See also: last week's Letters page.

Letters to the editor

From:	 Brian Beesley <BJ.Beesley@ulster.ac.uk>
To:	 letters@lwn.net
Subject: BitKeeper controversy
Date:	 Thu, 25 Apr 2002 08:28:34 +0000

Hi,

Please note that I'm not an active kernel developer. However, like many in 
the linux community, I do have an ideological interest in this debate.

1. I do NOT think it is wrong to use a commercial product in association with 
development of the linux kernel (or any other open source software). As far 
as I'm concerned, if it helps those actively involved in the development 
and/or management of the development of the linux kernel, that's fine.

2. I think it IS wrong if for some reason developers who elect not to use a 
specific commercial product find obstacles in the path to getting their work 
implemented which would not be there if they were using that specific 
commercial product. (This situation is analagous to being unable to get work 
accepted by publishers unless you submit documents in MS Word format.)

3. The kernel source is big enough without inclusion of material in the 
nature of advertising for a commercial product. A small text comment to the 
effect that "Product X has been used to support development of this product" 
is more than sufficient.

4. I don't see any reason to accept the inclusion of "billboards" into the 
linux product (source or binary), even if commercial organizations were to 
offer real money to sponsor their inclusion. IMO "free software" means "free 
of intrusion by advertising" as well as "free as in beer" and "free as in 
spirit". The problem here is, if we accept advertisements in source code, 
where do we stop? Advertisements appearing during system startup? 
Advertisements during user login? Advertisements appearing at random times 
during normal operation? 

Regards
Brian Beesley

From:	 David.Kastrup@t-online.de (David Kastrup)
To:	 letters@lwn.net
Subject: Free Software / Bitkeeper
Date:	 25 Apr 2002 11:49:00 +0200

You wrote in your editorial:

    There seem to be two main camps in the free software realm. The
    first sees free software as something that is fun, useful, and
    preferable whenever possible. This group is far more interested in
    getting the job done than worrying about the pedigree of its
    tools. Linus Torvalds, a highly visible member of this group,
    expressed it this way:

        Quite frankly, I don't _want_ people using Linux for
        ideological reasons. I think ideology sucks. This world would
        be a much better place if people had less ideology, and a
        whole lot more "I do this because it's FUN and because others
        might find it useful, not because I got religion".

        Would I prefer to use a tool that didn't have any restrictions
        on it for kernel maintenance? Yes. But since no such tool
        exists, and since I'm personally not very interested in
        writing one, _and_ since I don't have any hangups about using
        the right tool for the job, I use BitKeeper.

    The other point of view sees proprietary software as an evil to be
    avoided at all costs. Even discussion of proprietary software is
    to be avoided; [...]

This _very_ clearly points out the validity of the arguments from the
"radical" Free Software proponents that try to avoid (and tell people
to avoid) non-free software at all costs.

Creating software needs an incentive: the non-availability is one
such incentive.  If one always turned to proprietary software
whenever Free Software of equal quality was not yet available, there
would be no incentive to develop or improve Free Software whenever
proprietary software was already available.  Free systems would be
non-existent, since it is hardly likely that _all_ components of such
a system were as much of a novelty as to never have existed in
proprietary form before.

Free Software needs users, developers, interest to thrive.  The stance
of Linus Torvalds with regard to Bitkeeper is not likely to foster
development of free alternatives.  But who knows?  Perhaps the obvious
lack of a free alternative will that way be pointed out much more
prominently, and will be an incentive to get something going.

When Stallman set out with the GNU project, avoiding proprietary
software was often not possible, and often painful.  If there had been
noone willing to subject himself to the insufficient situation,
progress would never have been made.  The continuous availability of
software, once free, makes it more resistant to bit rot, developer
focus changes and other mishaps often killing off or thwarting its
proprietary cousins.  That way, in the long run, Free Software stands
a good chance to prevail.  But only in those areas where stagnation
does not spell doom, and the short run has to get off the ground
somehow, too.

As an example, current proprietary compiler technologies from
processor manufacturers sometimes beat the performance of GNU gcc by
quite a margin.  If one followed the "pragmatical" approach of Linus
Torvalds to its conclusion, it would mean that distribution authors
and kernel developers should switch to proprietary compilers for
creating Linux kernels where available.  This would increase the
performance to be expected from Linux systems.  IT would also remove a
big incentive to further gcc development, not least of all by
processor vendors.  Currently, if they want to have their processor
supported and accepted by the Linux community, they need to help with
improving gcc.  If the nonchalant stance with regard to the use of
proprietary software for the creation of free systems spread further,
then there will come a time when Linux will be more efficient, at the
cost of not being able to recompile a kernel unless you shell out the
appropriate amount of money.

That's not in the interest of Free Software.  It is not even in the
interest of Open Source software which tries to deny the starting
labors of Free projects by claiming that the process itself is
guaranteed to lead to superior results from the setout.

For this reason, the obstinacy, pigheadedness, perseverance and
dedication of people like Stallman is not just an exercise in
futility.  Sometimes groundbreaking work is required, and the "there
is something proprietary available already, we don't need to do this"
stance will not set it in motion.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
Email: David.Kastrup@t-online.de

From:	 Robert Hart <enxrah@nottingham.ac.uk>
To:	 letters@lwn.net
Subject: OpenCD
Date:	 Mon, 29 Apr 2002 17:12:23 +0100 (BST)

I have believed for a long time that the free-software is making a big
mistake by concentrating solely on *nix.

