DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Some of my criticisms focused on the message: fsf.org and gnu.org together suffer from no small degree of incomprehensibility and inaccessibility which makes it difficult for new participants to learn about the movement and apply it in practice to their own projects.This is something which is relatively easily fixed!
Posted Jun 19, 2023 16:45 UTC (Mon)
by SLi (subscriber, #53131)
[Link] (119 responses)
"There are also some non-goals, such as:
- Association with any particular free software project or organization
I must say I am utterly confused if the author desires or does not desire cooperation with the open source movement. I get the feeling that it's the first, since the website isn't full of vitriol towards the open source movement (and IMO describes the situation pretty honestly), but IDK.
Posted Jun 19, 2023 16:59 UTC (Mon)
by dave_malcolm (subscriber, #15013)
[Link]
Posted Jun 19, 2023 17:00 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (3 responses)
I really hope that's not true, because it's evidence the FSF or whoever are turning into the fanatical minority who's primary purpose in life is to provide amusement for everyone else by shooting themselves in the feet with monotonous regularity.
I've already said that - for me - the difference between GPL and BSD is "a distinction without a difference".
I'm pragmatic - I don't care for the difference, but if all my software - from choice - is Open Source, surely that means I'm a practical Free Software guy?
This stance basically says "If you won't nail your colours to our mast, then you're the enemy". Go around picking fights with people who are naturally inclined to support you, and watch your fan base melt like a snowball in the Sahara sun ...
Cheers,
Posted Jun 20, 2023 0:11 UTC (Tue)
by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418)
[Link] (2 responses)
> I really hope that's not true, because it's evidence the FSF
FSF didn't write that quote and had no involvement in it, there is no good reason to think this is evidence of anything about the FSF. Random people say random opinions on the internet and people show up and say things like: this further evidence the FSF is X Y and Z. And refuting it can draw attention and do more harm than good. To learn about FSF, try going to https://www.fsf.org
Posted Jun 20, 2023 20:53 UTC (Tue)
by developer122 (guest, #152928)
[Link] (1 responses)
https://twitter.com/mjg59/status/1402885119161995264
AIan Kelling, senior member of the FSF, advocating for someone to fork the Rust uutils for no other reason that they didn't choose the FSF's preferred licence. I'm sure AT&T were quite unhappy when GNU started re-implemnting Unix under a different licence too.
Pretty poor cooperation with your peers in the open source community, to say the least.
https://www.reddit.com/r/programmingcirclejerk/comments/4...
There's even some speculation that you were the one who created the (now deleted) GPL fork of those same Rust uutils. Whoever did so managed to violate the one condition of their permissive licence, failing to give credit.
Posted Jun 21, 2023 0:35 UTC (Wed)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link]
Regardless of how we may feel about Ian, such speculation is *wholly inappropriate* unless there is very strong evidence to support it. We should not go around randomly accusing people of infringing copyright merely because of an ideological disagreement.
Posted Jun 19, 2023 17:00 UTC (Mon)
by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)
[Link]
The confusion comes from the usage of double negation ie) it's a non-goal to not cooperate with the open source movement. If the author has a background in writing as stated, then the solution is straightforward and can be communicated more directly instead.
Posted Jun 19, 2023 17:05 UTC (Mon)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link]
Posted Jun 19, 2023 17:10 UTC (Mon)
by ddevault (subscriber, #99589)
[Link] (111 responses)
Posted Jun 19, 2023 17:15 UTC (Mon)
by donbarry (guest, #10485)
[Link] (84 responses)
No thanks.
I'd rather have honest and blunt analyses than pink unicorns, hosannas, and "Let's all get along." Because it's not an even playing field, and pretending otherwise does us no good and strengthens those who are objectively our enemies.
Posted Jun 19, 2023 17:16 UTC (Mon)
by ddevault (subscriber, #99589)
[Link] (64 responses)
Posted Jun 19, 2023 17:21 UTC (Mon)
by donbarry (guest, #10485)
[Link] (17 responses)
You are valorizing freedom by metrics determined largely by modern corporate needs and demands, not that of the user community.
And using identity politics to attack Richard Stallman.. Really filthy stuff behind all the positive language. Opportunism writ large. I'll have none of it.
Posted Jun 19, 2023 17:27 UTC (Mon)
by ddevault (subscriber, #99589)
[Link] (9 responses)
Commercial interests have also always had a seat at the free software table. Programmers need to get fed, and free software has never been incompatible with commercialization -- since the very start you have been able to sell free software. The goal of the movement shouldn't be to kick out corporations, but to get them playing on our terms: with copyleft.
Open source ate the world, not free software. You want to stay the course and keep letting free software philosophy and copyleft licenses dwindle into obscurity? No thanks. The movement does not belong to you, or to me, and it is what we make of it.
As for RMS, I don't see any reason to argue the point. Ask yourself this: what has RMS done for the free software movement in the past 20 years? And in that same time period, how many tales of people getting put off by him have come forth? Are we making a movement which grows and includes as many people as possible, or are we slamming the door shut and waiting for all of our projects and enthusiasts to die off while the world moves on around us? The free software movement is ossifying because of this stick in the mud attitude. You construe me and my words as an attack on free software? Find a mirror.
Posted Jun 19, 2023 17:39 UTC (Mon)
by SLi (subscriber, #53131)
[Link] (7 responses)
I think RMS deserves recognition for having been instrumental in starting FOSS despite seeming like the grumpy idealist all the time. He still seems like the grumpy idealist. As to how useful that will turn out to be in the future, your guess is as good as mine. (I certainly disagree with FSF about some topics, like FDL invariant sections, and I think RMS's stance against GNU projects supporting LLVM, and against a more modular GCC, is actively harmful. Then, his goals are not my goals, and these stances seem to make sense, at least if you squint, given his expressed goals.)
Posted Jun 19, 2023 18:24 UTC (Mon)
by jwarnica (subscriber, #27492)
[Link]
Also true that no one man has done more to hurt Free Software than RMS.
The emperor has not had any clothes for several decades.
Posted Jun 19, 2023 22:13 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (5 responses)
FOSS != Free Software.
The OSS part of FOSS was almost certainly around before RMS was born!
I used to describe RMS as a prophet - a lot of what he predicted has come true. Now he seems much more a Cassandra - his terrible predictions are self-fulfilling, and he is one of the main causes of it!
Cheers,
Posted Jun 20, 2023 21:47 UTC (Tue)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (4 responses)
I think it's worse than that. For every well-meaning Drew DeVault there are dozen FSF zealots like @donbarry or @rahulsundaram who are doing everything they could to ensure no one would join FSF's side. Ultimately we would have the web site which would simply explain what “Free software” movement was, why it no longer exist and why one shouldn't use that term today. The only way to avoid that fate is public condemnation of FSF Zealots of the FSF's web site (not on some whitewashing site) which is not gonna happen as long as RMS lives. The web site itself is really well-done, there are no doubt about that, but no, the problem with FSF is not it's poor web site. It's that vitriol of FSF Zealots to anyone who is not sharing their religion that makes FSF toxic, not any problems with the web site.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 22:13 UTC (Tue)
by pebolle (guest, #35204)
[Link] (3 responses)
Apparently one time is not enough to get a message across, right?
Posted Jun 20, 2023 23:26 UTC (Tue)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (2 responses)
No, you just need to distinguish people like Drew DeVault who just try to support “free software” as much as they could (pointless exercise if you'll ask me, but hey, it's their choice!) from people like @donbarry or @rahulsundaram who proclaim that anyone who doesn't subscribe under their ideals is their enemy and is not worth talking to. If you have better name for that later ones than “FSF Zealots” then I would use it. So far “FSF Zealot” looks like the best moniker for them.
Posted Jun 21, 2023 8:24 UTC (Wed)
by mattdm (subscriber, #18)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 21, 2023 11:18 UTC (Wed)
by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
[Link]
Posted Jun 21, 2023 12:29 UTC (Wed)
by rqosa (subscriber, #24136)
[Link]
> Free software and open source differ in philosophy That's what RMS claimed in his essay from 1998, but in 1999, Bruce Perens wrote a response (as a post to debian-devel) in which he said that he never intended for the OSI and/or the OSD to differ in their values from the FSF/FSD. (Key points: the entire second paragraph, and "We must make it clear to the world that [the freedoms involved in Free Software] are still important, and that software such as Linux would not be around without them".)
Posted Jun 19, 2023 18:24 UTC (Mon)
by flussence (guest, #85566)
[Link] (2 responses)
I've noticed a common thread in the modern-day FSF devout. None of them know a fscking thing about what they're talking about, all of them are dime-a-dozen internet bigots, and the only thing they bring to the table is verbal abuse and worse of *people who actually write FOSS*. Whether it's Rust, Systemd, uutils, emacs' own userbase or the next campaign of hate speech, Stallman Stans time and time again prove that they're the damage that needs to be routed around.
Look in the mirror and do better.
Posted Jun 19, 2023 19:51 UTC (Mon)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (1 responses)
That's particularly rich, coming at the tail end of a load of verbal abuse.
You might want to follow your own advice, and do better.
Posted Jun 19, 2023 20:28 UTC (Mon)
by pebolle (guest, #35204)
[Link]
Posted Jun 19, 2023 21:24 UTC (Mon)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (3 responses)
I'm sorry. Which significant projects has FSF produced within the last 10 years?
From the OSS side we have tons of development in AI, whole new language infrastructures (Go, Clang, Rust), giant improvements in large-scale infrastructure support (K8s, OpenStack), and so on.
I'm only seeing FSF still producing a lot of noises about GNU/Linux vs Linux.
Posted Jun 21, 2023 9:03 UTC (Wed)
by rqosa (subscriber, #24136)
[Link]
> From the OSS side […] RMS's statement from 1998 that "The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are like two political camps within the free software community" is misleading when taken at face value. Consider the context in which he wrote that: as a reponse to ESR's essay from February of that year (and co-founding of the OSI later that month) which stated that "everywhere we as a culture have previously talked about "free software", the label should be changed to "open source"". Therefore, when RMS mentioned "the Open Source movement" in that essay, he was referring to people (mainly ESR) who were promoting use of the phrase "Open Source". That's the distinction between "The Free Software movement" versus "the Open Source movement" that he was making there: people who prefer the term "Free Software" versus people who prefer the term "Open Source". Yes, I know he also said that "The term “open source” quickly became associated with a different approach, a different philosophy, [and] different values", but that's not a statement of fact, it's really just anti-OSI rhetorical posturing to portray the FSF as being morally superior to them. FLOSS developers as a whole are a huge group, the vast majority of whom are not affiliated with either organization, and the personal "values" held by people in this group vary a lot from one person to another and don't align exactly with those of either organization. It's also worth mentioning that the other co-founder of the OSI, Bruce Perens, said in 1999 that his purpose in founding the OSI was "[to introduce] the non-hacker world to Free Software", that "Now that the world is watching, it's time for us to start teaching them about Free Software. Notice, I said Free Software, _not_ Open Source", that "Most hackers know that Free Software and Open Source are just two words for the same thing", and most importantly that "We must make it clear to the world that [the freedoms involved in Free Software] are still important, and that software such as Linux would not be around without them". As far as I'm concerned, this proves that RMS was incorrect when he claimed that "We disagree with the open source camp on the basic goals and values", because that message was one of the OSI's co-founders saying that he agrees with the FSF's values.
