Credit and Free Software 213
Hans Reiser - you're thinking ReiserFS, and you'd be right - has a proposal to slather Free Software with credits for its authors. Good? Bad? This is something the community has generally moved away from, but maybe Reiser has a good point. Newsforge is part of OSDN.
Points not to be discounted lightly (Score:5, Insightful)
necessarily argue for "slathering" software with attributions, rather
he argues convincingly IMO that the credit for a piece of software
should remain visible to the public users. This can be tastefully
done easily, the point is that leaving the credit for writing the
software in the source code is pointless as most people don't ever
read the source code.
It isn't even so much that someone can't supply a new spalsh screen,
it just needs to include attributions to the original authors. I
think he makes some very interesting and very valid points. It is
interesting to note as he states, that although Stallman is a huge
contributor to many projects, he rarely gets credited on anything.
I feel the same way as Reiser on this, even though Stallman doesn't
want to burden the software with licensing restrictions, it bothers
me that he gets so little in the way of credit for what he has helped
to bring about.
the purpose of free software for many IS credit (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this, mind. I just want to remind some of the zealots that writing Free software is often not the selfless idealistic cause some make it out to be.
OSS belongs to the community (Score:4, Insightful)
Doubled Edged Sword (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Points not to be discounted lightly (Score:5, Insightful)
Also doesn't this proposed license contradict the definition of a freesoftware license?
And your point about stallman is probably not a good example. He is one of the very few developers that are well known and have got a big reputation in the opensource community.
What Reiser was saying is it would be an incentive to smaller developers to contribute stuff if they thought that someone somewhere would randomly see their name splashed on the screen. I think I'm inclined to disagree with this basicaly selfrightosness
Not sure I agree with his thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
IMO, the people who are going to care are already seeing the names, either in the source or at the project websites or in CVS. To everyone else, any sort of more obtrusive crediting is just going to be obnoxious, and they're still not going to know any more names then they did before.
The whole point, if anyone still remembers the original goal of the majority of OSS projects, is to write some kick-ass code that's going to be done the Right Way, rather than the short-cutty kludgy way that most programmers are forced to code at work. To me, this includes making the software as elegant and streamlined as possible, and the various methods of ego gratification I can think of (extra splash screens, etc) seem incompatible with this.
Re:the purpose of free software for many IS credit (Score:3, Insightful)
What exactly is wrong with naming something after yourself?
Re:Points not to be discounted lightly (Score:5, Insightful)
Nuff said? Nuff said.
(FreeGEM Desktop does about the same thing under Desk\Info)
-uso.
Re:Points not to be discounted lightly (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but (Score:3, Insightful)
Marketers would not want to "un-necessarily'" give credit. Agreed. Not every company selling (services for) open-source code might be doing it for this reason, though.
I can think of two more reasons: (a) they genuinely think that they are reducing information confusing to the (target) user; that their graphic is good; (b) they did not realize that the developers are feeling they are not getting enough credit.
There is merit in the idea that credit to people who write FOSS could be more prominent. There is also a gentler way to do this, IMHO. Like, "Hey Debian dudes! Good work on that release. BTW, my wishlist for the next one is a screensaver that would display names of authors who wrote the packages I installed. Here's a graphic for the background, and here's how I think one could go about it...".
If enough people support this idea and implement it, then the need to enforce it will not be needed. If some notable exception exists, one could consider license as a way to enforce it.
Oh please (Score:5, Insightful)
He should be more concerned with the quality of his software, not with his ego problems. Personally, I find this disgusting. If someone wants to know who wrote the software, he can read the README or ask google.
I don't even have the slightest reference in my free software source code that point back to me, I don't even use huge copyright comments in my software like the GNU project generally does, and yet people have offered me jobs and asked me about my software many times. In general, the people who want to know who wrote the software, do.
Those who try to rub it in their face all the time will cheapen free software for everyone. It's like the "I'm so important!1!!" freeware movement from MS-DOS, and I barely remember a single author from all the software that rubbed their copyright messages it in my face all the time. In contrast, I even learned to know several free software authors personally!
