Making Haiku Free Software

The problem with the FSF is they're never, ever, ever going to be happy unless your project contains free software and only free software and nothing else. Haiku has proprietary firmware blobs, because otherwise some proprietary hardware components won't work. With Linux you often have to go and add the proprietary blobs by hand (I had to do this to get wireless working on a Powerbook once,) and until you do you have only a half-functional system, all because they care more about checking off the Free Software checklist than being usable. That's putting dogma above the needs of the user, and frankly that's not something Haiku needs.

I don't know actually, but I really don't see what Haiku could gain from an endorsement by FSF, it's not as if it has some effect on the uptake on a system as far as I can see, are they endorsing Ubuntu for instance? I doubt it, yet it's the most popular Linux distro.

I seriously doubt there will be any forks as a result of Linus passing, also there are already next-in-line Linux maintainers who could step in with a seconds notice like Greg Kroah Hartman who just like Linus is also hired fulltime by the Linux foundation. Also if Linus gets to die of old age (most likely scenario) his successor(s) will have taken over since long. Also, nothing prevents you from forking Linux right now, it's not as if you need Linus permission.

Hrmmm... well we'll see I guess, but by that time I expect Haiku to have reached version 5.0 :)

Well frankly I don't see the differences between these licences to have much of a practical impact, and as such I don't see it as any real problem. Obviously that can't be said about a hypothetical change to GPL, and while there are certainly some advantages like being able to incorporate Linux GPL code, given how different the systems are I think you'd still have to rewrite any code basically from scratch.

In short, as long as all the developers/contributors are perfectly happy with the current licencing, which they have been as far as I know then there's no reason to ponder a change of licence.

So am I, been using Linux more or less full-time for 5-6 years. I hope to be using Haiku as my day-to-day desktop OS some day in the future, even so I don't see myself ever stop using Linux.

Anyway, there are some anti-Linux fud here from time to time but generally people are tolerant and come here because they really like Haiku, not because they hate a particular OS/ideology.

You bringing up FSF and GPL in conjunction with Haiku does make some alarm bells go off in my head though, and I really hope this thread won't degenerate into a licence feud with the inevitable 'which one is more free?' semantics discussion (*yawn*).

That's a very Stallman thing to say; while I'll give the man a hats-off for the GNU toolchain, there's a lot of unwarranted self-importance floating around the Free Software movement ("GNU/Linux," anybody?) The blind dogmatic opposition not just to the idea of closed-source software, but to the idea of anybody ever using any that already exists is absolutely a problem, for the very reason you yourself stated: it's a horrible pain in the butt for people who would like to simply install an OS and have it work when their system may very well include proprietary hardware that requires proprietary firmware, which is not necessarily replaceable with more open equivalents (unless you have a suggestion for swapping out the Broadcom internal wireless from that old Powerbook I mentioned? And no, "get a PCMCIA NIC" does not count.)

Nobody's preventing it, no. But as drcouzelis says, "One requirement from the FSF is that the official documentation not make any reference to installing non-free software, including drivers." And Linux distributions (not even strictly abiding by FSF wishes) already commonly require you to handle firmware blobs yourself, from a designated "non-free" repository that you have to manually enable. So no, you're not prevented from using proprietary software, you're just expected to keep it in the closet and feel shame and self-loathing for it and wish to God that you could own proper, open hardware.

The point is, they have non-free software - essential non-free software - but they require the user to jump through a hoop to get it, because simply acknowledging that it's a necessary evil and dealing with it wouldn't suit their ideology. I have nothing at all against free software, but that kind of "put FSF dogma before the needs of the users" philosophy is exactly the kind of thing I don't want to see in Haiku.

As far as I know, all of Haiku is currently open source software, but it isn't all free software. So if you are an open source advocate (as opposed to a free software advocate) then there's nothing to fix. :)

For anyone who would like a very brief description of the difference between the two: Open source software is about using the best technical solution. Free software is about believing that software that protects a user's freedom is more important than anything else.

Because of Richard Stallman's then recent work on the GPL and the FSF, Linux torvalds decided to use the GPL. It is believed that the success of Linux and the explosion of free software available would not be anywhere near what it is today without the work of the FSF. (See: "Revolution OS") To further add to what I'm trying to say, here's a simple point: the work of both Richard Stallman and Steve Jobs are widly loved and widly disliked by large groups of people. Regardless of anyone's feelings though, it's hard to deny that both have had a huge impact on the computer industry.

