In our Free World there is no place for non-free software. We will
The first technical moves of the FSF was to implement an libre editor, and libre compiler on top of a proprietary operating system (UNIX). The goal was to replace it, piece by piece.
If the people at the FSF had been so strict at that time, the GNU Project and the FSF would not exist today.
Also, remember that most today's processors are proprietary, and that they have software in them, which executes x86 or x86_64 instructions (the CPU microcode).
This software is a very important part of a computer system: no software can run without it.
Also, the BIOS of every machine is proprietary. There are efforts to develop a libre BIOS, however I didn't see any partnership from the FSF with a hardware manufacturer in order to deploy it somehow. That could be interesting, for many reasons.
Why is the FSF not pushing the design and release of a new microcode processor, fast and efficient, instead of letting people run libre software on top of a so proprietary architecture ?
You just have to *define* where the limit is. I am pretty well today with a proprietary processor containing proprietary software microcode; and I can stand a proprietary BIOS, at least on my laptop.
I am not at all well with the current Java situation; I am pretty well with Debian classifiying libre and non-libre software, although I would prefer they separate it more clearly from the distribution.
What is important to me is that Debian allows me to install a machine with only libre software, if I choose to.
I pretty much understand why we should raise the limit. I am in the libre software business for about 5 years and I try not to compromise with it. But people at the FSF should really learn that it's a daily fight, and sometimes, we *do not* have any solution for the customer and have to admit it.
But raising the limit doesn't mean bashing.
PS: I prefer to use libre, free is misleading sometimes
I am expressing personal opinion only.
same for me.
> In our Free World there is no place for non-free software. We will
The first technical moves of the FSF was to implement an libre editor, and libre compiler on top of a proprietary operating system (UNIX). The goal was to replace it, piece by piece.
If the people at the FSF had been so strict at that time, the GNU Project and the FSF would not exist today.
Yes, GNU Project used prison's facilities to escape from the prison (and to free all innocent prisoners). The dependant (software and people) was made independend by this act. This does not give one an argument to make someone else dependent again, just the opposite.
Even more -- if they thought like you today, they wouldn't start the effort to reimplement the system. Because, you say:
This software is a very important part of a computer system: no software can run without it.
-- "Every non-free program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." --RMS ___________________________________________________________ Ако не отговарям на писмата Ви: http://6lyokavitza.org/mail
Kaloian Doganov wrote:
In our Free World there is no place for non-free software. We will
The first technical moves of the FSF was to implement an libre editor, and libre compiler on top of a proprietary operating system (UNIX). The goal was to replace it, piece by piece.
If the people at the FSF had been so strict at that time, the GNU Project and the FSF would not exist today.
Yes, GNU Project used prison's facilities to escape from the prison (and to free all innocent prisoners). The dependant (software and people) was made independend by this act. This does not give one an argument to make someone else dependent again, just the opposite.
Some people may delay their own exit from the prison in order to help even more people escape. The prison analogy presume that everyone wants to break out.
As others have pointed out, some might want to use the prison gateway as a temporary shelter till they can get a cover on their horse-cart (or even wait until their horse gives birth a few times (more horses).
Sam
In our Free World there is no place for non-free software. We will
The first technical moves of the FSF was to implement an libre editor, and libre compiler on top of a proprietary operating system (UNIX). The goal was to replace it, piece by piece.
This was a necessary evil, since no free system existed at that point. Now we do, so we don't need to use non-free software any more.
Also, remember that most today's processors are proprietary, and that they have software in them, which executes x86 or x86_64 instructions (the CPU microcode).
Can you change the CPU microcode (I'm not familiar with new CPU's)? If you can't, then there is little point in having it as free software since you wouldn't be able to update your microcode. Kinda like wanting the source code to your toaster, but the software is on a ROM chip.
Also, the BIOS of every machine is proprietary. There are efforts to develop a libre BIOS, however I didn't see any partnership from the FSF with a hardware manufacturer in order to deploy it somehow. That could be interesting, for many reasons.
I suspect that no hardware manufacturer _wants_ to have such a partnership. Check http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html for an interesting encounter between the FSF and IBM. The manufacturers simply don't even want to cooperate in anyway.
Why is the FSF not pushing the design and release of a new microcode processor, fast and efficient, instead of letting people run libre software on top of a so proprietary architecture ?
I belive that the FSF will do so as soon as you can actually update the microcode without switching your CPU. I don't know of any CPU that has updatable microcode today, on "old" computers like the VAX and PDP's you could do this, and it was part of the boot process. I think the VAX raed part of its microcode from a tape before actually booting the system.
I am expressing personal opinion only.
same for me.
I think it applies for anyone here unless stated otherwise. :-)
Cheers
Am Dienstag, den 27.06.2006, 12:12 +0200 schrieb Alfred M. Szmidt:
Can you change the CPU microcode (I'm not familiar with new CPU's)? If you can't, then there is little point in having it as free software since you wouldn't be able to update your microcode. Kinda like wanting the source code to your toaster, but the software is on a ROM chip.
This is actually an interesting point: even if I can't change it, I would really be interested in the source code of my toaster software. Modifying the software is only one aspect of Free Software. Being able to understand how it works is another one.
