The Pledge
- on 2009-06-28
- Rants
- 41 Comments
I believe Free Software developers should be free to work without their work being compared to terminal illness [0][1]
I believe Free Software developers should be free to pick and choose their development tools [2][3]
I believe Free Software developers should be free to contribute without being threatened with eviction from a community [4][5]
I believe Free Software thrives on diversity, and that there should always be a choice [6][7]
I believe we should welcome ALL developers, from any community, in helping to contribute towards Free Software [8][9]
I believe Free Software is about freedom – for both users and developers [10][11]
I believe that our priorities are our users and Free Software – meaning we should always strive to present our users with the very best Free Software has to offer [12][13]
Do you?
Thank you Jo, for your conviction and your work (past, present and future)!
God Bless
Doug
[reply]
I believe that I agree wholeheartedly with you. The mono controversy seems to be splitting the Free Software development world in two. Yet, 99% of users wouldn’t even know what mono is, let along know if an application uses it. So why should the average Joe not have as easy access to a certain program just because of something he doesn’t know about?
Even though mono is more resource-intensive, computers today are modern enough to support the extra few MBs of RAM, etc. (Remember: it’s 2009!)
Free Software should be about creating GREAT software, not software that conforms to user-unknown terms.
[reply]
Agreed. (Although I’m not one for free software–open source is more my bag. But as far as Mono goes, I think we agree on every relevant point.)
[reply]
Joshua Simmons Reply:
June 28th, 2009 at 6:12 am
@Ed Ropple, I’m pretty sure by Free software he means FOSS.
[reply]
Ed Ropple Reply:
June 28th, 2009 at 6:33 am
@Joshua Simmons, There is a significant difference of intent. Free software is an ideology. Open source is pragmatism.
[reply]
Martin Owens Reply:
June 28th, 2009 at 8:27 am
@Ed Ropple, Aye, but FOSS is the understanding that a person can hold more than one idea in his head, even when they conflict. Free and Open Source Software is the understanding that our principles lie with Free Software and preserving the freedom of users and programmers, while we acknowledge that the pragmatism that allows us to make progress in the field.
[reply]
Ed Ropple Reply:
June 28th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
@Martin Owens, my principles do not lie with free software. :) I am interested in open-source software because it tends to create things that benefit me, and I benefit others by giving back. I also write proprietary software, and consider it my right to do so–many in the free software movement, if they had their druthers, would do quite a lot to curtail the freedom (as opposed to Stallman’s “freedom”) of programmers to do this, and that’s a thoroughly unconscionable motive as far as I’m concerned. But I’m afraid I’ve dragged this very off-topic, so I think that’ll be the last from me on that topic. :)
[reply]
[...] 'The Pledge', een definitie van softwarevrijheden voor ontwikkelaars en gebruikers. Context: Mono-discussie (Eng) http://ur1.ca/6efe [...]
The really sad thing is that you have had to expend valuable time and energy putting this in writing.
This whole crazy/wasteful/upsetting Mono/FOSS debate (I use the term “debate” loosely) has left me incredulous and I just want to express my solidarity with
you on this issue.
From both technical and aesthetic perspectives he CLI is quite simply the best unified software development/deployment platform — if you program computers you just can’t help but love it — what a great shame and loss it would be if it’s full potential was denied to Open Source platforms by a handful of cyber-fascists. My hope is that the resolve of the Mono community has not been swayed by all this silliness.
[reply]
No I don’t. For example I do think free software projects should select their participants to those who they think will make beneficial contributions. Unless you spent a four-figure number of hours largely consisting of cleaning up after other people’s screw-ups in your free-software project, you probably have no idea about the cost of inclusiveness.
Also, too much choice will kill any project of any kind.
Posting absolutes gives you the warm fuzzy feeling of moral superiority, but few things in life work out when only subscribing to absolutes. Moderation is one of the classical virtues and it is so for good reason.
[reply]
directhex Reply:
June 28th, 2009 at 11:35 am
@., And then you have examples of the reverse, where “nobody but the Cabal can join in” is the killer – i.e. XFree86. Remember XFree86? Most users from the last few years don’t – and they have their own damn policies on elitism to blame.
[reply]
You use the capitalised form of “Free Software”, so I’m assuming you’re referring to the Free Software Foundation’s definitions. Yet, where they explicitly defend the freedoms of users over and against the freedoms of developers, you’ve chosen to elevate developers to the same level.
I’m sensitive to this as I find it amusing that it is mostly software developers that discuss Free Software and since they miss this preference for the freedom of software users some get regularly confused about how this “freedom” (for users) requires restricting their options (as developers).
You will regularly see such people claim that Open Source is “free-er” because you are “free” to take it closed source. That’s an obvious fallacy, or more accurately a pointless word game, given the very clear FSF definition of “freedom” regarding software. I think you’re making a similar, though subtler, conflation.
[reply]
directhex Reply:
June 28th, 2009 at 11:37 am
@dave, You’re opting to ignore the critical role of developer-users in all this, though.
