Interview with Good Software Group Founder 257
Hired: Gilbert, it's been fifteen years since you single-handedly created the Good Software movement and its spokesman and umbrella organization, the Good Software Group. How does it feel to be sitting in the catbird seat, now that Good Software is all the rage?[ The following is an interview by Hired, the monthly magazine devoted to commerce and trade, with Gilbert Oram Dawson, the founder of the Good Software Group. ]
Dawson: It's a great feeling to see just about everyone either using or else wanting to use Good Software. It proves that I am the visionary I always told you I was. But I'll tell you this: it hurts me that most people don't realize that without the Good Software Group, they probably wouldn't even *have* any Good Software. In fact, most people who use Good Software have barely even heard of the GSG. It really wounds me to be so under-appreciated, even after all the Good Software that I've personally created for the world.
Hired: Maybe that has something to do with the common misunderstanding of what Good Software is really about. Not everyone uses "good" the way you do, you know.
Dawson: Listen, I'm getting really tired of that old refrain. You get the feeling that these people have never looked into a dictionary before. If you check, you'll find that it is perfectly legitimate to use "good" to refer to saleable commodities, merchandise, or wares.
For example, here's one from the dictionary: "All that follows will hold true of any storable good, like cotton, wool, rubber, tobacco, wheat, coffee, sugar, oil, copper, or tin." Here's another: "As a steady, cheap, business-making consumer good,..the book is out." And here's one more: "For example, the existence of stocks of goods which might have to be reduced in some amount before additional resources were guided to the favoured good were ignored." Those are right there in the Oxford English Dictionary, so there's no room for argument. I'm right, and they're wrong.
I have invested many many years of my life in promoting Good Software. I am not about to change what I call it now simply because a bunch of idiots who never even finished grad school can't understand simple English words.
Hired: I'm sorry. I didn't intend to argue. Perhaps for the sake of our readers, Gilbert, you might please explain just what it is that you *do* mean by "good software"?
Dawson: Sure, I'd be glad to. Everything I'm about to say, though, is clearly explained on the Good Software Group's website, including just exactly what we mean when we say "Good Software". I don't always have time to explain just what a good is to everyone the GSG comes in contact with. I wish when they heard about Good Software--which is admittedly a slightly ambiguous abbreviation for a much more elaborate concept--that they would look at our website, or at the very least, pick up a dictionary. Words mean different things to different people and in different contexts. In my case, a word means just exactly what I say it means, and if people care about what I say it means, they should visit my website.
Hired: Um, and what *does* it mean?
Dawson: Oh right. It's so simple a child could understand it. Good Software is software that is made for the express purpose of facilitating the exchange of any sort of good or service for the purposes of commerce or trade.
Hired: And why did you form the Good Software Group?
Dawson: I'm really glad you asked that. I founded the GSG because at the time, our nation's E-conomy [The editors believe that the interviewee was referring to "electronic economy", but in retrospect, it's unclear. --Hired] was in serious straits, and I thought that a lot of the problem stemmed from wasted programming effort that did not produce Good Software. When programmers waste all their nights creating fritterware and useless eye candy, they are not actually *producing* anything. And without a tangible good for consumers to beg, barter, or steal, not only our E-conomy but also our economy stagnate. Think of the innumerable hours wasted on writing screen-savers. Where are the goods that come of that? Everything is just bits; nothing is tangible. If you're not writing Good Software, your effort has been lost to all of mankind, because you've made *nothing*.
Hired: Is that why you created the the GPL?
Dawson: Yes, that's *exactly* why I created the Good-Software Permanent Licence. The GPL is a way to use copyright law to make absolutely sure that the next bit of oh, I don't know, maybe manufacturing software, for example, can't ever be turned into something non-Good like a screen-saver. You really should go read about the GPL on our website, but what it amounts to is that Good Software can never be subverted into non-Good Software. That way any fixes or changes won't be lost forever to the business community that created the Good Software in the first place. By making sure that all effort on Good Software produces more Good Software, we as a people, a nation, an entire planet all benefit as commerce and trade continue to grow.
Hired: Do you feel that the Good Software Group is neglected when the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal mentions E-commerce but doesn't talk about how important Good Software and the GSG in particular have been to it?
Dawson: I don't care for the word "E-commerce", and you've put your finger on exactly why. It disrespects how important we are. Don't you realize that without Good Software, the E-conomy would be nowhere? It's the very foundation of the entire system! Oh, there isn't always a lot of our stuff there, but we were the guiding light behind it all. That's why I insist upon the term "Good/E-commerce" instead. However, if you really find that difficult, I shall permit you to use the term "E/Good-Commerce" in my presence as a tolerable but not a preferable alternative. The reason I don't care for it as much is that you've placed the Good part too far back, even though I really started it all. At least you give the GSG some credit that way, though.
