Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GNU is Not Unix

What's Up With FSF VP Bradley M. Kuhn? 198

Posted by Roblimo from the behind-the-man-in-the-spotlight dept.
There's more to the Free Software Foundation than Richard M. Stallman, you know. Like bkuhn, AKA Bradley M. Kuhn, who has been a full-time employee of the organization since February '01 and has taken over some of the duties that were previously RMS's exclusive province. Got a question for bkuhn about the FSF -- or anything else? Post it below. We'll select 10 of the highest-moderated questions, forward them to bkuhn, and post his replies as soon as we get them back.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What's Up With FSF VP Bradley M. Kuhn? More

What's Up With FSF VP Bradley M. Kuhn?

Comments Filter:

  • Hardware Companies? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by 2400-n-8-1 ( 261723 )
    Do you and/or the FSF support any certain hardware or hardware companies to go with free software?

    Does the FSF have anything in mind to deal with hardware issues in the future?

  • Next episode on the Internet tragedy: industry is asked first for DotName names. Why isn't there yet a "second" internet with geeks all over the world in charge of it's policies - solely for non-profit purposes?

  • "Raving Lunatic" Image? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bilbo ( 7015 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @12:11PM (#2112150) Homepage
    In spite of all of RMS's great understanding of the working of "Free Software", and his passion for promoting real Freedom, he has unfortunately picked up this image of a foaming-at-the-mouth raving lunatic pinko. How to you plan to combat this image, without compromising on the real issues behind Free Software, or the passion with which the FSF promotes these ideals?
    • raving lunatic pinko

      You shouldn't use words you clearly don't know the definition of. I'm sure you're using "pinko" in this sense because you've heard the circa 1950's insult "commie pinko" but the word pinko is a slur towards gays, not towards communists. People were called commie pinkos in order to insinuate that they were gay as well as communist. The word "pinko" comes from "pink triangle" which they were forced to wear under Hitler.

      I seriously doubt that you mean to accuse RMS of being a homosexual, so I suggest you read up on the meaning of the things you say before you say them.

      • The trem Pinko actually came from President Dick Nixon who, while as a senator, had accussed a certain communist sympathiser of beng a "Pink Lady" [chron.com] (Pink as in almost "red" i.e. communist). Thus the term "pinko", a shortened version of the insinuation.
      • I seriously doubt that you mean to accuse RMS of being a homosexual
        You cant accuse someone for beeing homosexual as it isnt a crime.
        J.

      • "Better Dead than Red" (Score:2, Informative)

        by Bilbo ( 7015 )
        > You shouldn't use words you clearly don't know the definition of.

        While it's obviously true that words often change their meanings over time, the term "pinko" was originally a reference to suspected Communist sympathizers, originating in the McCarthy era and subsequent purges shortly after WWII. They weren't "Red" (i.e., actual Communist Party members), but they were supposedly sympathetic to Communist views (i.e., "Pink"). Of course, the McCarthy trials turned into witch hunts, but that's a subject for another day...

      • Nice theory, but Messrs. Merriam and Webster disagree [dictionary.com].
        • Yes, but is RMS "moderately leftist"...
          • Yes, but is RMS "moderately leftist"...

            That's not the point here. The queston is, "Does the public perceive him as 'moderately leftist'"? My contention is, for better or worse, the public (or at least the media) sees RMS this way. The question then becomes, what's to be done about the perception?

            NOTE: The answer may very well be to do nothing! In other words, perhaps this is the sort of thing the FSF wants to encourage. Personally, it's not what I would recommend, but that's not to say that there aren't some people who still believe in the fundamental concepts of Socialism.

            That's why I asked the question.

            • "ut that's not to say that there aren't some people who still believe in the fundamental concepts of Socialism"

              I would think most christians fall under this category. It seems like Christ was very big on helping the less fortunate and spreading the wealth around. In fact I think he might have said at one time "it is harder for a rich man to go to heaven then a camel to go through the eye of a needle". If the quote is not right please forgive me I am an atheist. It's just something I have heard attributed to him.
              • ut that's not to say that there aren't some people who still believe in the fundamental concepts of Socialism"

                I would think most christians fall under this category.

                Interesting comment, though I'm not exactly sure how it applies here (in the context of RMS and the FSF).

                However, now that you mention it, I have no idea what Stallman's religious beliefs are, but it is true that some of the primary people behind the Free Software and Open Source movement are Christians, and base a lot of their philosophy of giving things away on their religious convictions.

                I will say however that Christians don't all fit into neat categories. There are some who believe that Socialism is based on Christian principles. There are others though who will quote the passage: "He who does not work should not eat." There are plenty of conservative Christians who believe in being rewarded in proportion your work, and that riches (when held on to with a spirit of generosity) can be an indication of God's blessing.

