Stallman issues Porto Alegre clarification

Relax, and support GNOME again please


Richard Stallman has written to us about comments made on the .NET/GNOME controversy, reported by Brazilian tech site HotBits and cited here thanks to a translation provided to us by HotBits, Stallman asks de Icaza to explain himself to the community.

Not so, says RMS, who says the remarks were misreported. We reproduce his email in full here:-


Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 07:57:28 -0700 (MST)
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
To: andrew.orlowski@theregister.co.uk
cc: robin@roblimo.com
cc: hp@redhat.com
Subject: Corrective letter to the register

Letter to the Register

Your article about me, GNOME and .Net was inaccurate starting from the title. Those quotations which are accurate are taken out of context, leading to total misunderstanding. Here is what really took place.

A person in the audience asked me what I thought about Miguel's changing the license of GNOME to the X11 license. Such a change for
GNOME has not occurred and is not planned, since it would go against GNU Project policies. But Ximian did make such a license change for Mono, which is not a GNU package. So I figured the questioner had read the Mono license change announcement and then misremembered it as referring to GNOME. I said so, but I tried not to be harsh about it.

Your quote

I can't believe it's Gnome[sic] you're talking about but if it is, I wouldn't like that, looks like something from the middle of that response.

I said explicitly that I thought he was remembering the Mono license change which actually had occurred, but that part was not quoted in the article, nor was the question itself.

You also wrote

Stallman only learned of de Icaza's intentions to slip the Mono project
- based on Microsoft's .NET framework - into Gnome as "the natural
technology upgrade" when asked by the audience.

That is not true--I knew about that already; anyway, that was not what we were talking about. The questioner persistently maintained that
the license change was for GNOME, not Mono, and I continued to respond to that. When I said something like

"I didn't know he was doing that, I find that very hard to believe," he said.

I was still replying to that assertion. I doubt that quote reflects my exact words, though.

I still don't believe that GNOME has been changed to use the X11 license.

I am pretty sure something was garbled in the quotation which has me asking Miguel to "explain himself to us", because those words would be
explicitly confrontational, and I did not have any wish to do that.

It would make no sense to have a confrontation over a supposed action which I knew, and was saying, had never occurred.

GNOME, and GNU as a whole, have always had a policy of supporting as many languages as possible. "Whatever languages users wish to use,
GNU should support," is the way I generally put it. This is why I eagerly encouraged the development of GNU Fortran, despite having vowed in 1970 never to use that language again myself. GNOME should certainly support .NET programs and C# programs, using DotGNU by preference since that is a GNU package; supporting Mono as an
alternative C# implementation would be ok too. I don't think there is any real dispute about this. A free replacement for Visual Basic which works with GNOME would be a major step forward; any capable team that wants to launch this project should please contact gnu@gnu.org.

I don't think we will decide to rewrite GNOME to be "based on" .NET, though. We will continue wanting to support a wide variety of languages, and it is unlikely to make sense to rewrite the base
libraries and major applications of GNOME into C#. I hope that the readers who reacted sharply to the idea of such a fundamental redesign will relax and begin supporting GNOME again.

Another misleading point in the article was the reference to GNOME as an "open source project."

The Open Source Initiative has the right to
define a criterion for open source and note the fact that GNOME fits it, but GNOME has no connection with them. GNOME, like the GNU Project as a whole, is part of the free software movement. GNOME is a free software project par excellence, because it was started in 1997 as a defense against the threat to our freedom posed by the (at the time, since changed) non-free license of Qt.

The very existence of GNOME is the direct result of our ideals of freedom, precisely what the open source movement was founded in 1998 to reject.

Sincerely

Richard Stallman
President, Free Software Foundation


We've been promised a tape and a transcript of the Porto Alegre Q and A.

Miguel de Icaza has issued his own clarification, here, which also amounts to "move along folks, there's nothing to see".

On Friday he repeated his desire to base future GNOME development on the .NET APIs using work from his Mono project.

".NET is a fantastic technology upgrade for GNOME from Microsoft," he said.

In the interview, he praised many aspects of .NET including SmartClients and the new Microsoft security model. ®


Other stories you might like

  • Prisons transcribe private phone calls with inmates using speech-to-text AI

    Plus: A drug designed by machine learning algorithms to treat liver disease reaches human clinical trials and more

    In brief Prisons around the US are installing AI speech-to-text models to automatically transcribe conversations with inmates during their phone calls.

    A series of contracts and emails from eight different states revealed how Verus, an AI application developed by LEO Technologies and based on a speech-to-text system offered by Amazon, was used to eavesdrop on prisoners’ phone calls.

    In a sales pitch, LEO’s CEO James Sexton told officials working for a jail in Cook County, Illinois, that one of its customers in Calhoun County, Alabama, uses the software to protect prisons from getting sued, according to an investigation by the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

    Continue reading
  • Battlefield 2042: Please don't be the death knell of the franchise, please don't be the death knell of the franchise

    Another terrible launch, but DICE is already working on improvements

    The RPG Greetings, traveller, and welcome back to The Register Plays Games, our monthly gaming column. Since the last edition on New World, we hit level cap and the "endgame". Around this time, item duping exploits became rife and every attempt Amazon Games made to fix it just broke something else. The post-level 60 "watermark" system for gear drops is also infuriating and tedious, but not something we were able to address in the column. So bear these things in mind if you were ever tempted. On that note, it's time to look at another newly released shit show – Battlefield 2042.

    I wanted to love Battlefield 2042, I really did. After the bum note of the first-person shooter (FPS) franchise's return to Second World War theatres with Battlefield V (2018), I stupidly assumed the next entry from EA-owned Swedish developer DICE would be a return to form. I was wrong.

    The multiplayer military FPS market is dominated by two forces: Activision's Call of Duty (COD) series and EA's Battlefield. Fans of each franchise are loyal to the point of zealotry with little crossover between player bases. Here's where I stand: COD jumped the shark with Modern Warfare 2 in 2009. It's flip-flopped from WW2 to present-day combat and back again, tried sci-fi, and even the Battle Royale trend with the free-to-play Call of Duty: Warzone (2020), which has been thoroughly ruined by hackers and developer inaction.

    Continue reading
  • American diplomats' iPhones reportedly compromised by NSO Group intrusion software

    Reuters claims nine State Department employees outside the US had their devices hacked

    The Apple iPhones of at least nine US State Department officials were compromised by an unidentified entity using NSO Group's Pegasus spyware, according to a report published Friday by Reuters.

    NSO Group in an email to The Register said it has blocked an unnamed customers' access to its system upon receiving an inquiry about the incident but has yet to confirm whether its software was involved.

    "Once the inquiry was received, and before any investigation under our compliance policy, we have decided to immediately terminate relevant customers’ access to the system, due to the severity of the allegations," an NSO spokesperson told The Register in an email. "To this point, we haven’t received any information nor the phone numbers, nor any indication that NSO’s tools were used in this case."

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2021