Hired: I'm sorry -- I'll try to more careful from now on. I'd like to thank you for this interview. I'm sure that this will clarify for our readers your role in the goodware movement--
Dawson: Stop right there! I am not now nor have I ever been a member of the so-called "goodware" movement. I am the founding father of "Good Software" movement, which is completely different. "Goodware" is the despicable term used by a sham libertarian outfit who's trying to reach out to the not-for-profit community. When they say "goodware", they just mean software that's not bad. Can you believe it? Do you realize that they actually support letting people take what was originally Good Software and convert it into something that will never be used for one single good or service? That no longer will money change hands? Why, if everyone did that, our whole country would fall apart! That's not Good Software, and I shall have nothing to do with them. Fortunately, the GPL prohibits them from doing that with GPL'd software, which is why I strongly advocate slapping the GPL on every bit of software you can. It's the only way to keep those gun-toting libertarians off our backs and to keep our nation's E-conomy strong!
Hired: You know, Gilbert, if you were to legally change your name to add a second middle name like "Outspoken", then your initials would be a lot more meaningful for mail. Not only could you get mail sent to "good@gsg.com", but you could make your login a trademark to protect your unique use of the term "GOOD SOFTWARE".
Dawson: That's an intriguing idea -- it would certainly help me in my current legal battles with those pesky lawyers which the liberatian goodware people keep throwing up at me when I tell them they can't say "goodware" because I have prior art in using my own personal standard definition of "good".
But I'd really have to keep the old mail alias. For some reason, folks tend to put more weight into my writings under the current login. And it makes me feel good--er, I mean, important.
Programmers shouldn't be Free Software advocates (Score:1)
I think that attacks like this will seriously hurt Free or Open Software. RMS is said to be political, I think not (at least not the way I think about politics).
A democratic politician is willing to compromise with others that have different views. Otherwise we would be having much more wars and disbutes in the world. Both RMS and now Tom Christiansen has shown that they aren't good advocates for Free Software (or Open Source Software).
ESR maybe is better, but he has shown some very bad advocacy. Especially his rage on Bruce Perens was bad (and that Apple thing).
Conclusion: Programmers shouldn't be Free (or Open Source) Software advocates.
So we need someone better. I sure like Nicholas Petreley (from Linux World), but does he understand the inner workings of Free (Open Source) Software?
Sorry for the AC, I'm not on my normal computer.
Fear of Funniness (Score:3)
A: THAT'S NOT FUNNY!
Re:Satire of Tom Christiansen (tit for tat) (Score:1)
link [epipo.com]
Haha! (Score:1)
Haha!
(Am I the only one to have picked up this joke?)
---
Moral of the Story. (Score:5)
I've observed this principle in everything from technical discussions to religious debates. The people who do all of the yelling are either ignorant and hope noise covers their lack of understanding, or they are hypocritical and trying to deflect attention from their own problems.
Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately?) the Internet lets these people spout off to thousands of people as opposed to the 2 or 3 who happened to be stuck next to them. The result is that people decide that the "gnashing of teeth" is normal behavior for the group, when in reality the majority of people are quite calm and normal. They just don't speak up that often.
The Free Software movement has just as many screaming groupies as any other mildly interesting organization. Just ignore them.
Re:Satire of Tom Christiansen (tit for tat) (Score:2)
Check DejaNews (Score:2)
Re:Check DejaNews (Score:2)
? (Score:1)
What was that? That obviously wasn't supposed to be funny, or maybe I've just lost my sense of humor.
Its seems to me that the only people who will read that are people who will get upset about it.
If you don't know or care about FSF or Gnu or GPL, you will read about 3 sentences of this "interview" and say WTF is this sh*t? What is this "article" supposed to be about? This guy is asking to get flamed.
Wow, how divided we are. (Score:1)
I never realized how divided the camps on Free Software are. I mean I always realized that there existed a gap, but the flames are amazing. Then of course there are those who write comments and have no clue what there are talking about. Maybe I am one of them.
And no I don't have anything constructive to say.
Re:Linux, - I agree.. (Score:1)
Its posts like these that make slashdot worth visiting. He is right, I feel the Open Source movement, Linux, and its tech patrons in general have started to become what they hate, zealots of the media, Originally we are techs had a common bound in the tech world where being a tech and using Unix was enough. Differences we're not rivals. When Linux came out in the early 90s it turned into a Tech vs Tech (Unix vs M$) Us against Them, etc mentallity.
Now with Linux becomming more mainstream, more people with different views will enter the picture, and the once common ground we shared as techs is littered with political, social, and technical in-fighting. No longer enough to be united by a common platform(Unix), more so - it is no longer enough to be united by even a common OS(Linux), we have distribution in-fighting for the same damn kernel!
Techs want to war with themselves, fine - but like any great society, entropy enters into the picture, and its going to be a shame to watch the great roman empire of Linux topple from barbarians from Seattle while we bicker over stupid crap such as the RMS, ERS, and the GPL., we have more recursive abv.'s then we do sense.
The Linux and in general the hi-tech community has grown in the past decade, its no longer a small group of people, these are not the days of KIBO anymore. If you seek attention in this enviroment, the best way is to attack someone famous., its a old and easy way to make yourself known. we don't need this crap, tho I do sympathize as lets face it, RMS is a old ego-maniacal windbag that even I can barely stand.
Rodney Caston
Re:Childish. (Score:1)
You doubtless use much software that, at some point in its development, was compiled on Intel hardware.
So let's slap Intel Inside logos on it all!
slashdot as meta-parody (Score:1)
This is, in fact, the true spirit of Open Source: one person plants a seed, and a thousand others join in, and make the work be much larger and more complete than it originally was.
