I don’t know about “free software”. Even after more than a decade it’s still an alien term for me. I know it is “opensource” for as far as I’m concerned. And that’s all I care about.
- Philip Van Hoof, GNOME Foundation Member
Usually I turn to HBO or Showtime to provide me with my drama fix, but the GNOME Foundation Mailing List is doing a pretty durn good job of spicing it up these last few weeks. It’s so good I might have to break it up over a few entries.
New Thing: Same as the Old Thing
This latest kerfluffle (not to be confused with earlier kerfluffles [1] [2]) started up over concerns for a strategic roadmap on GNOME, the thread got all heated up by names that will be familiar to anyone following such issues (“trollers gonna troll” is how the kids say it in their rap music) , a re-boot was attempted, and now people are unsubscribing from the mailing list[1][2].
Jump on in, the water’s fine
Like I said, there’s a ton of stuff to comment on, but here’s one to start on:
[Richard Stallman] Implementing a free platform for C# is a good thing to do. If you would like to promote the use of C# itself, how about explaining to Novell and Microsoft that they need to fully implement said protection in an ironclad way for all the usual C# libraries.
[Miguel de Icaza] I spend a considerable amount of time doing this. It has taken time, and there would be no Community Promise, and there would be no Silverlight agreement (the one that has no special Novell provisions) without this work.
[Ace Ventura]>Re-he-he-he-eally??
What about the fact that the Covenant defines a “Conforming Host” as either a web browser or a launcher implemented by Novell?
Wat about the fact that the Covenant defines “Moonlight 3” as only those portions developed by or on behalf of Novell?
What about the fact that the Covenant specifically defines the terms “Novell-Provided Copies” and “Novell Distribution“?
What about the fact that the Covenant restricts “by license and technical means” Media Packs to work only with Novell-Provided Copies of Moonlight?
What about the fact that the Covenant specifies test suites that Microsoft will provide to Novell for testing the functionality of Novell’s Moonlight candidates?
A simple request
Now, having read the text of the Covenant, anyone care to tell me exactly how there are no special Novell provisions in the Silverlight agreement?
Don’t get mad and call me a zealot or make fun of how rms uses the internet or engage in whatever distractionary technique Team Apologista has queued up when someone raises uncomfortable questions.
And don’t just attack one of those questions, either. You need to show that not a single one is a “special Novell provision”.
Extra irony
You may appreciate knowing that Mr. de Icaza makes this assertion – that there are no special Novell provisions (when there clearly are) – while calling a FSF article on mono “a package of half-truths” and accusing rms of spreading “half truths”.
I suppose even a package of half-truths is a step up from a package of no-truths.
#1 by Ed Landaveri on March 9, 2010 - 1:20 am
My friend your wait will be forever. So grab a cup of coffee and spend your time on something more useful. Your article and this comment probably will bring up the ms fan boys that only going to repeat the no-truths continually brought up by De Icaza and the legions of MS’ trolls. The same sophism s as usual.
Wanna use mono or silverlight? Use a Novell client ’cause an “Open” Suse one will probably not work properly. It’s clearer that clean water the “Open Community Promise” doesn’t cover anyone else. To say the contrary is just MS and Novell PR trying to make people drop their distributions and use Novell’s. But if you want the real thing you better use Windows.
Do I need mono or silverlight? NO. Why use something that MS and its servant Novell are pushing as a “standard” to keep people dependent not on Novell but on MS. Even on Novell mono or moonlight doesn’t work well. It’s ALL purpose is to migrate people away from GNU/Linux. Thus, I do NOT need them.
Mr. Stallman and the FSF have brought up a lot of heat over themselves by speaking the truth. But history and truth is on their side. You can’t cover the sunlight with your hands. Truth is uncomfortable to those whose ONLY interest is to take away peoples FREEDOM and CHOICE. Their tactic it’s the same as Himmler:
“Lie, lie, lie, something will remain”
#2 by Uncle Warthog on March 9, 2010 - 4:27 am
Free Software is an alien term to them? HUH?!?!? Is this the same GNOME that was founded because the Qt library on which KDE was built was open source but not “free” or has someone taken GNOME away and replaced it with some impostor?
