Ask Eric S. Raymond Anything

This week's Slashdot interview subject is Eric S. Raymond. You already know who he is, and may even know that his new book, The Cathedral and the Bazaar, subtitled Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary, will be published by O'Reilly in October. We anticipate lots of questions for Eric. Please try to avoid the obvious ones he's answered thousands of times already, and try to ask only one question per post! We'll forward the selected 10 - 15 questions deemed most interesting by Slashdot moderators and/or editors to him Tuesday afternoon. Answers will appear Friday.

Cathedral and the Bazaar

The Cathedral and the Bazaar was initially a attack on the mandarin system setup by the FSF, but in the last year it has seemingly metamorphasized into an attack on all closed source software development.

Some, usually small shops that develop proprietary software, have charactized this as a matter of convienience for the author. These people typically see the essay as an attack, as they earn their living writing code and the two most prominant figures in the Open Source and Free Software movements do not.

What would you say to these small development houses to assuage their fears and/or point them in a better direction.

Who pays your rent?

Are you tenured-for-life somewhere like RMS?

How does this affect your attitude when you're writing about or discussing the future of programmers whose career is tied to the commercial success of non-Open Source software development?

Open Source Applications..

I guess I don't exactly know how to phrase this question properly, but here goes:

What do you think is the 'coolest' piece of open source software you've ever seen?

Re:...

Thank you as always for your kind words.

You are quite welcome.

What I happen to personally desire -- to wit, a completely free operating system -- is somewhat beside the point of my question for Eric. I hoped through that question to generate a well thought-out response to the somewhat unpleasant but nonetheless important situation of the relationship of the various classes of software currently grouped under the term "Open Source". I'd like to solicit comment on the effects both benign and malignant that these shadings might hold on the development and the business communities. Is this effect changing? Do some versions of "open source" prove more efficacious than others?

I understand your question - I was merely commenting on a somewhat tangental point. You had expressed an intention in the past to create a completely BSD-style licensed version of Linux (with the exception of the kernel, I assume), so I was wondering whether you had progressed significantly in that regard. Apparently not.

Some software currently classed as open source is clearly saddled with restrictions on use. For example, anything that cannot be effectively used in a value-added, commercial licensing situation. This is not unique to code under the GPL, although it is the only one that is particularly popular. Most are related to money. Some licences say no one may make money off licensing. Others say no one but the original author/owner can. Still others are "open" only if you buy the licence, and aren't allowed to resell it.

Since the copyright author is free to license his code in any manner he sees fit, obviously there will be a myriad of license restrictions with which various coders may wish to encumber their code. That's why, as you noted, we have the Debian Free Software Guidelines (which the OSI has, with some minor changes, renamed the "Open Source Definition"). These specify which restrictions are onerous and not allowed (such as discriminating against different groups in the licensing), and which are okay (such as the BSD's advertising clause, or the GPL's "all derivatives must be Free" clause). AFAIK, there is almost no code actually licensed under what you consider to be a truly "free" definition. The GPL and BSD licenses certainly don't qualify, and the QPL, MPL, APSL, and NPL are even worse in that respect.

Now, regarding your personal attack on me. I don't like to any sort of restrictions on the use of code, none whatsoever. That doesn't mean I'm some anarchist who wants to enable others to pretend authorship of what isn't theirs. I simply want to return to those precupidinous days when giftware reigned, back when software was source code and the only letter of the law was "Do as thou wilt."

The problem is that the majority of corporations do not like participating in this sort of giftware culture. The GPL is designed to force them to either join the mutually beneficial development, or to write their own code. Without such a "viral" clause, the giftware culture could certainly continue on its own, but there would be virtually no chance of corporations joining or contributing their own code. In effect, the authors will have created code for someone else to modify and make money from. The GPL at least requires that the other party contribute the changes back for the good of everybody.

You seem to be in favor of freely available source code - why, therefore, are you against an incentive for businesses to make their source code freely available?

Linux does not reach into other people's closed-source, dynamically loaded device drivers and blow them up to the whole world, despite at least one popular but untested interpretation of the GPL which would dispute that. Linus said it doesn't, and it's his code, so that's that. And everyone is happier that way.