Of course, in this case, those participating didn't actually realize what they were helping to build, which was the clever twist that Tom brought to the party. Crowd control as performance art, I love it!
Yes (Score:2)
Yes. Then maybe we'll be embarrassed enough to stop behaving like a bunch of immature 11-year-olds.
Disclaimer: I don't speak for Rob, of course.
--
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Leave old-world politics out of this (Score:1)
This has been seen as a grab for recognition, much to the refrain of
The reason this type of statement is so grating to some people is that it actually gives recognition to a specific party. Previously, we recognized Linus, the creator, and no-one else. People were given recognition through their contributions, individually, and not with a big media circus. RMS would like to change this. He wants to give much recognition to GNU, but only to GNU. You might say that adding GNU to the name does no harm, but in fact it seperates GNU from the rest of the coders. The other coders receive normal credit while GNU recieves a whole lot of credit. Is this jealosy? Yup! But one easy way to piss people off is to make demands that don't distribute income evenly (keep in mind the noosphere, wherein recognition is property, so lots of recognition is equivalent to being wealthy).
In summary, the problem with GNU/Linux is that the name ignores all those non-GNU coders who have contributed to the distributions. What about RedHat/Linux, or YDL/Linux? Or should we call it RedHat/LinuxPPC/YDL/GNU/Linux to give fair credit? Perhaps we should just simplify everything and call it Linux.
As to good old politics, I think RMS is politiking right now. He wants his name (or at least GNU's name) all over everything. He wants visitors to his webpage (to read the license). He wants to be in the lime-light.
However, I would not take the stance that GNU is being attacked because it is communist-like. Far from it. The entire Linux community is communist-like. We all share our goods! So would it make sense for one coder to accuse or shun another for the reason that the accused is a coder??? Nope. RMS/GNU is being attacked for reasons I discussed previously.
-B
Re:At least somebody said it... (Score:1)
I disagree that Richard Stallman is the only spokesperson for the FSF; I've been more influenced by the people who have followed his writings than his actions themselves. These are its spokespeople. Why? Because there are more of these people than Richards, and they're more visible. They also write a lot of good software.
Many people root for the FSF, Richard Stallman, and the software covered by his licenses, and this seems to offend Tom. I could respect a summary of his feelings towards the proper definition of "free" or how "free" software should be developed and used. This piece is a parody of style and manner, not of merit. The only lesson you teach by making fun of the students is that when you can't think of anything better, start with the personal attacks.
Re:At least somebody said it... (Score:2)
Tom Christiansen has also given work to the community. Not being a perl-head, my appreciation of his efforts are constrained mostly to watching him protect his name on Slashdot. Tom also believes very much in what he does and isn't afriad to tell the world what he thinks.
The difference in the application of these beliefs. Richard Stallman attacks non-free software. His goal seems to be the demise of proprietary software and the widespread use of software you can share with your neighbor. I'm all for this goal, and I'm sure even Tom would prefer this future over many possible others (I'll leave his definition of "free" for another time).
Instead of attacking software, Tom attacks people. This is the difference. Instead of composing a well-researched criticism of the licenses that offend him, or of Richard's software which isn't technically suited for its use, or even the foundation's principles which he can't appreciate, he parodies a person and his character.
Tom, you're no Larry Wall.
Re:Childish. (Score:1)
Really? I quite like the idea of murder being illegal.
-dan
Go fuck yourself, hypocrite. (Score:1)
The article was funny. RMS does seem awfully self righteous and it's irritating. Re-definition of words is a powerful technique (1984) and is also my main problem with the FSF. Parody is just what's needed.
Re:Why the GPL confuses me (Score:2)
For a minority of programming jobs, the need is distributed on a large number of people, so no single one can pay you. Read the other replies for ideas for how make money on these situations.
Also, there just might be situations where the current model of proprietary code works best. Time will tell.
Re:Childish. (Score:2)
Re:Why such animosity? (Score:2)
Childish. (Score:3)
Tom Christiansen got insulted when Stallman asked for a free replacement for Toms gratis Perl documentation for use in GNU.
Result: TC is trying by all means to rewrite history, so the whole "free software" thing is a devious plot invented by RMS to decieve people. He has tried various strawmans, used insults, and now he is trying satire. Not to mention his _other_ projects to "get even" on RMS, such as creating a GNU free BSD/Linux.
It doesn't change the fact that the free software community is both older than the GNU project, and much larger includes people who doesn't even consider GNU to be "real" free software, since the GPL contains too many restrictions.
Pure Perl versions of GNU commands (Score:1)
This doesn't help. (Score:1)
sheesh,
cbd.
Re:This doesn't help. (Score:1)
# don't read it.
Uh... how can I tell I don't like it until I've read it? And after that, should I be silent about what I've read, unless I agree?
I didn't think that was the point of all this discussion. Maybe I'm wrong; if so, I apologize for my insolence.
cbd.
Re:Why the GPL confuses me (Score:1)
1) The GPL forbids restrictions on the software recipient's right to copy modify, and redistribute the software.
2) RMS says he does not oppose commercial distribution of software.
So how exactly am I supposed to write a piece of software for economic gain? If somebody decides
they don't like me, they can redistribute my software for free and kill my income (I'm assuming for the
moment that software income is separate from any support or subscription fees I might charge).
