Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature: Migration
What eGovOS must do
By on
March 17, 2003 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
- By Richard Stallman -
Two weeks ago, the main organizer of the eGovOS (open source in e-government) conference begged me to speak at the conference. It was not the first time. I refused, and I would like to explain why. [Note: The eGovOS conference opens today. NewsForge editor Robin 'Roblimo' Miller will be there starting this afternoon.]
Two weeks ago, the main organizer of the eGovOS (open source in e-government) conference begged me to speak at the conference. It was not the first time. I refused, and I would like to explain why. [Note: The eGovOS conference opens today. NewsForge editor Robin 'Roblimo' Miller will be there starting this afternoon.]
The free software movement's idealism, starting in 1984, built our community. In 1998, the open source movement was started as a reaction against our idealism; it looks at the same issues in non-idealistic business terms. Both movements now operate in our community.
You would never guess this from what eGovOS says. Nearly all of the eGovOS plans and description, starting with the name, recognize only the open source movement and deny the existence of the free software movement. The one exception is the "European" track. As a result, most of our leaders have declined to participate--the one exception being the president of FSF Europe.
It's not that free software activists as individuals are unwelcome at eGovOS; on the contrary, the organizers invite us, sometimes even implore us, to speak there. But it would be a mistake for us to accept these invitations given the present conference framework, which labels us as supporters of "open source" and denies our movement's existence. This background would alter the meaning of our speeches; the audience would either take us for open source advocates, or see the free software movement as a mere footnote on the open source movement. eGovOS announcements speak only of "open source". We must also be concerned that the presence of our names in the program and publicity would lead people to identify us as open source advocates (a widespread mistake that is a major problem).
Every time the eGovOS organizers invite us, we respond that they must first acknowledge the free software movement equally. But there is something else eGovOS needs to change. eGovOS invites self-declared opponents of our community to make presentations.
Many speakers participate in eGovOS because they think of the conference as a place for advocacy for open source and free software, and the organizers encourage this in private. But when they offer the podium to Microsoft, they claim that as an academic event they must be neutral. (Many university events are neutral, but they are not obliged to be so.) eGovOS must follow through on its promises of advocacy; it must take a stand on our community's side. If an opponent of our community is invited to speak, it should be in the form of an explicit debate which labels the adversary as such.
For eGovOS to win the full support of the free software and open source community, it must take a clear stand for our community. It should acknowledge the free software movement as a part of our community, and acknowledge Microsoft as its adversary.
Copyright 2003 Richard Stallman
Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are permitted
in any medium provided the copyright notice and this notice are preserved.
Comments
on What eGovOS must doNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
The second, and more disturbing part, is that you are apparently unwilling to allow opposing viewpoint. Sorry, dude, that bespeaks of a mind as closed as your opponents'.
I think you're confusing RMS's (probably over-developed) sense of integrity with being 'unwilling to allow opposing viewpoint'. I don't think he has a problem with other people having an opposing viewpoint, I think he's refusing to be involved in a conference that (intentionally or not) is confusing Free Software with OSS. They refuse to make the distinction, he won't participate. I think that's more than reasonable.
RMS - don't get me wrong on the 'over developed sense of integrity'. I think the best thing you have going for you is your integrity, I just have to wonder some times if your making a mountain out of a molehill, which makes me (and others) less apt to listen... IE refusing to do a conference because technically not everyone there agrees with the Free Software system. [I know that's not the case here, but I hope this makes sense - you don't want to be 'that wacko', you want to be a leader].
I think you're confusing RMS's (probably over-developed) sense of integrity with being 'unwilling to allow opposing viewpoint'. I don't think he has a problem with other people having an opposing viewpoint, I think he's refusing to be involved in a conference that (intentionally or not) is confusing Free Software with OSS. They refuse to make the distinction, he won't participate. I think that's more than reasonable.
RMS - don't get me wrong on the 'over developed sense of integrity'. I think the best thing you have going for you is your integrity, I just have to wonder some times if your making a mountain out of a molehill, which makes me (and others) less apt to listen... IE refusing to do a conference because technically not everyone there agrees with the Free Software system. [I know that's not the case here, but I hope this makes sense - you don't want to be 'that wacko', you want to be a leader].
"refusing to do a conference because technically not everyone there agrees with the Free Software system"
This is not about "everyone", but about the organisers and their goal and vision on the conference. If it is an Open & Shared Source conference, Free Software advocates are very well justified to stay away.
They should have called it the "Free Software, Open Source and Shared Source Conference".
This is not about "everyone", but about the organisers and their goal and vision on the conference. If it is an Open & Shared Source conference, Free Software advocates are very well justified to stay away.
They should have called it the "Free Software, Open Source and Shared Source Conference".
The difference he's talking about has less to do with specific licensing models than with protecting people's freedom to create. That's a very important aspect of this conversation which is essentially being overlooked when the organizers refuse to adress the Free software movement as such. It would make no more sense for him to address this group than it would for say, Nelson Mandela to show up at a conference on diversity in the workplace with Clarence Thomas. (Kind of an exaggerated example, but it makes the point.)
Just - EXACTLY - what point do you think you silly statement about a conference on diversity in the workplace makes? It just looks like you took a cheap shot, but I'm not sure who the target was or what you thought you accomplished.
Please enlighten us.
Please enlighten us.
Oh good grief. One of them did a lot for a lot of people out of some kind of moral vision. Another is a guy who did nicely for himself but can't see his way to leaving the world better than he found it, in spite of being in the right place at the right time. For the moral visionary, it's kind of pointless to spend time dealing with the non-visionary while he's jumping up and down saying "I'm really great too!" It was off the cuff, but not intended as a cheap shot.
... oh yeah, and in both cases, neither one of the people mentioned actually consider themselves involved in the topic at hand, so why would they bother?
"Anonymous Reader" wrote: The second, and more disturbing part, is that you [RMS] are apparently unwilling to allow opposing viewpoint. Sorry, dude, that bespeaks of a mind as closed as your opponents'.
-----
In the last sentence of the second-to-last paragraph, Stallman asks only that opponents of FLOSS be represented as such, not that opponents be excluded from the discussion:
"If an opponent of our community is invited to speak, it should be in the form of an explicit debate which labels the adversary as such."
This seems a perfectly natural request, more "truth in advertising" than "closed-mindedness".
Cheerio,
TCP/IP Freely
-----
In the last sentence of the second-to-last paragraph, Stallman asks only that opponents of FLOSS be represented as such, not that opponents be excluded from the discussion:
"If an opponent of our community is invited to speak, it should be in the form of an explicit debate which labels the adversary as such."
This seems a perfectly natural request, more "truth in advertising" than "closed-mindedness".
Cheerio,
TCP/IP Freely
All licenses exist on a continuum.
Understood, RMS requires a narrow view of acceptibility.
Reality, in contrast, shows a spectrum of licenses scratching specific itches.
Happy b-day, RMS. I thoroughly appreciate your efforts, for all I may not totally agree with your viewpoint.
And your EMACS manual was worth every penny.
Understood, RMS requires a narrow view of acceptibility.
Reality, in contrast, shows a spectrum of licenses scratching specific itches.
Happy b-day, RMS. I thoroughly appreciate your efforts, for all I may not totally agree with your viewpoint.
And your EMACS manual was worth every penny.
On the second point, we should let Microsoft "express their opinion", which really means trying to destroy Linux, open source, Free Software, GNU (etc., etc.)? Microsoft want to destroy us, and we should resist them and reject their attempts to manipulate us as much as possible.
...and keep your enemies closer. If you don't know what Microsoft is doing sooner than Microsoft knows what Microsoft is doing, then it's advantage Microsoft. Let them talk, but make sure YOU have schedules the last speech...
RMS did not say he was "unwilling to allow the opposing viewpoint." He seems perfectly willing to allow the opposing viewpoint--if it is explicitly labeled as such.
You see marginalizing; I see someone who cares more about whether his message is presented accurately than whether it is presented widely.
I am not a Free Software advocate, but I applaud RMS for keeping the issues clear.
--RMG
Well, there is an opposing viewpoint and opposing viewpoint. Microsoft 'opposing viewpoint' is well known: 'The open source is anti-american. Period.' That is, it is not the opposing viewpoint at all but some excercise in demagoguery. Invite them to a conference is something like invite KKK on conference dealing with racial discrimination, or Nazis - on conference dealing with Holocaust. Stallman is absolutely correct in this respect.