> we have […] Go, Clang, Rust And from the Free Software side, we also have all three of those projects… unless you can explain what exactly about Rust et al classifies them as being "from the OSS side", as opposed to "from the Free Software side". For example, neither the front page nor the license page of Rust's website uses either of those phrases explicitly; instead, the license page just lists the two licenses that the project uses and links to the full text of the licenses. Or, to put it in the terminology that RMS used in that 1998 essay, the Rust project qualifies as being part of "the free software community", but probably don't qualify as belonging to either of the two "movements", because they're a large project with many different contributors who cannot be neatly categorized as being on either "the OSS side" or "the Free Software side" (and there's no way to measure an large group of people's "values" to see whether in aggregate they are more like those of the FSF, the OSI, or somewhere in between), and because the project doesn't seem to explicitly state a preference for either "Free Software" or "Open Source Software" terminology. > Which significant projects has FSF produced within the last 10 years? That's irrelevant, because direct affiliation with the FSF is not one of the criteria that determines whether or not a software project is "from the Free Software side". The only thing that matters is whether or not its license meets the Free Software Definition's criteria. And, likewise, any software whose license meets the Open Source Definition's criteria is "from the OSS side". And, in practice, the FSD and the OSD are functionally equivalent (which is exactly why Perens said that "Most hackers know that Free Software and Open Source are just two words for the same thing"). (Oh, and if one were to ask the opposite question — i.e. "which significant software projects has the OSI produced within the last 10 years?", or even "which significant software projects has the OSI ever produced?" — and then use that as the criterion for determining whether a given software project is "from the OSS side" or not, that could easily lead one to conclude that there isn't any software "from the OSS side".)
Posted Jun 21, 2023 20:36 UTC (Wed)
by Deleted user 129183 (guest, #129183)
[Link] (1 responses)
During the latest protests in Iran I’ve seen activists recommending to each other the use of GNU Jami for communication, which is, as they say on their website, ‘a GNU project backed by the Free Software Foundation and licensed under GNU GPLv3 or later’.
This is already much more important than all that scholasticism about ‘memory-safe languages’ and whatnot.
Posted Jun 22, 2023 0:12 UTC (Thu)
by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
[Link]
Jami may be a GNU project, but A) it wasn't actually developed by FSF (it was created by Savoir-faire Linux and later added to GNU) and B) it dates back to the mid 2000s, so it wouldn't count as coming in the past 10 years.
I think it's actually a good example of exactly what FSF is and isn't doing. It's a Free Software-friendly home for small- and mid-sized projects that aren't big enough to have their own foundation and support infrastructure but that have outgrown wherever they started. That's a really important role, because those projects might decline into irrelevance without that kind of support. FSF is not where exciting new projects get their start. FSF is also really good at claiming credit for projects that were developed and matured elsewhere but that transitioned to FSF for their long-term support phase.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 0:35 UTC (Tue)
by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418)
[Link] (45 responses)
I really fail to see how https://www.fsf.org/blogs/recent-blog-posts has a message of catfighting with OSS. Drew, I and others who work at the FSF will talk to you about the FSF if you want to have a dialog, and perhaps influence the FSF, instead of just slinging smears.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 6:24 UTC (Tue)
by ddevault (subscriber, #99589)
[Link] (44 responses)
https://lwn.net/Articles/935269/
The language of the official resources on FSF.org and GNU.org when describing OSS read as very antagonistic and "know-better" documents which stop just short of condemnation. And if the FSF is *perceived* as having a policy of non-cooperation with OSS, then it's still the FSF's fault, because it underlines that the messaging is failing.
I am willing to talk to the FSF, but I have little reason to believe it would do anything. The FSF burned a lot of its social capital to die on RMS's hill, you know. My first blog post, which made level headed (but severe) criticisms of the FSF, has garnered no response from the FSF with an eye to acknowledging, addressing, or even rebuking any of the points I made in April.
The FSF can be fixed but you have to kick out this creepy loser and commit to broad, meaningful reforms in order to have any chance.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 6:25 UTC (Tue)
by ddevault (subscriber, #99589)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Jun 20, 2023 18:08 UTC (Tue)
by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418)
[Link] (3 responses)
RMS is a board member, and FSF has published something to help avoid mistaken assumptions about what that means: https://www.fsf.org/about/board-of-directors-code-of-ethics
And more relevant information:
Posted Jun 20, 2023 18:16 UTC (Tue)
by SLi (subscriber, #53131)
[Link]
Posted Jun 20, 2023 18:21 UTC (Tue)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link] (1 responses)
He did reach out to the FSF - if RMS is a board member, and he's approached for something that the FSF should deal with, then it is RMS's responsibility (both moral and in many cases legal) to make sure that it's routed to the right people at the FSF.
That an outsider didn't follow FSF processes is not on the outsider - it's on the FSF board member who failed to handle the query correctly. And same applies if you're reaching out to somewhere like Amazon, Google or Facebook - if you reach out to Jeff Bezos, Larry Page or Mark Zuckerberg for something that's relevant to their respective companies, it's not on you to follow their corporate procedures, it's on the recipient to do so.
The only alternative action you can take that doesn't reflect on your organisation is to simply not respond at all, so that the person who reached out looks for alternative contact routes.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 18:50 UTC (Tue)
by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
[Link]
Everyone in the organization, from CEO to the lowliest intern, should know this stuff. People will try to contact random people in your organization, both because that's the email they happen to have and because they're trying to get comments from someone other than the official channel. You need to teach everyone in the organization how to deal with it, and the best approach is just to have them forward the message to the right person. My general approach is to say something like, "Sorry, I'm the wrong person to talk to about this. You should try contacting our Strategic Communications department at foobar@example.com, who I have CCed on this message." It's simple, direct, and gets me out of the way as quickly as possible.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 7:43 UTC (Tue)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (30 responses)
I generally like your website. I think we need 20 more like this.
Richard believes we need to fight for human rights in every domain. He believes, AFAICT, that discussing everything is a moral obligation because shying away from a topic allows injustice to flourish unchecked.
For him, this moral obligation completely outweighs the social risks involved with discussing sensitive topics. And sometimes he focusses on a detail, and some people interpret this as lack of condemnation of some other issue that they see as clearly more important. Some people say his mind works this way because he's neurodivergent. He's certainly different. I'd guess a lot of people who change the world have minds that work a bit different to most people.
He wrote 25,000 political notes (micro blogs). Some people didn't like his positions on software and technology. Some people trawled through his 25,000 notes and hundreds of hours of recorded speeches and found ten statements which sounded bad. The (bullying) campaign began. Richard's positions on software and technology started getting less attention.
The above is why I think most criticism of Richard is undeserved, and that people will at some point be ashamed how how they treated him.
But it's also true that, for right or wrong, Richard has lost the support of a part of the community. And you're right that FSF has to decide how to deal with this. But let's discuss this without slurs.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 8:24 UTC (Tue)
by ddevault (subscriber, #99589)
[Link] (22 responses)
To answer this question, I draw your attention to a few specific problems with the status quo.
First, I don't think that anyone should suffer political suicide for expressing a few upsetting opinions. However, it's important to recognize the fact that the FSF is essentially a mouthpiece for RMS, or at the very least is unable to meaningfully break with him on any matters of policy or messaging. As a result it's difficult to distinguish the political positions of the FSF from those of RMS. To draw attention to one of the most egregious writings of RMS which was called out by his opponents, he has gone on record as expressing the view that minors may be able to consent to having sex with adults. I am quite uninterested in litigating the veracity of this claim on LWN (short answer: absolutely fucking not), but I draw attention to it because it's an incredibly charged issue which has nothing to do with free software and justifiably makes many people uncomfortable with RMS as a person. This is a view which, for example, would easily justify a parent preventing their child from attending an event he presents at. There are many less charged opinions that he has forwarded which raise similar concerns, none of which have anything to do with free software and are a harmful distraction when given a platform in the free software discourse. Again, RMS could express challenging views in private, but the degree to which the FSF is entangled with RMS makes it difficult to view it as an institution independent of these views.
Even without rendering a moral judgement on RMS, under these circumstances can this person reasonably be said to be a good leader for our movement? Does having him in a leadership position further the goals of the free software movement? Not at all. This creates an exclusionary environment and makes free software a political wildfire. No one benefits from having RMS's fringe ideas associated with free software, but because the FSF has institutionalized a cult of personality around him that association is inescapable.
Second, RMS is a creep. I understand that you view this characterization as insulting, but at this point it's a statement of fact and acknowledging that he is a creep is a necessary step towards addressing the problem. We have heard more than enough stories of sexual harassment to raise serious concern that demand action. The FSF treats RMS as "too big to fail", he is such an important creep that we cannot remove him. This is not okay. Moveover, he's just a bit of a jerk. His rhetoric, which defines the broader rhetoric of the FSF, is antagonizing to anyone who does not tow the line. His writings, those endorsed as the official message of the FSF, have created a political atmosphere which insults and derides so many people, from victims of commercial software's predatory tactics to people we should ostensibly view as allies in the open source movement, a movement which in the absence of these problems has been met with orders of magnitude more success in forwarding the practice of free software, if not the same principles and philosophy.
Third: what does RMS even do for the free software movement anymore? Can you name anything he's done in the past twenty years? I can only name a few, all times when he's risen from years of non-involvement in "his" communities to make things worse: crippling GCC's ability to compete with LLVM, derailing the emacs project's attempts to move on from bzr, or surprising everyone with major overhauls to glibc's documentation without seeking consensus. All of these communities responded by making moves to reduce or eliminate his leadership role in their respective projects.
