Hi Jos!
Hi there! :-),
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 10:31:08AM +0200, josX wrote:
yes, we all would like to see a better world, where we can do what we want and where we don't have to pay for the beer at the pub around the corner. But that's not how the world works, at least not at the moment.
So let's start changing that, it is not going to come from the government, and it is not going to come from the corporations.... but it can come from free(dom) software (at least in part), so let's do that!!
Well, I personally think this is getting off topic, but anyway... You might have wondered, why I mentioned Karl Marx. The reason is, that he proposed more or less exactly the same as you do. You might enjoy reading his ideas. And in principle it sounds quite tempting, but every country in the world, that has tried to implement something of that kind, has failed quite miserably. So, that's not the way to go. Sorry.
Well, this is not what happened: Karl Marx was describing a possible way for the world to grow into a society where burdens were distributed equally, and wealth too. The sovjiets just used it for propaganda to support their dictatorship. BTW, I am not a Marxist, just myself.
I'm sure everyone on this mailing list appreciates your enthusiasm and if you can afford to write code, distribute and support it completely free of charge, there will be no word against it. Instead it will be more than welcome. But please understand, that some people are in a situation, in which they can not afford to act as you do. This doesn't mean, they're evil. They still try very hard to support free software as good as possible. And they typically do invest a lot of resources in producing free software. So in the end, the benefit for the community is much bigger than their personal (financial) advantage. Why should we leave those people out in the rain? Why? They agree to the same principles and they do contribute as much as they can. I think, this is already far more than you could possibly ask them for.
(see below... I don't want them out in the rain, although I do think they are a sideshow to the real thing.)
We won't win if we say "this is how the world workes", although that is true, it cannot be an argument for how the world is going to be if we want change, and I want change and I see you want it too :-))).
Most of us want to see changes, but I definitely don't want a revolution. We want to change things step by step. Not all at the same time. I think, that's the difference between us. Anyway, I'm _no_ "official or other kind of member" of the FSFE, so someone from the core team should better comment on this. :-)
Sadly, gradual changes always get subverted by gradual changes in the other direction. But you may disagree here, just a personal view.
(btw, saw on discovery an interesting story about how `capitalism' grew in England due to canals and small enterprise on them.)
Funnily these canals have now been rediscovered in Birmingham and are redeveloped for leisure and recreation. How times have changed...
Guess not!
Bye, Marc
The following are just some ideas, don't get to worked up about them please, I don't want to scare anybody...
My proposal for the "organaization" of the FSF(E)/free(dom) software:
1. There will be no decisions, there will only be personal initiative. 2. There will be no concentration of power, there will only be personal action. 3. There will be no official style or logo, there will only be available certain beautifull things to use or not use according personal preference if someone takes the initiative to make them.
So, there will be no core-team, there will be no elected body, there will be no president, there will be no official spokesperson, there will be no logo. There will not be an FSF(E). Then what will there be? individuals working on free-software, on the /content/, not on the organaizational structures that some seem to want to erect around that which is by nature an anarchy. A working thriving anarchy I must say!!!!
Can there be a website telling people about certain things (or better, an angel on free(dom) software)? yes, if some people want to take that initiative and (more importantly) do the action it will be there. If people want to communicate with eachother and set up a forum to do so, it will be there. But there will be no director of that website, nor moderation.
There is all this talk been about a Logo. Now, what would have happened in the above non-model? I would have taken the idea of Anja and put it on my website. Why? it is beautiful, I like it, it gives me a good feeling to see it. Someone else may want to use the GNU with the 12 stars, and again somebody else may want to use the GNU=european-map humoristic logo.
What would happen with communications with the press? The press can simply go to some projects and ask the people themselves instead of going to the ""official director of the core-team Europe".
What would happen with the website? It would already be there if there was action, or it would not be there if there was no action. Simple. It would not be official though, as it in truth never ever can be.
Where would someone as RMS fit in? There is no fitting-in or not fitting-in: he is just someone working on multiple projects, and on preventing legal-actions from claiming the fruits of given-away labour, and making that "preventing"-mechanism (the GPL) available to those who want it. He may as a person ask for money to support his cause. This is another personal initiative, nothing anybody should or could argue with. Anybody only should take their own initiatives (or not) and actions. This seems to me a very simply non-model, a model that says "there will be no power structure to suffocate us", and leave it at that, so our energy and effort can go into the content mostly.