I might, for example, want to build my own toaster and look at some algorithms used in that toaster software. Or I might encounter a bug in the toaster software, and while still not being able to fix it, the possibility to look at the source code might help me to find a way to work around it. Or I might just want to check whether the toaster collects information about its usage and sends it to the producer over the internet (there are internet enabled toasters, aren't there?).
Thanks, Reinhard
P.S. As I send this mail with an @fsfeurope.org address, let me state explicitly that I express my personal opinion, like everybody else here. Just to avoid misunderstandings :-)
Can you change the CPU microcode (I'm not familiar with new CPU's)? If you can't, then there is little point in having it as free software since you wouldn't be able to update your microcode. Kinda like wanting the source code to your toaster, but the software is on a ROM chip.
This is actually an interesting point: even if I can't change it, I would really be interested in the source code of my toaster software. Modifying the software is only one aspect of Free Software. Being able to understand how it works is another one.
All the four freedoms need to be usable for something to be useful. If you can't upload a new copy, then being able to modify it is pointless I think.
I might, for example, want to build my own toaster and look at some algorithms used in that toaster software. Or I might encounter a bug in the toaster software, and while still not being able to fix it, the possibility to look at the source code might help me to find a way to work around it. Or I might just want to check whether the toaster collects information about its usage and sends it to the producer over the internet
I think the cases you outlined don't really need access to the source code, they all can be done in a different manner. And they all revolve around `examiniation', which isn't as easy when it comes to hardware.
To me atleast it boils down to: If I have the source code, can I actually use it for something? In the case of the toaster, I can't. So my freedom is still limited. I find it like arguing between a non-free program, and a non-free program, your rights are subjugated in both cases.
(there are internet enabled toasters, aren't there?).
If anyone knows of internet enabled toasters that are sold, I'd really like to know! I know of vending machines that have been internet enabled, but not of toasters. :-)
Am Dienstag, den 27.06.2006, 17:36 +0200 schrieb Alfred M. Szmidt:
All the four freedoms need to be usable for something to be useful. If you can't upload a new copy, then being able to modify it is pointless I think.
I disagree. It might be possible for the software (or at least parts of it) to be used outside the original device.
Of course I would love the possibility to patch my toaster, but that might cause additional costs on the hardware side that would make the toaster not sell all too well.
I'm not sure if I interpret you correctly, but if your statement somewhat implies that having access to the software of a device is pointles if there is no possibility to upload modified versions, I *strongly* disagree. Being able to inspect how something works is *always* valuable, IMHO.
Thanks, Reinhard
All the four freedoms need to be usable for something to be useful. If you can't upload a new copy, then being able to modify it is pointless I think.
I disagree. It might be possible for the software (or at least parts of it) to be used outside the original device.
Of course I would love the possibility to patch my toaster, but that might cause additional costs on the hardware side that would make the toaster not sell all too well.
I'm not sure if I interpret you correctly, but if your statement somewhat implies that having access to the software of a device is pointles if there is no possibility to upload modified versions, I *strongly* disagree. Being able to inspect how something works is *always* valuable, IMHO.
If you cannot excersise your freedoms due to a technical `restriction' (e.g. ROM soldered to the PCB), then what is the point of having partial freedom? You won't be able to excersie your rights to begin with...
But even if you do not have the source code in this case, you can still examine and inspect how it works.
Cheers
Am Dienstag, den 27.06.2006, 18:30 +0200 schrieb Alfred M. Szmidt:
If you cannot excersise your freedoms due to a technical `restriction' (e.g. ROM soldered to the PCB), then what is the point of having partial freedom?
That's exactly the point. If I can't have "full freedom" for technical reasons (and I assume the restriction was done for technical reasons, and not to deliberately take away my freedom), then I want to have at least as much freedom as possible. Partial freedom, IMHO, is still better than no freedom at all.
I could of course refuse to buy any toaster with proprietary software in it. But as soon as you replace "toaster" by "washing machine", I would get in serious fights with my wife ;-)
Thanks, Reinhard
--===============0619003889== Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-c4VdDIWnTI90Yfi65Tuf"
--=-c4VdDIWnTI90Yfi65Tuf Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Am Dienstag, den 27.06.2006, 18:30 +0200 schrieb Alfred M. Szmidt:
If you cannot excersise your freedoms due to a technical `restriction' (e.g. ROM soldered to the PCB), then what is the point of having partial freedom?
That's exactly the point. If I can't have "full freedom" for technical reasons (and I assume the restriction was done for technical reasons, and not to deliberately take away my freedom), then I want to have at least as much freedom as possible. Partial freedom, IMHO, is still better than no freedom at all.
Well, how is your freedom to study the toaster restricted?
I could of course refuse to buy any toaster with proprietary software in it. But as soon as you replace "toaster" by "washing machine", I would get in serious fights with my wife ;-)
:-)
If you cannot excersise your freedoms due to a technical `restriction' (e.g. ROM soldered to the PCB), then what is the point of having partial freedom?
That's exactly the point. If I can't have "full freedom" for technical reasons (and I assume the restriction was done for technical reasons, and not to deliberately take away my freedom), then I want to have at least as much freedom as possible. Partial freedom, IMHO, is still better than no freedom at all.
Well, how is your freedom to study the toaster restricted?
