Marc Eberhard m.a.eberhard@aston.ac.uk Wrote: <snip>
I gave my POV. You don't seem to want it, so nothing more I can do here it seems.
Make no mistake: agreeing with me would mean completely restructering the FSFE (to the point of desolving and starting new with a different outlook (and everything different frankly)), and distancing the FSFE from everything that has to do with money. Making it completely flat, no hierarchy whatsoever, even to the point it will be impossible to have an hierarchy (however inofficial). Making it a service to the community (creating some kind of forum for people to coordinate themselve accross Europe in matters they want to do, a NewsGroup for instance, and a website perhaps with some generalities on them, you know... introduction, the different outlooks on free(dom) software (RMS,ESR, etc etc), NG-faq, the Logo's etc. And if someone wants to go have some action into the politics of europe, they can cooperate through the NewsGroup). That is what I think about when I think FSF-Europe.)
You want this /underneath/ you (the current FSF). I want this /on-top-of-you/.
In *my* scheme /you/, the whole "influence politics"-thing will be a project, a thread on the NG. That's how it works: no hierarchy, no control, everyone is free, and working *along side of eachother*. No core-team, no "director", no nothing. In *your* scheme, this forum is one of your activities, one that you can control (oh, yeah: """coordinate""", right) from above, maybe so you can have your finger in everything... or whatever, i don't know.
Now you maybe say you /are/ such a thread, a thread in the fabrik of free(dom) software... well sorry, I don't buy it.
bye, Jos ps Don't come back with saying "yes, good idea, blah blah blah". You are either decieving others, and very possible some of you are decieving themselves I think. Good luck with keeping up appearances. pps One last thing: do you know what kind of "vibes" come to me from you when writing this? Not those you expect from hackers, or good-meaning people trying to do good.... no: the `vibe' of a bisnis department, scrambling to cover their ass.
Sorry to have been rude. Normally I am not, but we are talking about things that people have given away in good heart, and now you come along and say it is perfectly alright to make money from it... just because no-one forbid it. --
josX wrote:
Make no mistake: agreeing with me would mean completely restructering the FSFE (to the point of desolving and starting new with a different outlook (and everything different frankly)), and distancing the FSFE from everything that has to do with money. Making it completely flat, no hierarchy whatsoever, even to the point it will be impossible to have an hierarchy (however inofficial).
Impossible to even have an inofficial hierarchy?!?
Sorry to have been rude. Normally I am not, but we are talking about things that people have given away in good heart, and now you come along and say it is perfectly alright to make money from it... just because no-one forbid it.
I suppose these people have actually read the GPL (or BSD license or whatever) before releasing their stuff under it, haven't they? If they didn't like the fact that it allows others to make money from it, they could (should) have chosen another license, rather than complaining later that others do exactly what they were allowed to.
You once wrote: "I just happen to get to the same conclusions [as RMS] every time I do.", but in these two important points you seem to differ quite much from him. RMS does represent the hierarchical FSF, and he does support distributing free software for money (as expressed in the GPL and, e.g., in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html).
Frank
Frank Heckenbach wrote:
I suppose these people have actually read the GPL (or BSD license or whatever) before releasing their stuff under it, haven't they? If they didn't like the fact that it allows others to make money from it, they could (should) have chosen another license, rather than complaining later that others do exactly what they were allowed to.
Is there a copyleft license preventing from making money with free software?
Ciao, Stefan
Stefan Meretz wrote:
Frank Heckenbach wrote:
I suppose these people have actually read the GPL (or BSD license or whatever) before releasing their stuff under it, haven't they? If they didn't like the fact that it allows others to make money from it, they could (should) have chosen another license, rather than complaining later that others do exactly what they were allowed to.
Is there a copyleft license preventing from making money with free software?
I'm not aware of any particular, though there probably are some among the myriads of more or less free licenses.
But in any case, it would not be free software according to DFSG/OSD.