Hans, people are losing data with your file system. I know because I did. Twice. Then I looked at your fsck code and it stunk to the high heavens. You should be concerned with that, not with putting your name in the face of more people.
And what would be the next step? To insert a few seconds delay so people have a chance to see your messages better? Puleeze!
"Linux software" ??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Erm.. Is Python or Perl or Apache or Emacs - "Linux software"? What about FreeBSD or OpenBSD - that's hardly "Linux software"...
I'm surprised to see someone as knowledgeable as Riser make such a blunder - or is it intentional?
Re:OSS belongs to the community--that IS enough (Score:2, Insightful)
I spend a minute being torn.
I thought that I was going to post that while Reiser's suggestion that linux have a mandatory screen saver that flashes credit is totally micro$oftesque in its totalitarianism, but his point is well-taken, and oss designers deserve credit. Instead, your comment really convinced me. Anyone who wants to find the designers can by looking in the source code. What user would be searching for a designer who couldn't get it togeher to look in the source code? And what *other* sort of person would care who wrote linux or anything else? The glory of OSS comes from being a shared project in every senes. Let's keep the focus on that. Kudos to vosbert for convincing me.
Re:Yes, but (Score:2, Insightful)
Of course feedback from end users is nice for the programmer and leads to improved software if the programmer is inclided to listen to the users, however receiving several thousand emails a day from end users of a widely used piece of software would be anyones nightmare.
Adobe (Score:1, Insightful)
Haven't We Been Here Before (Score:5, Insightful)
On the surface, it sounds like a good idea until you consider what it means to give prominent credit to all the major people who are involved with a piece of software. The larger a project is the larger the number of active participants. More importantly when a project gets large enough it acquires dependencies that provide significant functionality which also are as deserving of credit as the original application developers.
For example I built a news aggregator that is an now a source code available project on GotDotNet [gotdotnet.com] that has 70 developers signed up with about a dozen having been active in one shape or the other. There are also dependencies on three external libraries that also provide significant functionality. If this was a commercial product exactly how feasible would it be for me to give prominence to everyone who provided significant value to the application? What metric would I use?
Re:the purpose of free software for many IS credit (Score:2, Insightful)
How much prestige can they get for writing second rate software? I don't recall many people being very impressed by second rate anything.
No one cares (Score:3, Insightful)
If people want to know who wrote the software they'll just look it up. I mean in GUI software there is an "About" dialog that exists solely for info such as stuff in cli utils at the start of the program you can put name of author and email address as most other people do. Or through it into a --help argc or something.
Also the idea of having someones name plastered all over your personal computer doesn't make it feel that personal anymore. A user will just begin to tune the shit out, and if you write shit like BIND or BitchX etc you catch enough flack.
Re:Give 'em credit! (Score:2, Insightful)
I use OSS precisely because it's not personality and marketing driven in user-land. The day Hans' proposal bears fruit is the day I buy a Mac.
Control or free software. (Score:4, Insightful)
You can either have control, or you can write free software.
Period.
Re:OSS belongs to the community (Score:2, Insightful)
Linux is one of the fortunates, 'cause people may easily assume it with Linux. Same with ReiserFS and MAYBE the BSD's. B is for Berkeley, it's good enough for me. Even Netscape Mozilla, Microsoft Windows, Lotus 123.
Today, I used pan. The news reader. Unless I go search, I haven't a clue who wrote pan, nor do I care. I also used Spammassassin.
What is being suggested, is there be some default inbetween. You are right, it belongs to the community if it was given to the community. What he's saying is, default it to have something in there. Let the world know, that Linus did the initial work on Linux, and that me, a small developer, contributed to some software or even wrote my own. And if you don't like the credit showing up every time, take it out! That's the nice thing about OSS. Worse comes to worse, if it is hard to remove, someone will write a patch to make it easy to deal with or people just won't use it.
I am so sick... (Score:5, Insightful)
Whether it's pop-up ads, spam, TV inset-credit ads, junk mail, telemarketing, ATM fees, TV channel logos, billboards, etc. The long and annoying list goes on and on and keeps growing.