I think it is similar to a museum having a instrument on show that you are only allowed to examine for a brief period of time to be able to reproduce it. You can't disassemble it, but you can play it, take measurements of it, pictures and what not, to be able to make a duplicate copy of it. You don't have full freedom to the instrument, but you can examine it sufficiently to be able to make a similar or a duplicate of it.
I could of course refuse to buy any toaster with proprietary software in it. But as soon as you replace "toaster" by "washing machine", I would get in serious fights with my wife ;-)
:-)
Am Dienstag, den 27.06.2006, 19:54 +0200 schrieb Alfred M. Szmidt:
Well, how is your freedom to study the toaster restricted?
I have experienced that really understanding how a program works withouth having its sourcecode is practically impossible for me. Your skills might of course allow you to also understand programs without seeing the source, and this also would explain why I would value this partial freedom higher than you.
Thanks, Reinhard
Well, how is your freedom to study the toaster restricted?
I have experienced that really understanding how a program works withouth having its sourcecode is practically impossible for me. Your skills might of course allow you to also understand programs without seeing the source, and this also would explain why I would value this partial freedom higher than you.
First of all, you can't know that the source code corresponds to what you in your toaster. So even if you have the source code, you can't really know that the toaster does as the source code specifies. You can't even check that they are the same.
I find that `experiencing' how a program works is just a simple matter of using it, and duplicating what it does in some fashion. You don't really need to poke around in assembler listings, or whatever unless it is a device driver.
Cheers.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Can you change the CPU microcode (I'm not familiar with new CPU's)? If you can't, then there is little point in having it as free software since you wouldn't be able to update your microcode. Kinda like wanting the source code to your toaster, but the software is on a ROM chip.
This is actually an interesting point: even if I can't change it, I would really be interested in the source code of my toaster software. Modifying the software is only one aspect of Free Software. Being able to understand how it works is another one.
All the four freedoms need to be usable for something to be useful. If you can't upload a new copy, then being able to modify it is pointless I think.
Then what did RMS use to write emacs and gcc?
Just because he now has free versions of his tools doesn't mean other users yet have free versions of their tools; or tool-sets.
Must we have the Free ACCOUNTANTS Software Foundation, the Free ELETRONIC ENGINEERS Software Foundation, the Free BUSINESS MANAGEMENT Software Foundation as well?
By the rules you prefer, RMS himself would have been excluded from GBN in the early GNU days. Are such extreme|tight rules now acceptable because the tools RMS uses are now free?
Sam
All the four freedoms need to be usable for something to be useful. If you can't upload a new copy, then being able to modify it is pointless I think.
Then what did RMS use to write emacs and gcc?
It is called a `needed evil'. When RMS wrote emacs and GCC, NO free software operating system existed. It was impossible to _not_ use non-free software. Today it is possible to use 100% software. So there is no reason to use non-free software at all.
Just because he now has free versions of his tools doesn't mean other users yet have free versions of their tools; or tool-sets.
They have the tools to write free versions.
You are resorting to straw man arguments.
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 17:51 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
It is called a `needed evil'. When RMS wrote emacs and GCC, NO free software operating system existed. It was impossible to _not_ use non-free software. Today it is possible to use 100% software. So there is no reason to use non-free software at all.
Yet, there still exists proprietary software for which there are no free software equivalents, otherwise Debian non-free would not exist. This software may not be necessary to you, but it may be a necessary evil for others.
To use the prison metaphor, we have not yet fully escaped from the prison. Does this mean we can still use the prison's facilities to further escape?
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
All the four freedoms need to be usable for something to be useful. If you can't upload a new copy, then being able to modify it is pointless I think.
Then what did RMS use to write emacs and gcc?
It is called a `needed evil'. When RMS wrote emacs and GCC, NO free software operating system existed. It was impossible to _not_ use non-free software. Today it is possible to use 100% software. So there is no reason to use non-free software at all.
It has been repeated often enough here that in many lines of business it is NOT possible to transfer instantly to use 100% free software and that it is not even a neccessary evil, but a noble good, to aid the transition by means of compatability tools AS WELL AS WRITING NEW SOFTWARE.
Just because he now has free versions of his tools doesn't mean other users yet have free versions of their tools; or tool-sets.
They have the tools to write free versions.
Go and make a warp drive then. "You" "have" "the tools". It takes time, and some of the tools are not yet written, and have to be made with tools that are written. Some of the money is not there but will start to appear as more people start to demand it. Demand is incremental as benefits are gained.
You are resorting to straw man arguments.
No, actually, I wasn't. (And I don't suffer from "strawman argument calling" fear either.) I'm saying that just because RMS has solved HIS problems, doesn't mean everyone else has YET.
You can say on his behalf "Damn you lot, I'm off" if you like, which is what it sounds like.
Sam
It has been repeated often enough here that in many lines of business it is NOT possible to transfer instantly to use 100% free software and that it is not even a neccessary evil, but a noble good, to aid the transition by means of compatability tools AS WELL AS WRITING NEW SOFTWARE.
There is a difference between making a transition, and recommending the use of non-free software. One is not related to the other.
I'm saying that just because RMS has solved HIS problems, doesn't mean everyone else has YET.
And by recommending, supporting, and developing non-free software one doesn't solve `everyones' problem.