I feel like I'm missing something here.
Basically, RMS is not on your side: he is on the customer's side. He believes it is the customer's right, when obtaining software, to be allowed to modify, redistribute etc, the code.
The whole thing started because RMS, as a customer, found that a piece of software MIT had bought was useless to him because he was unable to modify it to suit his needs. Proprietary software is less useful. I lost count of the number of times I've thought "This job would be so much easier if I had the source to X" (in a previous job where I spent more time with non-free software).
Most of the GNU projects got written with no profit motive whatsoever: they were giving something to the world, which they thought would make the world a better place.
Remember, RMS (a brilliant programmer) does not consider programming to be a great skill: he does not believe programmers have a god-given right to rake in the big salaries they do today. His beliefs are beginning to be proved: Apache rivals IIS, yet is was (mostly) built by people who are not paid to be programmers (although it is not GPLd, that's beside the point).
Have no doubt: when you GPL your software, you *are* gifting it to humanity; but in the long term, you may have no choice. If and when a GPL alternative to your software comes along, why on earth would your customer choose to go with your proprietary version?
--
Re:Why the GPL confuses me (Score:1)
1. Sell support. Buy my code from me, and I'll come to your rescue if it breaks.
2. Sell enhancements. If you want my code to do XYZ, that's great; I'd be more likely to get to it if I were paid...
3. Sell your brand. Who knows your code better than you do? So, if they want the best version of your code, go to you. Also, if people want code this good for their own projects, they know who to ask.
4. Sell proprietary licensing terms. So you don't want to release source for your driver for my software? Buy my commercial license, which will let you dynamically link to my software without having to reveal source.
There are some ideas. More are available at www.opensource.org.
Ouch.. it fizzes (Score:1)
Michiel
Somehow I think the humor is being missed... (Score:2)
I think most of the people who disagree with RMS mainly disagree with his focus... It seems like it is much more important to him that a) everyone agree with him (and his definition of "free") and b) everyone understand that *he* is responsible the free software movement. (Before anyone flames me, I'm not saying that *is* how he is, just that it's the impression he gives me.)
What I'm quite sure RMS doesn't understand is that most of us really want the same thing he wants. From what I've read of his original reasons for starting the GNU project, RMS wants free and open exchange of ideas, with source code being just one part of that. Publishing source code helps put the "science" back in "computer science", I suppose.
Unlike Tom, I personally believe that the GPL is a Good Thing, since it forces what I consider to be moral behavior on anyone who wants to use code that I've written. Unlike RMS, I don't think that people are evil if they disagree with me, choose not to use my code, and instead use a more restrictive license (including not releasing source at all).
I heard a quote the other day... It went something along the lines of "someone who agrees with me 80% of the time is not my enemy." RMS really needs to understand that many of us are on his side, really, but we get very turned off by the near-religious rhetoric. (Tom might want to think about that a little too...
Now, let's all get back to writing some code.
Re:Linux, FSF, GNU, etc. in the news, etc. (Score:1)
>...Remember the GHANDI quote...
Everybody will quote the man, but no one will get his name right.
Gandhi.
Re:See Tom troll. Troll, Tom! Troll! (Score:1)
Lighten up. (Score:1)
I find it odd that the same people who insist that "free" should retain its popular definition of "gratis" refuse to accept that in culture at large, "hacker" means "cracker". Sometimes the most popular standards are the double-kind.
Whatever, there's code to write.
Re:Childish. (Score:1)
>for a free replacement for Toms gratis Perl
>documentation for use in GNU.
That's because the documentation that comes with Perl already is free, by even Stallman's definition. Stallman has actually accepted this as true, but now complains about the quality of the documentation (which is better than any other major GPL'd software project's docs that I've seen).
There are a few docs in the Perl docset that are NOT "free" according to Stallman, but these are only tutorials and FAQs. Everything else is "free" in both senses of the word.
Re:This doesn't help. (Score:1)
Re:I recently experienced what he has satired (Score:1)
Hmmmm
Re:Childish. (Score:1)
# for someone who is trying to learn the language.
That's your opinion. I learned the language primarily from the man pages. That's not to say there isn't room for more free docs. The greatest need is for a good free Perl tutorial, which is being worked on.
# I think Stallman wanted
# some good documentation for beginners, and what he was talking about was
# a free replacement for the _O'Reilly_ books.
Well, then the man pages are perfect, since they are both free and constitute the majority of the best-selling ORA book, "Progamming Perl". That is, the Camel book is taken almost entirely from the man pages. Of course, the man pages can use some work
Re:Childish. (Score:1)
Re:Childish. (Score:1)
# be guilty of providing correct but largely
# useless (or at least opaque) answers.
That makes no sense to me. Are you saying that where you look up the behavior of substr(), it launches into a discussion about the weather patterns of the Denver area? If it gives the behavior of substr(), it is hard for me to see how that is useless.
Re:childish spite (Score:1)
# think that RMS deserves much more respect than
# this.
All the more reason to "disrespect" him in this way, then.
As I am sure many others here did, I saw the Weird Al VH1 special the other night, and Coolio was shown complaining about how his song was too serious for Al to lampoon it. The obvious response is: "well, then your song is really the one that most needs to be lampooned."