[reply]
No I don’t.
[reply]
It sounds nice. But I want my Desktop save from a company that has pledged to destroy it. Yes, Mono has been removed.
[reply]
Carlos Reply:
June 28th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
@Claudio, You are free to bring the patents or anything that is explicit in that aspect. I’m so tired of people mentioning as arguments exactly that idea of yours, which is only like, one sentence? maybe two? And there’s nothing else more than that, and that’s called Stop Energy.
It’s so sad the there’s a paranoia against Microsoft and anything related to them. I would respect taking caution against them, for historical reasons, but come on, we have explained this particular issue SO MANY TIMES in the mailing lists, in the forums, in the wiki, in the blogs, and everything else.
Frankly said, I also think people like the ones behind BN are nothing more than guys who should receive professional attention, since what’s moving them is not forward motion, not even real criticism, but fear, FEAR, and nothing more than FEAR. Also, I would mention that it’s also sad people like Stallman, whom I can’t understand, first by supporting dotGnu, and then saying it’s not a good idea to use C#, and then, in the end, say it should remain as an option.
I mean, come on, seriously, we have been explaining this issue so many times, so long, and then we have people like you, with so much FEAR, and maybe ANGER -stupid anger- agains Microsoft, and only bring one or two sentences like this. Come on, people! At least there are some zealots that with that FEAR, feel free to write 2-3 paragraphs.
This is so childish.
[reply]
Jo, you’ve become worse than folks from Boycott Novell site. Much worse. And only mindshare you’re gonna grab and twist, is from kids and retarded ones. Well, enjoy your “good” company ;)
[reply]
a Reply:
June 28th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
@Ted, His articles aren’t fabricated and he doesn’t write stuff he knows is blatantly untrue just to get hits. I don’t see the comparison here.
[reply]
directhex Reply:
June 28th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
@a, I’m in the UK? There’s a comparison for you!
[reply]
Carlos Reply:
June 28th, 2009 at 10:05 pm
@Ted, So, WHY? As stated above, I find 1-2 sentence comments childish. It’s like throwing a rock and then run. Sigh.
[reply]
I wish I was as calm as you, this is a really great pledge you have here. The “oh no Microsoft is out to get me” mentality has really started to get under my skin. I feel there is a lot of people out there that forgot to take their medication today. The concept that an application is good or evil base upon the programming language is just plain silly.
Let me be clear, if no one else in the world appreciates what Mono does for us I do, and I am very grateful to have it available to me. It really drives me up the wall when those who don’t contribute criticize those who do.
Thanks again.
[reply]
RMS on the use of C# and Mono: http://www.fsf.org/news/dont-depend-on-mono
[reply]
Ed Ropple Reply:
June 28th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
@The Open Sourcerer, RMS is not a lawyer. To be frank, he’s also not particularly well-versed in remotely modern software and the environment surrounding it and is probably as qualified to talk about Microsoft and Mono as the average Ubuntu user.
[reply]
Carlos Reply:
June 28th, 2009 at 10:06 pm
@The Open Sourcerer, I think it’s funny you mention him, and you then avoid any further comment on that url. It’s like saying: “Behold, the great RM is saying this”.
[reply]
The Open Sourcerer Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 7:27 am
@Carlos,
No it isn’t funny at all. Why waste any further electrons?
[reply]
RMS has no way of knowing whether MS will sue over Mono. In order to know that, he would need to know a lot more about MS’s internal opinion of Mono, which of course he does not know.
If RMS wrote that we should all stay inside for fear of getting run over by a car, I sort of feel that too many people in this community would repeat that on countless blogs.
[reply]
I am a user, grateful for the hard work of so many generous developpers; I cannot contribute with code, I just support with little money here and there (sidux, kde, groklaw…).
I can understand that a developper likes to use the best tools available or the one that seems to be the most productive in the short run; but in the long run, other consideration should be taken into account. It is too easy to focus only on the technical side of things; if this has been true, all of us would not be stuck with the MS monopoly because there was better solution around (OS/2 for example).
I will not use a car analogy but a food analogy; Monsanto is to the food world what MS is to the IT world. Farmers (in India particularly) used the short term benefit of Monsanto seeds and perticides; now they are committing suicide by the thousands because their choice (did they have a choice?) made them slaves of a monopoly and they cannot survive now.
Thousands of people in the Linux ecosystem have worked hard to create an environment that is free (as in freedom); everytime I choose to use open standards instead of the more convenient “MS owned standards” I feel like promoting our common freedom instead of supporting an abusive monopoly.
Since there is a risk (even slight) that the Linus ecosystem gets polluted by Mono, I will not use any Mono based apps on my systems.
[reply]
Carlos Reply:
June 28th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
@jyp, Easy to side on the technical side of the things? Come on, you have no idea about how tech things are easy or hard. You are giving more importance to the political-ness of the situation – which should take into account, but is *not* the most important thing.
