There's a better article here, with background on the issue of VMWare employees talking about their work on planet.gnome.org and RMS objecting to that:
The Mono platform, upon which some parts of Gnome rely, is regarded by some as a patent minefield. There is too much Microsoft IP related to C# and the .NET framework (of which Mono is a partial implementation) for the GNU folks to feel comfortable.
The danger is that Microsoft has a long history of threatening companies that rely on free software that their products infringe a host of never disclosed patents. Novell, the single largest sponsor for Gnome, made an agreement with Microsoft that granted them immunity against patent lawsuits for their clients, but nobody else.
A couple months back they sued Tomtom for using that horrible kludge for supporting long file names on FAT. Microsoft patented this specific kludge.
The subset of C# used in Tomboy and F-Spot is considered "safe" by Mono developers and the FSF alike. Most arguments about "minefields" concern Microsoft-specific libraries, such as WinForms and ASP.NET, which GNOME won't touch with a 10-foot pole.
"Most arguments about "minefields" concern Microsoft-specific libraries, such as WinForms and ASP.NET, which GNOME won't touch with a 10-foot pole."
I am glad to hear that. The risk of Microsoft throwing a wrench on all this effort because some people can't resist being MS-compatible is too high. It's been a long time, if ever, since Microsoft was known for playing fair.
And if some parts won't be touched with a 10-foot pole, why are they there anyway?
I imagine that given the context, they are talking about Tomboy[1] and F-Spot[2]. These run on the Mono platform, which is an implementation of C#. It has patent issues, and RMS has recommended[3] that Free Software projects do not write code that relies on Mono.
No, F-Spot, Tomboy, and Mono are all free software using Stallman's definition. And Gnome does not bundle any proprietary software. The issue is about favourably mentioning non-free software, such as VmWare, on the Gnome blog aggregator.
The suggestion by someone for a split-from-GNU vote is a response to Stallman's email. In his email, Stallman says: (excerpt)
But GNOME is part of the GNU Project, and it ought to support the free software movement. The most minimal support for the free software movement is to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid presenting proprietary software as legitimate.
To which Philip Van Hoof replied: (excerpt)
You, as one of the key FSF people, appear to be keen on enforcing a strict policy on how GNU's member-projects should behave. So ...
I propose to have a vote on GNOME's membership to the GNU project.
Thank you all for the explanations. But, basically rbanffy is right ?
According to that email and what I read here, they want to split just because GNOME promoted proprietary software on their blog ?
But there's one thing I still don't get. Even if they split, what's the big deal ?
It would send a message - that the developers of Gnome don't think being Stallman-like free is not a big deal.
If, however, they do entertain such toughts, I will start using the "free as in Stallman" fork that will, undoubtedly, become available the week following the inclusion of any not-very-free software and that will be maintained by many of the same developers who do it today, with a lot of common code between forks.
Splitting with GNU and becoming un-Free are two totally different events. The reason for GNOME's formation has nothing to do with the current situation.
On Planet GNOME, GNOME's blog aggregator, some contributors talk about software that isn't "Free Software". Stallman complains on the mailing list that as part of the GNU Project GNOME shouldn't be "presenting proprietary software as legitimate".
In a reply, Philip Van Hoof states that he believes that the GNOME community has a different philosophy than Stallman and the FSF, that this has long been an unresolved issue with GNOME, and proposes a vote to separate GNOME from the FSF and GNU.
Because they realised that Richard Stallman isn't just eccentric, he is crazy.
The easier and more rational option would be to just institutionalize Stallman. Unfortunately some people are opposed to that because of sentimental reasons.
And what, exactly, is your evidence that his is legally insane? Everything I've heard and read from him seems extremely sane. More sane that what I've heard from the opposing camp. Is it because he eats toe cheese? I admit it's pretty strange, but so what? Judge his words and writings. Let his principles stand alone. Then tell me he's insane.
If that is your way of presenting the case that Stallman is perfectly sane it somehow falls short of the mark.
It's a bit like the defense councilor stating to the judge that the defendant may have a habit or two that is out of the ordinary but otherwise he's a perfectly normal human being.
Don't we all, you know, deep down inside.