Happy Birthday Richard!
It's good to see people who stand firmly to what they believe, up to and beyond their fiftieth birthday!
It's good to see people who stand firmly to what they believe, up to and beyond their fiftieth birthday!
That one was short, wasn't it? Its the second RMS essay I've read, the first being one on the issue of "GNU/Linux". Whatever people say about RMS's opinions, I have to agree with him with this; Microsoft wants to see the free software movement and its progress into governments stopped. These eGovOS meetings and conferences should focus on free (but not just free, let's not forget BSD-like licenced software, such as Apache) software and its advocacy, and Microsoft should have no place whatsoever. Post more RMS essays like this!
BSD and Apache licenses are indeed Free Software for you. They do allow one to make a modified, non-free version. There are a number of discussions on the GNU site about licneses, how free or not free they are, and if they are GPL compatible.
- Serge Wroclawski
- Serge Wroclawski
Re:Link to Declan McCullagh photos from event
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 18, 2003 02:55 AM
Eh? I just meant BSD-type licenced software should be considered too, for example Apache. If governments want to use Apache for web-serving its open (not free, I know that) software and supports open standards.
Maybe you're missing an oportunity to illuminate the differences between the "open source" movement and the free software movement that even people like me don't get. I would hate to think that by advocating "open source" software that I am somehow oposed to free-as-in-freedom software.
It's also possible that you're not giving the techologically unenlightened enough credit... I mean it's fairly plain to everyone there is a free-as-in-freedom software revolution happening, and I think most people can see the difference between the ideals that guide it and something like those 100% idealism-free IBM/Linux TV commercials. People DO get that there's a difference between participating in an open source project and just not having to pay a licensing fee.
It's also possible that you're not giving the techologically unenlightened enough credit... I mean it's fairly plain to everyone there is a free-as-in-freedom software revolution happening, and I think most people can see the difference between the ideals that guide it and something like those 100% idealism-free IBM/Linux TV commercials. People DO get that there's a difference between participating in an open source project and just not having to pay a licensing fee.
"I mean it's fairly plain to everyone there is a free-as-in-freedom software revolution happening, and I think most people can see the difference between the ideals that guide it and something like those 100% idealism-free IBM/Linux TV commercials."
Really? Ask your local Walmart employee about it sometime. After all, they're selling Lindows.
The free software movement may have an impact far beyond the actual software development world, but I would argue that the majority of the population has never even heard of it.
As for not giving the technologically unenlightened credit, I fully agree there. Ultimately, these are the people responsible for paying us so we can pay our bills, and they have the right to know, if they are so inclined, about lower cost alternatives to the expensive software.
At the same time, they need to be made aware of the fact that open-source and free software is sometimes not as feature-complete as commercial software and that it may cost them more to pay someone to support and develop the needed features, if it is necessary right away.
That's both the upside and the downside. Free software is not always necessarily cheaper in the end.
Really? Ask your local Walmart employee about it sometime. After all, they're selling Lindows.
The free software movement may have an impact far beyond the actual software development world, but I would argue that the majority of the population has never even heard of it.
As for not giving the technologically unenlightened credit, I fully agree there. Ultimately, these are the people responsible for paying us so we can pay our bills, and they have the right to know, if they are so inclined, about lower cost alternatives to the expensive software.
At the same time, they need to be made aware of the fact that open-source and free software is sometimes not as feature-complete as commercial software and that it may cost them more to pay someone to support and develop the needed features, if it is necessary right away.
That's both the upside and the downside. Free software is not always necessarily cheaper in the end.
Not to counter this parent post, but to append to it.
Remember the original idea of Open Source. It was a way to sell Free Software to buisness, by not bringing up the Freedom issue. Soon after, essays by people such as ESR and Tim O'Reilly came out attacking the Free Software movement, saying that thier approach kept people from using Free Software.
Only now, some 3-4 years later, it's crystal clear even to the most skeptical that our freedoms are in danger, and that we must indeed mount a unified, *poltiical* and *philosophical* front.
Open Source is well known, but Free Software is not, even in our own commuity. It's more important now than it has ever been in the past.
- Serge Wroclawski
Remember the original idea of Open Source. It was a way to sell Free Software to buisness, by not bringing up the Freedom issue. Soon after, essays by people such as ESR and Tim O'Reilly came out attacking the Free Software movement, saying that thier approach kept people from using Free Software.
Only now, some 3-4 years later, it's crystal clear even to the most skeptical that our freedoms are in danger, and that we must indeed mount a unified, *poltiical* and *philosophical* front.
Open Source is well known, but Free Software is not, even in our own commuity. It's more important now than it has ever been in the past.
- Serge Wroclawski
"unified, *poltiical* and *philosophical* front"
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 18, 2003 06:00 AM
Sounds like the antithesis of freedom to me. I'll support OSS, without knowing exactly what RMS' problem is it, and FSF, WHILE objecting to the fact that RMS is the chief spokesman. Disparaging neither his technical ability (upon which I am not competent to comment), nor his idealism, but his best efforts on behalf of the freedom to code are not enough: he must inspire the best efforts of many more people to be an effective leader.
This is how I understand the difference between "open source" and "free software":
First, the actual software for these two groups is the same. The open source code and free software code is the same. The real difference is in the politics and the advocating strategies.
The FSF's advocacy for free software can be summed up as "Free software because software should be free, and if your software isn't free then you're a horrible person, and you should suffer a public flogging!"
The OSI's advocacy for open source can be summed up as "Open source because it's good for business."
In other words, the FSF takes an idealistic approach to advocacy, while the OSI takes a pragmatic approach to it.
To people like us ("computer people", who "get" technology), the idealistic "software should be free" makes a lot of sense to us, but to a businessman/politician who's never seen a line of source code in his life, it doesn't make much sense. So, in comes the OSI to convince those kinds of people that open source is a good thing.
In yet other words, it's the same software, but with different rhetoric attached to it.
Whether or not you agree with the OSI's pragmatic approach to advocacy, you can't deny the changes that are taking place since their creation in 1998. Think about it: before the OSI, the mainstream shrugged off "free software" people as fanatics and kooks, but now everybody is falling over each other to hop on the "open source" bandwagon.
Ok, here's a quote from <A HREF="http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.php"> The Faq</a opensource.org>:
Are you guys opposed to intellectual property rights?
The Open Source Initiative does not have a position on whether ideas can be owned, whether patents are good or bad, or any of the related controversies. We think the economic self-interest arguments for open source are strong enough that nobody needs to go on any moral crusades about it.
See? Pragmatism! Stallman hates pragmatism, Stallman wants you to use free software because it's free, not because it's cheaper or better or whatever<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
First, the actual software for these two groups is the same. The open source code and free software code is the same. The real difference is in the politics and the advocating strategies.
The FSF's advocacy for free software can be summed up as "Free software because software should be free, and if your software isn't free then you're a horrible person, and you should suffer a public flogging!"
The OSI's advocacy for open source can be summed up as "Open source because it's good for business."
In other words, the FSF takes an idealistic approach to advocacy, while the OSI takes a pragmatic approach to it.
To people like us ("computer people", who "get" technology), the idealistic "software should be free" makes a lot of sense to us, but to a businessman/politician who's never seen a line of source code in his life, it doesn't make much sense. So, in comes the OSI to convince those kinds of people that open source is a good thing.
In yet other words, it's the same software, but with different rhetoric attached to it.
Whether or not you agree with the OSI's pragmatic approach to advocacy, you can't deny the changes that are taking place since their creation in 1998. Think about it: before the OSI, the mainstream shrugged off "free software" people as fanatics and kooks, but now everybody is falling over each other to hop on the "open source" bandwagon.
Ok, here's a quote from <A HREF="http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.php"> The Faq</a opensource.org>:
Are you guys opposed to intellectual property rights?
The Open Source Initiative does not have a position on whether ideas can be owned, whether patents are good or bad, or any of the related controversies. We think the economic self-interest arguments for open source are strong enough that nobody needs to go on any moral crusades about it.
See? Pragmatism! Stallman hates pragmatism, Stallman wants you to use free software because it's free, not because it's cheaper or better or whatever<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
you are wrong on many points, but before i explain it, the main point should not be whether RMS is a kook.
-- free software WAS used in many places before the OSI. the 'mainstream' doesn't use VMS or mainframes, either...it doesn't mean that they don't have value, or shouldn't be used in banks.