More and more, I'm getting pissed off about the multitude of intrusions on my time and attention. If I cared about whether brand A was better than brand B, i'd look into it myself, otherwise it's just an annoyance to be so informed.
If anyone is particularly interested, or if the software is remarkable in some way, i.e. small, useful, or innovative, then people will find out who's responsible for authoring that piece of work if they care.
But if they don't, then they don't want to endure YET ANOTHER GOD-DAMNED AD.
If the software authors want credit for their work, that's fine, I don't begrudge them that. I'm a software author myself. In fact, I co-wrote one of the most popular ray-tracing programs out there, and my name is on the list of contributors.
The actual software never had my name in it, just in the docs, but people knew me, and had no problem finding out who I was and how to get a hold of me for questions and advice.
I still can list the software on my resume, if I feel that it's relevant to the position I'm seeking. When I do, most people recognise or have heard of it. The fame is still there waiting, bottled up until needed
Anyhow, without being overbearingly egotistical, I managed to get and enjoy my 15 minutes of fame without pissing anyone off and without cramming my name down everyone's throat.
Re:Points not to be discounted lightly (Score:5, Insightful)
Further - the whole concept behind BSD and GPL style licenses is that the user is free to change/modify/use the software as needed. A change to "give the author credit" is a definite usage requirement!!!! It isn't free then?!?!
Look - the authors have a right to put their code under ANY license requirement they like. If they choose to do this - well, I just don't think the software would then qualify as either Free or Open Source software in my mind.
Should licenses protect credits? (Score:3, Insightful)
On the other hand, the moment you say that these credits cannot be removed (or suppressed from being displayed by default) then you no longer have a fully free license. That's what the problem was with the old BSD license with the advertising clause (that used to make BSD code incompatible with the GPL until that was removed), and that's the same problem with invarient sections in the GNU Free Documentation License that caused such a stink recently. The GPL doesn't allow any additional restrictions either, and since Hans' code is available under the GPL, the best he can do is ask that people are respectful of the credits. There's no legal recourse if they aren't (other than maybe to get mad, and quit GPL'ing future versions). This leads to the question -- maybe there should be a new free software license that attempts to protect author credits while remaining otherwise free?
That said, I'd have to say that anyone who would remove credits from free software simply because the license doesn't (or can't) prohibit it is being a rude parasite. A good member of the community has more respect for the contributions of others.
Re:Points not to be discounted lightly (Score:3, Insightful)
Well if you look at Slashdot, then I'd say he has a big reputation of being the man who gets most flamed at!
Just look at the Slashdot article about the GNU/Linux FAQ. It generated well over 1000 comments, of which 95% are trolls, flames and personal insults towards RMS. A lot of them even got modded up to +5 Insightful!
Re:OSS belongs to the community (Score:5, Insightful)
No way. When I write OS software, I retain the copyright. The community didn't write the software, I did. I freely allow the community to make use of it in practically any manner that they see fit, but that still doesn't mean that I have lost the ownership of my work.
Re:OSS belongs to the community (Score:2, Insightful)
everyone who writes a gnu/oss program knows what they are gettign into before they start. RMS may seek credit everywhere he goes... but he wants credit given to GNU, not for himself! Reiser, on the other hand, even called his FS after himself...
with GNU/OSS, any author is fully able to place a "Help->About" window in, or "--version" flag. by this method, i ALREADY know the names of the main authors of all the programs i use every day... with an exception to Maple (which along with java are the only non-OSS/GNU apps i have...)
Re:OSS belongs to the community--that IS enough (Score:2, Insightful)
try any of these:
or if it has a GUI, go to "Help->About"Ego Removal Software (Score:2, Insightful)
If the ego of these people is so big that the only way they will feel better is having people bow down and acknowledge that without them how mislerable our lives would be, then, I suggest that these assholes be asked to move to a platform which supports their enormous ego.
The reason why I and many other people use linux is because it provides software without imposing limitations or irritations on it's users and that includes the right to take any piece of software and use it in any manner I see fit as long as I provide the source to my work.