I'm not sure of Stallmans' dietary habits but I would definitely count that one against him. I can't begin to fathom where you dug up this nugget of highly relevant information though, if you didn't just made it up.
It's a fairly well-known bit of nastiness about RMS . I can't be bothered to Google it for you - mostly because I don't want to deal with the results (too early in the morning for me for those images in my head).
I think you missed the point. My point was that you should be able to judge the argument without prejudice based on the speaker. If you are using credibility as your mode of discerning the truth, then I fear that you will be wrong about most things in life.
Stallman isn't crazy. He is an extremist just like Ghandi was an extremist. I think many years from now we will view Stallman as our times Ghandi - - someone who was extreme, but fought for a good cause.
It's computer software, folks. One can make very strong claims that free software is better or preferable to proprietary software without putting it in the manichaean terms that Stallman does.
As far as injustices in the world goes, proprietary software is pretty damn far down. A friend of mine was called "evil" to his face by Richard Stallman because he once worked at Microsoft. "Evil" is a (bit of a) loaded term and not appropriate for someone who also has contributed a great deal to the open-source community. I can't imagine how incidents like this, and Stallman's absolutely-no-compromise attitude in general, do more good than harm to the free software movement.
Computer software runs just about everything in the world. It is a multi-billion dollar industry that employees many many people. It isn't just anything.
His no-compromises method has done far more for the movement than anything. If you want some comprimes, look to the Open Source movement and the BSD license.
>It is a multi-billion dollar industry that employees many many people.
Which is exactly why RMS is viewed as extreme. If the world followed his philosophy, it would not be a "multi-billion dollar industry that employs many many people." It would be slightly larger than HAM radio, full of smart and well meaning hobbyists trying to scratch personal itches but not adding up to much of consequence (which pretty much describes the state of the movement today).
RMSs response has always been a vague bit of handwaving about creating more innovative business processes around the free software but which basically amount to every software company becoming a services company. I'm sorry, but I really don't need or want services for 99.995% of the software I use every day.
Stallman, despite all his rhetoric, is just a moderate liberal.
If you want extremist, you would look at ESR, not RMS. ESR is an actually a hardcore anarcho-capitalist, and I happen to confirm for myself that ESR studied Austrian economics(Hayek at the very least) from a little chat on freenode. Of course, I have no transcript that this happens so you have to ask ESR himself.
Most of Europe is now democratic because extremists once fought off absolutist monarchies. The US is a democracy because a bunch of extremists convinced the people that this was the way to go.
I live in Brazil. I truly wish we had more extremists like those when we declared our independence and when we became a republic. In fact, I wish we had a stronger tradition of extremism.
Precisely, RMSs definition of "freedom" is one that's tightly controlled by his idealism and precludes numerous uses for software that a developer may actually want. In effect, his concept of "freedom" is like DPRK's definition of "Democratic".
Perhaps you should actually read what he writes instead of letting other's interpretations of him get in the way. I have never found anything that he's written to be irrational or crazy.
The problem is that some people can't admit that they just don't care about FOSS as much as Stallman does and try to discredit him because they don't have the guts to say so.
It's okay to disagree with Stallman and he has never attacked anyone who has openly voiced an opinion against his ideals. It's not okay to say he is crazy when in reality he one of the most consistent and logical thinkers in FOSS.
I do read what he says directly; and I haven't called him crazy.
Also I feel extremely strongly about FOSS. Disagreeing with stallman doesn't make you a proprietary apologist.
Stallman has been fairl consistent and I feel like that is the root of the issue. It's a very hardline attitude but more importantly one that treats every other view as entirely wrong and disdainful. I can't agree with that: I find it very damaging.
But then I also feel the gpl is fairly damaging in it's attitude too. So I appreciate it might be just ones stance over hat Free actually stands for (for me it is "without limits" :-))
I doubt that. There are enough agitators in the open source world that turns it into an "us versus them" issue – thereby alienating almost all of the potential OSS users.
I would personally see a lot more level headed and rational programmers.
I'm not sure about level-headed, but definitely rational. Linus, for example, is a famous hot head, but he's most certainly pragmatic and rational in his approach.