You are confusing to issues, supporting and recommending non-free software, and making a transitition from non-free software. In the later you do need to even mention the non-free program, you can simply say that you do not provide such a solution, or that you are working on making a free solution.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
It has been repeated often enough here that in many lines of business it is NOT possible to transfer instantly to use 100% free software and that it is not even a neccessary evil, but a noble good, to aid the transition by means of compatability tools AS WELL AS WRITING NEW SOFTWARE.
There is a difference between making a transition, and recommending the use of non-free software. One is not related to the other.
Sometimes it takes a piece of non-free software to assist the transition as RMS has testified in the past, and you have also stated in this list.
I'm saying that just because RMS has solved HIS problems, doesn't mean everyone else has YET.
And by recommending, supporting, and developing non-free software one doesn't solve `everyones' problem.
But I don't think you have claimed that GBN is only for those who solve "everyones" problems. But you have suggested that it should not be for people who solve some peoples problems by promoting certain uses of non-free software to aid a transition and it is this that I disagree with.
You are confusing to issues, supporting and recommending non-free software, and making a transitition from non-free software.
I am not; in many cases the first activity aids the latter.
In the later you do need to even mention the non-free program, you can simply say that you do not provide such a solution, or that you are working on making a free solution.
Which is just a different way of saying that those who do not simply state that (because it isn;t true) should not be part of GBN, but this is what we debate.
I think those that use and promote use of non-free software to aid the migration to free software would be legitimate members of a USEFUL GBN.
I know you disagree so we don't need to repeat that; I just don't see why you think the GBN should not even LIST companies that are going for other fields what RMS has already done in his own field, or that are HELPING those who are doing in their field what RMS did in his own field.
Sam
Hi all,
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:41:58 +0100 Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com wrote:
I think those that use and promote use of non-free software to aid the migration to free software would be legitimate members of a USEFUL GBN.
but this isn't the same what RMS has done.
I know you disagree so we don't need to repeat that; I just don't see why you think the GBN should not even LIST companies that are going for other fields what RMS has already done in his own field, or that are HELPING those who are doing in their field what RMS did in his own field.
I think you have to draw the line based on the "products" of a business and what is visible to the customers.
For example: A company sells server with 100% Free Software (GNU/Linux + Samba), develops Samba and sells service for the servers. They will probably have some Windows server to test their Samba-Server and to keep track of the development of the windows protocols but their "products" would be 100% Free Software so they would be a GBN Free Software Business. On the other hand a company which sells server with Free Software and non-Free Software wouldn't be a pure Free Software Business and probably not part of a GBN. Or think about a company which develops Free Software replacements for non-Free Software. Maybe they will have some of the non-Free Software to see what it does, compare the features or maintain compatibility. But they would only develop, maintain and sell Free Software so they would be a GBN Free Software Business.
Cheers, Bjoern
It has been repeated often enough here that in many lines of business it is NOT possible to transfer instantly to use 100% free software and that it is not even a neccessary evil, but a noble good, to aid the transition by means of compatability tools AS WELL AS WRITING NEW SOFTWARE.
There is a difference between making a transition, and recommending the use of non-free software. One is not related to the other.
Sometimes it takes a piece of non-free software to assist the transition as RMS has testified in the past, and you have also stated in this list.
You must have misread something. I have not stated any such thing, nor do I know of RMS having stated anything remotley similar. What has been stated by me, which is directly based on what RMS has said, is that if you have non-free software you do not use it or support it, but write a replacement. Debian is doing nothing in the vicinity of that. There is a free Java suit that the GNU project has developed, yet for some odd reason, Debian feels it wise to include the Sun Java suit.
But you have suggested that it should not be for people who solve some peoples problems by promoting certain uses of non-free software to aid a transition and it is this that I disagree with.
You cannot solve problems by promoting evil. You solve problems by working _against_ evil, and replacing the evil with good.
I know you disagree so we don't need to repeat that; I just don't see why you think the GBN should not even LIST companies that are going for other fields what RMS has already done in his own field, or that are HELPING those who are doing in their field what RMS did in his own field.
You have a conroted view of RMS. The only reason he used non-free software was because there was _NO_ alternative, no editor, no compiler, nothing. He was _forced_ to use non-free software.
Now we have the core that allows us to develop more free softawre, so there is absolutley no reason whatsoever to recommend, or support non-free software. That some user feels that he has no choice is simply not true, he can hire a hacker to write the software he needs or he can write it himself.
Non-free software is unacceptable, supporting it is evil. We don't need to support it or recommend it anymore. It is as simple as that. What we need to do is develop free alternatives, but distributing non-free software and recommending it only works _against_ that.
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 20:03 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
if you have non-free software you do not use it or support it, but write a replacement. Debian is doing nothing in the vicinity of that. There is a free Java suit that the GNU project has developed, yet for some odd reason, Debian feels it wise to include the Sun Java suit.
I wasn't going to post again, but I do wish you had read some of the links I'd posted previously. As an example, this is what Debian is doing for Free Java:
http://wiki.debian.org/Java/AlreadyMovedToMain
Each one of those packages was something which was placed in contrib or non-free, and relied on some aspect of Java which did not work with a free Java like kaffe. Each one of those has been rescued from the Java trap. I don't think it's fair for you to characterise Debian as "doing nothing in the vicinity [of writing a replacement]".
