a favorite KDE strawman tactic (or maybe you miss the point)... to deflect all license criticism as "you must be a freeloader".

          The above poster did not say he did not want or believe that *NOTHING* should be given back. He SAID it costs $2000 to develop a non-free application for KDE.

          How many non-free applications do you own (or "use") on different platforms? I use quite a few that simply DON'T EXIST in the GPL world and you will only find them on Windows. Open source apps are not good at all at filling in small "niche" applications, and giving said applications a polished user interface.

          Don't believe me? Go into ANY Linux #irc channel, and ask what application is closest to the batch image processing of "Paint Shop Pro". The answer you will hear is "write a perl script to loop around Image Magick". In #linux, often the answer to "What program does this" is usually "write a script". But that's OK, all this innovative shareware will probably be cloned as free software someday. Um, maybe. In the meantime, that lack of flexibility of Linux means it's yet another place I can't sneak Linux into the corporate world. Good job, you.

          The point is not can or can not Jasc software afford the $2000 barrier to commercial software. Instead, my point is there are PLENTY of small software shops that would consider porting to Linux, but can't afford this high cost.

          What you might call "scummy shareware", *I* would call "mom and pop software". It's where most great ideas get their start. In Windows, Shareware tends to be TOO commonplace... but that's Microsoft's fault (I mean, shipping Windows without a ZIP-capable program?? Please!!). Shareware would be less of a disease on Linux than it has with Windows.

          I guess KDE is SO FREE SOFTWARE PURE that they don't mind polarizing the software world into the big Borlands and the Microsofts on one side, and the free software purists on the other. No small wanna-be software developers at all in the middle.

          Guess where "innovation" comes from? The small software company. I wish I could say Microsoft's licensing took away more freedom than Troll Tech's, but it's just not true. We'll always be stuck copying other people's ideas, or taking the big-software crap that is given to us.

          And I really get a kick out of people saying BECAUSE Troll Tech disallows development by small software companies, they must be MORE FREE than GNOME. Please. These are the same people who said "fuck the GPL" when it was convenient to violate the license.
      • KDE is not the perfect desktop. I can't create a KDE application and sell it without buying a QT license for over $2000.

        I'm sorry. I just find this whole cyclical argument continuously hypocritical. You want to use GNOME because it is "completely" free or something like that, but then you try and knock down KDE because it makes you go through an extra loop when you want NOT to write software as edquivalently free as itself???

        I'm sorry, I just find that really hypocritical and I hope it at least makes sense to some people

      • So you like GTK because you can make money from it without paying the GTK developers anything ??!

        Do you actually have a clue what free software is about ??

        you create free software -> you can use Qt for free

        you create commercial software-> you have to pay Trolltech.

        This is a completely healthy economic system :-)

        Too bad that stupid hypocrits like you don't understand that...

      • What a crock!

        You can sell KDE applications all day long without buying a Qt commercial license, as long as your applications use a GPL compatible license (i.e. comply with the terms of the GPL as set forth in the KDE and Qt packages) and you provide the source code to your application (or access to the source code) along with your binaries.

        If TrollTech is saying otherwise then they are deliberately obscuring the legal details of the GPL (as I understand them and as they appear to explicated in the FAQ at fsf.org).

        If, however, you'd like to sell Qt-based software that is proprietary in nature (i.e. you distribute only binaries under a non-Free license), then yes, you rightfully must purchase a Qt developers license. I'm sorry that you find $2000 a severe barrier to entry, but I think if you are serious about developing software that $2000 for a library license is not that large of an expense.

        However, if you are hoping to develop a shareware app in the hopes that your amateur development work catches on and brings you riches and fame, then maybe Qt is not for you. What I suggest is that if you really want to use Qt, start with a project that is small and that it won't bother you to GPL. Once that works out well, and you're established as a respected Qt developer you can probably get a client who will gladly help you purchase a commercial Qt license for proprietary development. Although, unless they are planning to resell your software, there is really no need. The GPL allows for in-house development using GPL libraries. You don't *have* to distribute your software, you know.