The FSF has chosen to die on his hill, and to be clear, that choice means death. The free software movement is bigger than RMS, and bigger than the FSF, but if all roads lead to RMS then the open source movement, absent the principles and philosophy of free software, will continue to dominate our message and the free software movement is doomed to complete its descent into obscurity and irrelevance.
What's the fucking point of keeping this guy around? Any competent organization would have removed him long ago, and certainly would not have re-instated him weeks later. The FSF failed to address the RMS problem and has burned a tremendous amount of social capital in so doing. The FSF is the laughing stock of the entire software ecosystem. They are in no position to lead our movement until they undergo serious reforms.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 11:08 UTC (Tue)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link] (1 responses)
Can I just add one more problem to the list? RMS is 70. It's now reasonably likely that in the next 10 years, he'll reach a point where he can't do a good handover of leadership to a new person, let alone offer leadership himself, and virtually guaranteed that this will happen in the next 30. All it takes is one of the many horrible diseases that become more likely with age damaging his mind, and he's out of the picture - be it a stroke, dementia or worse.
If you do the handover from RMS to a new leader now, RMS can be there as Emeritus President with full honours, treated as a special case because he's the founder of the FSF, and whoever takes over can use RMS as a source of wisdom and expertise for as long as RMS is willing and able to take part in the Free Software movement (hopefully for a very long time!).
Posted Jun 20, 2023 12:19 UTC (Tue)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link]
Posted Jun 20, 2023 12:27 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
I've said it elsewhere, but freedoms CONFLICT. Sometimes you have to CHOOSE. And the FSF/RMS come over as being so self-important they believe they have the right to deny me FREEDOM OF CHOICE. (Okay, from a European viewpoint, this seems typical of America as a whole, but never mind ...)
Life is not black and white. How to turn friends into enemies 101 ...
Cheers,
Posted Jun 20, 2023 17:10 UTC (Tue)
by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
[Link]
More generally, even if RMS had no personality problems, he is still a mortal human being who is 70 years old. The FSF has a serious bus problem. They need to cultivate future leaders, including giving those people an important role with the freedom to do their own thing and make their own mistakes. I just don't see that happening. I suspect that's a big reason they wound up bringing RMS back; they didn't have anyone ready to take over. That doesn't speak well to their long-term health as an organization.
Posted Jun 21, 2023 4:13 UTC (Wed)
by saraht (guest, #165715)
[Link] (1 responses)
To answer this question, I draw your attention to a few specific problems with the status quo.
First, I don't think that anyone should suffer political suicide for expressing a few upsetting opinions. However, it's important to recognize the fact that the writefreesoftware.org is essentially a mouthpiece for Drew, or at the very least is unable to meaningfully break with him on any matters of policy or messaging. As a result it's difficult to distinguish the political positions of writefreesoftware.org from those of Drew. To draw attention to one of the most egregious writings of Drew which was called out by his opponents, he has gone on record against ACLU president Nadine Strossen https://stallmansupport.org/nadine-strossen-hannah-wolfma... with regard to sexual freedom and autonomy and the right to express opinions related to it, and he considers change from past opinions completely irrelevant, and he has said that writefreesoftware.org is explicitly motivated by this https://lwn.net/Articles/935305/ . This is a view which, for example, would easily justify a parent preventing their child from attending an event he presents at. There are many less charged opinions that he has forwarded which raise similar concerns, none of which have anything to do with free software and are a harmful distraction when given a platform in the free software discourse. Again, Drew could express challenging views in private, but the degree to which the writefreesoftware.org is entangled with Drew makes it difficult to view it as independent of these views.
Even without rendering a moral judgement on Drew, under these circumstances can this person reasonably be said to be a good leader for our movement? Does having him in a leadership position further the goals of the free software movement? Not at all. This creates an exclusionary environment and makes free software a political wildfire. No one benefits from having Drew's fringe ideas associated with free software, but Drew has institutionalized a cult of personality around him and that association is inescapable.
Second, Drew is a creep. I understand that you view this characterization as insulting, but at this point it's a statement of fact and acknowledging that he is a creep is a necessary step towards addressing the problem. We have heard more than enough stories of harassment to raise serious concern that demand action. His cult followers treat Drew as "too big to fail", he is such an important creep that we cannot remove him. This is not okay. Moveover, he's just a bit of a jerk. His rhetoric, which defines the broader rhetoric of writefreesoftware.org, is antagonizing to anyone who does not tow the line, especially to other free software organizations. His writings, those endorsed as the official message of writefreesoftware.org, have created a political atmosphere which insults and derides so many people, from victims of commercial software's predatory tactics to people we should ostensibly view as allies in the free software and open source movement. Movements which, in the absence of these problems have been met with orders of magnitude more success in forwarding their ideas.
Third: what does Drew even do for the free software movement anymore? Can you name anything he's done in the past twenty years? I can only name a few, all times when he's risen in "his" communities to make things worse: derailing sourcehut in a largely pointless years long effort to implement graphql without consensus, serially starting projects then abandoning them to mostly to become abandonware, boiling the ocean to create an obscure programming language and operating system where he is the dictator for life. All of these communities responded by a reluctant acceptance of his leadership role that he tightly gripped as their founder.
Drew has chosen to die on his hill, and to be clear, that choice means death. The free software movement is bigger than Drew, and bigger than the writefreesoftware.org, but if all roads lead to Drew then the open source movement, absent the principles and philosophy of free software, will continue to dominate our message and the free software movement is doomed to complete its descent into obscurity and irrelevance.
What's the fucking point of keeping this guy around? Any competent organization would have removed him long ago, and certainly would not have re-instated him weeks later. writefreesoftware.org and the communities he founded have failed to address the Drew problem and have burned a tremendous amount of social capital in so doing. Drew's exploits are the #1 spectacle side show of the entire free software ecosystem. They are in no position for any of "his" projects to lead our movement until they undergo serious reforms.
Please understand that this is meant as commentary that is as polite, respectful, and informative as the comment it responds to.
Posted Jun 21, 2023 7:45 UTC (Wed)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link]
It's not, because it clearly contains statements that you do not actually believe to be true, while I am pretty certain that Drew believes everything he said in his comment. I am, fairly obviously, not in general well disposed to Drew. I certainly do not think that he would serve as an effective voice for the free software community a a whole, though I do appreciate many of the contributions he has made to it. But the criticism of RMS is backed up by people who have direct experience with RMS, and the framing that you present your criticism of Drew in is intellectually dishonest. Nobody has told me that their personal experience of Drew was that he was a creep. The idea that he's contributed nothing in the past 20 years is abject nonsense. Presenting arguments in this way does nothing to defend RMS, and just supports the idea that many of the people defending RMS are ideologically driven in unhelpful ways.
I agree that Drew's comment was presented in an inflammatory way. But look, free software is more than RMS, has always been more than RMS, and will have to be more than RMS given that we will not always have RMS. As I wrote in https://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/52587.html, we don't fix this by replacing RMS with anyone else. We understand that the free software community contains a range of voices and experiences, and we figure out how to amplify the people who can most eloquently discuss specific issues rather than placing all of the burden on one person. Let RMS be good at what he's good at, and understand what he's bad at. And the same for Drew, and the same for anyone who hasn't felt able to speak because how could they compare themselves to RMS.
Free software should never have had a single figurehead. Free software should always have been an equal chorus of voices. That's the free software way, and that's something the FSF has never meaningfully embodied.
Posted Jun 21, 2023 7:55 UTC (Wed)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link]
Correct or not, what you described is called a "cult". So you've answered your own question.
Cults can be quite successful, I can think of at least one recent example...
Posted Jun 21, 2023 8:18 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (14 responses)
You do not provide anything to substantiate this. "Stories" - the worst ones I've read are of RMS being even more socially awkward with women, than he is normally. Mostly, not engaging with women, but in some cases, making unusual professions to a person - sometimes involving bad poetry - or else just general statements that he is looking for a loving relationship, placed in slightly odd (but not terribly bad either) contexts.
Every time I've read these vague slurs, there's usually nothing to back it up, or the person points out some kind of "RMS' awkwardness made me feel uncomfortable", with little evidence of sexual harassment.
Do you have something concrete to back up your accusation, or are you throwing around smears with no substance (but claiming as "fact")?
Posted Jun 21, 2023 8:21 UTC (Wed)
by ddevault (subscriber, #99589)
[Link] (12 responses)
https://scribe.rip/selamjie.medium.com/remove-richard-sta...
And another:
https://rms-open-letter.github.io/appendix
More:
Posted Jun 21, 2023 8:39 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (11 responses)
“When I was a teen freshman, I went to a buffet lunch at an Indian restaurant in Central Square with a graduate student friend and others from the AI lab. I don’t know if he and I were the last two left, but at a table with only the two of us, Richard Stallman told me of his misery and that he’d kill himself if I didn’t go out with him."
This is the worst example I know of.
Posted Jun 21, 2023 8:48 UTC (Wed)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Jun 21, 2023 8:52 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Jun 21, 2023 10:56 UTC (Wed)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (2 responses)
Hang on a sec, 27-year-old Richard said something at the end of a meal. In 1980, before GNU or FSF. And he apologised.
https://stallmansupport.org/debunking-false-accusations-against-richard-stallman.html#suicide
He's 70 now. This isn't in the category of errors that marks someone as a bad person for life. Has no one here said anything wrong in the past 43 years?
Posted Aug 1, 2023 13:29 UTC (Tue)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 1, 2023 13:42 UTC (Tue)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
Posted Jun 21, 2023 9:07 UTC (Wed)
by ddevault (subscriber, #99589)
[Link] (5 responses)
These are the most egregious incidents but there have also been many, many smaller incidents, and particularly problematic forms of expression (denial of rape, comments about the age of majority, the "pleasure cards", etc) over the decades which establish a pattern of behavior, and there is a conspicuous lack of meaningful apology or growth to indicate a change in this pattern.
Posted Jun 21, 2023 9:49 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (4 responses)
https://mjg59.livejournal.com/113408.html
In a comedy club, there might be no problem with that line. At a Free Software conference, it's definitely in bad taste and inappropriate. Is it sexual harassment? Could argue on that I guess.
I have to say I base my opinion more on what I've heard from a woman I know who had first hand experience of RMS (and other "leaders". RMS definitely is awkward, and not comfortable to be around, but I didn't get the sense they felt harassed or threatened by him. But perhaps the women I know don't have a representative experience either.
The same woman felt certain other "leaders" - more on the "open source" side were very creepy, even outright predatory - inc. hands on. So the woman I know certainly does call out harassment.