A minor nitpick - Linus has interpreted the GPL this way. However, his interpretation does not carry any legal weight, since, despite your assertion, it is really not "his code." Some of the code is indeed his, but the majority of code is still copyright to its author, which in most cases is not Linus. Unless Linus has obtained permission for this license exemption from the authors of all the other code he has accepted (and the authors of other GPL'd software he's "borrowed" code from), his exception carries no legal weight. Moral weight, sure, as it certainly discourages a lawsuit on those grounds, but no legal weight. Linus cannot relicense code he did not write, and he is not a legal authority on the interpretation of the GPL (his view may be right, but it is not guaranteed to be right, so his "exception" doesn't guarantee anything).

As for your BSD vs. Linux point, I tend to agree regarding the better integration of BSD systems. I assume, however, that you haven't forgotten that the various free software BSD operating systems use the Free Software Foundation's GCC (licensed under the GPL, incidentally) as their compiler.

Regarding the FSF, they believe that the only way to perpetuate free code is to require that all code based on their code (or similarly licensed code) is also free. Since it is indeed their code, they have every right to do this. I tend to agree, but if you disagree, you are free to do so. Nobody is forcing you to use GCC - the Free Software Foundation wrote it, and you can accept or reject their license terms.

And, finally, strangely enough, this is the first follow-up to your message. No massive flame-wars today, I suppose.

Jack Booted Thugs...

Eric, what do you think needs to be done about the increase in military style attacks on civilians by our police agencies. These (Waco, Ruby Ridge, assorted "drug busts") invasions have killed far too many innocents. What can we do?


"You can twist perceptions, reality won't budge." --Rush

Guns and code

How well do you think your message for free software will be received in Europe since you frequently include references to your political position on guns? Since most people in Europe have chosen not to equate guns and freedom, don't you feel that your message on free software gets lost as "rantings of a crazy American?"

Teaching the bazaar as an economic model?

Do you think that the Bazaar model of software development will be taught as an economic model in a more traditional educational setting (i.e. the modern university)? As an ancillary question, would you be interested in participating in the authoring of the material neccessary to include the Open Source economic model in a textbook, or would you leave it to "suits"?

My personal opinion: the free-wheeling nature of community development is such that codifying it into a dead-trees book would be an excercise in futility. Not only is the development evolving, but the model of development is evolving as well, making the theories and concepts nearly moot by the time they reach the press.

Also, I wouldn't want ESR wasting his time, that could be spent teaching and coding, on sitting in on editorial meetings educating publishers.

Free Versus Open

Richard Stallman stated for years that he wished there were a better term than "Free Software", since that was often confused with freeware. Then you and some fellows come along an coin the term "Open Source Software". However, Richard says that's worse because it doesn't emphasize Freedom. Others lambaste you as a heretic, scoundrel and ideological impure for it.

Other than the FSF checklists of Free Software attributes, what exactly does the "Free" in "Free Software" mean? Is it "Liberty" in the sense that we can defend it with force and make war on those that would take it away? Is it "Free" as in "free to use" like your neighbor's swimming pool? Is Free Software akin to Free Verse since they're both creative works? Is it really "gratis" since every example of it out there can be obtained for zero dollars? Is the use of "free" just an emotionally positive word meant to build a following? Or does the "Free" mean something else entirely.

On the Economics of Software Development

In your paper The Magic Cauldron [tuxedo.org] you talk about the sale value (final cost to consumer) and use value (what economics would consider a capital good). Modern capitalist societies have evolved very complex and sophisticated instruments (a la the profit motive) to price these goods and signal to the market what is valued. With OpenSource, this pricing information is missing and thus time/effort is spent on "sexy" projects like 3D interfaces (what economists call malinvestments) instead of really important stuff like good optimising compilers.

Question 1) Pricing of OpenSource Software How can OpenSource software be fairly priced given that it is always possible to undercut a distributor?

Question 2) Distribution of Resources Instead of vertically integrating all the profits at the sale end (distributions like Red Hat), how can the creators of the intermediate goods get enough funding to continue refining their products?