Richard Stallman frequents our lab-wide mailing list (csail-related@lists.csail.mit.edu) and once explained how he browses the web:
"My access to web pages is by sending mail to a server which does the equivalent of wget and mails them back to me. (Once I get the page, I can view it with various browsers.) I transfer mail a couple of times a day and usually have no net connection otherwise." (11/8/2009)
It's also interesting to think about what programming and software would really look like in Smallman's world. Clearly quite a bit different than the world most of us frequent.
He's not crazy, he's passionate about his cause, and whether you agree with him or not that passion has led to a lot of good. On the other hand advocating that someone should be "institutionalized" because you happen to disagree with their opinion is going quite a bit farther than Stallman goes.
How about reading some of what he writes instead of brushing off his ideals? His assertion of proprietary software being "evil" for some very specific values of "evil" are quite valid.
Only fools that don't read his work brush him off so easily; otherwise they'd refute his positions with real arguments.
In the long run, it would affect what sort of contributors and users GNOME would have -- people from the Open Source camp who think proprietary software is a nuisance but not "immoral" or "evil" as Mr. Stallman suggests. Or people from the Free Software camp who think all proprietary software is "immoral" and "evil" and should thus be forbidden by law.
Of course, it would also be a blow for the Free Software community if a major project decides to stop supporting/promoting its political goals.
In the short run, of course, only a few words on the GNOME homepage would have to be changed.
Well, this is basically the essence of the political views of the Free Software movement, according to Mr. Stallman's essays and other statements. Many supporters don't get this, though.
Mr. Stallman repeatedly called proprietary software "unethical" and "immoral", words we usually use to describe theft, rape and murder. If you assume the premise to be true, forbidding proprietary software by law is a rational conclusion. Then, it's just a matter of political power.
From an interview with Mr. Stallman [1]:
"We have a paradoxical situation where one particular area of business [...] uses a particular business practice that's based on subjugating the public, based on dividing and conquering. Well, when there's a business practice that conflicts with an important value like freedom and community, prohibit it."
And further:
(Interviewer): "Should, should all software be free?"
(Mr. Stallman): "Yes."
From a different interview [2]:
"Non-free software is basically antisocial, it subjugates it users, and it should not exist."
Since we are talking mostly about Mono, why not split Gnome in two parts, the Mono-free part, which I would be very comfortable to use, and the Microsoft-booby-trapped part that includes Mono and stuff that depends on it?
Who's talking about Mono? The GNU complaint is that some ex-GNOME developers are promoting proprietary software through GNOME channels. Another developer was offended by this complaint, and decided to troll the list.
Additionally, there's nothing "booby-trapped" about Mono. I don't contribute to Mono applications much any more, because I don't think it'll advance the Linux desktop as much as other stacks, but there's no danger in using Mono.
Based on Stallman's articles regarding Mono and Linux, he feels the same way -- it's safe as currently used, but not the best choice.
I am sorry. Digging further in showed this is not about Mono but an apparently much smaller problem - the way some proprietary technologies are presented.
As for Mono not being dangerous, I am still unconvinced. Microsoft has a lot of patents, some, undoubtedly, covering .NET-related technologies that have Mono counterparts. Microsoft also has threatened before to enter lawsuits against those who use them. Empty threats or not, I would go as far as to try to stay as far from it as possible.
What I've never understood is why those who have complained bitterly about Mono being included in distributions seem to keep their mouths shut when it comes to Samba and multimedia - both arguably worse in terms of "patent minefields", and yet a core part of most distributions.
I think Samba enjoys some protection, at least on the EU, based on the interoperability requirements imposed on MS. Moving against it would be suicidal for Microsoft.
As for multimedia, I guess it's because the patents are not Microsoft's.
In any case, I think none is installed by default and most of multimedia stuff is not even on the default server. I am quite happy with whatever Nautilus calls "SSH" for quick stuff and NFS, because I learned it so long ago.
Oh.. I know... It was the "booby-trapped" part that triggered the down-mod.
Let's then rephrase that: the parts that do not conflict with the GNU project charter and the parts that do and may, in the future, hurt Gnome in ways only Microsoft can control.
Because Gnome is not monolithic - it's a lot of technologies and products that are developed more or less together, but that can each stand on their own.
http://www.itwire.com/content/view/29995/1090/1/2/