Frank
On Thu, 10 May 2001, Stefan Meretz wrote:
Is there a copyleft license preventing from making money with free software?
To the best of my recollection: No.
Nothing stops you from selling your own code under the GPL to a company for 10 000 Euro (actually this might be wildly successful at that).
You may not actually *re*sell GPLed code iirc, but you may offer to warrenty it at any price. [1]
The licences for most free software are (summarised) [2]:
BSDlike: This software is Free! Do with it what you like, just don't sue me, OK?
GPL: I'll show you my source if you'll show me yours, oh, and don't sue me.
LGPL: I'll see your GPL, and up you a library. (Disclaimer: The LGPL is a tad different from the GPL, so you should read it throughly[3])
Artistic: Actually we crossed a GPL with an LGPL and here's the result. (Don't tell Larry Wall I said that!)
hope this is useful, Kim Bruning
[1] " You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee." - GNU GPLv.2, Article 1, 2nd paragraph.
[2] www.opensource.org, good source for licences. *ducks*
[3] "This license is quite different from the ordinary one; be sure to read it in full, and don't assume that anything in it is the same as in the ordinary license." GNU LGPL v.2, preamble, 9th paragraph.
On Thu, 10 May 2001, you wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 09:56:24AM +0200, Stefan Meretz wrote:
Is there a copyleft license preventing from making money with free software?
No.
But you can always write one :)
---------------------------------------- Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="unnamed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: ----------------------------------------
John Tapsell writes:
On Thu, 10 May 2001, you wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 09:56:24AM +0200, Stefan Meretz wrote:
Is there a copyleft license preventing from making money with free software?
No.
But you can always write one :)
No, you can't, because the software would not be free if its license prevented that.
Klaus Schilling
Hi all,
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:31:34PM +0200, Klaus Schilling wrote:
John Tapsell writes:
On Thu, 10 May 2001, you wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 09:56:24AM +0200, Stefan Meretz wrote:
Is there a copyleft license preventing from making money with free software?
No.
But you can always write one :)
No, you can't, because the software would not be free if its license prevented that.
This is some interesting point. The freedoms 0-3 as described on http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html dont't contain this notion. The freedom 2 states:
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
In this short sentence there is not a single word about a price, a fee or any other aspect dealing with money. Only in the first paragraph below the list of the four freedoms it is stated that according to the interpretation of the FSF this freedom means to be able to distribute the software "either gratis or charging a fee for distribution". But this sentence is, and I stress this point, only _one interpretation_ of the freedom quoted above. The most important point in it is, for me at least, "help your neighbor". If I come to the conclusion that I can help my neighbor best by preventing my software from being distributed for a fee, nobody can deny me this interpretation of the formulation of freedom 2.
So, to make this short, there may be one interpretation of freedom 2, the interpretation given by the FSF(E). But I don't accept that one body, the FSF(E), as the sole interpretational right and the only power to define how the four freedoms have to be interpreted. But I guess that's what is meant by "authorative information" :-)
Regards Lutz
Lutz Horn wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 01:31:34PM +0200, Klaus Schilling wrote:
John Tapsell writes:
On Thu, 10 May 2001, you wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 09:56:24AM +0200, Stefan Meretz wrote:
Is there a copyleft license preventing from making money with free software?
No.
But you can always write one :)
No, you can't, because the software would not be free if its license prevented that.
This is some interesting point. The freedoms 0-3 as described on http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html dont't contain this notion.
: The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). ^^^
So, to make this short, there may be one interpretation of freedom 2, the interpretation given by the FSF(E). But I don't accept that one body, the FSF(E), as the sole interpretational right and the only power to define how the four freedoms have to be interpreted.
Well, the freedoms and the "interpretation" are two consecutive paragraphs from the same text, so it seems natural to consider them together. Of course, you're free to agree to only one part of them, or completely disagree with RMS or whatever, but I think the FSFE, as the sister organization of the FSF, should support the FSF's position.