Posted Jun 21, 2023 9:51 UTC (Wed)
by ddevault (subscriber, #99589)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Jun 21, 2023 10:08 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
But EVERY story I've heard of RMS also says that if you call him on it and tell him to leave you alone HE DOES! He may not know how to behave, but on the personal level he respects you. The problem, of course, is a lot of people have difficulty calling him out, and that's especially true if there's a power dynamic involved.
Cheers,
Posted Jun 21, 2023 10:13 UTC (Wed)
by ddevault (subscriber, #99589)
[Link]
Posted Jun 21, 2023 11:13 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
Is his behaviour awkward and inappropriate often? I believe so. Does he leave people (women and men) feeling awkward? Often, I gather. But, let's look at the actual facts again. RMS is guilty of:
- humour building on sexual references, transposed to technology, in general settings, which are inappropriate
The specific case I know of, as quoted above, the woman felt sorry for him more than anything - which would suggest not threatened. This also fits in with other first hand accounts I have from women and RMS.
Does this count as sexual harassment? I don't know. We could have a debate, but I think it's subjective - not a fact. If it is, it is at the lower end of the scale. The behaviour, TTBOMK, is not repeated (against any specific person - see also Wol's comment). The accounts I know of, the women do not feel harmed or threatened - more sorry for him, in addition to discomfort with the awkwardness. Sexist humour, or mild sexual references in inappropriate settings seem to constitute the bulk of the problems.
Is it good? No. However: Is he a predator who physically assaults women? No. Does he use power to take revenge against women who decline (very clumsy, very awkward) romantic invitations? No (he lacks power for a start).
I have been to tech conferences, and there are a lot of creepy guys - especially at the more nerdy open-source/free software conferences that have social gatherings. Very very creepy guys. And I don't know how the women in tech who just want to do some professional development and networking cope with it. Some are no longer with us, tragically - and I suspect the creepy guys at FS/OS tech conferences played at least a small part in that (in the one I knew, a little). :( :(
Is RMS the type of guy I worry about when it comes to my daughters? Based on what I know, no. The type of guys I worry about for them are not like RMS.
YMMV.
Posted Jun 21, 2023 8:30 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link]
But, play the issues. Slandering RMS' by calling him a sexual harasser, with no evidence (and I don't know of any), to further some disagreement one might have with the FSF, is... Urg. :(
Posted Jun 20, 2023 10:58 UTC (Tue)
by SLi (subscriber, #53131)
[Link] (6 responses)
However, as someone who has followed the FSF and its publications for a while, I must say the image that I get of FSF definitely does have elements of antagonism and even vitriol against the open source movement. I understand from what you say that this might not reflect the FSF's intentions or even its overall views (I certainly thought it did!), but perception matters.
Communication is not a one-way street. It is not enough for an organization to express its views and expect them to be understood in the intended spirit. The listener's interpretation plays an equally important role. Thus, if the FSF's message is being perceived as hostile, then I believe this points to a failure in the FSF's communication strategy, not necessarily a failing on the part of the reader.
The world of human communication is complex and nuanced. It's not just about what is said, but also what is left unsaid, how often certain points are reiterated, and the tone in which messages are delivered. All of these factors shape how a message is received. If the FSF's publications are perceived as antagonistic to open source, it's a sign that the messaging is failing to bridge the gap between the FSF's intentions and the public's understanding.
While there's no doubt that RMS has played a monumental role in starting the free software movement and has been instrumental in its growth, it's essential to recognize that the FSF's future may require adaptability and a reevaluation of its communication strategy if in fact it believes that it is being perceived wrong
I believe it would be beneficial for the FSF to introspect on how its message is being received and what can be done to ensure it aligns with its goals and intentions. It is crucial to remember that the free software movement is bigger than any one person or organization; it's a collective effort by a global community. Thus, the FSF's communication should reflect this collective spirit and aim to build bridges rather than walls.
Additionally, I'd like to touch upon the point about RMS speaking on certain issues important to him at every possible opportunity. While it's admirable that he is staunchly committed to his beliefs, this can also be a part of the problem. His insistence on discussing certain topics without regard for the social context or potential for misunderstanding can further muddy the waters in terms of the FSF's messaging. As the figurehead of the FSF, his words and actions have a significant impact on how the organization is perceived. Thus, it's not a problem the FSF can simply disown if it leads to the message being misunderstood or misrepresented.
Once again, I appreciate your open-minded approach to this discussion. I hope my observations can contribute to a constructive dialogue on how we can move the free software movement forward in a respectful manner.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 14:01 UTC (Tue)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (5 responses)
Yes, this is one of his flaws.
His unusual mind is the reason he was able to create something so amazing, but that same unconventional way of thinking is also his weakness.
Posted Jun 21, 2023 8:08 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (4 responses)
We need people like that, just as much as we need the other kind of people, who are more socially pragmatic.
Is RMS always right in his reasoning? No, not at all. However it is still good to have someone think through things in a way freed from peer-think, cause they will bring a perspective that at times cuts through bad social group-think. Having people like that is important to a healthy society. Which means there needs to be some recognition and tolerance of such people, and their poor social skills.
tl;dr: I dislike those people who dislike RMS, not on the content of his thoughts and writings, but largely because he is very socially awkward and eccentric.
Posted Jun 21, 2023 8:41 UTC (Wed)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link]
And this is why I think that, in a perfect universe, RMS would have started the process of standing down as FSF President 15 years ago, with a view to having actually stood down either 10 years ago or 5 years ago (depending on how long it took to find a suitable replacement). The reason I think it'd take 5 to 10 years to find an RMS replacement is that I think it'd take that long to find someone RMS can be happy with, and that's critical to making this succeed.
RMS in a specially created Emeritus President post at the FSF (removing him from the board officially, but giving him the rights of a board member without responsibility), specifically because he is the founder and provider of the original vision for the Foundation, with someone else (younger) taking over as President, would be a perfect setup; whenever people's issues with RMS as an individual come up, the new President is in a position to point out that RMS has retired from an active role, and detach the FSF from RMS. But, as Emeritus President, RMS is still on hand to give the new President guidance, and RMS is still in a position to write helpful philosophical treatises that the FSF can publish where they're relevant to software.
Posted Jun 21, 2023 8:42 UTC (Wed)
by mattdm (subscriber, #18)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jun 21, 2023 8:59 UTC (Wed)
by paulj (subscriber, #341)
[Link] (1 responses)
Still, I think we should also recognise he has done good.
There isn't a person here who has not - at some point - said things that made others feel awkward, or bad, or hurt. Some nuance is needed. And some ability to separate ideas from the person who thought of them. There are no perfect leaders.
Posted Jun 21, 2023 9:42 UTC (Wed)
by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239)
[Link]
Posted Jun 20, 2023 17:59 UTC (Tue)
by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418)
[Link] (7 responses)
These kind of inaccurate hit job blog posts posts get made by random people several times a year. Responding is usually counter productive, because the authors are generally unwilling to be convinced of anything, use any response to double down, call it further evidence, and draw more attention to their points. There's lots of hot takes in your blog, I've never seen them ever say "edit: I was convinced I was wrong", so probably a good assumption about you too.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 18:08 UTC (Tue)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Jun 20, 2023 18:20 UTC (Tue)
by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Jun 20, 2023 18:28 UTC (Tue)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (2 responses)
I said this about a couple of Devuan's evangelists, and it seems appropriate here:
"Unfortunately, while all but one of the folks responding may not *represent* [the FSF], they are actually *representative* of [the FSF]."
Posted Jun 20, 2023 19:51 UTC (Tue)
by pebolle (guest, #35204)
[Link] (1 responses)
Just to be clear, you're not trying to link "Devuan's evangelists" to the FSF here, are you?
Posted Jun 20, 2023 20:07 UTC (Tue)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
Only in the sense that they're "not claiming to represent" an organization yet their behavior is in line with what that those that _do_ speak for the organization.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 18:21 UTC (Tue)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
Responding on an _individual_ basis may be more trouble than it's worth, but when "hit job posts" get made several times a year saying more or less the same thing, it stands to reason that the FSF should put up some sort of rebuttal instead of pretending they don't exist.
> because the authors are generally unwilling to be convinced of anything
... this cuts both ways; the FSF has demonstrated time and time again they're utterly unwilling to be convinced of anything.
A good example of this is the FSF's "Respect Your Freedom" program, which has been actively harmful to hardware liberation efforts.
Posted Jun 21, 2023 6:36 UTC (Wed)
by ddevault (subscriber, #99589)
[Link]
Who's doubling down again?
Posted Jun 19, 2023 18:03 UTC (Mon)
by geofft (subscriber, #59789)
[Link] (1 responses)
(Here's a lengthy thread I wrote on the subject some time back: https://twitter.com/geofft/status/1374527788993118210)
I am of course happy for you to use free software I write (freedom 0), and happy for you to contribute, and all that. Free software, as properly understood, includes the freedom for people whom you disagree with to use free software and contribute to it. But the views you're expressing here are not compatible with the moral goals of the free software movement, and we should not have a "big tent" that includes hostility to open source terminology and the OSI.
Posted Jun 19, 2023 18:52 UTC (Mon)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link]
Um... Stallman has vested interest in weakening the Free Software Movement? Since when?
Posted Jun 20, 2023 20:07 UTC (Tue)
by jzb (editor, #7867)
[Link] (1 responses)
I thought the enemy was proprietary, closed software. At the very least I would hope free software advocates would see open source advocates as allies here with overlapping goals rather than as the enemy. Over the past 20+ years that I've been paying attention, the free software movement has not done a great job of influencing people. This attitude is part of that.
The latent hostility among the GNU/FSF proponents is extremely off-putting to, well, most of the world that doesn't share what amounts to a niche viewpoint. One of the reasons that a "reform" of the free software message is needed, frankly, is because the GNU/FSF guard has been content to preach to the converted and has largely failed to effectively advocate for free software.
To me this is like a vegan saying that vegetarians are "the enemy" rather than seeing the communities as ones with overlapping goals. For people who've never thought about food as an ethical choice, convincing them to go hardcore vegan is a hard lift. But moving people to eat less meat and maybe go vegetarian moves them closer. Over time they may even be open to going full vegan, but from the get-go it's unlikely.