Question 3) Scaling to Megaprojects Given the limitations of no capital pool of funding so that intermediate software can maintained, will OpenSource projects be limited to "small" projects that can be supported by 1-6 key designers and wouldn't this be an inherent constraint?

Question 4) Bazaar Rules of Conduct At the moment, the Software Bazaar is controlled by gentleman rules of conduct (no encroaching on projects, equal sharing, etc). Do you see this continuing with the increasing commercialisation (and potential moral corruption) of the hacker's "gift culture"?

Question 5) Software Patent Roadblocks In a situation where time-to-market is becoming a key factor in dominating the bulk of the profits (see some notes on game theory of software patents [drexel.edu]), how can OpenSource work around limitations of key locks on irreplaceable algorithms?

Question 6) Freedom to Copy. While big companies like SGI have the resources and name-brand equity to release and protect their OpenSource efforts, how will smaller entry level players survive long enough without their ideas being poached by bigger companies?

LL

After the revolution

Typically, at the conclusion of a successful revolution the "founding fathers" don't hang around to enjoy the fruits of their success. So where will you and what will you be doing be when Free/Open Source becomes the norm, and the need to evangelize is gone?

Open Source and Capitalism

As a Libertarian, how do you think laissez-faire capitalism fits in with Open Source software. That is to say, how can people manage to seek payment for their intellectual labour when it is freely distributable, and how will large software vendors make a profit off their products.

OS Popularity

What do you think will happen to the traditional OS development model you described in the Cathedral and the Bizarre as more companies hop on the OS bandwagon? Do you think it will be able to sustain itself as the primary software development model? How will it need to change?

-Laktar, a.k.a. Nick Rosen, laktar.dyndns.org


If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord:
30. All bumbling conjurers, clumsy squires, no-talent bards, and cowardly
thieves in the land will be preemptively put to death. My foes will surely
give up and abandon their quest if they have no source of comic relief.
-- Peter's Evil Overlord List, http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

Flirtations

I've read a lot of your accounts of travels and the like and you seem to be very flirtatious in nature. What does your wife think of this?

-Laktar, a.k.a. Nick Rosen, laktar.dyndns.org


If I Ever Became An Evil Overlord:
27. I will never build only one of anything important. All important systems
will have redundant control panels and power supplies. For the same reason I
will always carry at least two fully loaded weapons at all times.
-- Peter's Evil Overlord List, http://www.eviloverlord.com/lists/overlord.html

Lateral Applications of OSS?

All right, I think it's been proven pretty thoroughly that Open Source methods work for software engineering. Tell me, do you see Open Source being applicable to other real-world problems? Could scientific research/teaching/politics/other endeavours benefit from a 'Bazaar' approach of distributed design? To what other fields would you like to see OSS applied?

Re:...

The GPL is designed to force them ...

You seem to be in favor of freely available source code - why, therefore, are you against an incentive for businesses to make their source code freely available?

It's quite simple: compunction is immoral. Period. And when you create a world without choice, you no longer have a moral world. You have an iron world full of exacting laws but bereft of goodness. I don't want people to join my song because they were forced at gunpoint to do so. This is immoral. People must be able to choose if there is to be any virtue in that choice. If they have no ability to choose, they cannot make good or evil decisions, or even good or bad ones. They remain amoral automata.

Of course it would be good if all programs were in free source code. But it is completely immoral to attempt to effect this goal using coercive means. And that this whole matter is misrepresented merely adds insult to injury. It's all very unpleasant.

As for getting a more coherent and more free Linux O/S by using BSD instead of you know what, I found that someone else had already done a lot more of the work, so let them run with it. I haven't checked to see how they were going, and may even have lost their contact information.

As for the compiler, this is not a big issue, and I just can't understand why you and others keep bringing it up. The kernel is GPLed as well, but as with the compiler, Linus refuses to buy into the viral bit. I want reasonable tools that fit together, run quickly, follow standards, and have good documentation. And I'd prefer they were free instead of GPLed, since it was my frustration with the FSF's disdain for standards combined with the self-tooting "GNU/Linux" embarrassment. The wickedness and prevarications in trying to use library APIs to infect innocent programs that no FSFer or GPLer ever touched just fueled the fires.

