(from the "Suggestions I gave to Microsoft" section)
This is something I agree with. I don't think that Microsoft are likely to apologise for EEE [1] as that is likely just considered 'business' and part of the zeitgeist; neither do I think that Microsoft necessarily needs to endorse or support GPL as they are definitely unlikely to be using it for any products for the foreseeable.
They should, however, be a bit more repentant about starting a McCarthy-esque red scare against all things open source. I don't think those things were appropriate at the time and they really should at the very least be acknowledged as part of the "Microsoft heart Linux" initiative.
Part of me, though, thinks that Microsoft's recent adventures in Linux have been more 'Black Friday' than 'Good Friday'.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend%2C_and_extin...
In my mind, .net core and vs code and countless smaller projects are a complete renunciation of their previous public statements. Maybe Stallman can’t see that because they MIT license those things, but why ask for more talk when you are already getting action?
Edit: here’s Ballmer turning around in public on the cancer thing. https://www.zdnet.com/article/ballmer-i-may-have-called-linu... so I really don’t see what more Stallman wants.
In this case what is being asked is not a grudge that needs to be addressed. Keep in mind the underlying context of the suggestions => "what can Microsoft do". So this is, in my eyes, more of something that Microsoft can choose to do for themselves - admit that they said things in the past that were not exactly true. A self initiated internal cleaning of the air as they continue to engage the public community. This is not something that they have to do to address a grudge. It should be mostly symbolic to the external world. So, is there value in Microsoft actually coming out and saying it? Well, that's for Microsoft to decide.
> Perhaps his new-found peace with Linux is linked to yoga, a practice he said he has taken up after leaving Microsoft in 2014.
Especially since we're still suffering from it. There are enough project & program managers who see the words "open source" on an engineering document & send us back to build or buy some alternative.
I have no doubt that Microsoft is in the first category, but a company that would be in the second one would understand the importance of making public excuses for past stances.
Now they are trying to compete in the cloud, and the dynamics are different. They know Windows servers aren't going to beat out Linux servers. They need to use honey instead of vinegar to win people over.
It's a different company with different revenue streams, thus a different approach.
Or, as rms went to some lengths to explain here and elsewhere, free software.
Paying attention is important in this particular case.
I need to see some real contrition and proof that they understand all the things they did were wrong so I can be convinced they won't repeat the same behavior. Otherwise it just sounds like an abusive partner begging you to take them back.
They ship the Linux kernel as part of Windows now. They ship updates for it through Windows update. It's in beta, but will be released this quarter, I think?
They were created in response to Bill Gates comment that people who want to weaken or eliminate intellectual property laws were "some new modern-day sort of communists" https://boingboing.net/2005/01/05/bill-gates-free-cult.html
That seems like a potentially super important project yet it does not have a wikipedia page. That's abnormal! It was even discussed here in 2017!
It's better to not go down that rhetorical road. If they haven't heard of your solution, let them evaluate it and come to their own conclusions about whether this specific solution doesn't meet their needs for some reason or other. Don't plant that seed, especially if you would consider it a favorable outcome for your particular solution to be used.
I don't know anything about Taler, but I assume he didn't say "something like GNU Taler" on purpose, for just the same reason that he doesn't work on some other project like Taler, because there's no specific alternative that he can recommend which is at least as good in all ways, from at least his own perspective.
Writing "something like GNU Taler" is almost a suggestion to fork the project, when we haven't even talked about what particular characteristics of Taler would make it a favorable choice, and what benefits. If, in the end, it's better or cheaper for them to build their own whatever it is, better than it would be to work with you on your project, they'll have no trouble coming to that conclusion on their own.
Suppose I sell a digital good to a customer in the EU and use Taler to handle this. I need to know which country's VAT to collect, and I need to justify my choice to the tax authorities of any EU country that asks.
That seems to rule out using a platform that makes my customer anonymous to me.
Payment processing software like Taler is most useful when integrated/embedded in as many websites as possible, including sites that use proprietary javascript. Even if the Taler implementation used only javascript with a Free license, using it on that site would require enabling both Free and non-Free javascript. Thus it would be preferable to Free Software advocates if Taler implementations were written to work without requiring javascript.
> Direct GitHub to promote correct and clear use of licenses and the best use of copyleft (GPL version 3-or-later).