Likewise, the hard-nosed position taken by the FSF and others is really not going to resonate with people who can't even imagine themselves studying source code or tinkering with software. Or with developers who only choose open source (and I'm including free software in this because open source is a big tent that can include free software) for convenience and pragmatic reasons at first.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 20:35 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
It has always been Judean People's Front.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 21:07 UTC (Tue)
by farnz (subscriber, #17727)
[Link]
Just to check, then, you'd prefer that all software is proprietary, and there is no Free Software at all, than a world in which Free Software (by which I mean software that respects all of the FSF's Four Freedoms) is produced by people who don't care about the Free bit, but see themselves as writing Open Source?
That's the way you are coming across, and that seems counter-productive to me; Open Source is a step closer to the ideal world than proprietary, and once all software (including device firmware) respects the Four Freedoms, we're a lot closer to a world in which all software and hardware respects the Four Freedoms.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 21:31 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (13 responses)
Yet again, "If you're not my friend you must be my enemy". Most of us don't give a monkeys about Free Software. As an end user (which ALL of us are, MOST of the time) it makes absolutely no practical difference whatsoever as long as we insist that all the programs we use are FLOSS.
Open Source GUARANTEES all the four Free Software freedoms, provided what you *receive* is Open Source. If I *INSIST* on my software being Open Source, and I follow my moral compass and pass on all the freedoms I receive, are you calling me a "false friend"? Because I sure as dammit think you are!
Cheers,
Posted Jun 20, 2023 22:33 UTC (Tue)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (12 responses)
....Isn't that "provided" kinda the point here?
Posted Jun 21, 2023 0:20 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (11 responses)
If I insist on receiving Open Source rights with any software I use, then it's very hard for people to distinguish between Open Source and Free Software. If everybody who cares about it, does it, then we all win.
But if I offload my maintenance burden by paying someone else, is it fair that I pay for the maintenance burden for everyone? THAT is the problem that we face. Free Software guarantees that a lot of useful software won't get written. "Open Core" and "proprietary" give us greater choice of software.
The Free Software crowd want to remove my freedom to pay someone else. They are placing their freedoms above mine, and that way lies tyranny. I may not like that dilemma, I may not approve of that dilemma, but as someone rephrased Newton's second law - "What man proposes, nature opposes". You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Cheers,
Posted Jun 21, 2023 0:57 UTC (Wed)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (2 responses)
Careful there; "open source rights", as you're using the term, *is* "Free Software". If that was all there was to say on that topic, then the FSF would be heralded as a unparalleled success story.
> But if I offload my maintenance burden by paying someone else, is it fair that I pay for the maintenance burden for everyone?
By that same token, it's not fair that you didn't pay the original software authors for their work.
(Way back in the day, I came across an interview with Donald Becker, the author of many, many Linux networking drivers. When asked why he gave away all that code for free, he responded something to the effect of "I didn't give my work for free; in return I got the rest of the operating system, and considered that good payment")
> THAT is the problem that we face. Free Software guarantees that a lot of useful software won't get written. "Open Core" and "proprietary" give us greater choice of software.
It's great until your supplier jacks up the price. Or abandons the product. Then you're screwed.
(It's the classic short-term vs long-term tradeoff..)
> The Free Software crowd want to remove my freedom to pay someone else.
Um, no. There is literally nothing stopping you from paying someone else to do work for you. What you do with their work is up to you.
> They are placing their freedoms above mine, and that way lies tyranny.
Huh? If you consider "If you pass on or modify software I've written, it has to be under the same terms as it was supplied to you" to be tyranny, then you've lived a very sheltered life indeed.
> I may not like that dilemma, I may not approve of that dilemma, but as someone rephrased Newton's second law - "What man proposes, nature opposes". You can't have your cake and eat it too.
So is the natural order greed and avarice, or cooperation for mutual benefit? Nature (and history) is replete with examples of both.
Posted Jun 21, 2023 6:59 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
Yep. It's been very successful, and I'm very grateful.
> (Way back in the day, I came across an interview with Donald Becker, the author of many, many Linux networking drivers. When asked why he gave away all that code for free, he responded something to the effect of "I didn't give my work for free; in return I got the rest of the operating system, and considered that good payment")
Pay forward ... again, couldn't agree more ...
> It's great until your supplier jacks up the price. Or abandons the product. Then you're screwed.
And if there is no FLOSS equivalent? You're screwed before you start. If the economics don't support a FLOSS equivalent? Don't forget, FLOSS survives very well in the niche where it is a BYproduct of a different business. It struggles where it is the product itself.
> Um, no. There is literally nothing stopping you from paying someone else to do work for you. What you do with their work is up to you.
There is literally EVERYTHING stopping you, if you don't have the means of payment ...
> So is the natural order greed and avarice, or cooperation for mutual benefit? Nature (and history) is replete with examples of both.
Depends how close the two of you are. Co-operate with those close to you, compete (steal from) with those further away. This whole debate is about the difference between the Open Source crowd, who consider Free Software as close to them and to be co-operated with, and the Free Software crowd who see Open Source as a competitor to be assimilated and destroyed.
And if, as I said above, the Free Software crowd could see that "pure" Open Source itself is no different from Free Software, we might get somewhere.
Cheers,
Posted Jun 21, 2023 7:11 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
I should have added - I have £100 to buy an office suite, I DON'T have £100K to pay someone to write it for me ...
Cheers,
Posted Aug 1, 2023 13:16 UTC (Tue)
by tao (subscriber, #17563)
[Link] (7 responses)
I suspect (though I have no facts to back it up) that there's no "open source" project with more paid developers than the "free software" Linux kernel project.
Or is the issue that you explicitly only want the improvements you pay for to benefit you, and no one else? That's still not a problem as long as you don't distribute changed binaries.
The only scenario that the GPL prevents is a.) you (or someone you contract to do it) changes the software, b.) you distribute that modified software without distributing the source code of the changes too.
Posted Aug 1, 2023 15:09 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (6 responses)
If you'd read the thread, rather than replying to a single post, the answer is clear. I DON'T HAVE THE MONEY.
I can sponsor features - indeed I have. But if I tried to pay someone to fix the problems in Libreoffice Writer (as I see them), taking all my future earnings for the rest of my life probably wouldn't - realistically - be enough.
Telling me I can do something - as in it is physically or practically possible - does not mean that *I* can do it. How does a blind man appreciate a sunset? How does a deaf man appreciate Beethoven's 9th? How does a penniless person pay for a slap-up meal?
Call me a pragmatist, but as someone who has far too much contact with the disabled and elderly I'm sick and tired of people who refuse to see that other people have their limitations ... just because YOU can do it, doesn't mean that other people can.
Cheers,
Posted Aug 2, 2023 8:57 UTC (Wed)
by tao (subscriber, #17563)
[Link] (5 responses)
Now you suddenly say that you don't have the money. So on one hand you (in my opinion incorrectly) claim that the "Free Software crowd" want to remove your freedom to pay someone else, then say that you wouldn't be able to pay anyway and get upset that I suggest that there's nothing preventing you from doing so.
So, what is it? Are you prevented by the "FS crowd" to pay, or by your lack of money?
I've often been in situations where I wouldn't have been able to pay for software. The very existence of Free Software has been a rescue. I've also been in situations where I *can* pay for software. Nothing has prevented me from doing so. I'm also lucky enough to be paid for developing software; both copyleft and open source.
So again, what point, exactly, were you trying to make in the post I replied to?
Posted Aug 2, 2023 10:53 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (4 responses)
And what stops both of those being true simultaneously? I notice you left out what follows, about how reality tends to resist what we want.
Personally, I can't afford to pay for everything. And the anti-Red-Hat rent-a-mob are doing their level best to prevent me clubbing together with like-minded individuals/companies to make an organisation (let's call it Red Hat 2) that allows us to share our changes between just us, to make sure we all pay our dues.
Cheers,
Posted Aug 3, 2023 16:24 UTC (Thu)
by tao (subscriber, #17563)
[Link] (3 responses)
(Most) copyleft licenses have never been about preventing you from getting together with like-minded people that share changes between just you. They only prevents you from distributing those changes to third parties without providing the changes too.
[One could, however, argue about the ethics behind taking something you get for free (including any improvements others make available to you for free), but keeping your own improvements to yourself, but that's another thing entirely.]
Not being able to pay for everything is perfectly fine. No one is forcing you to. Well, except, you know, the company you're so eager to defend :P
Posted Aug 3, 2023 17:08 UTC (Thu)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (2 responses)
The choice is simple. Either (1) I pay the ENTIRE cost out of my own pocket (which I can't, I doubt you can, there's very few people who could),
Or (2) I do what Red Hat are doing and bring down the wrath of the FS rent-a-mob by saying "you can't share patches with people who haven't coughed up".
Can YOU come up with a third alternative? That will actually work in this reality we live in?
Cheers,
Posted Aug 6, 2023 17:14 UTC (Sun)
by tao (subscriber, #17563)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Aug 6, 2023 17:35 UTC (Sun)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
I'm involved with two such projects, lilypond, and LO/TDF.
Both are chronically short of both manpower and money, and TDF certainly seems to suffer from an excess of politics.
Lilypond at least doesn't suffer from the political problems, but that's primarily because it's pretty much a one-man-band. We have the elder statesmen who founded the project (and who rarely chime in), and we have one person who's social skills are pretty near nil but everyone respects because he's quite obviously doing his best to do a good job. And then we have a lot of people on the edge who mostly contribute support rather than code.
But it does suffer - as so many of these projects do - from the fact that the user base are not programmers but musicians. Programming is a sideline they do of necessity, they're not necessarily that good at it.
Cheers,
Posted Jun 20, 2023 0:24 UTC (Tue)
by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418)
[Link] (25 responses)
I work at FSF and I'm confident that there is no such policy. And I've read many things from Drew about the FSF which aren't true or very accurate.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 0:51 UTC (Tue)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (24 responses)
Whether or not there's an official "policy" of non-cooperation, the FSF is widely perceived to have one. This is a problem largely of the FSF's own creation, as their communication with respect to OSS have always come across as quasi-hostile, passive-aggressively going on about why "Free Software" is better because of its ethical underpinnings, and how "Open Source" is lacking both in principle and practice:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-poi...
That's a rewrite/update of an older essay, which took a much harsher tone:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom....
So, yeah, of course the FSF isn't cooperating with OSS in general, because doing so would be weakening (it not outright undermining) their claimed ethical stance, even if in practical terms/results there's an 85% overlap with those that don't share it.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 1:16 UTC (Tue)
by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418)
[Link] (23 responses)
Posted Jun 20, 2023 1:51 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (20 responses)
Posted Jun 20, 2023 6:15 UTC (Tue)
by oldtomas (guest, #72579)
[Link] (16 responses)
Glad to oblige
Posted Jun 20, 2023 6:17 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (15 responses)
> By contrast, the open source idea values mainly practical advantage and does not campaign for principles. This is why we do not agree with open source, and do not use that term.