                Point is: When you get down to it, neither Socialism nor Capitalism is a really "Christian" economic system. They both have their strengths and pitfalls, and trying to shoehorn Christ or Christians into either one is no more useful than trying to pin a particular economic theory on all Athiests as if they were a monolythic group. You can still promote what are considered by the general public to be "radical ideas", without having to paint yourself Red or True Blue.

                • " though I'm not exactly sure how it applies here (in the context of RMS and the FSF)."

                  I don't know that it applies to RMS or FSF, You were talking about socialism (which also does not apply to RMS or FSF as far as I can see). I was commenting about socialism in general.

                  "There are some who believe that Socialism is based on Christian principles. There are others though who will quote the passage: "He who does not work should not eat."

                  As an atheist it has always amused me to no end that for any idea expressed in the bible the aooposite idea is also expressed. One the one hand god says "turn the other cheek" a few chapters later (earlier?) he says "kill them all, kill their women, kill their children, kill their animals and salt the earth so that not even plants survive". It must be massively disorenting to be christian. I suppose I should not pick on them because the moslems and the jews probably suffer from the same level of dissonance. Maybe that's why they seem to enjoy killing each other so much.

                  Getting back to the point (sort of). It seems to me that if christ designed a society it would look a lot like socialism. Surely he would not let people starve or suffer in poverty. If the devil designed a system it would look a lot like capitalism. It would be based on greed, envy, gluttony, pride, and all the rest of the seven deadly sins and the endless devotion to accumulation of money. If the love of money is root of all evil then capitalism is indeed based on evil at it's core. I certainly have never heard any passage from the bible, koran or any budhist texts that say "accumulate all the wealth you can, become so rich that you can never even spend all the money you have earned, hoard cash and use it to corrupt politicians. Buy the most expensive car in the world and then buy 20 more becasue a righteous man shall have many forms of transportation with burled maple dashboards" etc.
                  Like I said it must be very disorienting to be christian in the capitalistic country.
                  • > It must be massively disorenting to be christian.

                    It is disorienting, in the sense that people who come to the Bible for easy, pat answers to complicated questions aren't going to find them. Also, the Bible (and I'm sure every other "Holy Book") is full of statements which are easily taken out of context. If you don't look at a quote as it fits into the larger picture, you're bound to come up with a twisted understanding of what it's trying to say.

                    Methinks it's not that different from Stallman. Look at a quote here and there, and he looks like a raving loonie. Take all his statements together and they start to make sense, or at least follow a logical pattern.

                    However, this thread is getting out of hand. Please send me an email address if you wish to continue, and I'll be happy to respond.

                    > Like I said it must be very disorienting to be christian in the capitalistic country.

                    Unfortunately, there's more truth to that statement than a lot of people want to admit...

                    • "Unfortunately, there's more truth to that statement than a lot of people want to admit..."

                      It's my pet theory that it's the single biggest reason why america is such a mentally ill country. America has the highest percentage of churchgoers in the world.
      • good to know. Thanks for sharing.
    • On the topic of comparisons:

      I met rms about a month ago, on a LUG meeting. He said that if he ever 'retired' from the fsf for whatever reason, they had a very good VP to continue with the fundation. So, some questions to get an idea of how 'the succesor' is like:

      What do you think about free software? 'free software vs. open source'? Do you ever think about the future? Are you obsessed (in a good way) with things like changing the names of the LUGs and distributions to 'GNU Linux', or asking people to use savannah instead of sourceforge? Do you like Linus?

      • Hmmm...I don't mean to sound negative here but I'd like to state this as clearly as I remember. Kuhn was a member of the Cincinnati LUG. I attended one meeting and felt like I was hit with a cement truck when the ideal of freedom came up. Bradly offered to review a book if it had an appropriately free license, which it didn't, so he gave it to someone else to review.

        Then, it was an officer election day and Bradly asked everyone to abstain from the election since all the members were not able to vote since some were not present. I don't know about their bylaws so maybe there is an article allowing non-present members to vote so his action may be well justified.

        In any case I was taken aback since I came to the meeting (my first one) hoping for a great discussion of linux material. The clug [clug.org] page says: We don't have a formal mission statement. Our goals are very simple. We have discovered Linux and want to talk to others who have made the same discovery. We are experts and novices, professionals and hobbyists, young and old. Whoever you are, we hope we have something for you. I was really taken aback with the political nature of the meeting, and much of this I suppose could be attributed to Bradly's behavior.

        Now (years later) I understand the nature of GNU and why GNU/Linux is an appropriate name for the entire system. I understand the GPL enough to know why it's good. I could now probably digest a meeting like the one I went to. But I do know that FSF now does have a man that will walk in the footsteps of rms.