--hardly everyone is "falling over each other" to get on the OSI bandwagon, in many areas....desktop, even servers. it is not, statistically, being used in the majority, by ANY stretch of the imagination.
--do not forget that it is these exact FS values (or rhetoric) that allowed the software endorsed by the OSS community to even exist. Linux ? good luck ripping out the GNU programs that make it what it is.
the reality is that it's not the FS vs. OSS...it's the ideas and philosophies and concepts behind BOTH that are important.
Stallman should have spoken, kook or not.
-- free software WAS used in many places before the OSI. the 'mainstream' doesn't use VMS or mainframes, either...it doesn't mean that they don't have value, or shouldn't be used in banks.
--hardly everyone is "falling over each other" to get on the OSI bandwagon, in many areas....desktop, even servers. it is not, statistically, being used in the majority, by ANY stretch of the imagination.
--do not forget that it is these exact FS values (or rhetoric) that allowed the software endorsed by the OSS community to even exist. Linux ? good luck ripping out the GNU programs that make it what it is.
the reality is that it's not the FS vs. OSS...it's the ideas and philosophies and concepts behind BOTH that are important.
Stallman should have spoken, kook or not.
Open source is founded on a compromise between Free software idealism and business pragmatism. Business is willing to ignore the unsavory aspects of Free software, while recognizing its utility, superior develoment method etc. It is an unnecessary compromise, that is heavily biased toward the utility of free software.
This is disturbing for those of us who see Free software as more than just useful software. In the end the best guarantor of the continued existence of Free software is the Free software movement. Because it is the ideals of Free software that will ultimately keep Free software going. i.e keep Open source honest. Without the Free software movement, the open source movement will keep compromising with practicality until it ultimately becomes no different from proprietary software.
On a more mundane level. It is astonishing to see the degree of misunderstanding of the concepts and principle of Free software exhibited by the mainstream press. Its common to see publications such as Businessweek asserting that open source software cannot be sold, or that it is in the public domain, or at variance with accepted norms of intellectual property, or that it subverts copyright and intellectual property. I think there is little effort on the part of open source software activists to impart the principles of Open source or even Free software to new users. This must surely, ultimately weaken the community.
I don't agree with RMS that ALL software MUST be Free software. I certainly agree with Linus that he who writes the software gets to pick the license. However, this is not to deny that some licenses are better than others and Free software is more beneficial, in most cases than proprietary software. A world largely composed of Free software would be a better place than a world largely composed of proprietary software. To achieve this we must recognize the central importance of the ideals of Free software and not just its utility
"The free software movement's idealism, starting in 1984, built our community. In 1998, the open source movement was started as a reaction against our idealism; it looks at the same issues in non-idealistic business terms. Both movements now operate in our community.
You would never guess this from what [the brochure for this event] says. Nearly all of the [organizer's] plans and description, starting with the name, recognize only the open source movement and deny the existence of the free software movement.
Now, with that important background context understood, I'd like to begin the main body of my speech. It's great to see you all here today..."
You would never guess this from what [the brochure for this event] says. Nearly all of the [organizer's] plans and description, starting with the name, recognize only the open source movement and deny the existence of the free software movement.
Now, with that important background context understood, I'd like to begin the main body of my speech. It's great to see you all here today..."
Is there anyone who agrees with me that RMS's insistence on "Free" versus "Open Source" will only continue to hurt both of the community's chances of being correctly understood by the public ?
The concepts introduced by the different licenses in BOTH of these communities is so vastly different from the traditional licensing/philosophy, that it has been quite difficult for the general (i.e. "old") public to understand them.
Does the "open source" community have things in common with "free software" ? yes, they do. RMS considers everyone not with him to be explicitly against him. While I do believe that it's important to make the distinction between RMS's (FSF's) philosophy and that of the OpenSource philosophy as a matter of semantics, I also firmly believe that sticking on that point so passionately changes the focus. Both communities need to expand and grow, and awareness needs to be spread.
We will NOT know which paradigm/philosophy is better or worse without a long term acceptance and use of BOTH.
And that acceptance, awareness, and use will not happen if people like RMS continues to decline on speaking engagements where his voice could educate a great many people, without standing on ceremony.
What if the eGovOS people were to put a big banner on all literature and their site that says "The Free Software Movement is different from the OpenSource Movement in many ways...blah, blah, etc." ?? Will you speak *then* ? And finally get down to the business of educating people why the FSF is so important ?
I believe that it's MUCH more important to get the word out and explain the differences in traditional/FSF/OpenSource paradigms than to reject the chance to do that on the basis of details in those differences.
Many organizations do not know the difference between FSF and OSS movements.
Richard, if you don't explain it to them correctly, then they might not ever really know it, and figure it's too much effort, might as well stick with what we know: Microsoft.
Please consider that your choice to decline speaking engagements is hurting your own community, not helping it.
The concepts introduced by the different licenses in BOTH of these communities is so vastly different from the traditional licensing/philosophy, that it has been quite difficult for the general (i.e. "old") public to understand them.
Does the "open source" community have things in common with "free software" ? yes, they do. RMS considers everyone not with him to be explicitly against him. While I do believe that it's important to make the distinction between RMS's (FSF's) philosophy and that of the OpenSource philosophy as a matter of semantics, I also firmly believe that sticking on that point so passionately changes the focus. Both communities need to expand and grow, and awareness needs to be spread.
We will NOT know which paradigm/philosophy is better or worse without a long term acceptance and use of BOTH.
And that acceptance, awareness, and use will not happen if people like RMS continues to decline on speaking engagements where his voice could educate a great many people, without standing on ceremony.
What if the eGovOS people were to put a big banner on all literature and their site that says "The Free Software Movement is different from the OpenSource Movement in many ways...blah, blah, etc." ?? Will you speak *then* ? And finally get down to the business of educating people why the FSF is so important ?
I believe that it's MUCH more important to get the word out and explain the differences in traditional/FSF/OpenSource paradigms than to reject the chance to do that on the basis of details in those differences.
Many organizations do not know the difference between FSF and OSS movements.
Richard, if you don't explain it to them correctly, then they might not ever really know it, and figure it's too much effort, might as well stick with what we know: Microsoft.
Please consider that your choice to decline speaking engagements is hurting your own community, not helping it.
In Europe there is no destinction between Open Source and Free Software, i personally think it is more a kind of RMS-not invented here - problem. Most people use the GPL but don't care much about licensing. However, the GPL is not perfect because it cannot avoid that the ability to share code is restricted by foreign trade regulations against some states. I personally also would not like that my code was used my organisations that are involved in military research (grid computing and bio weapons) or war. However I cannot exclude this usage. With respect to a US led war against international law and the will of the security council majority this shall be considered on my agenda.
From a political perspective software it is very important. As you know some legislators plan to introduce software patent legislation, thanx to patent laywers. Therefore it is very important to talk to our representatives. In Germany Government funds some projects. I also think that public funded software shall be released under a GPL/BSD style license. The status quo is that nobody cares much about source code and open standards. That is a consulting firm sells the same tailored software to different entities of state. Every business CEO knows what pain a ERP- software lock-in means. Free Software offers a valid alternative when it will be ready to use (GNUenterprise).
Open Standards are more important than open source or free software.
Many attention regarding GNU/Linux raised a public petition to use the LinuxOS in the German parliament's administration. Microsoft did some PR mistakes and its PR agancy Hunzinger AG was involved in a scandal.
Today many Government agency consider to switch. BMI funded the Aegypten project that contributed to KDE/KMail. Free Software gives them an alternative that reduces monopoly margins.
Freedom of software also means to use and run any software you like. Despite of that I believe Governmental entities should give a preference for FOSS in procurement or insist of open source licenses when projects are funded by public money.
From a political perspective software it is very important. As you know some legislators plan to introduce software patent legislation, thanx to patent laywers. Therefore it is very important to talk to our representatives. In Germany Government funds some projects. I also think that public funded software shall be released under a GPL/BSD style license. The status quo is that nobody cares much about source code and open standards. That is a consulting firm sells the same tailored software to different entities of state. Every business CEO knows what pain a ERP- software lock-in means. Free Software offers a valid alternative when it will be ready to use (GNUenterprise).
Open Standards are more important than open source or free software.