Any evangelist will tell you that you can't wait for somebody to come into
a church if you want to preach the gospel. 

I realise that windows and unix are very different beasts, but if people
are to be free then we must release the grasp of microsoft finger by
finger. Mozilla to replace IE, Gimp to replace Photoshop, Abiword to
replace word (ok wordpad), etc, and *then* Gnome/Kde/whatever to replace
the lot.

I hope the OpenCD project can help acheive this, however for it to work it
needs open source projects to support this vision. 

When this does happen (mozilla, freeamp, abiword) the results benefit us
all - more developers, more users, more bug reports, better software.

When this is ignored, we are left with 'flagship' applications (evolution,
gnumeric), that will never be used by the people who could benefit from
them the most.

Robert Hart

From:	 Rainer Weikusat <weikusat@students.uni-mainz.de>
To:	 letters@lwn.net
Subject: twisted
Date:	 Fri, 26 Apr 2002 14:04:09 +0200

Twisted is written in Python, a high-level language, rendering it immune i
to the most common class of security flaw in network software

	'incompetent programmers'. 

From:	 "Tom Cowell" <tcowell@anitesystems.de>
To:	 <letters@lwn.net>
Subject: Best Sot Linux
Date:	 Thu, 25 Apr 2002 11:13:52 +0200

So,

Best Linux is Sot Linux again, because it no longer matters that Sot means
"disease" or "soot" in Swedish.

Does it matter that "sot" means "drunkard" in English?

Tom

From:	 Michael Concannon <cekim@ix.netcom.com>
To:	 letters@lwn.net
Subject: Regarding RMS's interview (a litte belated)
Date:	 Sun, 28 Apr 2002 22:29:55 -0400

I have long been an advocate of free software in my personal and
professional life.  However, I am by nature a pragmatist and
economically conservative excluding all but the most mundane forms of
activism...

That said, after using Linux since the 1.x.x kernel days, flailing
through the early days of Alpha/AXP integration and now moving on to
integrating Linux into my professional life (ASIC Design and
verification), I am troubled by the extremism of some of those who are
out there rightfully and thankfully fighting to ensure that free
software can:

1. exist at all in the face of increasing regulation
2. coexist (I would hope that is a goal) with non-free software.

Like many Linux power users I write software for a living.  Whether it
is in C/C++, Perl, VHDL, Verilog or anything else, what I do day-to-day
is write, compile, debug and sell my services in developing software.

I greatly appreciate the ability to do so and I feel that it is my right
to sell my services in this form as I see fit at a price the market will
bear.

In no way does this mean I oppose the distribution, creation, protection
and general proliferation of free software.  

In fact, as I mentioned above, I find myself advocating and facilitating
its use frequently where it offers an equivalent or superior solution. 
Always making sure to account for the real costs of using free software
(all software has bugs -- someone has to make sure they either do not
hurt you or are fixed in a timely manner).  

Further I have written a great deal of code to facilitate its use (which
is very much not free and strictly speaking the property of my employer
-- to whom I am really selling it for the sum of my salary).

To quote Richard Stallman (taken from the lwn interview):
"At a deeper level, though, the biggest threat to the future of free
software is the idea that non-free software is acceptable."

Recognizing that historically, extremists have driven incremental
change, this seems like a flawed goal for the following reasons:

1. Software development has a high cost in the form of human time taken
or given from a skilled and specialized developer.  Any time you are
asking someone to give of their time, you are asking them to give up a
portion of their existence.  Some times, for the greater good, it is
worth it to do so without direct compensation, other times, it is only
valuable to a small group of people and should be traded for something
of value (i.e. money!)

2. Non-Free software need not fear free software and vice versa.  People
trying to make money from solving a problem which is already solved need
to fear it and move on to more interesting problems.  People solving a
given problem poorly and coercing you to use their flawed solution need
to fear even more.

3. The more pressing concern is not that copyright and IP ownership
exist but that at present anti-trust violations, inane interpretations
of the laws and laughable execution by the US Patent Office allow them
to be used to prohibit people from using free software to get what they
want...

True Type Font rendering and DVD players demonstrate this at present... 
I am willing to trade my time and frustration for my hard earned money,
but I cannot easily do so at present because of the current litigious
environment with regard to "digital rights".

In short, the more useful goal would be to facilitate the free
integration of free and non-free software.

Non-free software will ultimately benefit from standards created by free
software.  Users will benefit from the ability to select from a range of
solutions and pick what fits them and their needs.  Free software will
benefit in that it will be used and maintained as it is the foundation
on which non-free and free software rely to execute.

It is always nice to find tarball on the net that solves a pressing
problem.  It is rewarding to circulate your own "solution" in return... 
Further, there are tangible benefits to releasing your source to the
public:

a. If it becomes the standard, you can ensure that things you build upon
it will work in the future
b. Developers can spend more time solving more higher level problems
which build upon your solution.
c. Someone else may return the favor and release a solution to a future
problem of yours...

However, you must recognize that __everything__ you do in life comes
with a cost (time, money or longevity).  You have to keep this in mind
what you talk about software being "free".  

The best answer is almost always exactly half way between the two
extremes and I do not see how this is an exception...

/mike