In my previous e-mail, I showed a package listing of non-free which showed exactly why each package is in non-free, and what Debian is doing to make the package Free Software or replace it. Java is an excellent example of the good work Debian does to advance free software IMHO.
Cheers,
Alex.
Java is an excellent example of the good work Debian does to advance free software IMHO.
It is a good example of what Debian does to _not_ advance free software. It includes it, when there is a 100% free software replacemnt. It is still in Debian, and will probobly be for a long time.
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 20:31 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Java is an excellent example of the good work Debian does to advance free software IMHO.
It is a good example of what Debian does to _not_ advance free software. It includes it, when there is a 100% free software replacemnt. It is still in Debian, and will probobly be for a long time.
Alfred, this just isn't correct.
First, there is _no_ 100% replacement for Java. Go to http://packages.debian.org/, and ask it for a list of any package with 'Java' in the description located in the 'contrib' section.
Every single package it returns is Free Software. It's put in contrib because it does *not* work with any Free Software Java. These are applications that have been trapped by proprietary Java. You should read this page, it explains the problem:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/java-trap.html
Then go and look at the previous links I sent, and see the amount of work that Debian is doing to free these packages: to find replacements for libraries like Swing, or to get them to compile with free Java. Or at the CDBS packaging work they do to ensure every Java package can work cleanly with a Free VM, even if it was designed for Sun Java.
Look at the list of packages that Debian has freed from the Java trap. Are you _seriously_ telling me with all that, that Debian does not advance free software in this area?
Cheers,
Alex.
First, there is _no_ 100% replacement for Java. Go to http://packages.debian.org/, and ask it for a list of any package with 'Java' in the description located in the 'contrib' section.
You forgot non-free. Which is part of Debian, and which Debian promotes usage of. There Sun Java is included. Can you explain how Debian advances free software by including a non-free version of Java?
Look at the list of packages that Debian has freed from the Java trap. Are you _seriously_ telling me with all that, that Debian does not advance free software in this area?
Yes. Finding packages that others have written is not advancing free software. Writting said software on the other hand is.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
First, there is _no_ 100% replacement for Java. Go to http://packages.debian.org/, and ask it for a list of any package with 'Java' in the description located in the 'contrib' section.
You forgot non-free. Which is part of Debian, and which Debian promotes usage of. There Sun Java is included. Can you explain how Debian advances free software by including a non-free version of Java?
Look at the list of packages that Debian has freed from the Java trap. Are you _seriously_ telling me with all that, that Debian does not advance free software in this area?
Yes. Finding packages that others have written is not advancing free software. Writting said software on the other hand is.
So I take it that the GBN will not be advancing free software either then, (unless a free program is written to list GBN members).
It seems as if you sometimes constrain the meanings of your terms beyond what your readers expect; I can't see any natural way of interpreting Debians activity so that it cannot be said that they are advancing free software.
Sam
Is it time to fork the FSF?
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
It has been repeated often enough here that in many lines of business it is NOT possible to transfer instantly to use 100% free software and that it is not even a neccessary evil, but a noble good, to aid the transition by means of compatability tools AS WELL AS WRITING NEW SOFTWARE.
There is a difference between making a transition, and recommending the use of non-free software. One is not related to the other.
Sometimes it takes a piece of non-free software to assist the transition as RMS has testified in the past, and you have also stated in this list.
You must have misread something.
I don't think so, although the word "testifies" perhaps extravagantly implies a little more loquaciousness which would now be embarrassing (exaggeration on my part); emacs, the first GNU product was released in 1985, 2 years before gcc started. Early versions of gcc used the Sun assembler.
I have not stated any such thing, nor do I know of RMS having stated anything remotley similar.
Today, you said: "
It is called a `needed evil'. When RMS wrote emacs and GCC, NO free software operating system existed. It was impossible to _not_ use non-free software.
" I think this is the crux of the whole thing.
You find some of us talking about evils that you or the FSF don't need; but we need them and we know people who need these evils.
Is it time to start the Free BUSINESS MANAGEMENT Software Foundation? The Free TELECOMS Software Foundation?
What has been stated by me, which is directly based on what RMS has said, is that if you have non-free software you do not use it or support it, but write a replacement.
And heroin addicts should quit cold-turkey. We've been talking about cases where free versions for various tools exist, but business are only willing to migrate slowly.
Debian is doing nothing in the vicinity of that.
I think that our world-views are not reconcilable.
There is a free Java suit that the GNU project has developed, yet for some odd reason, Debian feels it wise to include the Sun Java suit.
I don't think you have a proper understanding of "Debian" but it is not relevant, it has been clarified already to what I think is the satisfaction of most observers here.
But you have suggested that it should not be for people who solve some peoples problems by promoting certain uses of non-free software to aid a transition and it is this that I disagree with.
You cannot solve problems by promoting evil. You solve problems by working _against_ evil, and replacing the evil with good.
I wonder if my phrase "promote certain uses of non-free software" was confusing. We are possibly imagining up different uses of this non-free software; I was (of course) thinking of necessary evils; like using MS Word under Linux in order to open documents that Open Office could not, and save them in another format to aid conversion. Like using exchange connector so that departments could be switched over to from MS Outlook/Windows to Evolution/Ubuntu one at a time in a manageable way, because approval won't be gained otherwise. Each problem has many such difficulties and risks which need managing and fallbacks until the transition is complete; escaping from 20 years of vendor lock-in is a slow process.