  • Next big technical effort? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Lumpish Scholar ( 17107 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @01:07PM (#2115344) Homepage Journal
    Congratuations on the release of version 3.0 of the GNU Compiler Collection. This is the cumulation of a lot of work by contributors to the GNU project from all over the world.

    What do you see as the GNU project's next big release? Mono and DotGNU? Bayonne? Something else?

  • FSF and the cause. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Lumpy ( 12016 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @12:42PM (#2116493) Homepage
    What is your stance on Software protection? In the FSF stance, what would you do or reccomend to be done if (check that if, WHEN) a GNU program and programmer is attacked in a way that will be very like what we see with Dimitri. Many of the GNU programs and software packages are, as far as I am concerned, in real danger of being attacked or persecuted by large corperations. With laws like the DCMA and other unbelievable laws that are being drafted as bills every day, What do you think can be done to protect this freedom?
  • I know that many GNU/Linux systems are referred
    to as "GNU Systems", and that the GNU offerings are an important part of making many OS's useful.

    I wonder, though, when there will be a pure GNU
    system, running HURD, shipping with the GNU Software Source CD set, and building the base
    system purely from that at install time.

    If such a product existed, and was packaged with secure server systems in mind, I'd definitely buy a copy.

    Is this something that is on the FSF map?
  • Current "software-selling" business models are the major money makers in the industry.

    This model is very centric to the idea that the software can't (or ideally won't) be copied for free (beer), but instead will require a fee to obtain a copy of the binary only software. In my opinion, this is Open Source/Free (liberty)Software's only downfall. For the current software market, Open Source and Free Software don't seem like to have standing ground. I know about other business models that do work based on the idea of Open Source and Free Software, but what I wonder is:

    How can Free Software be applied to current markets and be made profitable?

    How long will it take for these newly made Free Software business models to penetrate the market, and become a better alternative to current business models?

  • GPL for web-apps (Score:5, Interesting)

    by webmaven ( 27463 ) <webmaven@nOsPAM.cox.net> on Monday August 06, 2001 @12:13PM (#2117449) Homepage
    As both Bruce Perens and Tim O'Reilly have pointed out, it is possible to publicly deploy a web-app that is derived from GPL'd software without having to distribute your modifications.

    While I certainly feel that it should be possible to do this for applications that are deployed internally without having the deployment count as 'distribution', I am less happy about deployments on public websites. I would want web-applications that I create to have an additional 'public-performance' clause in their license that would require modifications that are publicly deployed to be made available in source form.

    This is the so called 'web-app loophole', and I was wondering what your thoughts on the matter were?
    • Hmm, if this issue is so important to you, you should have heard that the GPL V3 is supposed to address it. So a better question would be what the status of the next version of the GPL is...
    • Limiting public performance goes against the very nature of Free Software. Please reread the Free Software definition and then explain how restricting the right of the user to perform his own private modifications of the software can possibly fit that definition.

      In other words, if "software should not be owned", then where do the legal rights come from that allow you to restrict what someone else does with their copy of a software package?
      • Limiting public performance goes against the very nature of Free Software. Please reread the Free Software definition and then explain how restricting the right of the user to perform his own private modifications of the software can possibly fit that definition.
        Well, basically what I (and others) are calling for is an optional restriction on public performances of private modificactions, but no restriction on private performances of private modifications.

        Thus, private modifications that a company made for their own internal use would be treated no differently than now, but exposing a service to the world in general would constitute a public performance, and require that the modified source code be made available.

        If such an option is not made available to developers seeking to create Free-as-in-speech implementations of key web services, then users who increasingly rely on web services will face a marked decline in their Freedom, as proprietary interests deploy non-free versions of the code.
        • I guess we just have radically different definitions of freedom. I see freedom as an (relative) absence of restriction. The more restrictions the less freedom. Period.

          If such an option is not made available to developers seeking to create Free-as-in-speech implementations of key web services, then users who increasingly rely on web services will face a marked decline in their Freedom, as proprietary interests deploy non-free versions of the code.

          The purpose of Free Software is to give freedom to the user, not a big stick to the developer. I fail to see how a user has less freedom when they excercise their free will by freely choosing to use a web application. If they freely choose to rely on someone else's copy of the software, then that is their business, and not yours.

          Benjamin Franklin once said that those that trade a little liberty for a little security deserve neither. More and more I see the Free Software Movement(tm) trading freedom for security. To claim that users have the freedom to use the software for any purpose and that the software should not be owned, yet to assert ownership over the software by restricting how it may be used is nonsensical.
          • The purpose of Free Software is to give freedom to the user, not a big stick to the developer. I fail to see how a user has less freedom when they excercise their free will by freely choosing to use a web application. If they freely choose to rely on someone else's copy of the software, then that is their business, and not yours.
            The GPL and other copylefted free software licenses aim to ensure user freedoms by restricting developer's ability to restrict users' freedoms.