...Since this topic is specifically about free and open source software, I thought this would be a good place to be pedantic. I hope my answers are not antagonistic. This is just a topic I love to talk about. Please forgive me! :D

...Oh, and as for Haiku, I don't think any change in license is necessary. It's doing great the way it is. :)

Well as far as I can tell they have never had any interest in being 'pragmatic', nor have they ever presented themselves that way. They exist to promote the idea of free software, no more no less.

Personally I haven't seen any changes in overall licencing, GPL is mostly used for larger projects/applications which are full/finished solutions, while MIT/BSD style licencing is very often the choice for component/framework style code.

In what context does it hurt commercial software?

I think you and I have very different definitions of 'draconian'. GPL is basically a tit for tat licence, atleast I'm certain that it's that mechanism which has made it the most popular open source licence.

As for if it's needed or not, in a perfect world surely not, but we are not living in a perfect world. That's why we still suffer under things like proprietary drivers which prevents us from using hardware we bought in whatever OS we choose.

And you think they should not be allowed to, because? They want people to use free software, they don't force people to use free software.

What are these drivers the 'os' already has? The Linux kernel has tons of drivers which are identified and 'installed' automatically during boot. Out-of-tree drivers (in other words proprietary) needs to be installed through some distro mechanism which afaik always requires user interaction (just like on Windows).

In Linux distributions this usually means enabling a repository which contain proprietary/patented code which the end user must choose to install at their own discretion.

The same is true here on Haiku, it doesn't even ship freetype2 with lcd-hinting enabled due to fear of patents.

I pointed out that even earlier in this thread. Which again shows that it's up to the 'distros'. FSF does not control what they do.

Wow, I'm the ONLY one who gets by on open source drivers and everybody else needs proprietary drivers. And again, nothing prevents you from using those proprietary drivers, not FSF, not the distros.

Your whole drivel insinuates that we can't live without proprietary drivers, if that was the case then Haiku is dead in the water. Luckily it's not, again thanks to open source drivers.

What is it you want them to do? Say they think proprietary drivers are an ok thing? Of course they won't say that, they are against proprietary code. You might aswell try to get Ballmer to say GPL is an ok licence. On the other hand, neither of them can prevent YOU from using proprietary code or GPL.

I am assuming you are talking about Broadcom again, they have open sourced drivers which are now included in the Linux tree, afaik there are legacy hardware which still need the proprietary driver to be manually installed which is most likely the same situation as on Windows.

Secondly, I don't even know if the distros are legally allowed to distribute their proprietary driver, as far as I can tell all distros point to broadcom's webpage for those instead of providing it through a user-enabled repo where most other proprietary/patented code resides.

Also don't know if NVidia actually allows their proprietary drivers to be shipped directly with a distro, which again could very well be why some distros choose to place such drivers in a 'community-driven'/'user-enabled' repository where the distro itself may not have to bear any legal consequences, just as with code which is known to be based on patented 'tech'.

Why is that a problem? It only affects those seeking to earn FSF's endorsement, as such they must CHOOSE to do so.

But... That's silly. Then it wouldn't be the FSF. You're basically saying "The people that promote the idea that non-free software is never the right solution should acknowledge that sometimes non-free software is the right solution". See? Silly. :P

In their opinion (and mine), proprietary drivers are never necessary, which means either actively choose to buy only hardware that supports free software or don't use it. It is absolutely not an opinion everyone is forced to have, but I am extremely grateful that there are people fighting for me to have that opportunity to use that freedom.

Anyway, commodorjohn, in the future, to avoid these sorts of posts where you have to say the same thing again and again, all you need to say is "I'm a fan of open source software but I disagree with the free software movement." :)

Are you asking me personally? I'm just participating in this thread to help prevent the spread of misinformation about the beliefs of th FSF. I apologize if it appeared otherwise. :(

For anyone that doesn't know how the FSF would respond to this question:

Choosing to use only free software would not render a computer unusable. An operating system that contains only free software will run on most, if not all, personal computers.

The computer may not have hardware accelerated graphics, which means it won't be able to have display drop shadow effects or play some video games, but nothing that I would consider making the computer unusable.

The computer may not have wireless internet, which means it would need to be used with a wired ethernet connection. In the case where this isn't possible, a USB wifi adapter can be used, which is far from being expensive and, either way, does not make the computer unusable.

The same goes for any other hardware that isn't currently supported by free software. Replace the one piece of hardware that is incompatible, or continue to use it but with limited functionality, or consider that it may not be as "essential" as you think it is. These may be inconveniences, but the FSF teaches that giving up your freedom for convenience is never worth it. (And yes, commodorejohn, I know that you don't agree with this, and I'm not trying to convince you to change your mind.) :)

...In regards to software (instead of hardware), the answer is similar, but I'd be happy to answer any questions about that as well.