So, I would claim that the FSF-E is not representing and cannot represent the free(dom) software movement, especially because it is a anarchy-based movement. Therefore it cannot say this or that about free-software without saying that is the particular angle of certain individuals making the website, and therefore limited in scope and certainly not speaking for anybody else but themselves.
Do I want a revolution? Shure I do, but I am only one voice, and I don't want to do more than giving optional ideas to think about. I don't want to head anything (but myself). About leaving people in the rain that want to work within free-software and make money: you may note I said it is fine, it only should not be /actively/ encouraged, only made possible so it does not contaminate free-software. This can then be seen as a gradual step towards total freeness, or not, time will tell. I am not against that, I only think an organization as the FSF(E) should not /actively/ get involved with it, it should limit itself to setting borders around it so we are not destroyed by it. However you may note I want to do away with the organization altogether ;-), this may be a little ahead of it's time (?), but here it is anyway so you can think about it already. I am NOT going to make some (Raymond like) campaign about it, I am not like that, and I will actually leave it here with this post. Converting people is always a bad thing, making people think and see other options not, and I want to do the latter only, not the former.
BTW, I write software too (a learn-typing-program (not finished), and smaller stuff (still learning C and assembly, having a break now)).
I leave it here to you, reject, or think about it.... or not. Do what you want, as always ofcourse.
regards, Jos --
Hi Jos!
On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 12:13:20PM +0200, josX wrote: [... lots of interesting points to think about skipped...]
My proposal for the "organaization" of the FSF(E)/free(dom) software:
- There will be no decisions, there will only be personal initiative.
- There will be no concentration of power, there will only be personal action.
- There will be no official style or logo, there will only be available certain beautifull things to use or not use according personal preference if someone takes the initiative to make them.
I do see one serious problem with this approach. The current political systems work in a way, that you need some sort of organized lobby. You will not be recognised as an individual. That means, you cannot change something. The idea behind the FSF and the FSFE is to provide exactly this kind of lobby as far as I understand it.
structures that some seem to want to erect around that which is by nature an anarchy. A working thriving anarchy I must say!!!!
Well, it will remain like that. People will write and contribute software, if they want to. They will do this without accepting any deadline or pressure. That's not the point. The organisation is needed to explain this to those, who are not part of it. Especially people, bodies and companies that influence decisions and laws in Europe.
What would happen with communications with the press? The press can simply go to some projects and ask the people themselves instead of going to the ""official director of the core-team Europe".
Talk with someone working for the press. They would never do that. They are already flooded with enough press statements every day, that they just choose from what they get. This is usually more than they can handle before the next news. So it is your job to send something to them, if you want to get recognised. Otherwise you will be ignored. That's why we need the FSFE to _actively_ promote free software.
So, I would claim that the FSF-E is not representing and cannot represent the free(dom) software movement, especially because it is a anarchy-based movement. Therefore it cannot say this or that about free-software without
The FSFE should not represent free software, it should promote it. That's a different thing.
Do I want a revolution? Shure I do, but I am only one voice, and I don't
That's exactly the point: You are only one voice. The same is true for all of us here. That's why we try to gather in some way to become something, that is not just one unheard voice. We try to build something, that is recognized and heard. And that's why we need the FSFE.
to head anything (but myself). About leaving people in the rain that want to work within free-software and make money: you may note I said it is fine, it only should not be /actively/ encouraged, only made possible so it does not contaminate free-software. This can then be seen as a gradual step towards total freeness, or not, time will tell. I am not against that, I only think an organization as the FSF(E) should not /actively/ get involved with it, it should limit itself to setting borders around it so we are not destroyed by it.
I agree with you. The FSFE should be very careful with comments regarding commercialisation of free software. It should clearly express, that the main issue is free software. If it is necessary to attract money with it to create more free software, that's OK. But not more. I think, this is a very crucial point for many authors of free software. A statement like "We want people to make as much money as possible of free software" should always be commented in a way, that this is only ment as a method of creating more good and free software. Maybe that's an important message to the core team of the FSFE. I would advise to avoid such statements altogether. It's too easy to understand it in the wrong way.
with this post. Converting people is always a bad thing, making people think and see other options not, and I want to do the latter only, not the former.
Yes, that's definitely the right approach.
Bye, Marc _______________________________________________________________________________
email: marc@greenie.net email: m.a.eberhard@aston.ac.uk, web: http://www.aston.ac.uk/~eberhama/