            The GPL does not restrict how one may use the software at all. If I release code under the GPL, then I do not want users' freedoms restricted in regards to derivative redistributions of my code. I also do not want users' freedoms restricted in regards to derivative public performances of my code.

            I do not want a big stick. I specifically want to reduce the size of other developers sticks when they are using them to beat users away from code derived from my code.

            This is all about Freedom for the user.
            • This is all about Freedom for the user.

              Public performance is in the user's domain. You are restricting how the *user* may *use* the software.

              If the GPLv3 has this clause in it, then it cannot be a Free Software license, because the definition for Free Software says "the freedom to run the program, for any purpose". But a restriction on public performance is a restriction on running the program.
              • If the GPLv3 has this clause in it, then it cannot be a Free Software license, because the definition for Free Software says "the freedom to run the program, for any purpose". But a restriction on public performance is a restriction on running the program.
                Ah, I see where the misunderstanding is coming from. I apologise for not being more clear in the first place.

                Closing the 'web-app loophole' doesn't involve disallowing public performances at all. It simply means that if you *do* publicly perform a modified version of the software (that is, you make it available as a service), then you must provide the source to your modifications, just as if you had distributed a copy of the modified software.

                I simply meant that publicly performing the modified software without making the changes available would be disallowed.

                Again, my apologies for my imprecision.
    • So, are you saying that if I write a MUD under the GPL, and someone telnets to it, I will have to give them the sourcecode for my MUD?

      This doesn't sound too good to me. It will kill the GPL as a viable license for writing MUD codebases (and probably other kinds of games where you don't want the users to know all the secrets).

      And plz don't tell me to put all of the information into data files and just have a GPLed driver. If the license is making major design decisions for you, then there's something wrong.
      • So, are you saying that if I write a MUD under the GPL, and someone telnets to it, I will have to give them the sourcecode for my MUD?
        If you don't intend on making the source code available, what is the point of using the GPL?

        Let's say that you write an interesting codebase for creating MUD games, and you release it under the GPL. obviously, your intention is to have derivative versions of the code remain Free, so that no-one is locked in to a proprietary vendor.

        However, an unscrupulous company can set up a proprietary service that uses your code without having to distribute their modifications, since they don't actually distribute their modifications in binary form either. They merely expose a service. Result: Reduced freedom for users. This is very similar in result to a BSD license.

        Now, since the GPL allows private modifications with no requirement to distribute the modifications (for a companies internal use, say), then I think a good extension of this principle would be to allow 'private performances' of modified code, with no requirement to distribute modifications.

        Also, I have a feeling that any 'public performance' distribution requirement will be an optional clause in the GPL, rather than an across-the-board requirement.

  • Consumer space? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by GrouchoMarx ( 153170 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2001 @03:01AM (#2117761) Homepage
    The common answer to "How do I make money writing free/open source software?" is generally "give the code away, but sell the service." Great, but what about those products that don't rely on service contracts?

    For corporate consulting, and business to business software, I can see the financial viability of working only with GPLed software. But, that is not the only segment of the software industry. For the average consumer (read: home user, non-geek, non-businessman, "where is the any key" 90% of the computer-using world), any program that requires "service" means calling tech support, which is a bad thing. If you need support, the program is flawed in their eyes. So how does one make money in the consumer market? Custom add-ons are a market that can support maybe 3 people. How can one make money writing, say, a computer game if it's GPLed? If you have to get support for a game, something is wrong. How could a company like Blizzard, Id, or other game companies big and small survive with GPLed software? Then there's the thousands of independent shareware authors for whom selling the software at a few bucks to a lot of people is their bread and butter. How can they make money by writing GPLed software instead?

    I am not against the GPL, far from it. But I am still uncertain as to how it maps into the half of the market that deals with end users rather than businesses. Considering that is the industry that I wish to go into, I am faced with the moral dilema of supporting Free Software on the one hand morally, but also needing to find a way to feed myself. What do you suggest as a way to be both morally secure and financially secure in the other half of the market?

    Larry Garfield

  • At home? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cnkeller ( 181482 ) <cnkeller@nOsPAM.gmail.com> on Monday August 06, 2001 @12:36PM (#2117770) Homepage
    So, what types of software do you use at home?

  • How do you justify/reconsile RMS/FSF position? (Score:1, Troll)

    by Anonymous Coward
    For years, RMS has said that "free software" is not "Opne source".