Yes, you have, but quotes like this:

...make that point hard for me to understand. I just wanted to make it clear, in case anyone else was having difficulty understanding what you meant.

Now i don't really want to get caught up in the FSF vs Proprietary software argument really ( though just posting here means i've done just that.....) but Haiku is in a unique position compared to "GNU/Linux".

GNU, as an OS, is designed to be compatible with UNIX. Its not designed to be binary compatible with any existing OS, just source compatible with UNIX-likes. Because the whole ABI is controlled by the developers, they have a lot of freedom to push their ideologies, ie no proprietary software. To even release software for GNU HURD and GNU/Linux at the same time would most likely involve a dedicated port for each. Binaries for the Linux kernel won't run on HURD.

Haiku OTOH is trying to be binary compatible with an entire proprietary OS. BeOS' biggest legacy was the plethora (compared to GNU HURD for example) of software, most of it being proprietary or abandoned, some of which does not have any FOSS alternatives. As such any binaries for BeOS should work perfectly fine in Haiku without modification, be it drivers or applications, even if Haiku ships with its own FOSS drivers and applications.

Haiku is of course, almost completely licensed under the MIT license, which is permissive. You can do anything you like with the code, ANYTHING. This means you can even fork the software and create a proprietary OS if you like ( think OS X) or of course, give back to the community. Its your call. IMHO this makes the MIT license much "freer" than the GPL.

I don't understand this fanatism about free software. User need programs that can do what he need. User don't need abstract "freedom". Most users don't care free software they use or not. Actually, restricting installing proprietary software limit user and developer freedom. User want high-quality software and developer want money for this.

More, Haiku has much more freedom, than Linux. Windows and Haiku have binary compatability. This mean that I can install 10 years old program and run it without problems. With Linux I can install programs only from repository.

Also Linux forbid independent developers. All programs need to be added in repository before it will be avalible for user. Haiku is able to run all applications including applications from independed developers and proprietary software. With Linux this is impossible becouse of ideology and constant binary compatability breaking.

I agree, free software fanatism is funny, and that most people don't care about it. :)

People make money writing free software and writing non-free software. We are talking about software freedom as defined by the FSF. Have you read "The Free Software Definition"?

That doesn't make sense. Of course I can install software in Linux without using a repository!

Haiku is free but nothing will ever please the FSF which is just a bunch of fanatics: they don't even consider Debian (which is also fanatic enough about free software) Free. And for BSD, it is utterly comic: BSD provide "instructions for obtaining nonfree programs", so the FSF won't endorse BSD systems.

The best is the FSF documents are not even Free themselves:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/common-distros.html

"This page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License. "

Really, Haiku doesn't need support from something such as the FSF.

Well, to be fair, almost everyone posting in this thread is a Haiku user, both open source proponents and free software proponents alike. :)

Maybe in the future someone will do an Ubuntu -> gNewSense dealy on Haiku and make... I don't know, "Freeku".

Good golly that's a horrible name. Don't use that name. If anyone does use that name, don't give me credit.

Hi, fellow Kiwi here. I imagine a free software only compile time option should be possible if anyone wants to put in the work that it requires. At the moment the priority for the core developers seems to be getting a stable release out the door and if we're being frank, that's not going to happen any time soon.

So at the moment I wouldn't recommend suggesting Haiku to anyone over Ubuntu unless they're interested in developing for the platform.

Haiku as a project seems to be more concerned with technology as opposed to ideology. However there is nothing preventing anyone from creating a free software only Haiku distribution and submitting it to the FSF for approval.

On another note, setting up a co-operative selling hardware with free software installed in Aotearoa sounds like an excellent idea. Have you considered using Trisquel? It's a shame the efforts to translate GNOME into Te Reo seem to have stalled.

It bothers me because some people (not all the free-software folks on here, but some) think that that's the direction everything should be going. For example, the OP, who is evidently impressed with Haiku but will only support it if it conforms to the FSF guidelines (even though, if he's going to be designing the hardware anyway, it should be within his power to make the issue of firmware blobs redundant by building with open hardware.) If FSF zealots want to inconvenience themselves for the sake of ideological purity, that's their affair, but when they start suggesting that that should be the direction the whole project takes, that's when it begins to concern other users, and therefore when it starts to bother me.