Many attention regarding GNU/Linux raised a public petition to use the LinuxOS in the German parliament's administration. Microsoft did some PR mistakes and its PR agancy Hunzinger AG was involved in a scandal.
Today many Government agency consider to switch. BMI funded the Aegypten project that contributed to KDE/KMail. Free Software gives them an alternative that reduces monopoly margins.
Freedom of software also means to use and run any software you like. Despite of that I believe Governmental entities should give a preference for FOSS in procurement or insist of open source licenses when projects are funded by public money.
In Europe there is no destinction between Open Source and Free Software
You mean, you don't understand the difference between Open Source and Free Software. Let me explain it to you briefly.
"Free Software" can be used as the basis for more Free Software. A programmer could take components of the Gnu Scientific Library, for example, and use them to add functionality to the OpenOffice spreadsheet. The "Free Software" license ensures that this adds to the body of free software - the enhanced OpenOffice, if distributed at all, has to be distributed as Free Software, so that the beneficial cycle of learning, re-use, and enhancement by others can continue.
"Open Source" software is in almost all respects the opposite. You cannot take components of "Open Source" software and use them to enhance other software of your choice. For practical purposes, an "Open Source" licence has nothing in common with a "Free Software" licence except that you can read the source code.
You mean, you don't understand the difference between Open Source and Free Software. Let me explain it to you briefly.
"Free Software" can be used as the basis for more Free Software. A programmer could take components of the Gnu Scientific Library, for example, and use them to add functionality to the OpenOffice spreadsheet. The "Free Software" license ensures that this adds to the body of free software - the enhanced OpenOffice, if distributed at all, has to be distributed as Free Software, so that the beneficial cycle of learning, re-use, and enhancement by others can continue.
"Open Source" software is in almost all respects the opposite. You cannot take components of "Open Source" software and use them to enhance other software of your choice. For practical purposes, an "Open Source" licence has nothing in common with a "Free Software" licence except that you can read the source code.
OpenSource is most definitely NOT the opposite.
you CAN take components from OSS and enchance other software with them!
if you're going to hand out definitions, do it right, and don't spread the idea that FS has nothing in common with OSS.
OpenSource software:
-- must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
-- must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.
-- shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources.
you CAN take components from OSS and enchance other software with them!
if you're going to hand out definitions, do it right, and don't spread the idea that FS has nothing in common with OSS.
OpenSource software:
-- must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
-- must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.
-- shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources.
RMS is just angry that he's been upstaged when it comes to terminology. He's an extremely sore loser. The "Free Software" movement is not given equal billing with the "Open Source" movement for good reasons:
1. The Open Source movement, if construed as distinct from the Free SW movement, is a lot stronger than the Free SW movement.
2. "Open Source" gives a more complete understanding of the topic in English than does "Free Software" without adding a lot of cumbersome explanation.
3. The "ideological differences" between the "Open Source" and "Free Software" movements, when they are not merely verbal, either make no practical difference or GNU's position is so extreme as to be generally considered laughable.
4. People who are willing to call it "Open Source" also tend to be less stuck-up and rude as well as easier to work with.
1. The Open Source movement, if construed as distinct from the Free SW movement, is a lot stronger than the Free SW movement.
2. "Open Source" gives a more complete understanding of the topic in English than does "Free Software" without adding a lot of cumbersome explanation.
3. The "ideological differences" between the "Open Source" and "Free Software" movements, when they are not merely verbal, either make no practical difference or GNU's position is so extreme as to be generally considered laughable.
4. People who are willing to call it "Open Source" also tend to be less stuck-up and rude as well as easier to work with.
about your comments:
1 - false. the opensource movement would be almost nowhere without both the FSF and the GPL.
2 - i might agree with you, but it's not one of the reasons why "open source" movement is any more popular or has 'better billing' than FS.
3 - discrediting the differences will help no one. there are differences, so people should recognize them...but not to the point that RMS does.
4 - your personal opinion, and not at all relevant to why OS might be better billed than FS. the Free Software movement has no monopoly on having rude jerks in its camp...the OSS movement has plenty of their own.
also, RMS isn't "losing"...far from it. while he's passionate about the FS community, he's pointing out differences in FS and OSS communities, when he *should* be making a small point of that, and move on to the REAL work -- educating the public about the strengths of FS.
people will go for the guy who explains why his way is better, not why other ways are bad.
1 - false. the opensource movement would be almost nowhere without both the FSF and the GPL.
2 - i might agree with you, but it's not one of the reasons why "open source" movement is any more popular or has 'better billing' than FS.
3 - discrediting the differences will help no one. there are differences, so people should recognize them...but not to the point that RMS does.
4 - your personal opinion, and not at all relevant to why OS might be better billed than FS. the Free Software movement has no monopoly on having rude jerks in its camp...the OSS movement has plenty of their own.
also, RMS isn't "losing"...far from it. while he's passionate about the FS community, he's pointing out differences in FS and OSS communities, when he *should* be making a small point of that, and move on to the REAL work -- educating the public about the strengths of FS.
people will go for the guy who explains why his way is better, not why other ways are bad.
Of course the Open Source movement would be nowhere without the GPL and GNU's previous efforts. I was talking about their relative strengths *now*, not their past interdependencies. Right now, even many of the 'official gnu' projects are run by people who fit squarely into the Open Source camp.
As to the differences- if you can point out one single difference between the Open Source movement and the Free SW movement which:
1. is not merely verbal
2. makes a practical difference
3. doesn't involve Open Source people simply not espousing a ludicrous view of RMS's which just about nobody in either camp supports
then I will be very surprised.
I'm not saying RMS has "lost" overall or anything, it's just that he's lost the terminology battle and needs to acknowledge that. He's won on many other fronts.
As to the differences- if you can point out one single difference between the Open Source movement and the Free SW movement which:
1. is not merely verbal
2. makes a practical difference
3. doesn't involve Open Source people simply not espousing a ludicrous view of RMS's which just about nobody in either camp supports
then I will be very surprised.
I'm not saying RMS has "lost" overall or anything, it's just that he's lost the terminology battle and needs to acknowledge that. He's won on many other fronts.
I'm not a big Stallman fan, but let me take a crack at your list.
1. The Open Source movement, if construed as distinct from the Free SW movement, is a lot stronger than the Free SW movement.
This is debateable. GNU/Linux, Perl, and GNOME are free software products, backed by the FSF's enforcement of the source-available license provisions.
2. "Open Source" gives a more complete understanding of the topic in English than does "Free Software" without adding a lot of cumbersome explanation.
Agreed, the term "open source" is easier to understand.
3. The "ideological differences" between the "Open Source" and "Free Software" movements, when they are not merely verbal, either make no practical difference or GNU's position is so extreme as to be generally considered laughable.
Neither is correct. If Linux had been published under a BSD-style open source license, then Microsoft (for example) could announce tomorrow that they have Media Player and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET running on top of a "specially modified" Linux kernel (sorry, source not available) - and it's being shipped with some great new desktops and laptops from HP. Why not try Linux and get the best of Microsoft's application expertise, too! (In case this sounds farfetched, look at what Apple has done with FreeBSD). As far as being extreme, Linus himself has said that adopting the GPL was the single smartest move he made (well, besides not using a Minix-style microkernel architecture<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:V)
4. People who are willing to call it "Open Source" also tend to be less stuck-up and rude as well as easier to work with.
That would depend on personal experience. I don't know any of the well-known developers personally, but it seems there is no shortage of egos and prickly personalities (as is the case with engineering in general).
1. The Open Source movement, if construed as distinct from the Free SW movement, is a lot stronger than the Free SW movement.
This is debateable. GNU/Linux, Perl, and GNOME are free software products, backed by the FSF's enforcement of the source-available license provisions.
2. "Open Source" gives a more complete understanding of the topic in English than does "Free Software" without adding a lot of cumbersome explanation.
Agreed, the term "open source" is easier to understand.
3. The "ideological differences" between the "Open Source" and "Free Software" movements, when they are not merely verbal, either make no practical difference or GNU's position is so extreme as to be generally considered laughable.
Neither is correct. If Linux had been published under a BSD-style open source license, then Microsoft (for example) could announce tomorrow that they have Media Player and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET running on top of a "specially modified" Linux kernel (sorry, source not available) - and it's being shipped with some great new desktops and laptops from HP. Why not try Linux and get the best of Microsoft's application expertise, too! (In case this sounds farfetched, look at what Apple has done with FreeBSD). As far as being extreme, Linus himself has said that adopting the GPL was the single smartest move he made (well, besides not using a Minix-style microkernel architecture<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:V)
4. People who are willing to call it "Open Source" also tend to be less stuck-up and rude as well as easier to work with.
