-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Ottavio Caruso wrote:
I invite the guy who said this at the Greater London User the 22nd of April to confirm that himself here. What he said was: "In the Free Software movement there are lot of nutcases". We were discussing Free Software Evangelism.
Hi Ottavio
I believe you are talking about me and quoting me out of context.
First of all, I was speaking as an individual. I spoke at the GLLUG about the FSFE and the Free Software moment, explaining why I thought it was really important for more people to get involved. I did not speak as a representative of the FSFE, I made this clear at the beginning of the talk. I was speaking as someone who thought that Free Software was such a good idea I became a fellow of the FSFE.
Secondly, I do not think the FSF is full of nutcases. Quite the opposite. I think the FSF is the Foundation that started the Free Software movement and has protected it to this day.
At GLLUG we were talking about perception. We were discussing how we could spread the word about Free Software when there are occasional perceptions of the movement as unreasonable. I pointed out two important things: (1) In all movements there are people who are extreme. (2) Free Software is not an extreme movement.
Free Software is a really good idea. Richard Stallman - who people sometimes label as extreme - is a very lucid advocate of exactly why Free Software is a good idea. His book 'Free Software, Free Society' is a work that explains why our movement is necessary in terms that can only be called logical, well structured and easy to understand. He is blunt about why Free Software is important and perhaps this annoys some people but his arguments are clear.
The problem - as I pointed out in London - is the 'slashdot' effect of people yelling at each other. We see it all over the technology field. Sometimes people yell at each other so much that the important message is lost.
Examples include the 'slashdot' threads that appear on: - Free Software vs closed source software - Free Software vs Open Source software - Apple vs PC - BSD vs GPL
The job of advocates is to explain why XYZ is a good idea. If they are Free Software advocates their job is to explain why Free Software is a really good idea. Perhaps they can localise their talk to the audience; what works in New York might not work as well in London. Perhaps they can rephrase things for their audience; what engineers want to hear might be different from political students. An advocates job is to spread the good word.
I believe we need the Free Software Foundations to help provide a centre for the Free Software movement. They are great rallying points, sources of information and arenas of positive action. It's great that we have different foundations (FSF, FSFE, FSF India etc) because this means it's easy to have pro-active centres that are also able to engage with maximum effectiveness in local issues.
Right now this conversational thread is quite extreme. People are yelling at each other again. I don't think it's necessary. Surely we can discuss things without resorting to anger and tension.
Perhaps we can return to the core topic; that of the GPLv3 and the kernel developers' opinions. It might be a good idea to engage more positively with their concerns. For instance, perhaps a lot of the uncertainty and doubt about the GPLv3 has already been addressed through the official GPLv3 website (http://gplv3.fsf.org). Maybe if some time was spent matching concerns with the review process it might lead to more people feeling confident in the new license.
I guess one thing we can all agree on is that the GPLv3 is important. Whether people like it or not this license process is a big deal. We really need to explore it carefully and ensure that misunderstandings are minimized.
Shane