As for your dispute with Linus's statement on the kernel's not being viral, all I can say is "whatever". I would dearly love to see the thing in court. I'm tired of the fear. You can't use an API for infection. I refuse to believe it. Mere use does not suffice. The kernel's API was designed to be used, whether it be the syscall table or the device driver API. Same with libraries, no matter whether it's glibc or libfoobletch. Use of a library API whether your a shared library or a remote procedure core or eventual static linking is just not material inclusion, and can be no grounds for the iron bar of viral coercion.

But we've been through this all before, and I think everyone knows where I stand. Barring a court decision that shows the real score, the best thing to do is follow Linus's lead and just ignore the coercive and abusive senses that the GPL tries to ram down whatever orifice is handy. Don't try to infect other people. Do goodness for its own sake, not through strong-arming. Hope others do so as well. Never make someone do something against his will.

LSB

Is the LSB really a good idea for Linux distributions and Open Source software or is it in conflict with the ideals of Open Source? I have followed the activity on the LSB lists for over a year now, and it looks more and more constraining to me. I wonder if we are giving away too much in the rush to attract more ISV's, many of whom will provide "closed source" products. Don't get me wrong - I want more products, open and/or closed, but I also want to retain the "anarchist" innovation that we enjoy.

Speaking of which..

I found the paranthesized section of the "Linux" entry of the Jargon File to be rather curious. The original reason for wanting to refer to the system as whole as GNU/Linux and the kernel as Linux was far from the reason given by the Jargon File (or, more specifically, that the term "Linux" not be used unambiguously.. which isn't precisely the same thing). Richard Stallman simply wanted to promote understanding, not recieve more credit. I'm not sure how this could be considered "trivial learning" unless we are all content to live in a world where the truth is hidden behind a veil of misconceptions and lies.. What was the rationale behind the inclusion of such a slanted view in this particular entry of the Jargon File?

MAE LING MAK NAKED AND PETRIFIED

Dear ESR:

(No GIFs due to patent problems)

I'm sure everyone at Slashdot is familiar with the internal strife and conflict that can currently be found in the Mae Ling Mak Naked and Petrified movement, a primary cause of which is YOU and your cronies and your watered-down version of the ideals of Mae Ling Mak Naked and Petrified, which you laughably refer to as Mae Ling Mak Immobilized and Not Fully Clothed. You've taken what was good and pure about Mae Ling Mak Naked and Petrified and watered it down so it would be more tolerable and acceptable to conservative blowhards who are afraid to think outside the terms of society's established notions and conditions. This is detailed on our web page (no GIFs due to patent problems!!!) in our founder's document "Mae Ling Mak Naked and Petrified vs. Mae Ling Mak Immobilized and Not Fully Clothed," so I won't repeat what's already been said.

You state that by changing "Petrified" to "Immobilzied" you placate those who are afraid of the idea of petrification, and by replacing "Naked" with "Not Fully Clothed" you placate those who fear nudity. I SAY THAT THIS IS WRONG!!! The entire HEART of Mae Ling (No GIFs due to patent problems) Mak naked and petrified is MAE LING MAK.... NAKED.... AND PETRIFIED. The nudity and the petrification are the essential elements!

This bastardized philosophy you preach flies in the face of the Mae Ling Mak Naked and Petrified movement, which you ONCE claimed to support! (No GIFs due to patent problems) Now you've stomped on our heads on your rise to glory with your own hacked-up version of our philosphy. "Immobilized and not fully clothed" indeed! Why, that could be referring to a paralyzed Polish cowboy wearing a bikini for all we know! (No GIFs due to patent problems)