That would depend on personal experience. I don't know any of the well-known developers personally, but it seems there is no shortage of egos and prickly personalities (as is the case with engineering in general).
This is debateable. GNU/Linux, Perl, and GNOME are free software products, backed by the FSF's enforcement of the source-available license provisions.
PERL is not GPL'd, but under the "Artistic License" and last I checked was not under direct FSF protection. This doesn't weaken your argument, but does demonstrate how easily OSS and true copyleft can be confused.
PERL is not GPL'd, but under the "Artistic License" and last I checked was not under direct FSF protection. This doesn't weaken your argument, but does demonstrate how easily OSS and true copyleft can be confused.
You're right, it's not copyleft. I just re-read the license and it seems to be a weird hybrid between an X11 and GPL type license - proprietary changes are allowed but there are additional documentation responsibilities. Then again, many things associated with Perl are weird<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)
http://www.perl.com/language/misc/Artistic.html
(remove embedded spaces)
http://www.perl.com/language/misc/Artistic.html
(remove embedded spaces)
Of course the difference between the BSD license and the GPL is important. Plenty of people involved in the Open Source movement prefer the GPL or LGPL to other licenses. Just because it's GPL'd doesn't mean that the people authoring the software fall into the Free SW camp. Linus, for instance, is very much an Open Source person and not a Free Software person- witness RMS's recent flaming of the kernel lists due to the use of Bitkeeper for one example.
RMS has done a lot of important stuff for the community. However, he needs to face up to the fact that he's lost the terminology war and move on.
RMS has done a lot of important stuff for the community. However, he needs to face up to the fact that he's lost the terminology war and move on.
In short:
eGovOS, call things the names I like to call them, give me top billing, and use my silly recursive acronym or I'll take my toys, go home, and cry.
eGovOS, call things the names I like to call them, give me top billing, and use my silly recursive acronym or I'll take my toys, go home, and cry.
It's sad to see that Richard Stallman won't participate in furthering the cause he has devoted his life to simply because of a linguistic quibble.
Yes, I realize that free and open source software are not the same thing. However, most people outside of the two communities don't know that. To outsiders, the terms are synonymous.
I can understand why Stallman feels that this mistaken assumption slights free software. However, I doubt that the insult is intentional. I also doubt that those who make the assumption understand why their choice of language offends.
All Stallman is really doing by taking this position is making it less likely that the free software position will be heard. He's not standing on principle - he's quibbling over a choice of words.
Yes, I realize that free and open source software are not the same thing. However, most people outside of the two communities don't know that. To outsiders, the terms are synonymous.
I can understand why Stallman feels that this mistaken assumption slights free software. However, I doubt that the insult is intentional. I also doubt that those who make the assumption understand why their choice of language offends.
All Stallman is really doing by taking this position is making it less likely that the free software position will be heard. He's not standing on principle - he's quibbling over a choice of words.
This is bull.
RMS keeps the linguistic difference, because there *IS* a difference. And a very *BIG* one concerning legislation
Remember ESR and O'Reilly saying Free Software should't win if it is not superior to proprietary software?
This is like saying "We should abolish slavery *only* if negroes work harder and produce us more when the're are freed"
"Let's get rid of Apartheid only if our company gets an economical boost".
*THAT* is a *HUGE* difference if you're talking about Software Freedom like RMS does.
RMS keeps the linguistic difference, because there *IS* a difference. And a very *BIG* one concerning legislation
Remember ESR and O'Reilly saying Free Software should't win if it is not superior to proprietary software?
This is like saying "We should abolish slavery *only* if negroes work harder and produce us more when the're are freed"
"Let's get rid of Apartheid only if our company gets an economical boost".
*THAT* is a *HUGE* difference if you're talking about Software Freedom like RMS does.
your analogy is bull.
is there a difference ? there sure is.
but is it important enough for proponents of *either* camp (FS or OSS) to be declining speaking engagements ? where they can educate people who want to hear more about it ? no.
important enough that the fighting between FS and OSS camps should be constraining their own growth ? no.
OSS and FS have more to do with each other than both have to do with Closed Software -- which should be the REAL argument here.
is there a difference ? there sure is.
but is it important enough for proponents of *either* camp (FS or OSS) to be declining speaking engagements ? where they can educate people who want to hear more about it ? no.
important enough that the fighting between FS and OSS camps should be constraining their own growth ? no.
OSS and FS have more to do with each other than both have to do with Closed Software -- which should be the REAL argument here.
In those nasty, unappealing dictionary definitions, "open" is the polar opposite of "secret". Similarly, "open source" is the opposite of trade "secret source". There is no definition of "free", which is an antonymn for "secret". Dr. Stallman never wants to admit this. Until he realizes that in the (statistically speaking) 20 years of his remaining life that he is unlikely to achieve the recontextualization of all three words; he will be disappointed by the failure of the world to accept his preferred and ungainly terminology.
Eventually, people will stop inviting him to speak at events! Why? The reason given will be: he always refuses and more and more often he refuses because a single sentence was not worded to the precision his left-brained, mathematical mind will grasp. Since he stubbornly refuses to be corrected; he may someday discover he has become irrelevant.
A message? Stop fighting this, Richard. Stop correcting every journalist who asks you about Open Software. Failing that at least discover diplomacy. Hitch our wagons to the larger movement, and extol why our open license is the best license to insure continuing openness, which is FREEDOM. Such "continuing openness" is what Richard defines as free or freedom, and to those of us who know that language is not mathematics; the usage would be more semantically correct.
Insisting that his lingo is the best linguage is not a battle he can win. He will only serve to further marginalize himself. Fortunately, for us, the GPL can continue to march without him.
Eventually, people will stop inviting him to speak at events! Why? The reason given will be: he always refuses and more and more often he refuses because a single sentence was not worded to the precision his left-brained, mathematical mind will grasp. Since he stubbornly refuses to be corrected; he may someday discover he has become irrelevant.
A message? Stop fighting this, Richard. Stop correcting every journalist who asks you about Open Software. Failing that at least discover diplomacy. Hitch our wagons to the larger movement, and extol why our open license is the best license to insure continuing openness, which is FREEDOM. Such "continuing openness" is what Richard defines as free or freedom, and to those of us who know that language is not mathematics; the usage would be more semantically correct.
Insisting that his lingo is the best linguage is not a battle he can win. He will only serve to further marginalize himself. Fortunately, for us, the GPL can continue to march without him.
Free Software, Open Source, and then of course M$
Posted by: Doctor Digital on March 18, 2003 05:11 AM
I may be dense (it has been suggested before mostly by my wife) but, I can't see why anyone even moderately in command of the English language could not make the distinction between free, open source, and that "other" kind of software.
Free does not have to be Open Source, Open Source does not have to be free (although it does seem to follow in some folks minds. That other kind of software, well... who cares?
Let us just concentrate on making both free and open source software better than the "other kind" and get on with total world domination by cooperation.
We shall all be better off in almost every respect. Could free/open source software be the thing that finally may bring the world together? I think it could. China, South Korea, North Korea, Japan, and some others are contributing to Open Source (Linux specifically) in hopes to make their part of the world a better place through interoperability.
I'll buy (and do) Open Source software, I use and help to document Free software, and avoid at all costs buying that "other software".
Don't quibble over semantics (unless code requires it). It's easy to be beaten when divided by petty crap.
Richard Stallman, go to the conferences and make the distinction in your presentation. Let the public know and they will get it. Both free and open sources developers deserve credit.
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
The fall of the Microsoft monopoly,
Is long overdue.
Doctor Digital
Free does not have to be Open Source, Open Source does not have to be free (although it does seem to follow in some folks minds. That other kind of software, well... who cares?
Let us just concentrate on making both free and open source software better than the "other kind" and get on with total world domination by cooperation.
We shall all be better off in almost every respect. Could free/open source software be the thing that finally may bring the world together? I think it could. China, South Korea, North Korea, Japan, and some others are contributing to Open Source (Linux specifically) in hopes to make their part of the world a better place through interoperability.
I'll buy (and do) Open Source software, I use and help to document Free software, and avoid at all costs buying that "other software".
