gnu.com?

gnu.com?

[Thomas Lord]

* ESR's effort to initiate process reform for GNU Emacs sparked
  some larger conversation about the GNU project generally.  A
  resulting idea has reached the "half-baked" stage in my mind
  and I would like to share it before I explore it further (and
  to help decide whether I should).

  Please forgive me for not trying to attribute every point made
  in the list conversation and I note for the record that the
  mailing list archives for the past month or so should make it
  easy to figure out who exactly I am "quasiquoting," so to
  speak.  I am freely combining my own ideas with several that
  have passed on this list.  I have some original thoughts here,
  I suppose, but they are intertwingled with what others have
  said recently.




* The aim of the GNU project is to develop an operating system.
  This goal has not yet been met.

  GNU has achieved "most" of the goal, in some sense.  Using
  little besides GNU software and a kernel, usually the Linux
  kernel, of course, a free software operating system can be
  assembled.

  Yet, the GNU project does not itself distribute an operating
  system.  Users must either do a lot of work to assemble
  their own, or rely on Debian or on one of the commercial
  GNU/Linux vendors, or rely on a small number of poorly
  resourced hobbiest or volunteer projects.   No commercial
  vendor of free software is delivering applications advertised
  to run on "the GNU operating system".   GNU's early objectives
  of unix-but-then-a-more-lispy-environment lie by the wayside.




* Though there was once a fairly clear "target" for what the GNU
  system would one day be, both technology and free software
  have advanced so far, in the meanwhile, that there is no
  longer any clear picture of the GNU project's target.

  Early on, GNU was defined by a simple task list that (more or
  less) listed the differences between what GNU was already
  distributing and the then contemporary versions of unix.  GNU
  had "info" and "tex" but needed an nroff, for example.  GNU at
  one point needed a good shell program.  GNU would need a
  window system, just as the unix vendors had such.  For fun,
  the GNU task list asked for a flight simulator.  Most of these
  boxes got checked off (i.e. "done enough, for now").  Some
  slapstick craziness delayed a kernel.  The linux kernel
  arrived.  Commercialization happened.  And a mere decade and a
  bit later the definition of "operating system" (in the sense
  of what people expect when they install one) has expanded
  greatly.  The task list has not kept up.  This is no surprise
  because:

* A strictly volunteer project has difficulty catching-up or,
  better, leap-frogging the contemporary definition of an
  operating system, because today there is commercial demand for
  free software hackers.

  When GNU began, jobs describable as "developing free software"
  were almost non-existent.  I, for one -- and I'm sure I am not
  alone -- volunteered to try to shrink the GNU task list partly
  to force a point.  "We," (if I may), sought to create a
  complete, useful, truly free operating system *in part*
  because that would help create something in scarce supply at
  the time: a professional career path in which we would not be
  obligated to collaborate in somebody's plan to seize power
  over users (at least in the sense of the "four freedoms").
  So, "we" (some of us, at least) "worked for free" in part so
  that later we might be able to work professionally without
  sacrificing our ethics.

  Times have changed and while there are still (it seems, from
  reading the trade press and studies) more programmers who
  *want* to write only free software than there are who are paid
  to write free software -- still -- demand for very talented
  free software programmers is fiercely competitive.  Very few
  people with lots of established talent need to struggle to
  find employment writing free software.  Therefore, almost
  everyone with lots of established talent has only limited time
  to volunteer for GNU, other than where such volunteerism
  happens to coincide with the wishes of their employer.

* The definition of "GNU project" has become confusing.

  With an unclear target, and extremely limited volunteer
  resources, GNU is in a rough spot when it comes to leading
  cooperation on building -- well -- "the GNU operating system".

  The GDB project should work with the project to improve
  the Emacs interface to GDB, for example -- but there is
  no obvious way (other than catch-as-catch-can) to decide
  the priority between that work and work on "tabs" support
  in Emacs.   The obligations of GNU maintainers have some
  firm rail-guards -- but there seems to be no clear way
  to settle priorities with respect to clear goals.


* In the name of freedom, GNU needs to complete its work.

  Debian and, even more the commercial GNU/Linux distributions
  have, on balance, positively advanced the cause of software
  freedom -- at least for now.   They are not, however, clearly
  reliable sources of software freedom, at least in the GNU
  sense.   The original GNU vision has yet to fully materialize
  and no project, aside from GNU itself, seems to want to
  do so.


* The FSF ("owner" in some sense of GNU) remains, after all of
  these years, a qualified leadership.

  I need not rehearse, I hope, but merely refer to the FSF's
  very long term continuing success in fostering sister
  organizations around the world, in influencing relevant
  legislation, in GPLv3 consensus-building, in simply
  remaining afloat, in spreading the word about software
  freedom generally, and on an on.


* RMS is neither immortal nor does he possess infinite
  energy.

  Recent messages from RMS highlight his personal and
  singular role in defining what "the GNU project" means.
  This is appropriate in many senses but it is not a lasting
  solution, nor one that can any longer secure sufficient
  volunteer labor to complete GNU.



--------------------------------------------------------------

Therefore.....


* I propose the creation of gnu.com, a for-profit majority owned
  subsidiary of the FSF, roughly analogous to mozilla.com.
  The purpose of gnu.com shall be to define, complete, distribute, and
  support the GNU operating system, on a for-profit basis.


  The for-profit but only majority owned structure enables
  fund-raising to pay GNU developers competitive wages without
  sacrificing the cause of software freedom.


--------------------------------------------------------------


Random thoughts:

* Chartering the organization will be difficult, of course.
  Probably similarly difficult to making GPLv3.   Perhaps similar
  techniques of consensus-building will apply.

* The FSF's approach to labor appears from the outside these
  days to be exemplary.   E.g., it is a pro-union shop and
  offers decent benefits (as far as I can tell).   gnu.com
  should do no less.   Moreover, as majority owner, FSF can
  ensure that gnu.com does its fair share to support FSF
  workers (or if not FSF, the union :-).

* Reformulating the vision and then drilling it down to
  a task list for GNU is an exciting project -- the danger
  is that it may be *too* exciting with people seeking influence
  for all kinds of disagreeable reasons.  The success of
  the GPLv3 project gives some hope here to keep an orderly
  process.

* Though current commercial GNU/Linux vendors are not
  exempt from criticism -- gnu.com is not "against" these
  vendors.   Rather, it should be understood as resuming
  the project from which they got there start, and further
  advancing the kind of forward-looking development project
  from which they took their opportunities.



--------------------------------------------------------------


Invitation:

This message is not precisely on-topic for the emacs-devel
list, yet I have not witnessed any better audience and this
one seems ripe for it.   Forgive me if I accomplish nothing
other than either wasting bandwidth on an igored message or
starting a flame-war.   I hope the outcome is otherwise.

I volunteer to pay attention to what people say in response
to this admittedly "half-baked" idea either on-list or in
private responses -- and to try to do something intelligent
in response, presuming a general agreement about the cause of
software freedom and the value of the GNU project.   People
can contact me at lord@emf.net

--------------------------------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

Yes, of course I want a personal stake in this -- a substantial
role and ample rewards.   The idea, however, stands on its own
-- with or without me.


Regards,
-t