    • Re:Let me see if I undestand (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 09, 2001 @01:30AM (#2542119)
      I think RMS should join KDE team :-)

      Why, what harm have they ever done you? :-)
  • Everybody hates free stuff but loves socialism... wait... reverse that

    .

  • No "non-free" apps == limited relevance (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 08, 2001 @10:57PM (#2541748)
    The reality of the situation is that there are some programs in this world that are not, by RMS's definition, "free," yet have value to many people. Examples of such programs are VMWare, commercial game ports, Word Perfect, and maybe StarOffice (forgot what the license is on that these days).

    RMS represents pretty much the extreme of trying to prevent people from using what he considers "non-free" software. He routinely uses both license and PR to try to discourage "non-free" software. If he were in a position to do so, I'd expect him to work to work hard to prevent or at least strongly discourage "non-free" software from being able to use GNOME, for example by trying to force changes in the licensing. Look at the GNU libc LGPL isssue recently for a fine example of him trying to push the libc in that direction.

    Why is this bad? Because there's some software that has value to many people that will be forced to use a different UI kit than the rest of your GNOME environment, and thus have a different look and feel and not play nicely with other apps. Who loses here? The user. And thus all of us who want to see *IX become a rational desktop choice over completely commercial systems. The long, LONG standing problem with *IX GUIs is that there is not enough consistency and interoperation between apps, and for GNOME to be successful in solving that problem it needs to not be discriminatory against programs that RMS doesn't want you to use.

    On a more straightforward level, and again look at the recent GNU libc license issue, RMS is basically a nut-case and a control freak. If he has any real control over the GNOME board, it will NOT cause the GNOME board to make better or even more rational choices. I think it would be downright sad to watch a lot of good work from a lot of dedicated people become hijacked by a nut-case and made irrelevant.
    • RMS's leadership in the GNU project has been largely constructive -- the GNU project has written a lot of software. It could have been different -- they could have spent their time just bitching about copyright law and philosophy. They didn't. I would hope (and expect) that it would be the same in GNOME.

      What RMS absolutely wouldn't accept is the idea that a proprietary program is good enough to fill a niche. If people have a real need for an application and they can't do it with free software, to RMS that is as good as if they can't do it at all.

      I think this is good. GNU has written a lot of boring, unfilling software because it was needed -- not because it was fun to program, not because it earned them praise, not because it was even scratching a personal itch -- and they wrote it in spite of commercial equivalents. They wrote it because of a long-term vision. That they did this is why GNU/Linux exists.

      I think that sort of vision could be a damned good way to aproach GNOME development. I don't think RMS is the only one with that vision -- but his consistency provides a kind of anchor.

  • Not sure RMS can run according to charter (Score:5, Informative)

    by nullity ( 115966 ) on Thursday November 08, 2001 @10:59PM (#2541755) Homepage

    "Per the GNOME Foundation's charter, any contributor to GNOME is eligible for membership. Although it is difficult to specify a precise definition, a contributor generally must have contributed to a non-trivial improvement of the GNOME Project. Contributions may be code, documentation, translations, maintenance of project-wide resources, or other non-trivial activities which benefit the GNOME Project. While large amounts of advocacy or bug reporting may qualify one as a member, such contributions must be significantly above the level expected of an ordinary user." from the GNOME foundation membership qualification page.

    I don't think RMS fits these qualifications. The GNOME foundation membership, and all the more the board (almost all GNOME contributors are foundation members) should be active members of the GNOME community. Simply "being RMS" does not qualify one; the foundation is intended to represent the interest of those who make it happen, that is contributors.

    As a minor side niggly, the candidacy period is over and I didn't see a message from RMS, so technically he isn't qualified to run this year anyway.

    Perhaps he'd like to contribute to the GNOME project and re-apply next year?

