Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Dec 2009 15:16 UTC, submitted by chully
Gnome Over the weekend, there has been a bit of a ruffling of the feathers over in the GNOME camp. It started with complaints received about the content on Planet GNOME, and ended with people proposing and organising a vote to split GNOME from the GNU Project.
Thread beginning with comment 399592
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
pjafrombbay
Member since:
2005-07-31

RMS replied, stating that GNOME should not provide a platform for the promotion of non-Free software. "They should not [talk about VMware], unless VmWare becomes free software. GNOME should not provide proprietary software developers with a platform to present non-free software as a good or legitimate thing," he states, "Perhaps the statement of Planet GNOME's philosophy should be interpreted differently. It should not invite people to talk about their proprietary software projects just because they are also GNOME contributors."

The executive director of the GNOME Foundation, Stormy Peters, thought this was ridiculous.


I am appalled at Stallman's views but not surprised. Peters is correct. These type of views might have been Ok when FOSS was for hobbyists but its mainstream these days. Many FOSS projects would simply die if "for profit" (wash your mouth out :-) ) organisations withdrew their support. Look at the difference between OOo and Abi Word! Tell me Stallman; which one do you think is the better?

Its about time we all moved on from this sillyness.

Regards,
Peter

Reply Score: 1

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Many FOSS projects would simply die if "for profit" (wash your mouth out :-) ) organisations withdrew their support. Look at the difference between OOo and Abi Word! Tell me Stallman; which one do you think is the better?


Software Freedom has nothing to do with chraging money for software.

The GPL explicitly allows for charging for copies of the software. It also makes absolutely no mention of other ways of making money from the software ... hence Red Hat's business model, and Mozilla's business model.

"Free Software" is not about the cost of the software, it is all about the freedom of the code and the freedom of people's acess to that source code.

You are confusing "Freedom" and "Free Software" with "Zero cost". You are probably doing this intentionally.

Edited 2009-12-15 03:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

pjafrombbay Member since:
2005-07-31

...Software Freedom has nothing to do with chraging money for software.

The GPL explicitly allows for charging for copies of the software. It also makes absolutely no mention of other ways of making money from the software ... hence Red Hat's business model, and Mozilla's business model.

"Free Software" is not about the cost of the software, it is all about the freedom of the code and the freedom of people's acess to that source code.

You are confusing "Freedom" and "Free Software" with "Zero cost". You are probably doing this intentionally.


I know exactly what I meant and am not confusing anything. The point I was making is that many organisations (Sun Microsystems for example with OOo and IBM for Ubuntu) provide a great deal of resources to FOSS projects. Without these contributions many of the more successful FOSS projects either would not exist or would not be as good a product as they are.

I believe that the mis-guided "purity" of no commercial input to FOSS projects is just muddle-headed.

Regards,
Peter

Reply Parent Score: 1