Re:What's the agenda? (Score:1)
I don't want to start a war here, but the simple fact is that for some common definitions of "free", Tom is MORE interested in providing free software than RMS is.
Re:professional jealousy (Score:1)
How completely ignorant. Tom has devoted more time and energy to writing and giving away free software and documentation than almost everyone on Slashdot ever will.
Re:Programmers shouldn't be Free Software advocate (Score:1)
# different views. Otherwise we would be having much more wars and
# disbutes in the world.
What world are you living in?
Re:Slashdot is losing (Score:1)
# crap, including this dumb, pointless satire. I am finding it harder to
# recommend slashdot as much as I used to. Time to look out for a better
# news/discussion site.
I have no problem with intelligent satire like this. I just wish Slashdot would lay off the silly stuff about South Park, Satr Wars, and school shootings.
Re:Why the GPL confuses me (Score:1)
Re:Perl folks are full of you know what (Score:1)
Perl, as a scaled development platform, lends well to fast stable development, perfectly suitable to concept prototyping and portablility testing. It's not C/C++. It was never intended to be, if I understand my history correctly. I'm rather disappointed that you choose to slam Perl users/developers as a whole, based on your opinion of a single person involved in it's development and documentation.
Your statement, calling Perl a 'rather incoherent collection of features noone really understands' does quite well to give us an insight into where you fit in the food chain of intelligencia. I'm rather shocked that you go on to call yourself a C coder, when Perl is a far more distilled animal and (I think) far easier to learn and understand. That being said, Perl lends more to the Unix environment learning curve than raw C itself does, in that it provides interfaces to many of the same functions, in a manner that is typically easier for the new user to understand.
Some of you are probably scoffing and mumbling 'Who gives a crap about newbies?', and honestly, if that's your permanent ingrained attitude, I hope you're sterile and live/work in an environment where you can't influence children. The greatest strength of Unix, and likewise Perl as a natively grown (though win32/etc exported) commodity, stimulate and nurture a neverending learning process, which is important to the expansion, evolution, and sanity of our increasingly technologically savvy culture (despite the high Imac sales).
Larry Wall, as the father of Perl, is probably one of my top few dozen revered people, not for the product itself, but for the cultural stimulation he aimed to produce. I can't honestly say I'm heavily involved in Perl politics, be it the development of Perl itself, or furthering it's growth by supplying useful code. I'm really just an end user who hangs out in #perl on Efnet and learns by osmosis. You malign the lack of 'rational discussions', which simply says 'I browse a couple newsgroups', and not much else.
You don't like Tom. Big deal. Little, insignificant me has been at odds with him, too.
The difference between you and I, is that I know when to point at a single person, and not a group as a whole, by association. Society, and further, mankind as a whole would be a lot better if they'd hop off THAT beaten old stump.
Some of the greatest people I know, I've met on my neverending quest for knowledge, even if it's with what you speak of as an apparantly inferior development tool (that you still use).
I'm off my tangent, now. I apologize for any stress/therapy incurred by my tirade. I just thought that needed to be said.
Why the GPL confuses me (Score:2)
2) RMS says he does not oppose commercial distribution of software.
So how exactly am I supposed to write a piece of software for economic gain? If somebody decides they don't like me, they can redistribute my software for free and kill my income (I'm assuming for the moment that software income is separate from any support or subscription fees I might charge).
I feel like I'm missing something here.
Leave old-world politics out of this (Score:2)
Listen to what RMS says, not how he says it. Leave translating it into more mainstream acceptable speech to other people if they feel inclined to do it. But don't bash RMS for his non-software political views, and use that to score cheap points.
Remember, this is an international movement, and collectivist and leftwing views are much more prevalent outside the United States, so you'll be alienating the rest of the world if you try to make RMS more acceptable to the States.
Re:Childish. (Score:2)
Thanks for the history. I'd been wondering what Tom has against RMS.
It doesn't change the fact that the free software community is both older than the GNU project, and much larger includes people who doesn't even consider GNU to be "real" free software, since the GPL contains too many restrictions.
True. And I'm sure that if Tom had tried debating the issues themselves, he would have gotten a more positive response (hopefully!) than the one he is getting. You don't have to agree with Stallman; many folks don't! But I think the man deserves more respect, at least, than many in the community, and especially Tom, have been giving him.
--
Ian Peters
Re:At least somebody said it... (Score:2)
Yes, people get tired of his ranting about GNU/Linux and Free Software. I get tired of it, too. But that doesn't mean it's not important. Don't disregard the message because of the messenger. It's no accident that we find ourselves here with a high quality, free operating system (note, that's an entire system, not just a kernel) to use. RMS didn't write it all. FSF-sponsored projects didn't write it all. But GNU played a large part in making sure it all got written.
As to your last point, Tom is welcome to poke all the fun he wants to. But this is a discussion community, where people discuss things. So everyone is welcome to a reaction, and if that happens to be that Tom is exploring new ways to carry out his vendetta against RMS, well, sorry. As to myself, if Tom's article was humour, well, then I guess I'm just dour.
--
Ian Peters
What a poor satire (Score:3)
Yes, Stallman can be annoying. Yes, he can be stubborn. Yes, sometimes we all wish he'd just shut up. But he's an idealist, he believes in something, and he follows his beliefs. If you look at what RMS has done, you won't find any ulterior motives, or hidden agendas. He believes in free software, he promotes free software (not himself, as many believe), and most of all, he has worked for (and written!) free software.