    -seth (GNOME Usability Project Lead)

    • Re:Not sure RMS can run according to charter (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Vic Metcalfe ( 355 ) on Thursday November 08, 2001 @11:41PM (#2541874) Homepage
      RMS is not only responsible for the licsense that most GNOME software falls under, but also for a very large chunk of the compiler that builds it. I think I can appreciate where you're coming from, but to say that RMS hasn't made a significant contribution to GNOME seems absurd to me. I don't call it GNU/Linux either, but the man deserves a lot more recognition than he gets. Very few of us hard core Linux types would be where we are without the contributions of RMS. GNOME is symbolic of the fight against propriatary software, and RMS deserves a position on that board just as much as Miguel does, even if for different reasons. I do not believe that GNOME would exist without RMS.
    • I disagree with you.

      He provided the license that the entire mess of GNOME sits on. I believe he has been a great contributor to this project. Not only did he influence Miguel to start it up during the KDE/Qt-bashing, but he has established years of a cultural environment that enables large open projects like GNOME to exist instead of being engulfed by proprietary companies.

      Just my two bits. Probably redundant, but nonetheless -- valid.

    • Only people who use GUI's should be on board (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Ukab the Great ( 87152 ) on Friday November 09, 2001 @12:09AM (#2541946)
      While I usually disagree with you on many usability design issues, Mr Nickell, I totally agree with you on this issue. I seem to remember hearing some time ago about Richard Stallman not using GUI's, at all. Assuming this is true, would you really want such a person on board that is involved in some way in making GUI design decisions? Would a person who knows nothing about web servers, who has never set up a web server, who really doesn't know what HTML is or what it does really be a good choice as a board member of the Apache Foundation?

  • It's been said before, numerous times.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Bowie J. Poag ( 16898 ) on Thursday November 08, 2001 @11:20PM (#2541821) Homepage


    Free Software is like sex. Its better when RMS isn't involved.

  • If the Gnome team spent... (Score:2, Flamebait)

    by Anonymous Coward
    less time fretting about organisational issues and more time developing Gnome, maybe it would not be 2 years behind KDE now. People seem to brush this aside, but it is a major issue. Gnome is very far behind KDE and many parts of GNome are currently either horribly broken or simply unimplemented. Worse still, major API stuff is largely undocumented.


    Gnome has a very poor system for bug tracking and quality control. Any crack smoking fool can make CVS commits that fuck things up. It is a real mess.

    • I'd say the "parts of gnome are currently either horribly broken or simply unimplemented" is a mischaracterization. I use gnome everyday and rarely have problems provided I use the ximian distribution.

      I think a score 4 for the above post is probably due to moderator bias. It made an unqualified criticism for a very successful project. I don't know a single opensource project that doesn't have this political infighting going on.

      In my opinion RMS is merely a political type these days. If he wants to contribute to the project he should do so at the keyboard with vi onscreen.

      Please also keep in mind that your beloved KDE started before Gnome, and the QT liscense is still not universally "free"; however, the gtk IS.

      Please reconsider the rating on the above posting, its obvious that the poster has not used a distribution of gnome in some time and didn't even have the courage to post under his own identity.

  • Free means free to choose (Score:3, Insightful)

    by leeward ( 313589 ) on Thursday November 08, 2001 @11:29PM (#2541845)

    I use Linux to run an engineering business. Sorry RMS, but that means lot's of expensive software ($24K for just one program). There simply are no free as in beer alternatives, and likely never will be.

    I did not choose Linux because it is free (and after all I went to Fry's and purchased a distro). Linux it is an excellent platform for engineering, and seems to be quickly gaining popularity in this field. And the reason of course is that, next to games, engineering tools really push raw processing horsepower to the limit. And using Linux allows us to keep up with the latest and fastest processors, without breaking the bank on high end Sparcs.

  • Why LGPL is good. Why RMS is OK. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Hallow ( 2706 ) on Friday November 09, 2001 @12:56AM (#2542030) Homepage
    The root cause IS creating free software, that's what the Gnome Project is about. But software that interoperates and is build ontop of the architecture that the Gnome Project provides can be free/costly, open/closed. Imagine if libc was straight gpl'd. You could have no commercial application written for Linux. An LGPL'd Gnome library set allows commercial apps to be written for Gnome, and sit side by side with free (beer and/or speech) applications. And the commercial developers don't have to pay anything extra to make use of these technologies.