Yup. Definitely no hostility and disdain there.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 7:48 UTC (Tue)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link]
Posted Jun 20, 2023 10:19 UTC (Tue)
by ewan (guest, #5533)
[Link] (8 responses)
What's not clear to me is what you're suggesting would be preferable instead - for people to express that difference in a different way or to simply shut up about it and pretend it doesn't exist.
Acknowledging that, while you have some areas of political overlap with someone, you disagree with them about other things isn't hostile, or an attack. It's just difference.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 17:33 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Except it's not a simple statement of difference. It is quite clearly applying YOUR VALUE JUDGEMENT to someone else's values. In other words, "we are better than they are". Most definitely NOT neutral.
Personally, I view the FSF's principles as being "crazy and self-destructive" (plus very American ...).
For me, the core of my value system is to respect other people for who they are. And if they're different from me, so be it. I don't have to like them, it's okay to ignore them. What is NOT okay is to look down on them, harangue or berate them, just because they're different. The attitude of "if you're not my friend you must be my enemy" is the antithesis of my value system, and is exactly how the FSF come across. Sorry.
Cheers,
Posted Jun 20, 2023 18:50 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (5 responses)
"I'm sorry, saying that you're a soulless automaton ruled by the devil is merely a good-faith expression of my religion". Nothing personal.
I mean, that's exactly what I'm saying. FSF doesn't even seem to understand that other people might have principles (gasp!) that are different from theirs.
> Acknowledging that, while you have some areas of political overlap with someone, you disagree with them about other things isn't hostile, or an attack. It's just difference.
Sure. And as a result, you can be seen as a laughingstock.
If they want respect, they should at least do some soul-searching and acknowledge that other people might actually have a point. OpenSource movement has its own ideals. It values enabling the large-scale cooperation to advance the state of the art, to ultimately make the lives of people better. And it is succeeding at that, the modern OpenSource software infrastructure enables seamless collaboration of hundreds of thousands of developers across multiple companies and countries.
You might disagree with that, but calling it "mere expediency" is an insult.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 19:24 UTC (Tue)
by pebolle (guest, #35204)
[Link] (4 responses)
Perhaps the LWN staff might consider intervening here. This isn't the first comment that, apparently, mostly tries to add more fuel to a fire.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 21:14 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (3 responses)
I don't think he's adding fuel to the fire, he's just describing reality as he (and MANY others) see it - including me.
Cheers,
Posted Jun 20, 2023 22:32 UTC (Tue)
by pebolle (guest, #35204)
[Link] (2 responses)
So "you're a soulless automaton ruled by the devil is merely a good-faith expression of my religion" is just describing the reality about the opinions of people he disagrees with, and not some juvenile trolling by strawmanning their opinions.
Thanks for clearing that up, my bad!
Posted Jun 20, 2023 22:36 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
From what I'm seeing even in this thread, I'm getting these perceptions reinforced.
Posted Jun 21, 2023 0:07 UTC (Wed)
by ms-tg (subscriber, #89231)
[Link]
To me as a reader, it was unambiguously clear that they were constructing an analogous sentence to the FSF statement that Open Source has no principles and is about mere expediency.
How did you read it? Is there a use of language issue at root here?
Posted Jun 21, 2023 11:27 UTC (Wed)
by rqosa (subscriber, #24136)
[Link]
> or to simply shut up about it and pretend it doesn't exist. That's the real problem with those two essays by RMS, though: statements like "We disagree with the open source camp on the basic goals and values" and "The Free Software movement and the Open Source movement are like two political camps within the free software community" give the impression that there's a clear divide between "the open source camp" versus "the free software camp", but that's simply not true when applied to FLOSS developers in general, because (now more than ever before) the amount of people who have developed code and published it on the Internet with an FLOSS license attached is huge, and the vast majority of them are not affiliated with either the FSF or the OSI. He wrote the earlier one of those essays (in 1998, the same year as the OSI was founded) about a supposed difference in values between the FSF and the OSI, but there really doesn't exist any hard-and-fast divide like that among FLOSS developers in general… and according to Bruce Perens (one of the founders of the OSI), the OSI was always supposed to be "a way of introducing the non-hacker world to Free Software", which pretty much means that RMS's statement that the FSF disagrees with the OSI on "basic goals and values" was (at best) a huge exaggeration.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 18:39 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (2 responses)
It's saying that open source developers don't have principles. Mere expediency.
Posted Jun 21, 2023 4:30 UTC (Wed)
by zorro (subscriber, #45643)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jul 13, 2023 20:33 UTC (Thu)
by ksandstr (guest, #60862)
[Link]
It's also the case that between the two concepts, Free software was first and "open source" came after as the copycat business-friendly watered-down[0] paper-tiger movement which, due to its recasting some of the four freedoms to better suit the corporate exploiter, landed certain people their dot-com megabucks back in the day. This historical order further reinforces the asymmetry of advocacy from another direction: in the concept of "open source" the four freedoms are disregarded.
[0] in particular, terms that forbid uses guaranteed by the four freedoms -- such as those of the original Sun community license, and the home-grown stepping-stone licenses of other american companies -- were accepted as valid "open source" licensing.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 20:13 UTC (Tue)
by jzb (editor, #7867)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 20, 2023 21:45 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Cheers,
Posted Jun 20, 2023 6:59 UTC (Tue)
by IanKelling (subscriber, #89418)
[Link] (2 responses)
I intend to not respond to a bunch of unjustified criticisms of FSF in this comment section, it seems quite unproductive.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 7:08 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (1 responses)
A first step might be, you know, recognizing that and trying to bridge the gap with Open Source community. Which implies, for example, admission that Open Source people also just might have principles (although different ones).
> I intend to not respond to a bunch of unjustified criticisms of FSF in this comment section, it seems quite unproductive.
Yet you feel no problem having with FSF unjustifiably criticizing people who prefer Open Source model.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 22:08 UTC (Tue)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
That's impossible. Remember that silly Saint IGNUcius stunt? Remember that silly fight against Affero Ghostscript mentions? One can not stop that jihad against their, theoretically, closest allies without removing RMS from FSF and it doesn't look that they have anyone who may take that position. Except maybe someone who would make FSF even more irrelevant even faster than RMS does that.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 4:13 UTC (Tue)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link]
I presume that RMS is unlikely to go along with that course of action. Unfortunately, RMS's presumed refusal to go along with it is part of the problem. If the Foundation is unable or unwilling to express a position other than that of RMS, then it is functionally an extension of RMS, and all of RMS's viewpoints will, fairly or not, be imputed to the Foundation. IMHO that imputation is an entirely fair one, especially after the Foundation decided that it did not want to operate without RMS as President.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 10:02 UTC (Tue)
by SLi (subscriber, #53131)
[Link]
Posted Jun 19, 2023 19:16 UTC (Mon)
by Paf (subscriber, #91811)
[Link]
The website is *very* slick (I mean this as praise), I'm not used to seeing single person efforts be anything like so nice.
Posted Jun 19, 2023 19:56 UTC (Mon)
by atai (subscriber, #10977)
[Link] (12 responses)
A basic human moral is to respect history. From that perspective, your web site shall clearly credit the FSF and the GPL. The four freedoms you list you did not even provide the credit for where they come from. You shall link to the GNU pages.
Your page of free source licenses do not mention the GPL, which is also strange and shows trying to ignore the role GPL plays.
you shall link to the FSF and their web site due to the historical role and importance they played. You link to the SFC, but not the FSF. History must be respected and not be viewed with a biased view.
Posted Jun 19, 2023 21:30 UTC (Mon)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (1 responses)
It's awfully presumptuous of you to tell him what he shall and shan't do.
I might add that your comments rather supports his original point of the obtusiveness and inapproachability of the GNU site.
> Your page of free source licenses do not mention the GPL
Given the page's focus is "Common traits of free software licenses" and only briefly introduces "copyleft", using the much more approachable language of the MPL gets the point across much more clearly than anything GNU.
(And the GPL family is explicitly listed in "what is copyleft" and "choosing a license" pages, along with appropriate links to GNU)
....Which rather supports his original point of the obtusiveness and inapproachability of the GNU site.
> History must be respected and not be viewed with a biased view.
There's an old saying, "History is written by the victor."
There is no such thing as an "unbiased view" of history, and believing otherwise is, at best, highly naive.
Posted Jun 19, 2023 22:26 UTC (Mon)
by unixbhaskar (guest, #44758)
[Link]
"There is no such thing as an "unbiased view" of history, and believing otherwise is, at best, highly naive."
This....indeed.
Posted Jun 19, 2023 22:16 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (8 responses)
Free Software was built on top of open source. One only has to read the story of RMS and the printer with an open mind to realise that.
Cheers,
Posted Jun 19, 2023 22:43 UTC (Mon)
by LtWorf (subscriber, #124958)
[Link]
Open source wasn't enough back then and isn't enough now.
Posted Jun 19, 2023 22:46 UTC (Mon)
by atai (subscriber, #10977)
[Link] (6 responses)
Talks about rewriting history...
Posted Jun 19, 2023 23:39 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (5 responses)
Cheers,
Posted Jun 20, 2023 1:01 UTC (Tue)
by Paf (subscriber, #91811)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Jun 20, 2023 4:27 UTC (Tue)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link] (2 responses)
* Free Software (note caps) didn't exist before the printer story.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 8:01 UTC (Tue)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link] (1 responses)
To add a detail: Richard didn't invent free software, but he launched the movement. In the 70s, software was distributed as source code, and no one had thought of ways to restrict modification etc. So, with no effort, purely by circumstance, people had all the freedoms of (what was later defined as) free software. No movement was necessary.
Then people started distributing binaries and using copyright. So Richard launched a movement, and he called it "free software". And 15 years later others started calling it "open source".
Posted Jun 20, 2023 10:06 UTC (Tue)
by SLi (subscriber, #53131)
[Link]
Posted Jun 20, 2023 17:31 UTC (Tue)
by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
[Link]
I don't think this is correct. This is the version of the story popularized by RMS, but it's incomplete. Other places were developing software with the same kind of sharing that RMS talks about, and they had their own licensing ideas. A bunch of those licenses- the GPL, the original BSD license, the X11 license, etc.- all came into being at about the same time. The original BSD license (which is Free Software according to FSF, even if it contains the obnoxious advertising clause) actually predates the GPL v1.0. I think the GPL was innovative as the first copyleft license, and the FSF was extremely important because it separated Free Software from the universities that had an unfortunate tendency to abandon their projects according to the whims of the faculty and administration, but they were not the single origin of free software.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 0:59 UTC (Tue)
by Keith.S.Thompson (subscriber, #133709)
[Link]
("Shall" denotes a requirement imposed from a position of authority. "Should" denotes a recommendation. I wonder if there's a language barrier at work here.)
