I haven't been following too closely, but...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| dotmatrix Jan 21, 2016 10:50 PM EDT |
I'd say this is bad thing. A slightly tipsy poem... oh my, I'm a geek, even on Thirsty Thursday. FOSS was never about the money. And it should not be now. FOSS was about the artistry. And even starving, should never bow To the dollar Or the Yen Whether the developer is sitting near the Yarra Or the Seine Art is forever free to illustrate As software should be to create And share and modify For technological progress to solidify. |
| flufferbeer Jan 22, 2016 1:10 PM EDT |
@dmatrix, > FOSS was never about the money. And it should not be now. > FOSS was about the artistry. And even starving, should never bow Seems to me that Linux Foundation has become "about the money" both On Top and on the Grassroots level. On Top in its "bowing" to Corporate oversight and moolah, and on the Grassroots level by SQUASHING community input. It certainly doesn't help that the LF pushes its free-->paid courseware material in a sorta Bait-n-Switch model! We'll have to keep a wary eye on LF's various "offers". 2c |
| dotmatrix Jan 22, 2016 1:38 PM EDT |
@flufferbeer: Thanks for rescuing my poor attempt at semi-tipsy poetry... And, I agree - for the most part. However, there are several problems with FOSS, OSS, Linux, and GNU... I probably shouldn't leave out BSD and Hurd et al, but this is LXer after all. The first problem is that development beyond hobbyists, which is mostly my own skill level, takes tons of money. The money has to come from somewhere, and usually that means big corporate interests. The corporations are going to want to have a bigger return on investment than a pat on the back for doing a good deed for humanity. The second problem is the reverse of the first problem. The pay to play model, which works quite well in amassing tons of money for a project, results in the closing of ranks and hands control of the direction of the project to the highest bidders. This then leaves the hobbyist voice to wail ineffectively in the darkness. The third problem is that any project that gains enough of a user base falls prey to the first two problems. In essence, you can't get there from here. So, while I agree that the pay-to-play system is not in the spirit of FOSS -- it may be a necessary evil to maintain a project. However, this is where license choice becomes very important. It is rather important to use a so-defamed 'viral-license'... err... copyleft license, like GPLv3 whenever a FOSS project is started. Control over a project will effectively be muted through a strong copyleft license. And that's what's important to me, as a non-corporatist interest in FOSS as in freedom. Sadly, IMO, many independent developers on popular project hosts, like Github, either don't choose a license or choose a weak and/or permissive copyleft license. These projects with weak and/or permissive licenses may possibly be easier for a corporate entity to control directional control, through proprietary add-ons and plugins for 'enterprise' use. yikes... lost the train of thought... maybe come back later... |
| BernardSwiss Jan 23, 2016 12:46 AM EDT |
Gnome, SystemD, Linux Foundation Community Representation...
(and undoubtedly several more that my recovering-from-flu brain is simply failing to produce)... I regret to say I've begun to perceive an undeniable pattern... |
| vainrveenr Jan 23, 2016 8:45 AM EDT |
Quoting:Gnome, SystemD, Linux Foundation Community Representation... (and undoubtedly several more that my recovering-from-flu brain is simply failing to produce)... While the related submission entitled Linux Foundation chief spins to justify keeping community out is making its way through the process of getting approved at LXer, here is an extract from that very piece: Quoting:Confronted by facts that show clearly that the Foundation has made changes to block out the community, Zemlin ... has tried to spin and talked about irrelevant aspects of the debate around the issue. |
| jdixon Jan 23, 2016 9:26 AM EDT |
Community representation was a carrot thrown to the community to shut them up. They never intended for it to mean anything. The Linux Foundation has always been intended as a way for big businesses to shape and use Linux. It would be a mistake to even pretend otherwise. |
| 750 Jan 23, 2016 9:57 AM EDT |
Seems to me that LF wanted to avoid a storm in the community voting (either they get Sandler on the board, or they get a rush of "member" bent on blocking her election) and has ended up setting off a Streisand Effect. Frankly there is no way to win this, as its about emotions rather than logic. |
| dotmatrix Jan 23, 2016 12:15 PM EDT |