I know you disagree so we don't need to repeat that; I just don't see why you think the GBN should not even LIST companies that are going for other fields what RMS has already done in his own field, or that are HELPING those who are doing in their field what RMS did in his own field.
You have a conroted view of RMS. The only reason he used non-free software was because there was _NO_ alternative, no editor, no compiler, nothing. He was _forced_ to use non-free software.
He sees it more clearly than some. Many businesses don't feel forced to use Outlook, they CHOOSE to. And the only way those within the business who value the freedom can get them to switch, is to do it in stages which for management permission requires certain uses of non-free software.
Now we have the core that allows us to develop more free softawre, so there is absolutley no reason whatsoever to recommend, or support non-free software.
Absolutely false. In RMS field, in your field, this may be true, in many fields this is not true. We had a joke at Orange/Ananova, if someone wanted a complex web product, we would give them a C compiler. For you this seems not to be a joke.
That some user feels that he has no choice is simply not true, he can hire a hacker to write the software he needs or he can write it himself.
Part of the problem being solved is how to get budget approval to pay the hacker to write the software. If ROI is poor or long no approval is given. At Orange we hired a developer to work on Xapian (excellent search engine) cos the people on the floor could see the benefit and desired open source freedom (having been badly bitten by its proprietary predecessor).
These "less than pure" potential GBN members using non-free software in certain ways are the dutch courage for management and shareholders who won't otherwise make a move for freedom at all. Microsoft know this, they like the FSF extremist attitude, it serves them very well.
Non-free software is unacceptable, supporting it is evil.
And what about support those who have come to depend on it in order to free them? THAT is what I am talking about, and it requires certain use of non-free software to acheive.
We don't need to support it or recommend it anymore.
No, FSF don't, but FBMSF do, and FTESF do, and FEESF do, do you really want to fork the FSF just because hackers needs are now met?
It is as simple as that. What we need to do is develop free alternatives, but distributing non-free software and recommending it only works _against_ that.
It does not ONLY work against that, it also works for that. I believe that you have never worked in a scenario where this is not true, and that you are only speaking out of ignorance or dogma rather that duplicity. I take it for granted that you think I just can't see the true light, that you think I should just ignore table manufacturers unwilling to risk their business on an instant move to free software with GNU-SAP 0.1, and Open Oracle beta 5 that they've waited 5 years for a hacker to write for them. (Of course he can't have used any of the SAP tools to export or convert the data, that would count as "contrib" and it isn't allowed)
Such strict FSF aims only serve hackers; is it time to fork the FSF?
Sam
You find some of us talking about evils that you or the FSF don't need; but we need them and we know people who need these evils.
No, you don't. You should write free software alternatives and simply not use the non-free ones. You have the tools. RMS didn't.
The rest of your mail is just trolling.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
You find some of us talking about evils that you or the FSF don't need; but we need them and we know people who need these evils.
No, you don't.
So you think I'm going to get someone to convert an access database without using a tool that DEPENDS on access? And even worse if I write or support such a tool?
You should write free software alternatives and simply not use the non-free ones.
I think you may not have noticed that most of my so called troll was talking about the tools needed to move people away from using non-free tools. You may not have noticed but I think most of those still bothered to follow this thread will have noticed. They can draw their own conclusions which will be reflections on the idiocy of one or both of us.
You have the tools. RMS didn't.
The tools mostly being the gcc chain, I get the idea. I'm grateful; but all Mr Jones who has not quite got round to paying for MS Office Pro yet can hear is "wha wha wha." He's still trying to get his head around access and the FSF are telling him to use a C compiler to convert to anything else - anything at all- anything will do as long as it is GPL, preferably also GNU.
The rest of your mail is just trolling.
Well, I call your response troll, and unlike you I can say why: I explained how some non free software must be used in ways to move people away from non-free software to free software, otherwise they will not choose to move. This to me is valuable support of free software and will bring the MONEY to free software porting and development.
You respond by saying "stop using non-free software, use free software"
- this is what I am TRYING to get OTHER people to do, and I'm showing you that the only path they are willing to take is not cold-turkey because they would be out of business.
It flatters me that you think I am a troll, I cannot simulate the logic or stance that you are coming from.
I believe that the only understanding we have in common is the use of some pronouns. I cannot understand why you think a genuine and relevant post is a troll but I have noticed your trend of cutting from replies anything that detracts from your responding attack so that you can dismiss it in absentia, rather than point out individual flaws.
It appears that you do not even believe that my reasons are genuine for thinking that "only free software from now on" will exclude great good, it appears that you believe I am faking this stance in order to generate flames.
I am almost determined to pay my FSF membership to Debian instead, the main blocker being that it is too hard to donate money to Debian (or was the last time I tried).
Since talking to you I have become convinced that nothing more that the FSF does (apart from license compliance) will ever be relevant to me or anyone I know; the FSF has done its job of freeing up development tools and providing the GPL, it is obvious that the work of bringing free software to the commercial world must be done by a different organisation who can at least distinguish the possible from the ideal. I now realise that the GBN will never be relevant in this work, the GBN will do nothing more than promote consultants who are already members of the FSF to accidentally explain to hundreds of businesses the commercial impossibility of them ever moving to free software.