We know what's GOOD for the people, even if the people don't know what's good for themselves. What's good for the people is Mae Ling Mak, naked, and petrified. The people (No GIFs due to patent problems) NEED a naked Mae Ling Mak statue. You can't dispute this. You believe this yourself. And yet you refuse to stand up for what you believe! You say, "Well, maybe it's okay if she's not petrified, as long as she can't move," or (No GIFs due to patent problems) "Well, maybe she doesn't have to be naked, but she could at least take her shirt off or something." You BELIEVE she should be naked and petrified, but you ALLOW other lesser variations on this perfect theme into what could otherwise be a strong, world-dominating paradigm! (No GIFs due to patent problems)

You've sold out to the court of popular opinion. You're a blight on the face of the Mae Ling Mak Naked and Petrified movement. I hope you enjoy your Mae Ling Mak Immobilzed and Not Fully Clothed movement while it lasts, because guess what, we're going to run you (No GIFs due to patent problems) out of town!

FURTHER (No GIFs due to patent problems) NOTE: Please see THIS COMMENT [slashdot.org] in which several misconceptions of a person referencing Mae Ling Mak Naked and Petrified incorrectly were addressed.

Anyway, my QUESTION, is in your official response to (no GIFs due to patent problems) our founder's attack on the Mae Ling Mak Immobilized and Not Fully Clothed movement, you left SEVERAL major points unaddressed.

1. How you expect EITHER of the two Mae Ling Mak immobilization movements to compete with its competitors, the FreeMLM, OpenMLM, and NetMLM movements, with all this silly infighting that's going on.

2. The accusation that you simply watered-down Mae Ling Mak Naked and Petrified not for any real moral reason, or even to make it more acceptable to the general public, but simply to make it more acceptable to big business and help to increase profit potential? (No GIFs due to patent problems) Do I smell the rancid stench of Capitalism on your breath, ESR??

3. Ain't Mae Ling Mak really cute?

4. (No GIFs due to patent problems)

5. Just what's the big idea, anyway???

Those are all the questions.

FURTHER READING:

THOUGHTS FROM MAE LING MAK ABOUT THIS [segfault.org]

MORE THOUGHTS FROM MAE LING MAK ABOUT THIS [segfault.org]

A MISINFORMED SOUL GETS CORRECTED [slashdot.org]

A GOOD STATUEPHILE WEBSITE [oaktree.net] but it contains a GIF so it's bad!!!!!

ANOTHER GOOD STATUEPHILE WEBSITE [xoom.com] but it contains GIFs so it has to DIE!!!!

I hope you'll be able to clear this up. Thank you for your time.

Re:...

I suppose where we disagree is in our definitions of "compel." As you see it, the GPL compels others to make their source code free. As I see it, the GPL merely gives a choice:

1) Use the GPL'd software, and follow its restrictions.

2) Do not use the GPL'd software.

Nobody is *forcing* you to choose #1. You are free to use a similar package under another license (if one exists), to write your own, or to forgo its use altogether. Nowhere are you *forced* to distribute your software under the GPL. You agree to do so in exchange for using that person's code. If this bothers you, don't agree, and don't use the code, and you're not subject to any sorts of restrictions. Similarly, if you're unhappy about the "viral" nature of GPL'd libraries, don't call them from your programs (incidentally, glibc is LGPL, so this particular case isn't a problem).

Re:...

So, Tom, how has your "Linux with no GNU software" distribution been coming along? Have you gotten around to writing a BSD-licenced compiler yet?

Or was that big rant you had here on Slashdot a while back just idle ranting with no real substance (or code) behind it?

The costs of success...

Recent interest shown by large commericial tech companies (IBM, SGI, Sun) seems to signal a new chapter in the history of Linux. Do you see the participation of these companies strenghtening the linux communitity? Destroying it? Or transforming it into something completely different?

Linux, failure, and open source

(Not that I anticipate any of this happening, but...)

What if Linux "fails" in the commercial/business sector? (By failure I mean "not adopted in any significant numbers", "a flop".) What if, for whatever reason, the current pro-Linux trend is reversed, and in 5 years most current Linux users have moved on to some other, non-Free/Open OS? If the Linux movement fizzes out, would this be a blow to the Free Software/Open Source movement? Do you believe the future of these ideas are tied to the success of Linux?

fetchmail

Your essay "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" used fetchmail as an example of open source software development. Given the number of people who have examined the source code, one could argue that fetchmail is now one of the most mature applications in use anywhere.