But I guess that's what is meant by "authorative information" :-)
It's authoritative as far as any software under the GPL, BSD license or any other DFSG/OSD conforming license is concerned. I'm sure the FSFE would not claim that any software which does not permit commercial use and/or distribution does. (In fact I think, since such software is not free according to all the definitions mentioned, the FSFE would not talk about such software at all and therefore also not give any misleading information about it.)
And that's why this whole thing will lead to nothing. If you are not willing or not able or too "realistic" to actively consider some ideas that sound utopian, why all this fuss?
I'm certainly willing and able to consider such ideas, but:
- This thread did not start with some utopian ideas, but with someone criticizing the active "political" work done by the core team. IMHO, there's a lot of work to be done, both on the technical side (to make free software a viable and better alternative to proprietary software, and simply to produce a lot of interesting projects -- note that I'm not saying the FSFE or any other organization has to coordinate or even control it all, I say we (or most of us) need and want to write some code) and on the political side (to make sure writing, distributing and using free software remains legal, that the infracstructure of the future (formats, protocols etc.) remains open, etc.). Discussing utopian ideas in order to stop actual constructive work is a bad thing, IMHO.
- Most of these ideas have been discussed back and forth for years (maybe not in an only-European forum like this, but with participation of many Europeans as well), and I'm wondering if anything really new has been said in this thread (including my own comments ;-).
- Quite a few of the "realists" have been "doing" free software for some years, i.e. (in varying degrees) written, used, distributed and evangelized free software. Some (including some of the core team members) have found ways that allow them to use free software for most of our work, write and improve free software and make enough money with it, not to get very rich, but to be able to do it this way and not have to waste our time in other jobs. IMHO this is quite a comfortable situation, both for themselves (who can enjoy hacking and using free software, not only at night, and don't have to beg for food) and for all who like free software (because more free software is written this way than would be otherwise).
So this "model" really works, because we do it. I can't say this of the anticommercial ideas presented here. I have asked some quite concrete questions in my previous mails. Most of them went unanswered. So to me it seems only like some vague ideas (ok, maybe I should expect this from "utopian ideas").
So, perhaps the real confusion here is mixing up utopian ideas and real, you might say pragmatic, actions, and we're better off separating them.
I also like to have utopian ideas and I'd like to discuss them in a separate thread -- but I prefer to remember that they're utopian. The ideas can appear fantastic and unrealistic, but when you try to derive some course of action from them, the actions must be questioned whether they're realistic.
E.g., if living in a society without money is the utopia, I agree (yes, really, though my mails so far may not appear like this). But if your consequence it to disallow the use of free software in connection with money, I disagree because that's no realistic way to reach the goal. It won't make the money disappear, but it will severly hurt the free software. So it's ineffective towards one of my visions (society without money), but destructive against another one (world without proprietary software), and therefore I reject this consequence (not the vision!). If you have any workable plans on how to realize vision #1, I'm all ears. Until then, I prefer to concentrate on vision #2 because I see a bigger change to reach it (or at least comer close to it).
Maybe this distinction helps to make it clear that we might not disagree on the visions, but "only" on the consequences we draw from them.
Frank
John Tapsell wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2001, you wrote:
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 09:56:24AM +0200, Stefan Meretz wrote:
Is there a copyleft license preventing from making money with free software?
No.
But you can always write one :)
If somebody wants to know what RMS thinks about making money with free software, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html would be a good source of information IMHO.
Thanks, Reinhard Müller BYTEWISE Software GmbH A-6890 Lustenau, Enga 2 Tel +43 (5577) 89877-0 Fax +43 (5577) 89877-66 http://www.bytewise.at
Hi!
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 03:23:55PM +0200, josX wrote:
Marc Eberhard m.a.eberhard@aston.ac.uk Wrote:
<snip>
I gave my POV.
Which I do appreciate very much.
You don't seem to want it, so nothing more I can do here it seems.