Don't quibble over semantics (unless code requires it). It's easy to be beaten when divided by petty crap.
Richard Stallman, go to the conferences and make the distinction in your presentation. Let the public know and they will get it. Both free and open sources developers deserve credit.
Roses are red,
Violets are blue,
The fall of the Microsoft monopoly,
Is long overdue.
Doctor Digital
I fully support the goals the FSF. I truly believe in Free Software.
I fully support the goals of the Open Source movement. I truly believe in Open Source.
I do not think this makes me a hypocrate. I'm sure Stallman thinks does.
Both software licenceing models are better than full-on proprietary business as usual. Stallman will need to recognize this and quit crying about semantics. Its seems that every time I read about Richard he is crying because somebody didnt put those three freakin letters in front of Linux.
There are too many common goals to get bogged down in semantics.
Check thine ego at the door, and lets start working together.
M'kay ???
I fully support the goals of the Open Source movement. I truly believe in Open Source.
I do not think this makes me a hypocrate. I'm sure Stallman thinks does.
Both software licenceing models are better than full-on proprietary business as usual. Stallman will need to recognize this and quit crying about semantics. Its seems that every time I read about Richard he is crying because somebody didnt put those three freakin letters in front of Linux.
There are too many common goals to get bogged down in semantics.
Check thine ego at the door, and lets start working together.
M'kay ???
Free Software isn't about a licensing model. This is the mistake most people who think "one is as good as another" make.
Free Software is a philosophy that the nature of software is such that people ought to have certain freedoms regarding it, and that these freedoms should be recognized in our public policy. Really, it is a philosophy that sees the idea of copyrighting software as a flawed concept. Yes, the GPL is a copyright license, but if the FSF's ideals were made into public policy, the GPL would not be necessary.
Open Source, on the other hand is about a licensing model, and in its attempts at pragmatism, it holds the view that says it's OK for people to not have those freedoms regarding software, that the FSF is founded on.
(RMS, feel free to correct me.)
Free Software is a philosophy that the nature of software is such that people ought to have certain freedoms regarding it, and that these freedoms should be recognized in our public policy. Really, it is a philosophy that sees the idea of copyrighting software as a flawed concept. Yes, the GPL is a copyright license, but if the FSF's ideals were made into public policy, the GPL would not be necessary.
Open Source, on the other hand is about a licensing model, and in its attempts at pragmatism, it holds the view that says it's OK for people to not have those freedoms regarding software, that the FSF is founded on.
(RMS, feel free to correct me.)
Yes, RMS is "right". However, I would hope that he can consider contributing to the progress of the broader movement (Free and Open Source Software, FOSS). There are very very well-financed organizations that have tried and will continue to try to deny the value of FOSS technologies.
The *existence* of a government conference recognizing OSS is a huge leap forward, which I believe could pave the way for recognition of Real Free Software.
I believe RMS could contribute (yet again) to the overall process, by presenting his viewpoint. This is a chance for an audience in a potentially very influential forum.
As for the desire for Free Software to get equal billing, I agree. That makes sense and would be appropriate.
As for the fear the Microsoft will somehow fool conference attendees into thinking what they're promoting is equivalent to FLOSS, that's absurd. I attended the EGovOS conference today, and will be the next two days. I also attended the EGovOS conference last October. At the October conference, there actually was a debate. Bruce Perens, Tim O'Reilly, and another one or two people were on the FLOSS side. Robert Kramer (CompTIA), Ken Brown (DeTocqueville), and another person were on what amounted to the pro-Microsoft side. When Mr. Kramer got up to speak, a few (pro-FLOSS) members of the audience started to heckle him, and call out counter-points to what he was saying. It didn't last long before Bruce Perens leaned over to a microphone and politely, but firmly, told the audience members to let him speak. Thankfully, they listened and kept quiet. Quite frankly, they were only making themselves and all FL/OSS advocates look bad.
At today's EGovOS conference, during one of the breaks, one of the conference attendees told myself and a couple other people of one of today's sessions in which the Microsoft rep asked a question during the Q&A segment that was laced with typical, twisted, Microsoft marketing BS. This attendee also said that the next four people who spoke up all asked very pointed questions that showed the absurdity of what the MS guy said.
The view that some Free Software advocates hold, that Microsoft is going to fool conference attendees with their distorted propaganda, rests on the assumptions that (a) the conference attendees are dumb and can't tell the difference, and (b) there is no one present who will speak up to correct the inaccuracies and distortions. Both of those assumptions are false. This conference is full of people who have a moderate to very firm grasp of FS and OSS - and are not afraid to speak up and point out inaccuracies when they are presented. While, in the hypothetical world, the concern about Microsoft deception swaying opinion at this conference is valid. In the real world, it is not. In the real world, there are mitigating factors in place that counter-balance the FUD and distortion.
As for the fear the Microsoft will somehow fool conference attendees into thinking what they're promoting is equivalent to FLOSS, that's absurd. I attended the EGovOS conference today, and will be the next two days. I also attended the EGovOS conference last October. At the October conference, there actually was a debate. Bruce Perens, Tim O'Reilly, and another one or two people were on the FLOSS side. Robert Kramer (CompTIA), Ken Brown (DeTocqueville), and another person were on what amounted to the pro-Microsoft side. When Mr. Kramer got up to speak, a few (pro-FLOSS) members of the audience started to heckle him, and call out counter-points to what he was saying. It didn't last long before Bruce Perens leaned over to a microphone and politely, but firmly, told the audience members to let him speak. Thankfully, they listened and kept quiet. Quite frankly, they were only making themselves and all FL/OSS advocates look bad.
At today's EGovOS conference, during one of the breaks, one of the conference attendees told myself and a couple other people of one of today's sessions in which the Microsoft rep asked a question during the Q&A segment that was laced with typical, twisted, Microsoft marketing BS. This attendee also said that the next four people who spoke up all asked very pointed questions that showed the absurdity of what the MS guy said.
The view that some Free Software advocates hold, that Microsoft is going to fool conference attendees with their distorted propaganda, rests on the assumptions that (a) the conference attendees are dumb and can't tell the difference, and (b) there is no one present who will speak up to correct the inaccuracies and distortions. Both of those assumptions are false. This conference is full of people who have a moderate to very firm grasp of FS and OSS - and are not afraid to speak up and point out inaccuracies when they are presented. While, in the hypothetical world, the concern about Microsoft deception swaying opinion at this conference is valid. In the real world, it is not. In the real world, there are mitigating factors in place that counter-balance the FUD and distortion.
after having been there for today, do you think that the conference would have benefitted from Stallman speaking, given the topics discussed ?
Yes, I think it would have been good for RMS or somebody else from FSF to speak. Today (Tuesday), I think I saw Bradley Kuhn walk out of the Microsoft presentation. He was talking with Bruce Perens and Michael Tiemann (RedHat/Cygnus). I saw his name tag and the name looked familiar, but it wasn't until later that I placed the name - Bradley Kuhn, Executive Directory of the Free Software Foundation. I only attended the first 15 minutes of the Microsoft presentation. The speak hadn't said anything controversial by that point, so I went to a different session. I later heard that the audience questioners grilled the Microsoft guy quite thoroughly. I did not hear who was asking questions, but there were a number core people from the OSS and FS communities in the audience. So there was no shortage of FLOSS expertise available.
Does the elevator go to the top floor with you?
People DO believe what Microsoft says, it gets repeated in the press, and every questions wasted on their stupidity was a minute a real advocate couldn't get anything done.
I suppose you didn't see the 10 guys in the revolutional war costumes protesting this sell out either?
Why don't you screw your head on straight and begin to think about why Stallman WASN'T THERE, and why Micro Software WAS....
The answer is not as hard as you think.
People DO believe what Microsoft says, it gets repeated in the press, and every questions wasted on their stupidity was a minute a real advocate couldn't get anything done.
I suppose you didn't see the 10 guys in the revolutional war costumes protesting this sell out either?
Why don't you screw your head on straight and begin to think about why Stallman WASN'T THERE, and why Micro Software WAS....
The answer is not as hard as you think.
not that I'm defending anyone or anything, but Richard said why he wasn't there, and that's clear.
But I don't think that Richard's turning down of the speaking engagement helped anyone become better educated. I really wish he would have gone and set people straight. If there was one conference to go to, it seemed like this was a good one.
