Very good reading, even with a couple of poor questions.

Seeing the Future

I quite enjoyed seeing how RMS tempered prophetic statements with unfortunate real-world experience. Consider this insight from RMS into why it would be unlikely for a commercial entity to produce something like Emacs:

I don’t think that anything like EMACS could have been developed commercially. Businesses have the wrong attitudes. The primary axiom of the commercial world toward users is that they are incompetent, and that if they have any control over their system they will mess it up. The primary goal is to give them nothing specific to complain about, not to give them a means of helping themselves.

Some 23 years later, on the commerically amazing debut of the iPad, it’s striking how accurate this assessment is!

Understanding the Past

The unfortunate real-world experience is recounted on the “betrayal” of the sharing ideals by persons such as Russell Noftsker and James Gosling, both of which took advantage of (proto-) Free Software for commerical benefit.

It is precisely this “school of hard knocks” experience that makes the GPL so grounded in real-world understanding, rather than the “zealotry” and “idealism” that detractors struggle mightily to paint it with. RMS knows how people will try to abuse Free Software,  and the GPL has parts specifically constructed to prevent such abuse!

The Cultural Significance of Free Software

As interesting as the main H article is, through a link it led me to an even more interesting read, Two Bits: The Cultural Significance of Free Software.

This is a fascinating book, completely available online under CC-BY-NC-SA, not only with extensive references and footnotes, but also allowing reader commenting and “modulating“.

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.

Gnote and Fedora

The Good: Gnote has a new support team in place with exciting plans.

The Bad: Said support team has to bend over backward to make it clear they are not “anti-Mono”. After effects of the smear campaign against the original author of Gnote?

Of ripples in a pond…

The Beez on how he deals with comments to his opinion pieces. I am of much the same mind. With the exceptions of spam, profane or insane posts, I don’t restrict comments.

You’d be suprised – or maybe not – on how many profane and insane comments I get. Some of them are literally zero-content comprised of pure profanity. Obviously, such comments show the level of intellectual discourse of some segment of the loyal opposition, but the really interesting thing is that if you just swapped out the profanity with slightly more polite language, you’d have the same comments from an even larger segment of that same opposition!

Things like that amuse me.

You have to be amused, or you’d never stop vomiting.

WordPress Foundation

One thing I’ve always liked about WordPress is the unabashed support for the GPL. Check out the Philosopy behind the recently-formed WordPress Foundation:

The software should be licensed under the GNU Public License.

The software should be freely available to anyone to use for any purpose, and without permission.

The software should be open to modifications.

Any modifications should be freely distributable at no cost and without permission from its creators.

The software should provide a framework for translation to make it globally accessible to speakers of all languages.

The software should provide a framework for extensions so modifications and enhancements can be made without modifying core code.

Two things I really like about this: First, it specifically calls out for the GPL! and second, I like the idea that there are requirements above and beyond the software license. A major failing of many “Open Source” promoters is thinking that the license is the be-all, end-all of Open/Free, even as some companies work overtime finding loopholes and “workarounds” to Open Source Licenses.

Richard Stallman on The Setup

I love how the world biggest Apple fan boy (meant in a loving way) sums this up:

Say what you want about him, but he walks the walk.

Wow. Contrast this simple and honest recognition with some of the “Open Source Supporter” vile efforts to portray RMS as a hypocrite.

Ask YouTube for Ogg support!

The FSF blog calls for people to let Google know they would like to see Ogg support on You Tube.

Not only is this something that would be an awesome win for a real Open Standard, but it’s yet another thing that puts to lie the “Open Source Supporter” tactic of portraying the FSF as negative zealots.

The latter document is an informative read, and Bruce Byfield has an insightful take on the situation in his article “Selling GPL Exceptions isn’t Exceptional“.

What Lies Beneath

Although the actual specifics are fairly interesting in and of themselves, I’m more interested in an underlying theme, one that Mr. Byfield astutely hits upon here:

Both supporters and opponents of the FSF sometimes seem to have created a set of straw figures to react to. The supporters have done so out of uncritical respect (if not downright hero worship) of Stallman and the FSF, and the opponents for propaganda, but the results are surprisingly similar. For both, Stallman and the FSF are ethically and morally uncompromising — admirably so, for supporters, and naively, dangerously so for opponents.

I often wonder how it is that RMS, a person who expends considerable effort to explain himself precisely is so grossly misrepresented? (Quite a bit moreso by his opponents, I should say. In my humble opinion, Mr. Byfield is bending over backward to present both sides in the same light here.)