That would be a shame. We have subscribed to this mailing list, because we have some common interests. Yes, I think we really do have some common interests. And our discussions has maybe led us to believe, that nothing like this exists, so I want to try to point out the things we agree on and the tings we don't. It seems to me, that we have just forgotten about that point completely and that it is high time to remember it. I think, there is much more we (including you and me) can do here.
Make no mistake: agreeing with me would mean completely restructering the FSFE (to the point of desolving and starting
I think, it is OK that we don't agree in everything. And I would see the solution in the following way: If we find a common set of statements we all agree to, we can promote these basic statements together and remain tolerant towards the additional statements others make for themselves.
new with a different outlook (and everything different frankly)), and distancing the FSFE from everything that has to do with money.
Hmmm... let's for a moment forget about the FSFE completely.
Making it completely flat, no hierarchy whatsoever, even to the point it will be impossible to have an hierarchy (however inofficial).
That's probably the right model for developing free software. That's how it is done and that's how it should be done. I'll come back to this later.
In *my* scheme /you/, the whole "influence politics"-thing will be a project, a thread on the NG. That's how it works: no hierarchy, no control, everyone is free, and working *along side of eachother*. No core-team, no "director", no nothing.
I think, this is the right model to develop code, but I have doubts, that it is the right to influence political decisions.
In *your* scheme, this forum is one of your activities, one that you can control (oh, yeah: """coordinate""", right) from above, maybe so you can have your finger in everything... or whatever, i don't know.
Hmmm, that's not really the idea, but I agree with you, that this danger exists.
Don't come back with saying "yes, good idea, blah blah blah". You are either decieving others, and very possible some of you are decieving themselves I think. Good luck with keeping up appearances.
I just try to be fair and to see both points of view. I really have no intention to deceive anything or anybody. And if I say, that I like an idea, then it is ment that way. Really.
pps One last thing: do you know what kind of "vibes" come to me from you when writing this? Not those you expect from hackers, or good-meaning people trying to do good.... no: the `vibe' of a bisnis department, scrambling to cover their ass.
I will try hard at the end of this mail to convince you, that I'm not like that.
Sorry to have been rude. Normally I am not, but we are talking about things that people have given away in good heart, and now you come along and say it is perfectly alright to make money from it... just because no-one forbid it.
I take that point and I will comment on it later in this mail. I did not realise, how sensitive some people are about this issue. I appreciate, that you have pointed this out clearly.
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 02:35:40PM +0100, E L Tonkin wrote:
Hmm, I don't know if money per se is going to be the issue here, but to play devil's advocate for a moment, it concerns me that it's a theoretically exploitable system. What better monetary target than the FSFE exists for a slightly confused company?... and it's not a democracy, right? Not that I'm saying I don't trust the committee, but like the quote says about a certain other political system, you have to be right about every committee member, or it's corrupt...
I agree with you, that this is a real danger. And it will cost the members of the FSFE a lot of work to continuously assure us of their integrity. It is correct, to be critical and to watch their steps carefully.
That's it, guys, the FSF 'don't have any power'. Remember, you heard it first here. No matter that everytime RMS sneezes, it gets digitised for 100,000 Wired News readers, and the first reaction of the press when M$'s
Question: Is it the FSF or RMS? I don't think, it is the organization itself, I think it is the reputation that RMS has build for himself over the years.
Oh yeah. Hey, Jean-Jacques, Nader, Bob and Ernst, Average Hackers, Do Not Support The FSFE. Well, damn. That'll make front-page headlines tomorrow, I'm sure. Like it or not, the FSF have the momentum and the history; you'd never get far without them unless of course you're famous in your own right. Sorry.
I think, that's the point. There are some individual, that are famous in their own right. It's not the organization itself. So if the programmers would stop to support the FSFE, it would have a much harder time to survive on a long time scale. We're not talking about headlines in the news, that are forgotten the next day.
I'm sorry. I just have to shout here. It's all guys, isn't it? That's the
No.