You have discussed fetchmail's infancy. Is there anything to be learned from its "old age"?

Will we fall prey to an Inquisition

I have a growing concern that some commercial organizations are only becoming involved in the Open Source movement because it is a common front to attack Micro$oft. Once they believe parity has been achieved do you think they will turn on the community and go back to their old tactics (IMHO several of them are just as guilty as Micro$oft in their unethical business practices)? And, if that happens do you think that OSS will have a large enough install base and IT/Enterprise presence to not only survive, but continue to thrive?

Guaranteed original question

Who does your hair? :)

Does Open Source worth it for commercial projects?

What I am very curious about is whether it would be worthwhile for companies to Open Source their already existing software products.

I ask this because most/all of the successful Open Source software (Linux, Sendmail, Apache) have been developed by individuals as a community projects, not by companies with profit as the objective. The companies have jumped on board later (Redhat, Sendmail Inc, etc) when the software has grown popular. Can it really be justified for a company that has spent millions of dollars on a software project to start giving their crown jewel away, especially as "Real Open Source [opensource.org]" under the GPL license? Perhaps they could release the source code, just not under GPL, and retain the redistribution right themselves but I just don't see much good in doing that because then the bazaar effect would mostly be lost.

I just don't see any of the four methods, described on opensource.org ( Support Sellers, Loss Leader, Widget Frosting, Accessorizing [opensource.org] ) as viable ways to get back the investment for already existing software products.

• Every company could undercut the original developer of the software in selling support, as the original developer would have to get their investment in product development back.
• Obviously the Loss Leader method hasn't worked very well for Netscape (probably because of lousy code and code not being Real Open Source).
• Accessorizing, Come on :)
• Perhaps the only real way, is Widget Frosting but that would only work for hardware companies and I don't see many hardware companies doing other software than OS'es.

Jargon File/New Hacker's Dictionary

I'm glad to see that, after a three-year break, the Jargon File has been updated over the past few months. Is version 5.0.0 in the works? Are there any plans to release an update to the print version, The New Hacker's Dictionary, any time soon?

-Stephen

"Natural Value" of software

At the Open Source Forum here in Austin a couple of months ago, we briefly spoke about the impact of Open Source on the price of commercial software. We both agreed that Open Source software is driving the cost of commercial software down to something closer to its "true" value than its current benefits-based valuation in the marketplace.

At the same time, "free" (in the beer sense) does not adequately reflect the amount of effort required to develop and test software, particulary software that is thinly used (attractive to a limited user base), and hence would not likely be able to generate a sufficient base of Open Source developers. A few questions:

Is there a "Natural Value" of software to which the Open Source pressures are driving commercial software prices?

Can Open Source development efforts be adequately encouraged in vital but thinly populated user bases?

Fianlly, although Linux and other Open Source projects are improving more rapidly than their commercial counterparts, they tend to lack significantly (and not surprisingly) in areas which require an overall architecture. (An example would be the apparent lack of an Open Source *equivalent* (there are subsets) to Microsoft's Active Directory, which, regardless of one's view of Microsoft, is a pretty impressive piece of technology.) What part(s) of the Open Source community do you foresee as being able to step up to the plate and address the "big picture"?

(I'll air my own views if these questions are chosen...)

Gun Control

I've heard that you're a libertarian, so I'm interested in hearing your views on this subject. Although you'll probably have to put on the asbestos undies before responding:

With the recent shootings at schools across America, people are calling for further bans on guns. Many people would like to see all guns made illegal. Please discuss your views on this subject.

99 little bugs in the code, 99 bugs in the code,
fix one bug, compile it again...

Re:...

Thank you as always for your kind words.

What I happen to personally desire -- to wit, a completely free operating system -- is somewhat beside the point of my question for Eric. I hoped through that question to generate a well thought-out response to the somewhat unpleasant but nonetheless important situation of the relationship of the various classes of software currently grouped under the term "Open Source". I'd like to solicit comment on the effects both benign and malignant that these shadings might hold on the development and the business communities. Is this effect changing? Do some versions of "open source" prove more efficacious than others?