#3 by Danielh on March 9, 2010 - 3:33 pm
“I don’t know about “free software”. Even after more than a decade it’s still an alien term for me. I know it is “opensource” for as far as I’m concerned. And that’s all I care about.”
Who is this guy and why do the Gnome developers let him ruin Gnome? Wasnt Gnome founded because of the lack of free software in KDE? It sure looks as if Gnome has been subverted by outsiders and bribed insiders working for Microsoft.
#4 by Jason on March 9, 2010 - 4:58 pm
Danielh,
Why that gentleman who in the same email message says:
Is in fact the same individual who created the slur-meme simplistic slogan “I’m not afraid of people writing code”.
The hypocrisy would be amusing if it wasn’t so nauseating.
#5 by jcwarrior on March 11, 2010 - 4:40 am
You are doing a great favor to Phillip Van Hoof by calling him a gentleman.
Just look the way he expresses himself:
In his own blog page
In the gnome mailing list:
The funny thing in the last quote is that he later complains of (non-existent) ad-hominem attacks.
Now the ducks are firing at the shotguns!
Of course Emilio Pozuelo Monfort had to explain the difference
to Philip that a dissenting opinion is not ad-hominem:
This is the guy that likes to portray himself as “intellectually honest” while at the same time likes insult anyone who contradicts him.
Poor Philip, he is always working hard to ridicule himself. So much to say for the “intellectually honest” guy.
#6 by alexb on March 10, 2010 - 6:19 am
I’ve been following these discussions on the Gnome mailing lists for several months, and as a longtime user and supporter of the Gnome desktop, I’m sad to see what is happening to this project and its community.
It is nauseating to me to see people — specifically two people: Philip Van Hoof and above all, David Schlesinger (“Lefty”) — tear this community apart. Their strident, tireless opposition to the Free Software movement (RMS, the FSF, the GNU project, most of Gnome, and many others) is driving lots of people away. At least Philip probably makes some technical contributions, whereas “Lefty’s” only contribution to Gnome seems to be an endless supply of divisive, poisonous rhetoric.
If the leadership within Gnome doesn’t soon find the courage to take the difficult, but necessary step of expelling “Lefty” and maybe Philip from the project, I don’t think it has much of a future (perhaps Philip would recover the ability to stfu and get back to coding if “lefty” wasn’t always around to tag-team with). Since both have publicly declared on many occasions that they are opposed to Free Software principles and the GNU project (of which Gnome is a part), I think there is ample grounds to do so.
Talented free software developers can find plenty of projects to work on which have a welcoming community and well-understood, *shared* goals. Gnome used to be such a community, but has now been infiltrated by a handful of people (maybe only a couple) who are vociferously opposed to the original mission of the project (a Free Software desktop), and are constantly working to undermine it. For the free software developers who remain, constantly having to struggle with these “poisonous people” to preserve the founding principles of their project must be very tiring, and can’t be very much fun. For the engineers who are paid to work on Gnome, it may not matter, but an environment like this will not attract and retain volunteer contributors.
All in all, it’s very disappointing to see. Hopefully the Gnome leadership will deal with this problem before the project is reduced to nothing more than a mailing list with two subscribers (Philip and “Lefty”) talking at one another. For David Schlesinger, I expect this would be regarded as “mission accomplished”, but I would regard it as a sad and useless substitute for Gnome’s original mission.
#7 by Jason on March 10, 2010 - 6:57 am
alexb,
Thank you for your comments! I think you have summed up the situation quite succinctly indeed.
GNOME is one example of a danger facing successful Free Software projects: once your project is reliable, popular and has a strong community, it becomes a target for “hijacking” by those who appreciate the end result, but not the method of the success.
#8 by vexorian on March 10, 2010 - 9:03 am
Well, quite honestly Miguel’s position is getting tiresome. So if the CP is all right, if everything is all right and safe, why must Novell (his employer) still protect itself with all those covenants? If Novell and Icaza want everybody to think that C# is fine and there are no threats thanks to the CP then it would be easy to show it off by dropping the covenants and be subject to the CP just like everybody else is. It is tiresome that they keep insisting that everything is fine and there won’t be any storm while at the same time they keep their exclusive umbrella…