I hate to say it, but while I understand Stallman's point of this article, and why he didn't go...I think it would have been better if he had gone.
But I don't think that Richard's turning down of the speaking engagement helped anyone become better educated. I really wish he would have gone and set people straight. If there was one conference to go to, it seemed like this was a good one.
I hate to say it, but while I understand Stallman's point of this article, and why he didn't go...I think it would have been better if he had gone.
From the Microsoft Internal Documents it is quite clear the many Windows-using people see Shared Source as equivalt to Free/Open Source, "because you can see the source code."
I would imagine that many Windows end-users can't tell the difference between Shared Source and Free/Open Source. However, RMS was commenting specifically about the EGovOS conference. The conference is not populated by a bunch of "Joe Average" end-users. Everyone I have spoken to at the conference has at least a fair understanding of what Open Source is - otherwise they wouldn't be taking 1, 2, or 3 days out of their schedule to attend the conference. "Joe Average" end-users who think Shared Source is equivalent to Open Source are not attending this conference. Or, at least, if they are, I haven't run in to any of them. So, I do think that most/all people at the conference can tell there is a clear difference between Shared Source and Open Source. And, if they couldn't tell there is a difference before the MS guy spoke, they should have been able to by the time he finished. Towards the beginning of his presentation, the MS speaker explicitly said<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. "Is Shared Source the same as Open Source? No."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. "Have we presented Shared Source as if it is Open Source? No."<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.. It's hard to get it more clearly stated than that.
>
No moron. It was populated with a bunch of Joe Average 'end-users' with big budgets from the federal government, and a press ocrps which failthfully reported ever Microsoft lie to the rest of the 'Joe Average end users', many of who have big budgets as well.
Mr. Anonymous, why not come out from your annominity so we can see who you are...
No moron. It was populated with a bunch of Joe Average 'end-users' with big budgets from the federal government, and a press ocrps which failthfully reported ever Microsoft lie to the rest of the 'Joe Average end users', many of who have big budgets as well.
Mr. Anonymous, why not come out from your annominity so we can see who you are...
I notice that a few of you deplore the "adversarial" approach. Please note that the FSF & The Open Source Movements have never declaired themselves the sworn enemy of the convicted monopolist. On the contrary. It was the lies, propaganda, and active sabotage, together with the open declaration to the press by the world's favorite criminal software corp., calling Open Source a cancer, Free Software a socialist anathema contrary to "democratic American values" that mined the path to cooperation. Now, under the guise of cooperation the aforesaid felons would have the world believe that revealing source code is anti-democratic and a form of violation of national security while at the same time, releasing their very source code to one of the most non-democratic countries in the world, China.
This is what people think about when they think of "Linux". Zelots and kooks.
No! It's because I've heard "Linux, Linux, Linux" the past 7 years, that I *wasn't* interested. Only when I heard and read about GNU, my mind changed.
It's the social arguments about Free Software that are the most important in Government, not the technical guru-stuff.
It's the social arguments about Free Software that are the most important in Government, not the technical guru-stuff.
First, unless you wish to eventually give up all rights to your computer and the software it will probably execute under total Microsoft control, EVEN THOUGH YOU PAID FOR IT, we (the entire world population) need competition for Monopolysoft.
I am not old enough to remeber the railroad monopoly that was the cause for the creation of the Sherman Antitrust Act right after the turn of the century. I AM old enough to remember the telephone monopoly that was broken up in 1984.
The future in the eyes of Monopolysoft is like this: We control (with or without the users consent) what can be run, when/if they can/must upgrade, and control the content they can view/copy/use, and also disable anything they wish. Is this how you want the future to be? All this is already in the works. The XP EULA explicitly states that MS may routinely check your system, report information back to MS, and allows for tracking registration disputes. Registration disputes could be caused by moving a hard drive containing a completely legal copy of XP from one computer to another (as in a hardware/motherboard upgrade).
I am all for being legal with my software and always have. I use Linux now because it is more powerful and I NEVER have to worry about a reinstall here, or helping a friend by installing it for them. One less thing to worry about.
Linux advocates do so to eliminate the possiblity of someone holding their computer/software for ransom. The added utility and stability are a bonus.
Linux users can of course be tough to listen to because many of them are so experienced in the *nix world they speak down to the rest of us. I am not a programmer of any kind yet and I see this all the time. It is unfortunate that this tends to alienate some from the very message desired.
Lastly, the word is zealot, and Kook is a proper noun so should therefore be capitalized. Just trying to make myself sound superior<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;>).
If you have not tried Linux and would like to do so without having to affect your computer, there is a distro called Knoppix (version 3.2.2 current) that will boot from CD and let you see what the interface looks like. When you exit, it removes all traces from your system.
Stallman may be being a bit tightass about going to the conference. I myself would go and make it a point to show/tell the difference between open and free software. His rep, his call.
We may be Kooks and zealots but we make much of our noise as a warning. The really big question is will the US government help protect it's people from this or just cowtow to the big money available from McSoft.
Best wishes:
Doctor Digital
I am not old enough to remeber the railroad monopoly that was the cause for the creation of the Sherman Antitrust Act right after the turn of the century. I AM old enough to remember the telephone monopoly that was broken up in 1984.
The future in the eyes of Monopolysoft is like this: We control (with or without the users consent) what can be run, when/if they can/must upgrade, and control the content they can view/copy/use, and also disable anything they wish. Is this how you want the future to be? All this is already in the works. The XP EULA explicitly states that MS may routinely check your system, report information back to MS, and allows for tracking registration disputes. Registration disputes could be caused by moving a hard drive containing a completely legal copy of XP from one computer to another (as in a hardware/motherboard upgrade).
I am all for being legal with my software and always have. I use Linux now because it is more powerful and I NEVER have to worry about a reinstall here, or helping a friend by installing it for them. One less thing to worry about.
Linux advocates do so to eliminate the possiblity of someone holding their computer/software for ransom. The added utility and stability are a bonus.
Linux users can of course be tough to listen to because many of them are so experienced in the *nix world they speak down to the rest of us. I am not a programmer of any kind yet and I see this all the time. It is unfortunate that this tends to alienate some from the very message desired.
Lastly, the word is zealot, and Kook is a proper noun so should therefore be capitalized. Just trying to make myself sound superior<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;>).
If you have not tried Linux and would like to do so without having to affect your computer, there is a distro called Knoppix (version 3.2.2 current) that will boot from CD and let you see what the interface looks like. When you exit, it removes all traces from your system.
Stallman may be being a bit tightass about going to the conference. I myself would go and make it a point to show/tell the difference between open and free software. His rep, his call.
We may be Kooks and zealots but we make much of our noise as a warning. The really big question is will the US government help protect it's people from this or just cowtow to the big money available from McSoft.
Best wishes:
Doctor Digital
I agree. Microsoft is being accepted and Free Software concepts are being swept under the rug?
What have people come to? The bully is so big and so influential they can pretend to be everything they are not and people just nod and say, "Yes, MS is now doing Open Source stuff." Microsoft comes to the conf. and people say "Oh, look the wolf is giving a talk on the pleasures of eating grass, lets go to that one!". They are the opposite of the Free/Open source movements - they sell (moving towards leasing) _closed_, restrictively-licensed software. Just because they once in a while decide not to kill a sheep doesn't mean they have become vegetarians. Just because MS has a couple customers they show their source to - Whoopee! They don't complete obfuscate _all_ the proprietary layers they have cemented on top open protocols? Yeay!, they have joined the cause!
Come on...
RMS may not seem like a lion, but I am glad we have him. And I think we need more lions to stand up and say (first, we are not sheep and) the token and hypocritical gestures by MS should be stood up to and called what they are - disingenuous self-serving attempts to ride the FS/OS waves on the backs of people/companies who have put their own personal time, life and money into making Free and Open software the backbone of the software world. MS is starting to use the same strategy with FS/OS that they have used so successfully with company's they wanted to crush in the past - they are trying to "partner" with us. Review the fate of MS's previous partners and beware.
What have people come to? The bully is so big and so influential they can pretend to be everything they are not and people just nod and say, "Yes, MS is now doing Open Source stuff." Microsoft comes to the conf. and people say "Oh, look the wolf is giving a talk on the pleasures of eating grass, lets go to that one!". They are the opposite of the Free/Open source movements - they sell (moving towards leasing) _closed_, restrictively-licensed software. Just because they once in a while decide not to kill a sheep doesn't mean they have become vegetarians. Just because MS has a couple customers they show their source to - Whoopee! They don't complete obfuscate _all_ the proprietary layers they have cemented on top open protocols? Yeay!, they have joined the cause!