Posted Jun 20, 2023 4:50 UTC (Tue)
by fwyzard (subscriber, #90840)
[Link] (8 responses)
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
-Non-cooperation with the open source movement"
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Wol
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
https://lwn.net/Articles/858742/
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Wol
> I used to describe RMS as a prophet - a lot of what he predicted has come true. Now he seems much more a Cassandra - his terrible predictions are self-fulfilling, and he is one of the main causes of it!
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
"Board members shall not speak on behalf of the FSF unless given explicit permission. Directors must not represent that their authority as board members extends any further than it actually extends. The board speaks as a whole, not as individuals."
https://www.fsf.org/about/staff-and-board/board
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
This is true.
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Wol
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
The FSF treats RMS as "too big to fail", he is such an important creep that we cannot remove him. This is not okay.
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Wol
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
- business cards with references to "tender embraces" which some /could/ interpret as having sexual overtones, but may not quite be intended that way, which he hands out to everyone - there may be an element of (off-target) humour here too
- appeals to form romantic relationships (and /romantic/ relationships, not overtly sexual, in any I've read) which are generally clumsy and awkward, going up to the example I quoted where he used what could be construed as emotional manipulation and pressure - though, also could have been just clumsy and off-target humour again, depending on tone.
- making women feel uncomfortable as a result (men almost equally often I think).
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Wol
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Wol
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Wol
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Wol
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Wol
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Wol
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Wol
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Wol
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
As a result, people from the free software movement and the open source camp often work together on practical projects such as software development. It is remarkable that such different philosophical views can so often motivate different people to participate in the same projects. Nonetheless, there are situations where these fundamentally different views lead to very different actions.
by Stallman himself
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Wol
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Wol
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
No it doesn't. It says that open source developers do not campaign for principles.
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Wol
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
> A first step might be, you know, recognizing that and trying to bridge the gap with Open Source community. Which implies, for example, admission that Open Source people also just might have principles (although different ones).
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Wol
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Wol
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
* Open Source didn't exist until well after that.
* The practices of the programming community resembled both free software and open source (note caps) long before the printer story.
* The differences between free software and open source are far too formalized, technical, and precise to "pick out" who got there first. Nobody wrote a manifesto about it or anything (before the printer story), and without that, you're left guessing as to the motives of individuals, for things they did many decades ago.
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
> and open source (note caps) long before the printer story.
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
From https://writefreesoftware.org/learn/licenses :
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Some licenses don’t just permit you to share your improvements, but require you to share your improvements. Such licenses are copyleft licenses, and if you make changes to them you are required to share those changes with others under the same free-software terms.
To me this reads "Such licenses are copyleft licenses, and if you make changes to these licenses you are required to share those changes".
I would suggest rewording it to avoid the confusion ?
Posted Jun 20, 2023 5:10 UTC (Tue)
by NYKevin (subscriber, #129325)
[Link]
(In layman's terms: Real FOSS licenses do not ever require you to share a damn thing. Copyleft licenses merely say that *if* you share anything, it must be under the same license. Unfortunately, there are non-FOSS licenses out there with terms like "you must send all patches back to me, even if you don't share them" etc.)
Posted Jun 20, 2023 6:28 UTC (Tue)
by ddevault (subscriber, #99589)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Jun 20, 2023 7:01 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (5 responses)
As I understand it, copyleft is the principle that IFF you share your improvements, you have to share them on the same terms as you received the original software you improved. Note the "iff".
Cheers,
Posted Jun 20, 2023 7:04 UTC (Tue)
by ddevault (subscriber, #99589)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Jun 20, 2023 9:03 UTC (Tue)
by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
[Link] (3 responses)
I would suggest
More broadly, all these licences are copyright licences: they don't govern usage (that is freedom 0, you can use as you like including modifying the source code). They apply only when you distribute a copy, modified or otherwise, to someone else.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 9:08 UTC (Tue)
by ddevault (subscriber, #99589)
[Link] (1 responses)
Some licenses don't just *permit* you to share your improvements, but *require* that, if you share the software or software derived from or incorporating parts of the original, you can only do so by using the same license for your improvements. This is a **copyleft** license: a tool to protect free software from being incorporated into non-free works.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 15:58 UTC (Tue)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Yet another nuance - you are describing STRONG copyleft.
We also have WEAK copyleft, things like the LGPL and MPL, which are copyleft licences (modifications can only be shared under the same licence) but do permit incorporation into non-free works. Depending on your definition of "work", of course :-)
Cheers,
Posted Jun 20, 2023 9:59 UTC (Tue)
by coriordan (guest, #7544)
[Link]
We should be careful with that concept. They also include patent grants, and some trademark clauses.
Even something like the MIT licence. There's no mention of patents, but it says you have permission to X, Y, Z. It doesn't say, you have copyright permission. This is important because a patent holder who distributes software under the MIT licence might later argue that they only gave us copyright permissions. We'll have to point out that this is incorrect, they gave a general permission related to the action, not related to a particular legal concept. So we should avoid making this mistake in our own discussions.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 6:30 UTC (Tue)
by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
[Link] (19 responses)
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36389763
The new meanings of "open source" vary too; for some it equates to source-available, for others it is about collaboration on software in public, for the AI community it just means the pre-trained model is publicly available (under any license, no source data needed).
We (all of the FOSS related camps) are failing to pass on or even communicate our values to much of the next generation.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 7:22 UTC (Tue)
by donbarry (guest, #10485)
[Link] (4 responses)
The enemies of the FSF would rather it cease to exist, but failing that, that it simply repudiate its principles and become another anodyne and meaningless organization promoting codebases from which corporations can pilfer at their pleasure with no obligations in return. And the lengths they will go in their efforts to realize this end....
Posted Jun 20, 2023 7:24 UTC (Tue)
by ddevault (subscriber, #99589)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Jun 20, 2023 8:51 UTC (Tue)
by rsidd (subscriber, #2582)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Jun 20, 2023 15:48 UTC (Tue)
by LtWorf (subscriber, #124958)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 21, 2023 8:13 UTC (Wed)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link]
Posted Jun 20, 2023 13:49 UTC (Tue)
by somlo (subscriber, #92421)
[Link] (1 responses)
That explains the vitriol and adamant resistance when one unsuspectingly brings up "open source" (meaning software) in those circles :)
Note, this is going off on a tangent a bit -- bringing up "free software" in similar company will simply get one blank stares...
Posted Jun 21, 2023 9:43 UTC (Wed)
by SLi (subscriber, #53131)
[Link]
The impression that I get that open source intelligence (OSINT) is not treated with disdain. It also doesn't need to be hearsay. I think this thought may be a result of a too narrow view of intelligence gathering.
For example, I believe a major task for intelligence agencies and embassies is to "sniff the air", gauge and summarize the views of the public and politicians in the target country. Not only are sources such as newspaper articles, internet forums etc. not hearsay in that case—they, in fact, are pretty much the object of the study, the "thing" that is going on that you want to know about.
I actually suspect that OSINT is in many ways the largest and most significant part of intelligence efforts. Most intelligence is probably not about deep secrets that others try hard to hide.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 21:23 UTC (Tue)
by ballombe (subscriber, #9523)
[Link]
Posted Jun 20, 2023 23:15 UTC (Tue)
by ssddanbrown (guest, #164611)
[Link] (10 responses)
I've been taking an interest in this recently, and have been recording cases where licenses are misleadingly used and/or when projects are labelled "open source" when under a non OSD license:
https://github.com/ssddanbrown/Open-Source-Confusion-Cases
Within these I record my (or previous existing) social interaction with the projects when notifying them of potentially misleading use of license/terminology. Might be of interest to this topic.
Posted Jun 21, 2023 9:56 UTC (Wed)
by SLi (subscriber, #53131)
[Link] (9 responses)
I also don't think this is likely due to any kind of marketing effort or malice by the people releasing those. Many of them don't seemingly have any interest in marketing them as open source.
For example, after Meta released the LLaMA model under conditions where researchers could download the weights after being approved, the weights (unsurprisingly) were leaked within a day and are commonly available. Many academics fine tuned those weights further and released the models (or even just diffs), calling those open source models.
Of course, there may be the ironical twist here that neural network weights might turn out to be wholly ineligible for copyright protection (nobody knows, and generally if somebody claims to know, they are mistaken), in which case they would certainly be distributable in an open source fashion. (Terminology nit: Can something that is not copyrightable still be called open source?)
Posted Jun 22, 2023 13:38 UTC (Thu)
by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330)
[Link] (8 responses)
Use of the term "open source" for large language models is inappropriate, because they are more analogous to freely redistributable binaries for which the source code hasn't been released. The "source" would be the training data, the code that turned that data into a model, and any other input needed to turn the trained model into a useful resource.
GPL2 has a pretty good definition of what "source" means:
The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it. For an executable work, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to control compilation and installation of the executable.
Posted Jun 22, 2023 16:25 UTC (Thu)
by SLi (subscriber, #53131)
[Link] (3 responses)
While it's true that the analogy between software and LLMs is not exact, a direct translation of software terms to their LLM counterparts could result in an interpretation that isn't particularly useful.
In the case of software, the source code is deemed valuable because it requires significant time and effort to engineer, while compiling it is relatively cheap and can be accomplished by virtually anyone on a home PC. Consequently, the source code is the preferred form for software modification.
However, the situation is different for LLMs. Datasets, although valuable, are not the primary resource. Many models are indeed trained partially on private datasets, but the truly costly part of the process is the model training—this computation time and energy can easily amount to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. In comparison, datasets are relatively cheap.
Most downstream users would prefer to take the pre-trained weights and fine-tune them for their application, thereby avoiding the need for costly re-training on a large dataset.
This situation is further complicated by the ambiguous copyright considerations. It is doubtful that an LLM—or the text it generates—would be considered a derivative work of all or even a significant portion of its input. The weights are more akin to an abstract representation of the training data. While one might argue that this shouldn't impact the 'open-sourceness' of a binary, I'd contend that it's somewhat analogous to a developer extracting a fact from a newspaper article or documentation and incorporating it into their source code. It's unlikely that you would consider this 'ultimate source' to be part of the source code or the preferred form of modification. In many cases in the software realm, such ultimate sources may even be proprietary, yet using them is not considered contradictory, legally or philosophically, to the concept of open source software.