I remember when I was very green, that list of licenses on the GitHub repository creation page is very very confusing to me. I don't know which is which and which one I should use, and most importantly, what's the effect of my choice.
It could be great if GitHub can improve that list a bit to help people to make wiser choice before a repository is created.
However, my opinion is, the list better be designed in such way that users don't need to access to another website to understand what they're about to do.
It shouldn't be very hard, some sort of license description would do the work, I think.
I don't quite understand why that is a goal in itself. If it's due to accessibility why not ask to "Help make the web more usable for people with disabilities"? Maybe I'm missing something here.
Ideally the Javascript would be freed, but making it optional might be a more feasible goal.
It's not clear to me why I shouldn't tolerate closed-source Javascript that I can nonetheless inspect, archive, and edit on my own machine, but I should tolerate a closed-source SaaS backend that I can't inspect, archive, or edit.
Of course proprietary software limits freedoms, but does it limit freedom more than serverside logic? There are equal legal restrictions on both codebases, but I can't even exercise fair-use freedoms with code that I literally can't touch.
Dropping JS will just lead to a lot of non-free software written in [something else]. It's not like non-free software will suddenly stop existing. You're not banning English because of the content that might use it.
There must be a better approach to this than "I'm not running any code because some of it may be non-free".
As someone else pointed out, "what about proprietary HTML and CSS?"
Stallman has no ability to recognize the need for others to protect their own work, he only wants his free access to the fruits of others' labor.
Don't want to run proprietary JavaScript? Then bite the f'ing bullet and don't visit websites that have it. Don't expect everyone else to conform to your wants.
Consequently, I consider this as something the GNU project failed to address. Why isn't there an official GNU webbrowser with a reasonable Javascript implementation? One where the browser and the JS engine would be free software and which could be seen as a reasonable platform for a modern web?
It's just like you should not need to take orders from people on the street so as to be able to understand what they're trying to tell you.
But hypothetically if Microsoft fully implements all of what RMS suggested would Windows be listed as an approved distro on gnu.org?
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-non-gnu-distros.html
https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guideli...
Ehhhh... I very much like that my source code repository host isn't consistently nudging me to a specific license, thanks :).
(Also, GitHub already does recommend licenses to some extent; there's a short list of highlighted ones in the license selection dropdown.)
the numbers are not that bad, consider someone asks me to write them a tool for them to manage their electronic store inventory, tasks etc. I am the developer the shop is the client, I get paid and they get the programs and the source code. This is what it should be and not land int he situation where you get a change later and you don't have the source code.
Or someone hires me to write a program to apply a filter for an image, this program will run on my client server , because it runs on a server only my client will have the source and because the users won't run it on the browsers I do not need to send them a copy of the source.
Anyway there are more jobs where you are paid to write software and the client also gets the source and does whatever he wants with the code, as long as all users that run the program can get a copy of the source then it is free software. you don't have to make the code public on Github
Comparatively, science and mathematics, which software is arguably conceptually closer to, haven't ended as human endeavours for want of direct commercial exploitation.
Linux Kernel is a widely known example, but not the only one.
Further, there are funding models that do not require "donations" to fund libre software, "Free" does not mean free in cost, it means freedom.
Some options include
1. Paid Binary Dististrbution
2. Support Agreements
3. Priority Features
4. Customization
5. Hosting / SaaS
6. Paid documentation access
7. Donations / Tips
8. Normal Invoicing (most people forget You can invoice a company for GPL software, nothing prevents it. This is often good for Bean Counters)
There are others as well
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
There are many companies, including facebook/google/etc, that employ kernel developers who primarily write free software. There are companies that follow the opencore model, and many of their developers only work on the open portion (e.g. elasticsearch, mongodb, nginx, etc). There are some people who offer consulting for their free software and make good money by that. There are some companies where almost all development is free software, and money is gotten through other means (e.g. mozilla, redhat).
Free software does not have to mean working for free. It doesn't even mean you can't charge money for it (free as in libre, not free as in beer).
That being said, I agree that funding free software development is a large problem. Right now, the most sustainable model is a company to be interested in a project and to pay developers to work on it (e.g. linux), or for a company to own the project (e.g. firefox, mongodb).