Come on...
RMS may not seem like a lion, but I am glad we have him. And I think we need more lions to stand up and say (first, we are not sheep and) the token and hypocritical gestures by MS should be stood up to and called what they are - disingenuous self-serving attempts to ride the FS/OS waves on the backs of people/companies who have put their own personal time, life and money into making Free and Open software the backbone of the software world. MS is starting to use the same strategy with FS/OS that they have used so successfully with company's they wanted to crush in the past - they are trying to "partner" with us. Review the fate of MS's previous partners and beware.
He claims he's not a communist, but a review of his personal website reveals how twisted he is towards the left. The man is a hardcore socialist.
RMS, thanks for keeping the word count on this one below ten million.
Stick to writing software. That's the only place where you matter.
RMS, thanks for keeping the word count on this one below ten million.
Stick to writing software. That's the only place where you matter.
Oh yeah, I read his siet once. Much nice, a little I diagree with and am happy he keeps separate from his primary goals. (narcotics legalization -FYI that it not a typically socialist position, more toward extremist green)
reread your history. socialism (and communism, for that matter) is based on the idea of governmental control for rivalous resources.
what RMS believes in (maybe a little too much) is the free and open access to nonrivalous resources. (code and software)
it is neither left OR right, proven by the fact that RMS's ideas (and FS/OSS in general) have been supported by many Republicans in politics today.
while the guy is a kook, writing code is not where he matters. if we can only get him to drop the argument about FS vs OSS, then we'd do fine putting him in speaking engagements.
what RMS believes in (maybe a little too much) is the free and open access to nonrivalous resources. (code and software)
it is neither left OR right, proven by the fact that RMS's ideas (and FS/OSS in general) have been supported by many Republicans in politics today.
while the guy is a kook, writing code is not where he matters. if we can only get him to drop the argument about FS vs OSS, then we'd do fine putting him in speaking engagements.
twat
I recognize that many will differ with my own opinion on this subject. However, I think that by RMS and the other FSFers refusing to speak at eGovOS, they are shooting themselves in the foot.
No revolutionary message can be effective unless it is heard. There is no point in RMS preaching to those of the same opinions that he holds-- they are already the converted (to put it in religious terms). Rather, it is strategically better to go to those who have not heard the message and let them know. Explain what FSF is all about at the venue.
I am sure that the organizers of the conference are not unaware of RMS' opinions. Therefore the fact that they have invited him shows that they are willing to have him come and speak his opinions at that public forum. This can only better his cause.
However, merely silencing oneself in protest is not wise, especially when one has been sought out.
So on strategic grounds, I would go and speak at eGovOS if I were RMS.
No revolutionary message can be effective unless it is heard. There is no point in RMS preaching to those of the same opinions that he holds-- they are already the converted (to put it in religious terms). Rather, it is strategically better to go to those who have not heard the message and let them know. Explain what FSF is all about at the venue.
I am sure that the organizers of the conference are not unaware of RMS' opinions. Therefore the fact that they have invited him shows that they are willing to have him come and speak his opinions at that public forum. This can only better his cause.
However, merely silencing oneself in protest is not wise, especially when one has been sought out.
So on strategic grounds, I would go and speak at eGovOS if I were RMS.
Good... instead of taking the opportunity to enlighten those who may be ignorant of the difference, he chooses to abstain. There's a leader for you.
RMS was important as a catalyst to change. His two accomplishments have been:
* He provided the tools that Linus used when building the first Linux system.
* He wrote the GPL
Since then he has been nothing but devisive in his actions. The open source movement doesn't have a problem with the Free Software community. The only ambivalence I've seen has all been coming from the free software side. In fact, if you look at it, Free Software is nothing but a sub-component of Open Source. Funny enough that is because Free Software places more restrictions on its use.
RMS needs to get his prescription renewed.
RMS was important as a catalyst to change. His two accomplishments have been:
* He provided the tools that Linus used when building the first Linux system.
* He wrote the GPL
Since then he has been nothing but devisive in his actions. The open source movement doesn't have a problem with the Free Software community. The only ambivalence I've seen has all been coming from the free software side. In fact, if you look at it, Free Software is nothing but a sub-component of Open Source. Funny enough that is because Free Software places more restrictions on its use.
RMS needs to get his prescription renewed.
Okay....I'm a bit weak on this subject , however,
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 19, 2003 02:01 AM
I GPL everything I write. However I call it 'open source'. I was not aware that there is a difference.
Are there seperate liscenses for 'open source' that I am not aware of?
Additionally, the GPL does not prevent you from profiting from your work - so how does that differ from 'open source'? I guess I am a bit dense on the subject and would appreciate some clarification.
I think RMS should have sucked it up and gone to the meeting with all of the FSF backers he could get - at least once - in order to make the same point to that assembly that he is trying to make here to us.
Are there seperate liscenses for 'open source' that I am not aware of?
Additionally, the GPL does not prevent you from profiting from your work - so how does that differ from 'open source'? I guess I am a bit dense on the subject and would appreciate some clarification.
I think RMS should have sucked it up and gone to the meeting with all of the FSF backers he could get - at least once - in order to make the same point to that assembly that he is trying to make here to us.
OSS is about the technical benefits of openly available code. FS is about the philosophical and social benefits of openly available code. While the two groups are using a bunch of the same words to talk about these things, they aren't talking about the same thing.
This helps to explain the difference between Open Source and Free Software --> <A HREF="http://wysong.org/writings/ossfs.html">Introduction to Open Source and Free Software</a wysong.org>
Its good to see that RMS makes evrybody think about what the difrence is.
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-software-for-f<nobr>r<wbr></nobr> eedom.html
to read the opinion of FSF.
I think RMS is absolutly correct in his point. Would Ghandi have said, "well a bit of war is ok"...
I think RMS has the respect of most people because he truly stands for what he believes in.
He also know very wel that if he accepts word as Open Source or whatever that slowly but surly the principles of Free Software will be lost and we all will end up in an other lock in. Thats why I always use Free software. Darn that Open Source is more pr... But if stand firm as community than Free software will prevail!
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-software-for-f<nobr>r<wbr></nobr> eedom.html
to read the opinion of FSF.
I think RMS is absolutly correct in his point. Would Ghandi have said, "well a bit of war is ok"...
I think RMS has the respect of most people because he truly stands for what he believes in.
He also know very wel that if he accepts word as Open Source or whatever that slowly but surly the principles of Free Software will be lost and we all will end up in an other lock in. Thats why I always use Free software. Darn that Open Source is more pr... But if stand firm as community than Free software will prevail!
i think he's a fool to throw a tantrum at the OSS vs. FS arguement.
we get it: THEY'RE DIFFERENT. FINE.
but refusing to speak at conferences because the conference doesn't have "Free Software" printed on it's schedule is dumb. go to the conference, and explain it to them, Richard!!
like another poster has pointed out: he was the keynote speaker for the O'Reilly Open Source Conference, yet no where on the agenda appears the term "Free Software" (except under HIS heading)
he's hurting his own cause. some organizations don't know about FS, or see the difference between FS and OSS...and they will continue to not know these things, unless it's properly explained to them.
yes, he's well respected. i think he's a great speaker, but he should speak more often and stop refusing to on the basis of unintentional semantics.
we get it: THEY'RE DIFFERENT. FINE.
but refusing to speak at conferences because the conference doesn't have "Free Software" printed on it's schedule is dumb. go to the conference, and explain it to them, Richard!!
like another poster has pointed out: he was the keynote speaker for the O'Reilly Open Source Conference, yet no where on the agenda appears the term "Free Software" (except under HIS heading)
he's hurting his own cause. some organizations don't know about FS, or see the difference between FS and OSS...and they will continue to not know these things, unless it's properly explained to them.
yes, he's well respected. i think he's a great speaker, but he should speak more often and stop refusing to on the basis of unintentional semantics.
I see two disturbing things here ...
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on March 17, 2003 10:06 PMSure, a lot of "computer-people" know about the FSF, but how many people outside that realm know about it?
The second, and more disturbing part, is that you are apparently unwilling to allow opposing viewpoint. Sorry, dude, that bespeaks of a mind as closed as your opponents'.
#