Please, compare the rude, offensive, selfish nature of this post with the eloquence of RMS's post of several days ago. I think you'll find a world of difference.
Standard disclaimers: I don't work for the FSF or GNU, I have an email address @gnu.org because I write free software. My beliefs are my own, yada yada yada.
--
Ian Peters
Re:At least somebody said it... (Score:1)
Oh, we're not disregarding the message because of the messenger....we're disregarding the message because we're tired of being beaten over the head with it.
Funny... come on people... (Score:1)
"One of the characteristics of healthy cultures is that they can poke fun at themselves. I guess the hacker culture is in good health, because User Friendly is hilarious. Its irreverence, sophisticated in-jokes and surrealistic edge are a rocket straight out of the Internet's collective unconscious." - Eric S. Raymond, ubergeek
I know the quote is from ESR not RMS but think about it long and hard... It's a joke people...
Jokes are not nesicarily a form of disrespect.
"There is no spoon" - Neo, The Matrix
"SPOOOOOOOOON!" - The Tick, The Tick
Re:Check DejaNews (Score:1)
Why Larry puts up with Tom?
Because he is tolerant and understanding.
Actually... (Score:1)
childish spite (Score:1)
I honestly think that the various open source groups out there may end up hurting us alot more than helping us. The QT license, for instance, is not a great deal better than the old Minix license, if I read it correctly. Remember that the only thing that the Minix license gave us, coupled with AST's unwillingness to add and fix things in Minix, was the necessity to create an entire new OS with linux.
While the various open source proponents may have tried to help our world, I think that in the end they may hurt it. While we may have gained a great number of short-term benefits, such as greater exposure in the press and more respect and recognition (hey, we're even competitors to Microsoft!), I think that, in the long run, we will be hurt. We will be left with many projects that will stagnate from disinterest, and companies like Microsoft saying "See there? We told you open source was bad." We'll also be left with the pieces of dozens of dead projects with incompatible licenses whose work cannot ever be salvaged for code snippets.
Perhaps the best thing that the FSF can do right now is to just wait. I think that only time will tell whether free software or open source will reign supreme. My belief is that all of these incompatibly-licensed projects from various vendors suddenly embracing open source will die within ten years, while GNU's contributions, which were born long before the words "open" and "source" were placed togethor, will still be the cornerstone upon which we place our OSes.
Instead of having empowered the free software community, we have instead empowered a bunch of marketting machines who feel that they can exploit our wealth to expand their own. The most ludicrous example of this is IBM's supposed advocation of open source. Can we please try to remember that IBM is the same company that holds the most software patents in the world?
I think that I should also say that I greatly disapprove of RMS's adoption of Linux as GNU/Linux, not because I don't think that RMS has a right to claim it, but because I think that GNU is more than Linux. As a slashdotter who as maligned you in the past, RMS, I apologize.
Re:What a poor satire (Score:2)
It also shows what a poor name Free Software is when 95% of the people think "Free beer" not "Free speech" when they hear it. It sometimes seems that FSF people spend more energy explaining the meaning than they do coding
Re:Hear Hear! (Score:2)
I can feel Tom's frustration with them, I have read much of their web site, and I agree with alot of it, but there are things there that I find very disturbing, so I can't agree with them 100%. But if you try to state your opinion (even in a non-flamebait manner) you will attract flames. (Ok, there are reasonable people in the GNU camp, but they tend to get drowned out amid the flames)
Looking through the comments, there are a disturbing number of "That's not funny/Why is Tom so mean/How can anyone like RMS" comments, showing that these people do truly seem to lack a sense of humor when it comes to this stuff.
Re:Editorial policy (Score:1)
As some (alarmingly few) in this discussion have noted, the Slashdot community has become increasingly fanatical in its beliefs, as evidenced by the increasing amount of poorly researched, no humour-having, "immature 11 year-old" posts. These inside forces are what threaten to tear free software apart, not whether or not TC likes RMS. A simple personality dispute is one thing, reaching critical mass in religious-like belief is something entirely different...
It's also an anti-ESR rant (Score:2)
Looking at the piece without any knowledge of TC and RMS's past, it appears to be a satire of both sides of Open Source/Free Software lampooned at once -- RMS's high horse and ESR's relentless commercial angle. Scylla and Charybdis, all in one, and both sides accused of claiming to be "GOD".
Looked at this way, I find the piece instructive (as good satire should be) -- there are aspects of both that should be avoided. Certainly, we shouldn't alienate the mainstream, but neither should we look to it for salvation. Capitalism, after all, has a long history of sacrificing the long-term for the short. (See Also: pre-WWI radio industry, the early days of the sewing machine industry. Le plus ce change...)
phil
Oh, come on (Score:1)
Re:The FSF is a scam (Score:1)
no restrictions on use (Score:1)
I gotta give Tom credit, but the "real" GPL does not restrict the use of software the way the Good-Software Permanent License does. That's a weak point in the analogy, at least if you assume that a near-100% Free Software world is possible. Which is not as outrageous, IMO, as a 100% "Good" Software world.