Now if needed Adware or irritations, I would be using Windows instead!!
Oh and while still on this topic, how about including every bug submitter, tester, delivery guys name also in the credits? After all credit should not mean only those who contributed to the code.
This is not about fair credit (Score:5, Insightful)
Have no illusions -- this is what Hans Reiser is worried about, his business. The morality of giving credit-where-due is a red herring.
The debate that sparked this off was Debian removing 20-something lines of crap about sponsors from mkreiserfs. That scares him, because it weakens his power in promoting his sponsors and his brand.
To which I say tough. The GPL was written to ensure that users could make software serve them. If a GPLed program spews unhelpful messages, then anybody has the right to remove them. Incidentally, it's undoubtedly justified in this case, when there's a screenful of rubbish, and the program is regularly used in stressful, recovery situations, potentially on a terminal with no scrollback.
Nobody, I imagine, advocates removing authorship credits entirely, but the GPL does not guarantee free promotion for your company, sponsors, or anything else. If that's what you wanted, you were plain stupid to choose the GPL in the first place.
Keep this in perspective folks (Score:1, Insightful)
I agree.. (Score:3, Insightful)
How many slashdot readers run adware.. and why?.. how long might it be before 'free' software which had advertising in this manner decided that 'trading' adverts with other software authors would increase their user base? Really, it wouldn't take very much bending of the rules before free software looked like free websites. And do we really want geocities on our desktops?
Re:Points not to be discounted lightly (Score:3, Insightful)
Wha? Are you saying that everyone who remembers' Maddona's name, or Bill Gates, or Michal Jordan or Mohamed Saeed Al-Sahhaf are all source code reading geeks?
People will remember a name if they see or hear it often enough.
Re:Points not to be discounted lightly (Score:3, Insightful)
That's missing the point. The credits are not there to drill obscure names into people's memory. A little blurb in --help or --about or --version should suffice here. Credit should be given, because it's the Right Thing to do. If someone uses some of your code, no one will ever know about it, even though the contribution was valuable enough, obviously.
This would be similar to credits shown in movies. Do you really care who the second unit's driver was? Would you remember the name? But they're shown all the same, even at the cost of an extra song for the sound track.
Re:the purpose of free software for many IS credit (Score:4, Insightful)
Using Ayn Rand's clarified definition, I'd say selfish reasons are the best and most prominent reasons to write good software. Still using Ayn Rand-compliant vocabulary, Reiser is being very selfless.
Translation: people write software for the feeling of self-fullfillment, self-actualization, and personal pride. This is a personal experiece that does not require anyone else's opinion to realize; you know you've given everything you could. Reiser, however, requires the recognition of others, needs his "greatness" (extremely debatable) to be recognized and advertised by others. This is what people mean by "his ego problems". He is "without self", or "selfless".
More on a practical point, Hans Reiser has been completely unable to prove that (1) the current setup is insufficient, (2) anything would be gained by modifying the current setup, and (3) his proposals would do less harm than good.
Further, I have supreme doubts that reputation is the driving force for the best programers. Respect of your peers is a reward. Delivering bad code would cause you to lose respect, and that lose would be a source of fear. Fear does not drive good development. Self-actualization drives good development, and that is incompatible with fear of resentment. Good programers (s/programers/anything) may enjoy the respect of their peers, but that is quite different from fear for your reputation. Reiser is fearful, and ReiserFS is a testament to bad code.
Good point, but why license? (Score:2, Insightful)
However, it is still a good idea to let users know who are actually contributing to the open source software project. But it will be a complicated problem when this credit information display is enforced as a license requirement. Let the project contributors decide what will be displayed in their splash screen; but don't make it a license requirement.
Re:the purpose of free software for many IS credit (Score:1, Insightful)
The latter isn't likely to get a developer any recognition whatsoever outside of other developers involved in the project, although it is a much better demonstration of skill.
The world isn't fair, and trying to make it fair is hard. Which is why people should be motivated internally rather than externally.