    KDE, with QT, your apps are stuck being GPL'd, or you have to pay trolltech for QT. Yah, it's their project, they have the right too, blah blah blah.

    For something that's as "essential" as desktop gui apps and related services, lgpl is the way to go. You make it cheap for *everybody* to develop apps, and it's a win win situation.

    As far as RMS goes, he wrote emacs, created the FSF, the GPL, and the FSF has created so much great GNU software (especially for developers), it's not funny. I'd say he's provided a rather significant contribution to just about any project that uses GNU software, including the Gnome project. As such, by the rules, he should be able to run. Would he be a right fit? Will he be voted in? That's a whole other story.

    And as to the speculation as to why he's running? I haven't seen any links to any vitriolic GNU/Gnome (lol, sorry, couldn't resist) oriented emails. RMS is not a man who's known for hiding his opinions.
  • The world is a better place because of him, but RMS is too fanatical for a job like this. Such a position requires a politician- not a guy who might cut off his organization's nose to spite its face.

  • Math on the brain (Score:3, Funny)

    by Faust7 ( 314817 ) on Friday November 09, 2001 @01:25AM (#2542106) Homepage
    Am I the only one who looks at the initials "RMS" and consistently sees Root Mean Square? Rrgh, that's frustrating.
    • Nah, you're not the only one.

      I saw those initials for the first time and thought the same thing.

      I found it odd that people kept saying "RMS said this.." and "RMS said that...".

      I just assumed it was geek-speak.

  • RMS vs Miguel (Score:5, Informative)

    by Karma Sucks ( 127136 ) on Friday November 09, 2001 @01:49AM (#2542167)
    This is interesting because there is now major heat between RMS of GNU and Miguel of Ximian. Miguel has even attacked RMS in public once or twice, this was around the glibc flamewar. Miguel even stated he regretted having ever made GNOME part of the GNU project.

    Apparently RMS has long been politically maneovering around GNOME. Miguel didn't approve. My guess is this was part of the reason the GNOME Foundation was created.

    • Re:RMS vs Miguel (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ClarkEvans ( 102211 ) on Friday November 09, 2001 @05:25AM (#2542519) Homepage
      Miguel even stated he regretted having ever made GNOME part of the GNU project.

      If he didn't make it part of the GNU project, there is a good chance that it would not be anywhere close to where it is today; licensing matters. GNU carries alot of weight and familarity with programmers.
      • You can adopt the GPL without being part of the GNU project. In fact, the majority of GPL'd programs are not part of the GNU project.
      • GNU carries some weight, but there are plenty of examples of projects that are just GPL'd (not owned by the FSF) or use an alternative licence altogther. In fact, GNOME's "arch-rival" KDE is GPL and if anything is even more popular than GNOME.


        There is even a case that being GNU anything puts a major dampener on any project, precisely because it drags a whole bunch of political baggage with it.
        I know I would have serious concerns about working on any project owned by the FSF.

  • RMS strikes again ... at the wrong target (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ninewands ( 105734 ) on Friday November 09, 2001 @04:18AM (#2542409)
    Don't get me wrong ... I admire Richard and his determination to attain free software's rightful position in the world ... but ...

    Sun paid something like $80MM to acquire Star Division and then, almost immediately, turned the codebase over to the newly-chartered Open Office project. Still, Star Office isn't "purely free" enough to be RMS-approvable? Give me a break!

    Hint ... Richard, grow up ... Sun, HP and IBM are pouring HUGE resources into free software ... if you were a wee bit less political, they might pour a few resources into the FSF

    Besides, WTF made you the King of Open Platforms?

  • What delicious, terrific irony! Not to mention breathtaking hypocrisy!

    Stallman/Richard refers to the kind of software he advocates as Free Software, and illustrates the idea with the phrase "free as in speech" as opposed to "free as in beer".

    And yet his problem with the GNOME project is apparently the fact that somebody has mentioned propietary software!

    What'll it be, Stallman/Richard? Do you wish to promote software that is "free as in speech" by restricting freedom of speech?

Slashdot Top Deals

When you are working hard, get up and retch every so often.

Close