    Yet, when RMS is not invited to an Open Source conference, the FSF issues a press release expressing dissapointment for not being invited.

    If you are not "Open Source" and that is the message of RMS, then why be dissapointed when you don't get invited to a conference?

  • Hi, I am currently building an automated software verification. I am planning to put it into GPL as soon as I released it. For me, it is really sad to find my software later on be used to verify a closed-source software -- or even worse: To verify software that limits our freedom. To my opinion, all enemies of freedom do not have right on whatsoever the freedom offers.

    Is there any consideration for amandments on GPL version 3 to address this matter?

  • I have a question for the GNU project regarding a complete GNU OS. Let me start off by saying that I'm sure Hurd is a great research kernel for playing with new features (like having FTP work through the filesystem, etc.); however, it doesn't seem to be progressing towards being a complete user OS yet. In the meantime, GNU/Linux distributions have indeed filled that niche.

    Is the Linux kernel the official GNU kernel now? If not, I will humbly suggest that AtheOS [atheos.cx] be considered as the GNU OS. It's a modern, multi-user OS that has its own aims but doesn't abandon UNIX compatibility. Much GNU software already compiles and runs on AtheOS. Would the GNU Project consider this?

  • New term for "Free"? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by abischof ( 255 ) <alex&spamcop,net> on Monday August 06, 2001 @01:22PM (#2121388) Homepage
    Is the FSF brainstorming any ideas on alternatives to the term "Free"? Unlike many other languages, it seems that English does not have separate words for "without cost" and "having freedom". So, we in the Open Source community end up using phrases such as "free as in beer" or "Free with a capital 'F'" (neither of which are immediately intuitive to the public at large).

    Much better, I think, would be to come up with a new adjective to describe such Free software ("Free" with a capital "F", that is). One idea that has been batted about is "liberated software", but that has the connotation of "stolen software" [dictionary.com] to some people. Of course, this isn't to say that the term "Free" wouldn't be used anymore -- but it would be nice to have an alternative for use at, for example, picnics or family gatherings.

  • How has the techslump affected your business plan? (Score:4, Funny)

    by alewando ( 854 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @12:39PM (#2122028)
    Two years ago, the FSF's business model of giving the product away in order to increase market share was all the rage. The power of the internet had lifted internet stocks into the stratosphere, and the world had attained a pervasive shade of what can only be described as "rosy".

    Alas, all good things must come to an end, and so the tech bubble burst. Some key players such as AOL had managed to leverage their inflated stock prices and buy up some meatspace companies like Time/Warner. It doesn't appear the FSF took advantage of whatever opportunity it may have had to do so.

    My question is this: how has the collapse of the technology sector changed the FSF's business plan? Companies that formerly gave their products away for free are now charging a price (such as Britanica.com [britanica.com]). Does the FSF have any plans to start charging as well?

    Most tech companies have seen massive layoffs with the realization that it is simply not feasible to maintain a hundred/thousand-man developer base. The FSF claims to have a base far in excess of even these most optimistic of companies. Do you have any plans to cut back on your headcount?

    And the few companies that haven't actually laid off their staff have asked their programmers to take a big paycut and participate in unpaid-leave programs. Does the FSF plan to follow suit?

    I've been running the numbers, and I just can't see how the FSF's small capitalization and dwindling revenues can keep up in the fast-paced cut-throat economy of tomorrow. Will the FSF's ship be steered off its path to destruction? Or are you merely content to stick your collective heads in the sand and hope for the best?
    • Alewando's comment is totally irrelevant: the FSF is a non-profit and therefore does not have the same preoccupations as a business. It lives on donations and does not have a "business model" but a goal [gnu.org].
      Also, the FSF is over 15 years old now, and I fail to see how it can be related to the tech bubble burst in any meaningful way.

    • ummm. (Score:2)

      by mattdm ( 1931 )
      You know that the FSF has never had this business plan? They sell stuff for thousands of dollars.
    • Wow! The first time I see the "*BSD/Linux is dying" troll applied to the FSF.

      FSF business plan! FSF capitalization! FSF dwindling revenues! LOL!

  • What happened to Tim Nay? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    What happened to Tim Nay?

  • View on freedom? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by merlin_jim ( 302773 ) <{James.McCracken} {at} {stratapult.com}> on Monday August 06, 2001 @12:06PM (#2122527)
    How do you view FSF's goal, that stated on their website as The FSF promotes the development and use of free (as in freedom) software ---particularly the GNU operating system(used widely today in its GNU/Linux variant)--- and free (as in freedom) documentation.

    In particular, how do you interpret what the word free means in respect to software and programmer's rights?

  • What do you think of FSF getting more sister-organizations over the world, like FSF Europe?