It is a favorite tactic of some to paint a caricature of Free Software supporters in general, and RMS in specific, as uncompromising unrealistic “zealots” with only the barest understanding of how the “real world” functions. Yet even the most casual examination of FSF articles and actions refutes such a notion.

Thus I return again to my point that the vocal anti-Free Software critics are either ignorant or malicious.¹ The FSF is quite good at laying out its philosophy in great detail on its website. You don’t have to sign an NDA or anything.

¹ The sadly necessary disclaimer:  I’m not suggesting there is no valid criticism out there, just that people who play the “zealot” card, ridicule RMS or the FSF for “hypocrisy”, or enage in other such fact and logic-free fallacies are to be dismissed with scorn.

David Berlind has an article up today about his recent interview with RMS over at InformationWeek.com.

Behold this shocking reporting!:

After the interview’s conclusion, Stallman said I was particularly nasty in the way I started to ask my question to which I responded that I understood the issue well, that I have understood it for many years, and that I meant no disrespect. He admonished me to go back to the recording and listen to the way in which I phrased the question. He was right. Stallman chooses his words very carefully. I didn’t. If you compare his request in email to the question I started to ask, you can see how my question essentially endorses “Linux” as the accepted name of an operating system that should be called “GNU/Linux.” Stallman continued:

Now-a-days, there are thousands of programs in most GNU/Linux distributions of which hundreds are GNU packages. But among the programs you need, they range from very big programs like the C Compiler to very small programs like “RM” which is what you use to delete a file. I think I wrote the original RM in 2 or 3 days… at the beginning, I was doing most of the [software development] but I was also trying to recruit other people to contribute and over the years, more and more people joined in. So, by now, the code I wrote is a small part.

Nevertheless, Stallman makes an important point. Stallman’s and the Free Software Foundation’s significant contribution to one of the greatest disruptive forces the software industry has ever seen have essentially been dismissed. So much so that the millions of people who currently use or rely (knowingly or unknowingly) on GNU/Linux every day may never understand the critical roles that Stallman, the FSF, and the GNU Project played in bringing those computing experiences to them.

[...]

So, to Richard Stallman, I apologize for my choice of words as I began to phrase my question. And to those of you reading this post, and to Red Hat, Novell, and the countless other people and companies who have commercially benefited from the FSF’s pioneering work in the area of free software, it’s time to give credit where credit is due.

When you are referring to the Linux kernel, feel free to call it Linux. But, in deference to the people and organization that gifted you the technologies you now benefit and in many cases profit from, call it GNU/Linux. Call it GNU/Linux when discussing it. Call it GNU/Linux in your product literature. Call it GNU/Linux on the side of your product boxes and on your Web sites. Just call it GNU/Linux. It’s the least you can do.

Compare this gentleman’s reflection and consideration of RMS’ points with the enthusiastic ignorance we saw earlier on the very same point. 

Examples like this are exactly why I have come to the conclusion that the noisy people that disagree with RMS (and, by extension, the “Free Software” concept) fall into one of two camps: ignorant or malicious.

Disclaimer, sadly necessary against straw men fighters across the intertubes: As I said before, this is not because RMS is always right or that there is no valid disagreement with him. Just that a specific subset of critics (loud, obnoxious, and fallacious) are not to be taken seriously.

Anyway, quite refreshing to see someone take the time and testicles to examine their own position and acknowledge RMS may indeed be talking sense.

Kudos to the author, Mike Miliard.

I like several things about this article. For one thing, the author obvious took great pains trying to break down a somewhat abstract and complex “inside baseball” issue and did not oversimplify it to the point of white-washing it.

For another, there are a lot of powerful RMS quotes:

What we need is enough people not to be outright cowards, and we can win. I really care about freedom and I’m willing to make some sacrifices for it. There are such strong forces arrayed to take away our freedom, and it’s vanishing so fast that, without sacrifices, we’re sure to lose it.

Finally, I deeply appreciate the very sad closing paragraph because it says so so much:

I ask Stallman if he’s optimistic. Surprisingly for a man with such ironclad convictions, he says no: the corporations just have too much of a stranglehold on government and society. 

Every single person that ever tried to say that rms was “out of touch with reality” can now shut the hell up. The theme, sad but true, that runs through the interview is that rms knows it’s an uphill battle. He knows corporate interests are largely arrayed against him, and he knows that – especially in the USA – progress will be very difficult. He knows it requires sacrifices.

He’s just trying to live a life in line with his convictions as best he is able. Convictions like “everybody who’s using a computer deserves freedom”. How sad when people oppose that.