There's no point in responding to this with a 'You're just paranoid', because the ACM and the rule of statistics say that I ain't. There's also no point in responding with a 'SoAndSo is female and she's in the FSF/on the committee' or whatever, because I don't care, I'm not after proportional representation. I'm asking that this issue is embraced, that people are made aware of it, that FSFE members make an effort to avoid the sins of the average male and attempt to work on merit. Even better, that the FSFE makes some kind of a committment to it.
That would be good. Let me make a personal commitment: If I talk of hackers with beards, I do use this as a symbol, that stands for every hacker, male and female. But you're right to point out, that this symbol is politically incorrect and that we should think up a better symbol. I will try to avoid it in the future.
So did I. I can agree with you that, at least in peacetime, the average FSF member is a very nice person. But not necessarily infallible...
I agree.
Politicians should see the picture, they expect. This doesn't say anything how people really are. But since they've managed to fool you, they will probably also succeed to fool politicians and that's really good news!
I do see your point, Marc. But be aware, if you would, that it is not unknown for people to fall for their own hype.
That can happen, indeed.
<sarcasm> Plus, you know, it's the people on the FSFE /committee/ that get these little perks. But we understand why, little as we understand on what grounds they were chosen (unless I slept through the big introductory scene, which I may have done), and we know that they're suffering all this nasty staying free in nice places despite the fact that they're allergic to sunlight, because they're doing it for us. How sweet of them. </sarcasm>
Hmmm, this sounds a bit like Jesus... if you don't suffer in front of everybodies eyes, they will not believe you. Well, I wouldn't expect such an appearance and I'm not sure, if it would be a good idea. Of course you're right, that it is more tempting to stay in a hotel than a tent. But I think, we should remain rationale here. If there is a practical advantage, it should not be rejected, just because it might look like some unfair privilege. But it definitely needs to be monitored carefully.
But to be on the logo subject, we should have been over this problem many months ago. Would somebody just write the letters 'FSFE' in a pleasing font on a simple background, and then get on with it?
Yes, that's a good idea. This will do for at least the first years. And once the FSFE is known more widespread one could ask again for ideas and hopefully the presented examples will then be more suitable. The guidelines for the logo should be made known _before_ the first sketches are published to avoid further disappointment. There are really more important issues to start working on at the moment.
Georg is right that the FSFE has vision; Jos is right that it could all go horribly wrong. People, please attempt to follow both arguments and go into this with your eyes open.
Yes, we should do that. That's exactly what I try to do.
A very high quality Logo from Anja.... very nice indeed.... into the garbage-bin. Reason? veto *no comment*
I said it before; if you can't use it as a logo, but if it's a good image, use it for a tshirt print or whatever. Don't let high quality work go to waste ;-)
Yes, completely right. In any case: Anja, we do like your drawings and we can print them on T-shirts with or without the FSFE. If they object against it, then we don't use the word FSFE on them, but something like: "Support free software in Europe!".
On Wed, May 09, 2001 at 03:30:48PM +0100, E L Tonkin wrote:
Part of it is a matter of viewpoint, and too subjective to be removed by realities like charity status... are there really no perks of the job available only to that Privileged Few of official committee members or whatever? Couldn't you find that offensive if you weren't in that committee yourself?
You will always need at least a minimum level of trust into these persons. No matter, how they are organised. Without trust, there is no way to proceed.
One of the differences between the FSF and most charities is that, frankly, there's a lot of rich companies interested in Free Software, who correctly or otherwise see the FSF(E) as part of the answer.
True.
Whereas, if you're a spokesperson for Ringwood Abandoned Cat's Home or the Westwood Homeless Shelter Project, you're living in a different set of circumstances. And you're not associating yourself (even accidentally; like I said, FSF people are usually very nice) with other peoples' work.
Does that mean, you would propose to have members in the FSFE, that are not living on writing software? Even if they could only dedicate a small amount of their time to it, because they have to earn their money first and then take care of the FSFE in their free time? I'm not sure, if we were better off that way. Maybe such a watchdog inside the FSFE would be nice.