    And how well do you think FSF Europe has done so far? Are you planning helping new sister-organizations to life other places in the world in, say, the first 5 years from now?

  • Freedom Zero (Score:2, Interesting)

    by daytrip00 ( 473461 )
    What do you think of Tim O'Reilly's definiton of Freedom Zero [oreillynet.com]? Roughly, "Freedom Zero for me is to offer the fruit of your work on the terms that work for you."

    This freedom (which sounds so reasonable to me) often puts the other four in conflict, as the FSF always describes software as a public good.

  • Questions to Craig Mundie (Score:4, Interesting)

    by dudle ( 93939 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @12:49PM (#2125999) Homepage
    Bradley,

    We met at the O'Reilly Open Source Convention. I remember you beeing the first person taking the microphone to ask Craig Mundie some questions during the debate [oreillynet.com]. You invited him to discuss the philosophy behind the GPL compared to the philosophy behind Microsoft's shared-source license.

    I wanted to know. Did he accept your invitation? What will you ask him when you two meet face to face?

    Haim.

  • bkuhn,

    A couple of years ago, RMS switched support from GNUstep to GNOME. Most of GNU seemed have followed, as GNUstep participation and user base appears to be slipping while GNOME popularity has taken off. What kind of user interface and development environment do you favor? GNOME\KDE? *step? Something else entirely? Why?

    -Chris

  • Your opinion on Java (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jsse ( 254124 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @01:01PM (#2126578) Homepage Journal
    Your perljvm [ebb.org] - The Perl to Java Virtual Machine Compiler is impressive. I believe you've the authority to answer this question.

    Sun has its sole control to their Java VM, and the control is extended to other JVM versions. As Richard said, free software build on non-free platform/program is useless to Free World.

    We had much expectation on kaffe [kaffe.org]. However, it has halted its development long time ago, since Microsoft made business deals with Transvirtual [linuxjournal.com]. The only free JVM is basically dead now.

    I'd like to have your opnion on this: do you have Java in your vision of Free World?

    Thanks!

  • How do you justify, in the RMS/FSF view, that only some software must be free, and that for some software it does not matter? (Desktop/Laptop PC software vs. all other software -- Internet appliances, set-top boxes, embedded systems, etc.)

    When Linux is embedded will the FSF not care about those embedded systems? Can Hurd be embedded? What happens when it is in a cellphone someday?

    Many embedded Linux distruibutions already do not supply source code (for those interested in that, do a Google search for the distros and investigate, not all, but some do not supply the sources).

    Noone can claim that they have 100% free software in their PC/Laptop -- there is the BIOS, ATA, IDE devices, all which are software that is not free.

    When PCs transform into household electronics more like stereos are now than PCs are now, what will happen then?

  • Media Misconceptions (Score:4, Interesting)

    by InfinityWpi ( 175421 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @12:11PM (#2127161)
    What have your biggest problems been with fighting the misconceptions that free (as in freedom) software is not, as Microsoft seems to have all the media outlets trained to believe, free (as in beer) software? What changes in the media need to occur to help make this line more distinct?

  • The future (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ictatha ( 201773 )
    Where do you see the FSF 5-10 years down the road?

    -ictatha

  • Emacs 21 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by wodin0cl ( 107189 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @12:21PM (#2128620)

    We've heard a lot about it, and the prerelease of the users manual is out on the web and being checked for typos and such. However, there's no communication with the community at all as to where Emacs 21 currently is, progresswise.

    Thus my question -- when will the community find out how Emacs 21 is progressing?

    • And a related question: How come XEmacs is better integrated with Gnome than GNU Emacs, considering that Gnome is the official GNU desktop? Is this going to be adressed in version 21 or later?

      Mart

  • Why do you answer Richard's email for him? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Bradley, I've heard that you read Richard Stallman's email and replies to it, signing Richard's name rather than your own with no indication that someone else wrote the reply. In fact, I've gotten a couple of emails from "Richard" that definitely seemed like they were not written by him - they directly contradicted things he'd said in other emails and did not sound like his style. How can you ethically justify this? Isn't it totally dishonest to sign email with someone else's name?

  • Apple and the FSF (Score:5, Interesting)

    by imac.usr ( 58845 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @12:28PM (#2133728) Homepage
    Now that Mac OS X and Darwin are out, Apple obviously has a vested interest in supporting the FSF. They have been trying to get changes to gcc for Altivec support and PPC optimization merged back into the tree, and they are showing at least some support for both Open Source and Free Software. Plus, development of more Cocoa software should in theory lead to better support of GNUStep in the future. With these changes, has the FSF's opinion of/relationship with Apple changed since the boycotting of the '80s, or is it still more or less adversarial?

  • Has Stallman ever tried to rub his underpants on your head?