There's no great funding story I know of for open source projects that are important, but maintained by people on the side (e.g. most of gnu coreutils, random libraries big projects depend on, etc).
However, your comment sounds more grim than reality is, and also conflates free as in libre with free as in beer.
Yeah, sure, you can't work for free, but that doesn't mean you can't make free software and charge people for it.
We pay eventually -- in this case the "free" software is paid for with a loss of freedom elsewhere, in this case by giving up your private information and fulfilling our role as as "consumers" using their code.
There are many that would rather actually pay in a transparent fashion.
>
> Release the source code of Windows under the GNU GPL.
>
> I know that is a stretch, but from what I heard there. it isn't totally impossible.
I do not remember who or where exactly it was, but i remember someone influential from Microsoft that was asked about open sourcing Windows (not necessarily under GPL) and they also said that it isn't totally impossible.
There's lots of developers who are working on products targeting Windows today (for momentum, their customer's requirements, etc). Those devs encounter Windows bugs and generally workaround them. But if instead they could patch them and/or provide patches upstream, it would be a huge benefit to them and likely some benefit to Microsoft as well.
You can run windows software elsewhere. What more do you need ?
I'm thinking it can help them win some government contracts outside the USA (by saying "you, and anyone else can see that there aren't any backdoors"). The potential open-source community can expand Windows markets the same way it did for Linux, making sure Microsoft remains relevant.
So I think it unlikely because Windows developers aren't calling for it and Linux developers don't care about it. Sure they'll open source particularly services and applications, especially as they move to more platforms. But I doubt they'd open source Windows itself.
> Others assert that inviting me was opposition research and nothing more.
Honestly, why would Microsoft in 2019 even need to either convince RMS to give up free software or to research him at all?
Could someone illuminate what this was about?
https://sourceforge.net/p/clisp/clisp/ci/default/tree/doc/Wh...
This is an absolute lie. I know for a fact he has cancelled talks he's agreed to after being contacted by various factions of activists.
MS infamously supported Oracle in pushing copyrightability of interfaces. Did they ever announce the reversal of their position?
To his points, I'd add:
* Stop pushing lock-in, and support open interoperable standards.
This has improved in some cases with MS, but in some it remains as bad before (ActiveSync, DirectX and etc.)
[0]: https://www.wired.com/2015/04/microsoft-open-source-windows-...
Just like OSX is based on Darwin which is Open Source, and Android is based on Linux, that doesn't provide any more freedom for users or encourage interoperability.
I agree with RMS here, in that user privacy is aligned closely with user freedom. I also believe the Internet is losing ground on this point.
https://www.stallman.org/archives/2019-jul-oct.html#23_Septe...
>I know that is a stretch, but from what I heard there. it isn't totally impossible.
Really? Does anyone have more info about that?
If they mean the entire OS - kernel, userland, shell, the bundled programs that come with it - no, that won't happen, not least because Microsoft doesn't own the rights to all of that code: any third-party licensor could put a stop to that overnight.
This one puzzles me. I thought patents were the big threat for UIs? Or is he talking about copyrighted APIs?
Once that occurs then we will all trust Microsoft without reservation. Even Stallman.
>we do recognize [Microsoft] as the company that has separated more users from their freedom than any other
Is this still true in the age of the iPhone?
However, consider Microsoft Office, which is widely used, and has some network effects. If a friend uses an iPhone, that does not really impact me (where I live). In contrast, Microsoft even has impact on people who would consider not to use their products. I'd also bet that there are far more Microsoft Office users than iPhone users. Windows also has huge network effects.
I agree with you though. The iPhone is a big offender in that it does not really allows you to run any code you could otherwise run on it, the only supported way of installing apps is incompatible with the GPL and Apple controls what you run on your Apple device (which some people find it's a feature).
Why are we releasing this document in PDF format? Shouldn’t it be in docx or XPS? https://devblogs.microsoft.com/oldnewthing/20110104-00/?p=11...
Why we don’t want you and your Android green bubbles in our iMessage chat https://www.fastcompany.com/90391587/why-we-dont-want-you-an...
> it isn't totally impossible.
> so we can run them without any nonfree software
Edit: removed my suggestions
> how about: "It's totally possible"
That completely changes the meaning.