Some software currently classed as open source is clearly saddled with restrictions on use. For example, anything that cannot be effectively used in a value-added, commercial licensing situation. This is not unique to code under the GPL, although it is the only one that is particularly popular. Most are related to money. Some licences say no one may make money off licensing. Others say no one but the original author/owner can. Still others are "open" only if you buy the licence, and aren't allowed to resell it.

Sometimes the software is branded as "open", but its terms in fact are actually much worse than any of these. Sometimes it's quite tricky to tell the one from the other. Bruce Perens has to his credit done what to me appears to be a commendable job in separating the wheat from the chaff in these areas.

My own personal suspicion is that the general public doesn't care, and the media doesn't understand. I don't class myself as either, for I do care, and I believe I understand. But that's not the point. I want to know whether this helps, hinders, or both, and if so, whom it so affects.

Now, regarding your personal attack on me. I don't like to any sort of restrictions on the use of code, none whatsoever. That doesn't mean I'm some anarchist who wants to enable others to pretend authorship of what isn't theirs. I simply want to return to those precupidinous days when giftware reigned, back when software was source code and the only letter of the law was "Do as thou wilt."

I do not find software such as gcc, bison, or the Linux kernel to be particularly onerous in their approaches to licensing of those particular programs. I refuse to refer to them as "products"; when programs become notionally products, something vaguely unsettling has occurred, something I admittedly cannot really quite put my finger on, however. In fact, although I've heard people preach to the contrary, I am not convinced that those programs' being GPLed has led to more aggregate harm than good. Certainly if those three programs had been released under a less restrictive licence, a different set of benefits and disadvantages would have manifested themselves. I don't know what those would be, and I don't see that it would do us much good to fantasize about them, either.

In some senses, however, those are all three special cases when it comes to software released under the GPL. The compiler does not pretend to contaminate its own output product when used on your non-infected code, and neither does bison -- both despite obvious potential for infection. Linux does not reach into other people's closed-source, dynamically loaded device drivers and blow them up to the whole world, despite at least one popular but untested interpretation of the GPL which would dispute that. Linus said it doesn't, and it's his code, so that's that. And everyone is happier that way.

My displeasure with the myriad Linux operating systems currently installable is somewhat different. I find each of them that I've tried (only a few compared with the total number, of course) rather less "coherent" than the BSD systems I'm more accustomed to. This includes not just documentation, but rigorous adherence to POSIX standards as well. There's something beautiful about make world that is sometimes hard to explain to followers of a less integrated operating system. The importance of coherence extends to many other areas, including but not limited to documentation and to administration. No version of Linux I've seen does as much here as I'd like to say, nor, in fact, as much as I'm accustomed to seeing.

My displeasure with the FSF is also well known, and quite different. I feel they twist words just like any other self-promoting marketing organization would, be it droves of sales droids or wild-eyed prophets spreading a quasi-religious cult. This is their worst sin, for it is a sin of deception. I can't stand that, and I'm not going to kiss up to them about this mendacity just because I happen to use a program or two from them.

The other of the FSF's major sins is how they immorally try to subject work they did not create to the same onerous licencing as their own work. In short, the GPL bosses people around and tells them what they can do with code that isn't GPLed. This is the sticking point that raises the hackles on so many. It's not hard to understand why. And when the FSF tries to pretend that the GPL doesn't govern use when it patently does, and when they go telling people that mere use of a library API is infective, this blending of their first sin with their second one is quite enough to make any honorable man blanche in disbelieve. I strongly believe they are wrong about a library API, since calling a library is mere use and no more a matter of code stealing than is calling a program. Even Bruce Perens concurs with this, although he does not think people should flout the situation. Perhaps not. But you must call a lie a lie, and not support it, even if its cause is for good. Lying for the sake of good is still evil.

Returning to the original point, no matter what you think of the perpetual virus wars that Richard breeds, that isn't the real point of my question. And no, I'm not going to be dragged into your trolling again after I post this message.