  • GNU/Bradley GNU/Kuhn? (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    GNU/Do GNU/you GNU/still GNU/insist GNU/on GNU/inserting GNU/ GNU/in GNU/front GNU/of GNU/everything GNU/you GNU/see?
  • My question is to the ownership problem which arises from this.

    What is it which distinguishes software from other forms of creative or intellectual expression? If you recognize an author as owner in one setting, why not in another?

  • Question for Mr.Kuhn: GNU/Linux (Score:1, Redundant)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I know Mr.Kuhn through the Cincinnati LUG. I had some questions for him. About 2 years ago, Mr.Kuhn would not acknowledge any mention of the word Linux with it being prefixed by GNU. One of the administrators of the LUG mailing lists added a filter that messed with Mr.Kuhn's posts. I would like to know how Mr.Kuhn felt about that and how he felt that the administrator wasn't fired for the infraction?

    My second question is about why he feels the need to place GNU in front of Linux? He was quite persistant about it and would protest anytime someone posted without GNU in front of it? Aside from coming across as pathetic, it doesn't surprise me that he wound up where he is today.

    My next question is related to the second question. Doesn't placing GNU in front of Linux suggest that GNU/FSF own Linux? I would like to know if Mr.Kuhn feels that anything released under the GNU license is actually property of FSF/GNU? To me insisting that GNU be the prefix in front of project names would suggest some hidden agenda on owning a large body of Intellectual Property? Personally, I also equate GNU to the GPL, nice license folks and thats about it.. I do realise that GNU brings some software but this excessive need for placing GNU in front projects released under the GPL is just plain stupid :)

    My final question, how does Mr.Kuhn feel that despite his current position, the majority of his local peers have still little or no respect for him? :)

  • (In his best Arnold Schwarzenegger voice)

    Who is your daddy, and what does he do?

  • Politics (Score:2, Interesting)

    by blamario ( 227479 )
    Now that Microsoft has revealed the wide communist conspiracy called FSF, I understand that you want to be as apolitical as possible and just stick to the safe ground of software licensing. But I must ask what really are your political leanings generally, not of FSF as organization but of its members. Here on /. the majority seem to think of themselves as libertarians. What is the situation at FSF?
  • How is the FSF going to compete with microsoft and other closed-source-companies in public relations with the non-tech-savvy masses? Microsoft has legions of corporate and individual clients (and partners in other projects) extolling the virtues of closed-source, and spreading all sorts of vile lies about the Free Software Movement. How do you and Stallman plan to bring the goals and ideology of the FSF to the average person in a way he/she can understand and appreciate? It seems to me that without widespread public support of the FSF, judges and legislatures will tend to support the big corporate interests that (in the case of the legislaters) pay for their campaigns in any conflict, such as a GPL violation case or software laws.

    So, how will you rally the non-techie public to the FSF and GPL, dispelling the image of both as the product of socialist, somewhat freaky nerds? And how will you pay for such a campaign?

  • So, I notice that you share a middle initial of 'M' with RMS. The natural question then, becomes: what does your 'M' stand for? ;^) Also, for comparison's sake, what does RMS' stand for? I've actually wondered this for quite a while, but my (obviously worthless) attempts to surf it up have all failed. Thanks.

    • I think it's Richard Martin Stallman.

      I don't remember how I found this out, and I don't know if it's correct, but when you do a Google search for "Richard Martin Stallman", it returns a few results that refer to RMS.

  • You often here people speak hypothetically, and sometimes not-so-hypothetically, about what happens when someone decides to close-source something they own the copyright to, but have licensed under the GPL. We all know that others can take the last GPL release and fork a GPL branch. The question often raised is "What about third party contributed patches?" Who holds copyright on those patches when noone has claimed it one way or the other, except for the copyright notice for the original owner at the head of the file? Can the closed-source version use those patches? Do the contributors who wrote the patches have any recourse?

  • Wannabee writer (Score:2, Interesting)

    by SimCash ( 107073 )
    What do you see for the future of content providers in the presence of ever growing information-wants-to-be-free movements? How can the editorial process (as opposed to the marketing process) provide enough demonstrated value-added to overcome the decreasing marginal return on sales in an environment where the first copy costs $100,000 (that's the copy the author sells to the reseller/publisher) and each subsequent copy is free?
  • What, if anything, is the Free Software Foundation doing to promote the employment of programmers developing Free Software?

    I understand of course that the FSF's main priority is seeing that Free Software gets developed, by any means, even by volunteer work.

    But looking to the future... it would be nice someday if most or all programmers could all work on Free Software for a salary. Is the FSF leading any efforts in this area? How far away is this?