Re:Maybe it's just that I've never heard of it... (Score:1)
FSF => GSG
Richard Stallman => Gilbert Oram Dawson
Wired => Hired
Free Software => Good Software
"free" as in free speech => "good" as in goods and services
General Public License => Good-Software Permanent License
GPL restrictions on distribution => restrictions on use
GNU/Linux => Good/E-Commerce
Re:no restrictions on use (Score:1)
New category please (Score:1)
Could you please make a new category, "christiansen-generated-dribble" or "jealous hatred" or "flamebait" or the like so this can be filtered out?
Erwin
You miss Tom's point (Score:1)
I recently experienced what he has satired (Score:3)
My question (which basically boiled down to "if I can trade the program I just wrote to a company in exchange for a mini-van, how can you say it has no value?"), resulted in a caustic email from an individual that apparently felt strongly enough to write me and accuse me of first being an idiot and secondly never reading any RMS material.
Note that as an author of an LGPL released package (backburner, see freshmeat.net), this is a pretty silly accusation to make (the never having read the RMS material that is... he may be right about the idiot part
When I pressed him for explanations of the parts of the philosopy that confused me... he kept simply pointing me to the web site.
When I tried to get clarifications on the parts of the logic that escape me, his responses alternated between "if you can't see it, you must be stupid" and "it's on the website, go read it", and "it says what I said it says because I said so".
Plus, the whole exchange was pretty mean spirited.
So anyway, I have experienced exactly what this article is parodying... so like most better parody, I can't decide if it is funny or disturbing...
Please... no email flames already...
Bill Kilgallon
Free vs. Open Holy War (Score:1)
While not everyone can agree/disagree on the stance that RMS has taken, I have to look at the track record (ie. the accomplishments). If everyone were to say that software is terrible just because the author doesn't agree with their ideals, it would be a very sad day indeed.
From what I can see, the "free" camp and the "open" camp are taking stances akin to a "holy war". The only way to really win a holy war is to completely eliminate the other side. Don't think about doing this!
So, let us put our political stances aside and work to make the best software there is.
Agreed. (Score:1)
IMHO, RMS is doing the Linux/GNU/BSD communities a big favor with his FSF propaganda.. sticking his neck out, sometimes obtrusively, where others wouldn't...
I realize it's not by everyones' standards/liking, but you can't please everyone with everything you do...
oh yeah... i didn't agree with everything in this post... the comment about humans being political animals? no. we have a society driven in part by politics which tends to corrupt errr.. create politicians..
------------------------------------------
Reveal your Source, Unleash the Power. (tm)
Quite possible. (Score:1)
That was good. Er, I mean well-done. (Score:1)
I'd like to see more of these, although I probably shouldn't read them at work (the loud laughter would probably disturb people).
Why doesn't this guy get a life? (Score:2)
Jesus, Christiansen, grow up already. Stallman may be an annoying monomaniac about software, but software is at least interesting -- you on the other hand are an annoying monomaniac about Stallman, which is just plain childish. Fine, you hate the guy. We got the picture. Grow out of it already.
"Once a solution is found, a compatibility problem becomes indescribably boring because it has only... practical importance"
Re:RMS is doing an important service to us; now To (Score:1)
What RMS is doing is often not good, and certainly not necessary. One of his explicit goals is to rid the world not only of proprietary software, but also free software that is not GPL'd. He comes right out and says this when he explains why the readline library is GPL'd rather than LGPL'd.
cjs
Re:RMS is doing an important service to us; now To (Score:1)
cjs
Re:RMS is doing an important service to us; now To (Score:1)
As for Darwin, Apple has contributed all sorts of code and fixes back in to the NetBSD tree. So we certainly benefitted from this. What has Linux got from Darwin? Nothing.
cjs
Re:Hear Hear! (Score:1)
Had you looked at the psalms, written mostly by Gods most favourite person, David. You would see that David is also one of Gods biggest critics. David gets very angry at God.
Humor is deffinatly not absent from Christianty either, though I admit it is hard to find any humor in the Bible - However I have a locally written translation that is very funny, mostly using satire.
---
This discussion is trash... (Score:1)
Re:Linux, FSF, GNU, etc. in the news, etc. (Score:1)
Re:Linux, FSF, GNU, etc. in the news, etc. (Score:1)
Linux, FSF, GNU, etc. in the news, etc. (Score:2)
First they ignore you.
Then they laugh at you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.
Pretty, er, good. (Score:2)
Re:Go fuck yourself, hypocrite. (Score:1)
But the FSF has never tried to redefine words. The fact remains that no other word in the English language means "free" in the sense that RMS means it except for the word "free" itself, which has other meanings as well. It is completely reasonable for RMS to define how he is using that word since it is not immediately obvious unless you've already heard the speech on it.
It's childish to make fun of RMS for defining his terms. Everyone ought to define what they're talking about if it's not obvious. And due to a particular inadequacy in the English language, RMS must provide an explanation. When I have seen him speak he has been very concise on this point.
Re:Go fuck yourself, hypocrite. (Score:1)
"the whole rest of the [English speaking] world" uses the word free in several contexts as well. He never "lies by omission," that's the whole point of him explaining his terms. If he *didn't* explain the terms, his speeches might be misleading.