Also, I’m not very sure you should mention your personal preferences over some political stuff – really, it sounds more like a set of ideas towards ‘lets free the world’, which is obviously missing perspective (and yes, we all know what a monopoly is and how bad for everyone it is).
My friend, I seriously suggest you to read the rational behind Mono, which is sadly for you, a lot of tech related stuff, and why we DO think it’s a good idea to implement a MS technology for Linux – this is, we want to let Windows developers move their applications and experience to Linux, instead of that old idea of “port your software”, etc.
Finally: risk? WHAT RISK? BRING THE EVIDENCE, bring the patents, bring the issues, bring everything you can. We in the community have been explaining this issue FOR YEARS, *and* dare to, without more arguments that the one MS is a monopoly, that: “there is a risk”.
PD – You are free to not use Mono based applications, just as people out there is not using OSX, or some others Windows, or some others are not using either Gnome or Kde. Or like Stallman: don’t use a web browser. Is that bloggable or an interesting comment? I don’t think so.
[reply]
Jo,
Very well put together argument. Although i’m not always keen on mono (from scratch) applications, you always put together a well thought out view; without reducing yourself to personal jibes. This is a really good thing.
It would be really good if this whole debate could be “put to bed”, one way or another. As someone else mentioned it’s dividing the various Linux communities and wasting far too much development time on theoretical arguments and heated discussions. However, it’s these activities that seem to be the plague of free and open source software. Ho hum.
Keep up the good work.
[reply]
I think in this whole argument the purists are suffering from a case of premature optimisation… they are trying to replace software that they deem dangerous with something they deem safe based on a possible threat that has not eventuated yet (and possibly never will).
In the mean time this completely ignores the fact that there is no guarantee whatsoever that the replacement application does not infringe on any number of MS patents as well, since the whole point of the patent dilemma is that in most cases there is no reasonable way to know about what patents may be involved.
If anything I personally find the fact that Mono is based on an open specification and built without referring directly to any MS code other than those materials that are readily available outside of IP constraints a comforting thought. If anything it would not surprise me if an objective analysis came to the conclusion that Mono is actually safer due to a higher level of scrutiny based on the concerns levelled against it. Not that I have anything to back that particular argument up, but I’m just saying I would be far from surprised.
[reply]
No I don’t
[reply]
Agreed.
[reply]
What’s with the Mono specific discussion? This is an awesome pledge, and can be applied to everything. Thanks, Jo.
Err, *signed* :)
[reply]
Hey I totally agree.
You like Mono I like Qt. Same difference, thats wy we all love with free software technologies. No one should be attacked for it. We all have differnt opinions thats what makes the world a fun place.
[reply]
I have a extras.
1) Don’t do take part in projects who don’t put there users first.
Mono gets on the wrong side of this. They speed all there time talking about how this helps the developer. End user not getting sued is important. End user not needing extra ram or disk space is also important.
Answers on patent deals want is covered and what is not. Is putting your users first. Its also being truthful to your end users.
Has project lead of mono tried to find out? If he cannot just be truthful to end users and say it to public.
End users must feel safe with project. If they don’t they will in time move to another project so with enough time project will die. So I wasted my development time.
Time is something we cannot get more of.
2) Everyone has the right to make a free choice with valid information. Otherwise people don’t have freedom.
This is the reason why I am pissed with mono. Its fake freedom. Spoon feeding us information never turning up with the complete information people need to make a true free and fair selection.
Basically people using mono has broken our freedom. So we are hitting back. Get over yourselves. That the open source world is threating you shows they are worried. Address what they are worried about correctly and they will stop threating.
The war between GTK and QT was based on a licence condition blocking closed source development. History of open source world being hostile to anything restricting freedom is well and truly known. You place restrictions you expect to have some haters.
Worst sin in the open source world to generate massive hate is to be caught lieing. Project lead of mono has been caught a few times lieing about patent licenses so all mono users are coping the flak.
Yes freedom with information is part of being open source. This includes information about patent risks.
You say you believe in freedom yet I not seen you post a message once asking for the freedom to have the information on the patent risks to make users happy.
If you were not disrespecting your own rules you would not be getting burnt as much.
[reply]
Dear “directhex”,
you are the worsen devel on the open source panarama because you suggest in your blog: “I believe Free Software developers should be free to contribute without being threatened with eviction from a community” but in real life you do the opposite, see here: http://blog.flameeyes.eu/2009/07/04/the-neverending-fun-of-debugging-a-debugger
LOL
[reply]
directhex Reply:
July 4th, 2009 at 8:23 pm
@william, Um… wow. Some people REALLY can’t take a joke, it seems.
[reply]
According to Jo users have the right to shut up and stay quiet.
[reply]
directhex Reply:
July 24th, 2009 at 10:17 pm
@steVo, A fundamental freedom which should never be taken away
[reply]
I love this post!
[reply]
[...] Jo, the only pledge I can think of is the one you take when you join AA. The Pledge. [...]