At best, and as most people here probably see it, the FSFE is an invaluable service to hackers. But it's probably worth trying to make sense on precisely what that service is.
I agree.
You know, people, I think that the FSF might even suffer from the fact that it's a lot of things to a lot of people. It offers a philosophy, a way of life, freedom, camaraderie - and a software licence. That's a lot of stuff to get right. And we spend our days fighting about the logo (!)
Well, I see it at the moment as a normal part of forming a team. We are more or less all new here. That makes it obvious, that there will be some basic discussions to really get together.
Now as I promised several times in this mail, I would like to start to look at the things we do have in common. At the moment, this is of course just my personal opinion, but I hope, that you will comment on it and that we can develop this together. I try to formulate it in as simple as possible statements:
(1) Free software is a good idea.
I think, this is the central statement and I think, we also agree in most parts, why it is a good idea. However I would leave it to everyone to decide, why she or he personally thinks, it is a good idea. Based on this we want to achieve the following goals:
(2) We want to protect and defend our freedom to develop and distribute free software.
(3) We want to develop and distribute free software.
(4) We want to encourage people to write free software.
(5) We want to encourage people to use free software.
Has anybody objections against this?
I think, the tricky part begins here. It starts with the question, how we want to implement these goals in practical actions.
It seems to me, that the easiest part is (3). We can do that just as Jos has proposed. No organization, just happy hackers. We will need some forum to coordinate efforts and to avoid, that two people waste time by doing the same thing. A mailing list or news group will do fine.
For (4) and (5) exist at least two different approaches: We could just "live" it. We could just be a positive example, that will eventually convince other people and thus spread the idea. I would call this the passive approach and I think, this is what Jos has in mind. The alternative is to actively promote free software. Let's call this the active approach. This does involve raising funds, writing press statements, talking to political parties and companies, sponsoring free software events, paying programmers to write free code. This active approach needs some form of organization. If the FSFE is the right one for it, we will see. The arguments will include the high quality, security and availability of free software. The freedom to adapt it to specific needs and the possibility to fix bugs yourself. I think, the two ways are compatible up to this point. However there is the money issue. It seems to me, that it is acceptable to everyone, that free software can be used in commercial environments. However many object strongly against advertising this fact. Especially the fact, that it is possible to make money out of free software by using it as a base of some kind of buisiness. So this argument should not be used, even though it does exist.
It is not clear, if the huge mass of hackers will in the end produce more free software then companies, that make money out of it. It is clear however, that commercial exploitation of free software will decrease the number of people, who are willing to contribute for free. It is absolutely right to ask, why some people contribute for free while others do earn money with it. So this is a very sensible point. To keep the motivation among those hackers high, that contribute without asking for a return, it is necessary to _not_ advertise free software as something to make money out of it. There are enough other good arguments, so that we don't really need this one.
However we do have the problem, that (5) includes private use and commercial use. I think, nobody would want to change (5) into something like: We want to encourage people to use free software for private use, but not in a commercial environment. That wouldn't be freedom, would it? So we have to accept the fact, that it is used for commercial purposes. And this includes the fact, that there will be people making money of free software. But with respect to the feelings of many hackers, it shouldn't be used as an argument for free software. It should only be accepted as a known fact.
Now I finally have to come to (2). We can again act passively and actively. Not doing anything, would mean to hope for politicians to be smart enough to understand the problem. Unfortunately this has been proven wrong in the past. So we need to do something. We need to defend our freedom actively. Again, an organization is necessary and comes in handy. Since we're not talking about buisiness, but about laws, there should be no conflict concerning money. So I think, we will have no problems to find an agreement here.
Hmmm... well, yes that's it for the moment. Thanks for reading it all! I'm looking forward to read your comments, flames, etc.
Bye, Marc _______________________________________________________________________________
email: marc@greenie.net email: m.a.eberhard@aston.ac.uk, web: http://www.aston.ac.uk/~eberhama/