Does an LLM need all its training data to be distributable under open source terms to be considered open source, even if the result does not violate their copyright? This would be a highly restrictive requirement, since a huge part of useful training data is not open source, but likely can still be legally used without causing any restrictions on the end result.
However, I would assert that the term 'open source' represents more than these technical details—it is a movement, a philosophy. The exact definition as applied to software seems to me somewhat of an implementation detail, although I appreciate the establishment of clear boundaries.
I believe the same principles should be applied to LLMs. It wouldn't make sense, to me, to label an LLM as open source if only the training data and code were distributable under an open source license. The absence of weights would render it effectively useless for most people.
I'm not certain where the precise boundaries for the 'open-sourceness' of LLMs should lie, but I believe that the most crucial freedoms are: 1) the freedom to use the weights for any purpose, 2) the freedom to distribute the weights, and 3) the freedom to modify and distribute modified versions of the weights. (While it may emerge that these don't even fall under copyright protection, it would be unwise to assume this with certainty.) I still believe it makes sense to apply the open source terminology to LLMs, especially if it turns out they do receive copyright protection.
Posted Jun 22, 2023 21:28 UTC (Thu)
by mikebenden (guest, #74702)
[Link] (1 responses)
> However, the situation is different for LLMs. Datasets, although valuable, are not the primary resource. Many models are indeed trained partially on private datasets, but the truly costly part of the process is the model training—this computation time and energy can easily amount to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. In comparison, datasets are relatively cheap.
So, in other words, since downstream is likely not smart enough, strong enough, or wealthy enough to really rebuild from *actual* sources, let's redefine the meaning of "open" and "source", so we can open-wash the distribution of an opaque, black-box product for *marketing* purposes, right ? :)
Posted Jun 23, 2023 13:41 UTC (Fri)
by SLi (subscriber, #53131)
[Link]
As we've discussed, the creation of LLMs involves unique costs and processes that don't have direct analogies in traditional software development. The expense and complexity of the training process mean that even if someone had access to the original training data and code, they might not be able to reproduce the model. Instead, the pre-trained weights of the model often serve as a more practical 'source' for downstream users who want to fine-tune the model for their specific needs.
In this sense, I believe that making the weights of an LLM freely available for use, distribution, and modification could be seen as a form of 'openness'—and, more importantly, only making the training data and code available in the same way is not open enough to be called open source.
Posted Jun 23, 2023 13:41 UTC (Fri)
by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
[Link]
Posted Jun 22, 2023 17:15 UTC (Thu)
by kleptog (subscriber, #1183)
[Link] (2 responses)
I wonder. It seems in practice the "preferred form of modification" is the model itself. It's clear now that it's much easier to tune an existing model for your purposes than it is to build one from scratch. While people are asking for information about the original data for regulatory purposes, no-one is seriously considering using that information to rebuild the model from scratch. For starters, the whole process is non-deterministic, there's no guarantee if you start with the same input data you get the same model out.
Posted Jun 23, 2023 13:41 UTC (Fri)
by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 23, 2023 17:41 UTC (Fri)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link]
Also, training is not embarrassingly parallel like SETI or Folding-At-Home, so it's not possible (at least not right now) to just crowdsource the computation cycles.
Posted Jun 23, 2023 13:41 UTC (Fri)
by pabs (subscriber, #43278)
[Link]
Posted Jun 20, 2023 18:24 UTC (Tue)
by tilt12345678 (subscriber, #126336)
[Link]
About the actual website: I had a look at it, and it really is quite a bit more accessible (and also has a more modern, material-style design) than the aforementioned publications. Nice job, for that matter! Come to think about it, to make it even less abstract and more tangible, why not include things like "success stories from past and present" that demonstrate that the four freedoms render actual benefits into multiple directions? Just an idea. Such showcasing is probably hard to get right and maintain properly (it's all moving targets after all).
Otherwise, from this occasional review (i rarely visit these sites, i wouldn't know why i should) i get the impression: What all these sites do not feature (at least not intensely) are links, directions, event announcements and general pointers into various parts and projects and activities regarding free and open source software. Where news and events are featured on these sites, at least to me they seem mostly of the self-centered nature. But that may just be me.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 20:04 UTC (Tue)
by Hobart (subscriber, #59974)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Jun 20, 2023 21:33 UTC (Tue)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link] (6 responses)
This article have only historic interest today. It's true that once upon time “Open Source” term was coined to just make “Free Software” more sellable to pointy-haired bosses. But when that happened and marketing campaign was created to sell existing “Free Software”… most developers found out that what that marketing campaign tried to portray and what said marketing campaign authors believed to be just one “pointy-haired boss safe” side of “Free Software”… was the only thing they ever wanted from the free software! They never wanted to be members of the holy jihad against proprietary software, they never felt the pain in their soul when they felt the need to use it, for them software is just a tool! They never wanted to be part of the crusade, they never wanted to fight Microsoft or Google to the death… and they willingly left the “Free Software” movement. For some time there were few developers who were sharing FSF's ideals… but do they still exist today? As Cyberax asks: what projects FSF have produced in last 10 years? It certainly holds significant number of projects hostage and doesn't allow them to do what their today's developers want to do… but do people still join them… do people still produce something for them except when forced to do so because of mandatory license agreements (which are slowly becoming less mandatory)? These are important questions because if the answers are “no” (as it looks from the outside) then it doesn't matter what FSF would do to try to reinvent itself: it's existence is more-or-less pointless in such situation.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 22:23 UTC (Tue)
by ballombe (subscriber, #9523)
[Link]
Posted Jun 20, 2023 22:51 UTC (Tue)
by pizza (subscriber, #46)
[Link] (2 responses)
Sure, those developers still exist today, and many more besides. But proportionally, there are far fewer.
Meanwhile, asking about the projects the FSF has produced recently is pretty silly. What has UC Berkley produced recently? What has the OSI directly produced, ever? And for every Apache Foundation success story there are a dozen irrelevant failures, including some very high profile ones. Even in its heydey, the FSF (and GNU) has never been directly responsible for more than a small fraction of the software being written.
What matters here is the mindshare of individual developers -- because they're the ones writing the actual software. Or it might be more accurate to say that the mentality of the folks who *start* software projects is what matters; After all, most "open source" contributors are just using the same licensing as the original project or language ecosystem.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 23:23 UTC (Tue)
by Cyberax (✭ supporter ✭, #52523)
[Link] (1 responses)
Quite a lot. As luck has it, I've just finished reading this paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2306.07629.pdf
> And for every Apache Foundation success story there are a dozen irrelevant failures
And so? Open Source is incredibly diverse, and that's the strength of it. It's not a cathedral, it's a somewhat chaotic mess where multiple agents (individuals, companies, academic institutions) work for their own goals. But the end result is overall progress in the state of the art.
Posted Jun 21, 2023 8:30 UTC (Wed)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link]
It was useful to have some churches and apostles in the very beginning to spread the word that other approaches were realistic but that era is over now, we don't need any of that any more. Open Source and Free Software don't need to be "a thing" any more, now they're just well known means to various ends. Just tools in the box - next to closed source. For most people the debates on this page are as pointless as religious wars between programming languages.
Posted Jun 21, 2023 0:11 UTC (Wed)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link]
Careful here ... Google had the motto "don't be evil". Never mind that the definition of evil is part of morality, and as such cannot easily be defined. However, Microsoft back in the day had the attitude - driven from the top - of "win at all costs, and who cares who we hurt along the way". That's evil by pretty much anybody's definition (apart from MS's board of directors, of course ...)
As one of their victims, in a small way, I still hate having to deal with Microsoft. One of the reasons I'm pushing Scarlet at my employer is so that we can dump Excel!
Google may be misguided, people who hate Google may be misguided, but Microsoft definitely was Evil with a capital E.
Cheers,
Posted Jun 21, 2023 10:24 UTC (Wed)
by SLi (subscriber, #53131)
[Link]
Many developers see not only software, but also its development and the ecosystem it's part of, as tools. This doesn't mean they disregard software freedom. Instead, they may see it as the best instrument to ensure the continual availability and health of the open ecosystem in the future.
Many developers who adopt this perspective lean more towards permissive licenses over copyleft ones. The reason for this isn't disdain for the principles that copyleft licenses represent, but rather the observation that these licenses can sometimes foster a larger and more diverse open source ecosystem. They bring in a variety of contributors, including those from corporations that might otherwise not take part.
Take LLVM as an example. This project has attracted contributions from a wide range of organizations, including Apple, Google, Sony, and Intel. This has arguably resulted in a project that is simply a better piece of software than what we would have if it had used a copyleft license and potentially deterred these contributors.
I would say that these developers believe the future existence of a stronger open code base outweighs the harm of proprietary derivatives. In a way, they probably see proprietary software as less of a competitor and more of a thing to just ignore.
Posted Jun 20, 2023 23:00 UTC (Tue)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link] (3 responses)
Thank you.
Posted Jun 21, 2023 8:43 UTC (Wed)
by mattdm (subscriber, #18)
[Link]
Posted Jun 21, 2023 10:27 UTC (Wed)
by SLi (subscriber, #53131)
[Link]
Posted Jun 21, 2023 12:49 UTC (Wed)
by corbet (editor, #1)
[Link]
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Wol
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
I agree with Wol and other previous commenters, the way it is written now is definitely very, very misleading to the point of being incorrect.
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Some licenses don’t just permit you to share your improvements, but require that, if you share your improvements with anyone, you can only do so under exactly the same licence.
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Wol
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36391360
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Now "open source" means "GitHub". This is sad.
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Relevant reading:
(1999) It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again - Bruce Perens
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Software is a tool when it allows you to do stuff.
It is not a tool when it prevents you to do stuff you could do without it.
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
Wol
DeVault: Reforming the free software message
I know better than to think I can post an item like this and not get an ... active ... discussion. Recognizing that, I've held off on intervention so far. But I think it's fair to say that the useful part of this conversation has pretty much run its course and we should let it die down, even if somebody else is still being horribly wrong and hasn't yet been made to see the light.
Time to calm down
You're right, of course. Any way to put this message at the top of the comments?
Time to calm down
Time to calm down
It seems that this message didn't get through... I've just put this item on moderation, and we'll be quite reluctant to let any further comments through. Time to move on, please.
Time to calm down