I very much want free software, and do not believe that the FSF provides this despite their claims to the contrary. In fact, were it left to them, we'd be stuck with a lot less non-free software than we now have. But it wasn't left to them, and we're a lot better of because of this. Somehow, "open source" captured far more notice than the FSF ever managed to. We have more giftware than before, and we have more open source than before. And we have a lot more good software that hackers can use than we used to have, and this is not in a small part attributable to the media awareness of open source that Eric and others have fostered.

In short, I wanted to know whether some open source models work better than others to promote software use and reuse by furthering advancing technology and general hacker happiness, and whether there aren't some that merely pretend to be open or free or butterscotch yet instead are really working completely contrary to those goals. I was really thinking more of the commercial forms of quasi-free open software licences as the bad guys here rather than the GNU flavor of quasi-free open software licences.

And I definitely think the religious flames and petty insults hurled between the Big Endians and the Little Endings, or if you would, between the Free Endians and the Open Endians and the GNU Endians, are causing us all phenomenally more harm than good. If you don't believe me, just watch for followups to this posting. :-)

Many advocates or one?

In "Understand my job, please!" [tuxedo.org] you described Bruce Perens's proposal [perens.com] that we have a team of Linux advocates sharing the load as "glib". Could you say more about why you feel this way - isn't it more likely that a job where the load is shared would be more attractive?

Thanks,
--

Open source => libertarianism?

We all know that you are a staunch advocate of libertarianism. Do you see the open-source / free-software movement turning into a larger political push for libertarian, minimal government?

Beer recipe: free! #Source
Cold pints: $2 #Product

Does closed source software always suck?

You say you want to live in a world where software doesn't suck. I couldn't agree more. However, do you see closed source software on an open source OS as a step in the right direction, or just likely to be a more stable platform on which to run your potentially bug-ridden software?

...

What's your position on the chasm that's developed between the "Free Software" and "Open Source" camps? Is there a genuine reason for having two seperate movements? Lastly, is there any hope of consolation between these two movements...are they even on the same track??

I know these are tough questions to ask.. but the good ones are always controversial.

--

Stepping Down?

Astute readers know why you've reluctantly taken a position as a Linux evangelist, open source sociologist, and prime target. Taking the opposite approach, is there anything which would convince you to step down, that your posts were no longer necessary?

This is not meant to be inflammatory ... it's just a roundabout way of asking how far along your goals are, and what your plans will be if you ever meet them.

Thanks for your time!

--
QDMerge [rmci.net] 0.21!

After Linux

Linux, like all things in the computer world, will eventually become obsolete or maybe just too much work to keep "up to date". Linus (er, Dr. Torvalds) even said in his "Open Sources" essay that (paraphrasing) someone else could come along and write something better which will take Linux's place. How long do you think before someone will have an offering that will obsolete (or at least prove a competitor to) Linux and the BSD's? It certainly won't be the offering of that company in Redmond..

Free Software?

Why isn't there an entry for "free software"
in the Jargon Dictionary? Was this a
politically-motivated decision?

K.
-

Coding legends

Which of the coders working on open source projects do you admire the most? A particular big name like Linus, or someone less well-known?

What led you to write CatB?

This has probably been asked before, but I can't recall seeing the answer to it anywhere. What originally led you to write The Cathedral and the Bazaar? -- what I'm interested in is if there was some event or impetus that prompted you to write it down. Obviously you'd have no way of predicting the firestorm that followed, but it's always intriguing to know about the spark that started it all.

Did you get your life back?

A while ago, we read from you that being the Open Source advocate you are was wearing you down and influencing your life very badly. Did you cut down on advocating and did it help? In other words, did you get your life back?

Greetings,
Ivo

The Kids Are Alright?

Intentionally or not, you are a role model for a certain type of kid/teen-ager -- the kind of kid who prefers to write code than to watch TV or play football. [Fifteen years ago, when I was in that stage, it wasn't chic to be a geek and there really weren't contemporary role models...]

Do you get contacted by young people looking for guidance / validation / advice? What's your reaction? Give us some interesting anecdotes. Also, do you have any sort of general words of advice for the young programmers of today? (go ahead, pontificate, here's an excellent opportunity)