Sam
- this is what I am TRYING to get OTHER people to do, and I'm showing you that the only path they are willing to take is not cold-turkey because they would be out of business.
By recommending non-free software as a solution, you are not doing that. One does not move away from non-free software by giving support for non-free software.
I am almost determined to pay my FSF membership to Debian instead, the main blocker being that it is too hard to donate money to Debian (or was the last time I tried).
Please read http://www.fsf.org about the campaigns about freeing many common tools that are non-free today, Java, Flash are prominent examples. Debian has never taken such a stance, it has instead resorted to recommending something that is non-free.
You have the tools to write any free software replacement, you simply choose not to since you do not care about freedom and instead resort to using non-free software. The same goes for Debian.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
- this is what I am TRYING to get OTHER people to do, and I'm showing
you that the only path they are willing to take is not cold-turkey because they would be out of business.
By recommending non-free software as a solution, you are not doing that. One does not move away from non-free software by giving support for non-free software.
This one does. I moved my family over to Linux piecemeal, it could not be done any other way.
First came open office. Next came coLinux Next came mepis. Next came ubuntu I use qemu and winme so my children can play Sierra's "Professor TIM".
I intend to write a free professor TIM replacement using GNU Flash 4, but my children won't be children when I finish.
I am almost determined to pay my FSF membership to Debian instead, the main blocker being that it is too hard to donate money to Debian (or was the last time I tried).
Please read http://www.fsf.org about the campaigns about freeing many common tools that are non-free today, Java, Flash are prominent examples. Debian has never taken such a stance, it has instead resorted to recommending something that is non-free.
You have the tools to write any free software replacement, you simply choose not to since you do not care about freedom and instead resort to using non-free software.
Actually its because I have a family with 6 children and a full time job (Linux netfilter hacking, yum) Its because I'm a director of my community association Its because I'm a governor of my childrens school Its because I'm a neighborhood-watch coordinator Its because my children go to scouts and brownies and have swimming lessons and band rehearsal. I spent most of this evening fixing bikes.
And if I think: do I want to write a totally free version of a migration-type tool that already exists whose job will be over when people have converted; or do I want to write something with a longer lifespan and more useful after conversion?
I'm not sure how interested you are in the answer; but I can only spend an hour once
The same goes for Debian.
I think you are wrong; Debian do care for freedom but this is the difference: Debian want to achieve ultimate freedom and also bring as many people along as they can. FSF want to cut off anyone who hasn't already achieved ultimate freedom.
Debians goal is harder and they haven't got there yet. FSF goal is easier, and by the looks of it, they have succeeded.
And whenever you say "Debian isn't REALLY fighting for REAL freedom (tm)" it just sounds like "Debian isn't FSF" and now I'm glad they're not.
The FSF, as you portray it, is a has-been. I don't know if it really is, but you make it look like one.
Sam
Obviously, you are a troll. Please refrain from wasting my time any more. Comments like the FSF is a `has-been' simply are insulting both to the FSF and the FSF-e, including other "branches" of the FSF.
Debian does not care about freedom since it accepts non-free software as a solution. The FSF, GNU project, do not accept non-free software as a solution and have for the past 20 years worked towards replacing all non-free softawre with free alternatives. Debian simply continues to distribute non-free software.
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Obviously, you are a troll. Please refrain from wasting my time any more. Comments like the FSF is a `has-been' simply are insulting both to the FSF and the FSF-e, including other "branches" of the FSF.
It only looks like a has-been when you talk about it. I have been necessarily reminded by a few that you do not speak for the FSF.
Debian does not care about freedom since it accepts non-free software as a solution. The FSF, GNU project, do not accept non-free software as a solution and have for the past 20 years worked towards replacing all non-free softawre with free alternatives. Debian simply continues to distribute non-free software.
Very well; here is my parting shot, it provides nothing new but summarizes our differences.
RMS used non-free software unecessarily when writing gcc; he could have used his emacs lisp engine to rewrite the sun assembler and other tools rather than depend on those; he could have hand crafted a forth core in assembler and then very quickly bootstrapped a system based on forth, but he didn't; what you call necessary evils were also conveniences of principle in a difficult starting position. He *could* have started from scratch but he might not have finihset yet. Of course this example is ridiculous and I don't condemn Stallman for it; he had a technical problem and his solution was technical; tools.
I'm talking about a business problem and the solution is not technical but whatever gives confidence. You don't accept the value of others following Stallmans pattern, taking pragmatic view to make the change quickly rather than purely. I no longer argue that you should now that I see you understand but reject this claim; however if the FSF only considers technical solutions to what are not technical problems it will be ineffective in the area that we have been discussing.
I know that we understand each other now, we just disagree. Most of my posts have been because I couldn't believe that your stance was actually what it appeared to be, I was sure that you had misunderstood something.
I have exhaustively (sorry to all on the list) proved that this is not the case, and that there really is no common ground between us. While we use some of the same words, we cannot agree to use them over the same activities (Debians behaviour being the main example).
As there is no common ground we cannot easily come to agreement or compromise, the discussion is exhausted.
I thankyou for participating with me to this end so that I could understand your position, I do not find it attractive but I admire you for not abandoning what are obviously valuable principles.
We may talk again on other matters where we have some agreement.
regards and best wishes
Sam
It only looks like a has-been when you talk about it. I have been necessarily reminded by a few that you do not speak for the FSF.