  • RMS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Cirvam ( 216911 ) <<slashdot> <at> <sublevo.com>> on Monday August 06, 2001 @12:05PM (#2149929)
    How is working with RMS? If compromise is needed does he give in or does he stick to his line no matter what?
    • Mod the parent up.

      Given RMS' public persona, I imagine his managerial style would be somewhat rigid.

    • Re:RMS (Score:2, Funny)

      by Eccles ( 932 )
      How is working with RMS? If compromise is needed does he give in or does he stick to his line no matter what?

      I suspect he refuses to go to restaurants where they won't give you their recipes. So KFC with those secret herbs and spices, and McDonalds with its secret sauce, are right out...

  • Does RMS (Score:2, Troll)

    by Anonymous Coward
    beat you regularly ?

  • Patents and the GPL (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Proud Geek ( 260376 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @03:08PM (#2163648) Homepage Journal
    If I had mod points I'd be all over this forum in a second. I don't, but I do have some questions that I've been wondering about for a long time.

    What about patents and the GPL? Can I release code under the GPL, but limit distribution by encumbering it with patents? What about if I license patents from someone else; under what conditions can I use them in code that I write and release under the GPL? Finally, what happens to code that I release under the GPL, but later discover infringes on patents belonging to someone else?

    I've been wondering about this for a long time, first with gif, then mp3, and now Lineo has apparently licensed a patent for their realtime embedded GNU/Linux OS.

    • GPL states that if others will not be able to distribute the code freely, because of patent or any other concerns, then you canNOT distribute the code under the GPL.
      • I know what the GPL says. I'm interested in some clarifications. If I own patents on work that I've GPL'ed, it says that I can't enforce them on that work. I'm unsure how it applies to derivative works, though.

        How about this scenario: I obtain a license to a patent with permission to distribute it freely under the GPL for any code that I own. The freedom to redistribute is unlimited, but derivative works would be illegal unless the copyright was assigned to me. How would the FSF interpret the GPL in this case?

        The case of post-distribution discovery is also interesting. Since the GPL says no encumbrances are allowed, does the patent invalidate the GPL on that work?

  • What are the goals of the Free Software Foundation? I've read your published documents, but I wonder, what would be the ideal outcome of events for the FSF.

    Would you like to eliminate all proprietary software? Could you live with free and proprietary software, and under what terms? What about protection of ideas, such as copyright and patents; what protections do you think are justified or necessary, and why? What would have to happen for the FSF to say, "We've successfully done our job," and disband and go home/ continue coding/ whatever?

  • I was recently asked about the possibility of trademarking the name of a free software project. I searched the web in vain for any discussion of the implications without success. What is your opinion? Can a free software project have a trademarked name and still be Free in the GNU sense of the word?

    -sam

  • Playing by different rules? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by codeforprofit2 ( 457961 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @04:35PM (#2164229)
    What do you think of the current situation with IP rights in the free software movement?

    The individual gives up his IP rights but companies still uses them.

    You don't control the software you have written but big companies like redhat and IBM is using their trademarked brands to associate Linux products with them in the pulics eyes.

    One recent example of this is when Redhat grabbed postgresql and just changed its name to Redhat DB without compensating great bridge (that makes postgresql) for their hard work.

    It seems to me that capital strong companies are playing by entire different rules than the people who are developing free software.

  • Accounting... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Brad_Silva ( 54385 )
    This may have changed in the last couple of months, but one of the bigest objections to the FSF, and one I aggree with, is that you do not appear to have ever published your financials.

    Has this changed? If not, do you intend to or why not?

  • The Hurd (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SpringRevolt ( 1046 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @05:59PM (#2164795)
    Recent comments by RMS and Robert Chessall have not been particularly encouraging (to the GNU/Hurd developers). Do you have anything inspiring to offer them?
  • The GNOME/KDE split has sapped a lot of Linux's momentum. Along the same lines, the GNUpedia/Nupedia business [slashdot.org] doesn't exactly show Stallman in a flattering light. How do you think the FSF can move beyond this kind of counterproductive stuff?

  • What About Other Freedoms? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jeff Probst ( 459812 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @06:29PM (#2164928) Homepage Journal
    The Free Software Foundation stands for freedom as it applies to software.

    Does the FSF also support the inane freedoms provided by the United States constitution such as the freedom to bear arms?

  • GPL V3 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mikec ( 7785 ) on Monday August 06, 2001 @07:34PM (#2165216)
    How do you plan to manage the transistion from GPL v2 to v3? On large projects with hundreds of contributers (e.g., Linux, gcc, emacs, Gnome, KDE) it seems next to impossible to get approval from all contributers. Without approval, is is possible to re-license? If it is not possible to re-license, will it be necessary to reimplement large portions of the GNU codebase before v3 makes any difference?

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close