Finishing my thought... sort of... it may be controversial. I'm just one of the 'community'... I have no power in the political arena and never had any anyway. For my part, anything I happen to code is licensed GPLv3 and compiled with the GCC -- not LLVM. What is on display here is the typical FOSS vs. OSS argument... and the way to defeat proprietary software prisons is to use strong copyleft licensing. Unfortunately, several helpings of the blame for the FOSS vs. OSS argument as well as the dissolving power of the GPL falls on Linus Torvalds himself, who actively disengages from the GPL politics and actively encourages LLVM use as well as proprietary kernel modules. And, in the end, the FOSS portion of the Linux kernel may be the smallest portion due to the political apathy streaming down from the top Kernel Man himself. I'm in no way attacking Torvalds here... he can do as he pleases - even give me the one finger salute, I'll not be offended. However, he is much more of a leader than he seems to be willing to admit, and his liaise-faire position on licenses places high quality, high visibility FOSS at risk. *** I define FOSS v. OSS as: FOSS ==> A project with a strong to moderate copyleft license and a community of developers, some of whom may be paid by corporations. OSS ==> A project with a moderate to weak copyleft license and a core set of corporate developers, who throw a 'community edition' of said project to the 'free-loaders' -- with some 'free-loaders' supplying free [as in cost to the corporates] ideas, fixes, and testing. The money almost always follows OSS rather than FOSS, and it's sad that the real FOSS leader -- RMS -- is so maligned for his unmovable stance in strong copyleft licensing... perhaps, people will start listening again as the Linux kernel begins to part ways with the world of FOSS through proprietary [and possibly costly to use] extensions. *** As far as the Linux Foundation goes: It's a corporate entity and is simply doing what all corporate entities do... try to take over everything in its path. And, probably, no amount of complaining is going to do very much at all... Unless there was a Linux kernel competitor... um... like: GNU Hurd. |
| flufferbeer Jan 23, 2016 12:51 PM EDT |
@vairveenr >> While the related submission entitled Linux Foundation chief spins to justify keeping community out is making its way through the process of getting approved at LXer... Seems to me that adherents of RMS's FSF should visit that Sam varghese link; download its pic of Jim Zenlin; photo-add evil fangs, evil grin, sinister eyebrows, pointed ears, etc (using GIMP of course); widely distribute that Evil Zemlin pic or pics online. In brief, FSF adherents should then print out those adjusted pics of Evil Zemlin and use 'em as nice and appropriate DARTBOARDS to protest Evil Zemlin's $ELLING OUT of the Community! My 2 more c's |
| dotmatrix Jan 23, 2016 1:05 PM EDT |
@flufferbeer: >adherents of RMS's FSF Guilty! And proud of it! |
| flufferbeer Jan 23, 2016 3:04 PM EDT |
@ditmatrox, >adherents of RMS's FSF >> Guilty! And proud of it! It rather seems to mEE From your 1st response to that semi-tipsEE poetrEE That you could instead bEE elaboratelEE Against the communitEE As far as that above 2nd poV, Which you realEE make out to bEE a monetary fait accomplEE For the all-cumulative corporate entitEE That aim$ to SQUASH both sources "Open" and frEE... So connivinglEE! LOL :D fB |
| dotmatrix Jan 23, 2016 3:48 PM EDT |
@flufferbeer: Now you lost me. "The Community" used to be about getting stuff done with FOSS. Now "The Community" is either cast aside altogether or meant to be an unimportant groupie thing. I think I'm saying the same thing you are... but maybe not... it's hard to tell. You indicate a "Grassroots" and a "Top Level". I'm unsure what you mean by "Grassroots". I would probably equate "Grassroots" to OSS startups offering freemium-ware. |
| gus3 Jan 23, 2016 3:50 PM EDT |
@dotmatrix, I would equate "grassroots" to what helios (aka Ken Starks) does with the Reglue Project. |
| dotmatrix Jan 23, 2016 4:24 PM EDT |
@gus but not @flufferbeer: So I should interpret flufferbeer's comment as: The Linux Foundation is about the money. and The Linux Foundation who is about the money is trying to exert force on the "Grassroots" communities who are not about money, like Reglue. Yeah -- I agree. However, even Reglue requires funding. And I remember reading about some controversies regarding donations to Reglue that really weren't 'donations' to Reglue... And this last was my point... if 'something' requires corporate money, the corporate money people are going to want something other than a pat on the back. It would be nice if it wasn't true -- but it just is true. However, in the FOSS world, we can use the 'viral-ness' of the GPL to protect the "community's" investment and stake in the software... the GPL is the counterweight against corporate power, and RMS really doesn't get enough credit for that. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!