It has been made quite clear several times that nobody here has spoken for either FSF, FSF-e, or any other organisation or project. My stance might coincide with whatever the FSF says, but it does not need to. I find it quite amazing that people have such a hard problem differentiating between `I think ...' and the `FSF thinks ...' and getting a pet peeve of the domain from where an email came from while ignoring the actual content of the message.
I thankyou for participating with me to this end so that I could understand your position, I do not find it attractive but I admire you for not abandoning what are obviously valuable principles.
We may talk again on other matters where we have some agreement.
Thank you for those kind works. I apologise for calling you a troll, but I did find your last remark quite insulting, including a couple of other remarks in your later messages which lead to the unfortunate name calling.
Cheers.
Sam Liddicott sam@liddicott.com
I am almost determined to pay my FSF membership to Debian instead, the main blocker being that it is too hard to donate money to Debian (or was the last time I tried).
Why not support both if you can and keep a balance of power? It seems quite easy to donate with a Visa card or MasterCard at https://128bit.clickandpledge.com/Default.asp?ID=12235 (Full info http://www.spi-inc.org/donations and http://www.debian.org/donations )
However, Debian project membership is based on work not payment.
Since talking to you I have become convinced that nothing more that the FSF does (apart from license compliance) will ever be relevant to me or anyone I know; [...]
Fortunately, ams@gnu does not decide the position of FSF, AFAIK.
Hope that helps,
Since talking to you I have become convinced that nothing more that the FSF does (apart from license compliance) will ever be relevant to me or anyone I know; [...]
Fortunately, ams@gnu does not decide the position of FSF, AFAIK.
Neither do you decide the position of Debian, AFAIK. Since Debian acknolwedges that it supports non-free software ("as a service for its users") it is pointless for you to go about claiming things that are simply not true.
Sam Liddicott schrieb:
Such strict FSF aims only serve hackers; is it time to fork the FSF?
As noted before I think it is _very_ important that everyone is aware that unless explicitly stated otherwise the views being expressed are personal views of individuals that may or may not coincide with the view of affiliated organizations... be it FSF, FSFE, Debian, SPI or whatever...
Cheers, David
PS: If you don't mind, I ask not to be cc:ed in replies as I read the list. Thank you.
On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 12:12:21PM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
Can you change the CPU microcode (I'm not familiar with new CPU's)?
There is an interface for that on GNU/Linux for some processors.
However it's undocumented (the microcode itself).
since you wouldn't be able to update your microcode. Kinda like wanting the source code to your toaster, but the software is on a ROM chip.
An EPROM can be changed. I did that once (recycling a proprietary autochanger :->)
I suspect that no hardware manufacturer _wants_ to have such a partnership. Check http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/free-bios.html for an interesting encounter between the FSF and IBM. The manufacturers simply don't even want to cooperate in anyway.
Interesting, didn't know about it.
On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 11:53:15 +0200, Marc SCHAEFER wrote:
The first technical moves of the FSF was to implement an libre editor, and libre compiler on top of a proprietary operating system (UNIX). The goal was to replace it, piece by piece.
If the people at the FSF had been so strict at that time, the GNU Project and the FSF would not exist today.
This is like climbing a mountain using a proprietary equipment; when you go up, you throw all non-free ladders and ropes and make free ones, so the other alpinists can join you using the free tools. You never look back for them, their only purpose is to help you make your own and go higher. Err, that doesn't sound like a good comparison, but you got the idea. One by one the free software programmers were cleaning their machines -- currently there is not a single piece of non-free software installed on the GNU machines.
Sometimes, even today, in order to develop a free program, one has to use a non-free one. I guess that the Samba developers use a Windows server -- it is necessary for Samba development.
Also, remember that most today's processors are proprietary, and that they have software in them, which executes x86 or x86_64 instructions (the CPU microcode).
This software is a very important part of a computer system: no software can run without it.
This is an important issue. Also some architectures require non-free software to work (such as oldworld Macs).
Also, the BIOS of every machine is proprietary. There are efforts to develop a libre BIOS, however I didn't see any partnership from the FSF with a hardware manufacturer in order to deploy it somehow. That could be interesting, for many reasons.
Why is the FSF not pushing the design and release of a new microcode processor, fast and efficient, instead of letting people run libre software on top of a so proprietary architecture ?
FSF's resources are not unlimited -- I guess this is the main reason.
You just have to *define* where the limit is.
There is no limit. The Free Software Movement is just the beginning -- we want free books, free music, free movies, practically everything that is possible to be set free. We don't want to be controlled by feudals and mega-corporations.
I am pretty well today with a proprietary processor containing proprietary software microcode; and I can stand a proprietary BIOS, at least on my laptop.
Until there is a free replacement we don't have a choice, really, if we want (or have to) use computers. This doesn't make me happy.
I pretty much understand why we should raise the limit. I am in the libre software business for about 5 years and I try not to compromise with it. But people at the FSF should really learn that it's a daily fight, and sometimes, we *do not* have any solution for the customer and have to admit it.
This is true and unfortunate -- not every piece of existing proprietary software has a free program to replace it, so some users are locked and forced to use non-free software. The purpose is to resolve and wipe this dependency. It won't happen if we recommend non-free software.