Judean People's Front? (Score:2)
etc.
etc.
etc.
professional jealousy (Score:1)
Anti-Stallman Hackers Unite! (Score:1)
our slogan (Score:1)
Re:I recently experienced what he has satired (Score:2)
Just in case it is not so yet, let me try to clarify it: the GNU GPL, the FSF or even RMS are not saying you code has no value; it is just that this value should be not artificially augmented by restricting the user's freedom to copy, modify and redistribute.
This is why the GPL does not forbid you to sell anything, but requires you to make the source code available to your buyer under the same conditions you received it itself. This doesn't prevent you from having an alternate (proprietary) licensing scheme for code of which you are the sole author.
Why such animosity? (Score:3)
Everyone and your father know that RMS is a
polemist sparing no one, but his critics are always to the point, never personal -- even when he calls Tim O'Reilly a "parasite", he has before him the objective situation of non-free documentation about free software.
Not so with Tom. He seems to grudge that many people do consider GNU GPL the ultimate free software license. Also ESR seems to grudge the moral stance ESR has taken outside of the Open Source thing.
I consider this one to be the most detrimental issue in free software politics these days. It is highly visible to the outside world and generates much ill will. Even I myself, a non-coder with no personal interest in the matter, have been personally attacked with dirty words by both ESR and Tom while trying to write them about these issue, showing that the thing has gone much farther than the uninterested ideas discussion.
This has become like a personal vendetta agains RMS, and as such quite childish and destructive. Both Tom and ESR claim that it is not like that, but then it really seeems like that -- and appearances are enough to poison a community. Let's >
RMS is doing an important service to us; now Tom.. (Score:2)
which makes this satire mean, pure and simple. Tom seems convinced that RMS is a glory-seeker -- everything I read by and about RMS, indicates that he pushes GNU (as opposed to RMS) because he wants the issue of freedom to be prominent.
Yes, RMS is a political man: duh, humans are political animals! The point is not to escape politics and just quietly make good software -- you can't, because then someone who has NOT escaped politics, will swindle you; the point is to be political in the right direction.
The entire objectivist and libertarian (well, for SOME, more extreme, libertatians) apolitical schtick is much more of a hollow dream than communism ever was. What RMS is doing is The Right Thing, IMO, despite his abrasiveness -- he pushes a political issue that is critical to our (software geeks') survival as a culture. The fact that Tom tries to turn this into personal glory-seeking shows, I think, either misunderstanding of what RMS is talking about, or a personal agenda which Tom is not willing to [publicly] admit to.
Ultimately, it is pure and simple: What RMS is doing is not merely good, is it necessary. What Tom is doing (in this article at least) is partisan and mean.
--
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What a poor satire (Score:2)
_Anything_ worth standing up for can stand up to satire, especially such as this. I love satire, ESPECIALLY when it's directed against something I particularly like, beacuse then I can see the flaws better to be able to defend the thing as a whole. To elaborate: If I like something, I want to truly understand it, but once I like it, I am clouded slightly to it's faults and someone else's satire (or spoof, depending) is easily the best vehicle. If you disagree with Tom, be happy, you better understand the other side's point of view, and much more clearly than if they had just come out and said it. And if you agree, then be happy that someone has the guts to write something beneficial to both.
The real appeal, however, in this article, is in the bigger picture, rather than the points it makes. It exposes the bickering that exists on
I'm a Canadian - but I still believe in the 1st amendment.
Micah McCurdy
Re:Leave old-world politics out of this (Score:2)
I can't speak for anyone else but I criticize the FSF for the exact same reason Tom is in the above article. The GPL is not a free software license, it's an mandatory-open-source-copyable-usable or gratis license. There are much free'er licenses out there that don't prance around proclaiming how free they are.
On a side note - I've seen quite a few contentious posts from Tom, however he's always been pleasant in email as has everyone else on gnu.misc.discuss.
If RMS wants to be heard and wants to accomplish his goals then HE needs to work on his delivery instead of asking us to ignore it. People who are a little more moderate and reasonable like Linus and ESR are more successful in their communications for a reason. It's not about collectivism, it's about being reasonable.
Hear Hear! (Score:2)
Ah well...
Manhood fantasies? (Score:2)
Tell a man that there are 400 Billion stars and he'll believe you
Tom's not better (Score:2)
same old things, but he is too. Actually
I'm going to create a Tom Christiansen-free
distribution as a reaction. And that's much
easier than a GNU-free distribution.
Reminds me a news post where said Tom
Christiansen was proudly declaring
"I didn't put the examples in my [Perl]
documentation because the GPL is bad, the
GPL is a virus, blah blah blah", except
that he didn't put any other kind of
authorisation, so his examples were protected
by the copyright law, which is much more
restrictive than the GPL.
Also, he was blaming rms because standard
distributions did not include his documentation
about Perl in the "core" (non-distrib).
He thought, but without ever having
stated it in writting, that even
though he had put restrictions on the
redistribution on his work, these did not apply
when bundling his docs with Perl.
So all the distributions of Perl were
"crippled", because everybody should have been
reading his thoughts and guessing that he
meant that there were special conditions
were distribution with a fee was allowed,
and he blamed rms for it!
I don't think that RedHat takes much advice from
rms, but I guess it's useful to have someone
to blame everything wrong on.
At least somebody said it... (Score:3)