And yes, some people have suggested an FSF fork, instead, but as you yourself pointed out, that's the kind of thing Haiku is trying to avoid. One of the barriers to entry for Linux (a minor one, but still existent) is the mind-boggling proliferation of distros and trying to figure out which one you're supposed to use for what and why. Haiku, on the other hand, is simple: there's just the one distro, and the most complicated thing about installing it is learning that you kinda need the latest nightly build on top of the base image. I really don't think we need that extra complication. (As they say, just because you can doesn't mean you should.) I try not to jump to conclusions, but I can see why some posters are concerned about other people wanting to "make Haiku into another Linux."

On top of which, there's the fact that having a "free-software version of Haiku" would be misleading to newbies. This is one of my pet peeves with the FSF; intentionally or no, they've selected terms that, in standard English, carry direct moral/emotional implications to describe what they're doing. "Free" carries connotations of inherent desirability and goodness, and "non-free" quite the opposite, and the fact that FSF advocates will talk your ear off about the difference between libre and gratis does nothing at all to change that.

So picture the newcomer, looking at the site and being presented with "free" and "non-free" distributions. Nobody who's not aware of FSF doctrine and lingo is going to pick the "non-free" version. So when they install it, and they find that possibly some of their hardware doesn't work, they're going to blame Haiku for it, when Haiku could very well actually support it just fine in the "non-free" version. Best case is that they then come onto the forum to complain about it, in which case they'll be greeted with A. "non-free" Haiku users explaining that they should have gone against their instincts and downloaded the version that sounded worse, and B. FSF zealots (who would doubtless be attracted here in greater numbers by such a fork) blaming them for not using open hardware.

Is that really something we need, here?

All the posts? I've seen the op make that suggestion, but anyone else?

On the other hand we have the 'fanatics' who starts screaming that Haiku adding a package manager suddenly turns it into Linux.

Don't know what 'post after post' refers to as I've again only seen the OP suggesting it. As for what 'Haiku users want', that's not something you or I can certify as we do not represent all Haiku users. Either way it really doesn't matter, the only thing that matter is what the devs think and they are obviously perfectly happy with their current licencing and have shown no indication of wanting to change it, so I don't see why you are getting so upset.

I can't answer for whomever you attribute this to, but certainly it can have a negative effect on a project at large aswell as on the morale of it's developers if an outside entity picks up their project and starts improving and selling it as a proprietary project without giving anything back while continously picking up any enhancements done by the original project.

Something like this *could* perhaps trigger a concensus for licence change amongst the devs. However I think this rarely happens, only thing that pops into mind right now is Wine where they where MIT licenced and proprietary versions of the project weren't contributing their improvements back which triggered a licence change to LGPL.

Has anybody been talking about making Haiku proprietary? I haven't seen anything to that effect. People have discussed distributing it with commercial hardware, but I don't recall anything about closing off the OS...

For me, at least, it has nothing to do with license loyalty and everything to do with the idea that Haiku should be as usable as is feasible, so that (ideally) anybody can use it on any sufficiently powerful hardware (the same reason I'd really like to see the PPC port picked back up.) The idea of seeking to comply to FSF guidelines is a concern for me because it would impair usability, in exchange for essentially nothing more than a "True Believer" sticker.

I am not against a GPL FORK, I am against the idea that Haiku as it is presently licensed must be changed to GPL. Go ahead and make a GPL version if you want, but it is not the duty of the present developers to create your dream OS, they are busy creating their dream OS. The users do not have duty to use it either. And to date NO-ONE has explained what good FSF's seal of approval will do for Haiku.

And yet to date no-one has ever answered my question about how I would be harmed from a company making money off Haiku.

As none of the above has happened in the last ten years I don't expect it to happen in the next ten either. So again what good is the FSF's approval going to do for Haiku? To get it certain features will have to be disabled without any gain. That will be a waste of a lot of work done so far.

PS. And the binary blob restriction is also a problem, for one of my programs the binary blob is a special 4MB lookup table. The code to create the blob sucks up 500MB to run and about two and a half minutes runtime. Making that part of the start-up code does not make any sense to me. And in talking to different people it is clear the purpose of the blob is too out in left field for them to understand why it works the way it does. In other words, it like looks like a proprietary blob, acts like a proprietary blob, but it is not a proprietary. It is just a binary blog to speed the startup. A GPL licence will have trouble with my present code and will have me jumping thru hoops to get it approved. MIT/BSD licence just allows it to be just sucked in and the code can start working in less than a second.

I see I am not expressing myself clearly.

Give me a day or two and I will see if I can post a message that is easier to read/understand.

I'm sorry, your post is very confusing. :(

What "way of thinking" does the FSF force? In what way do they force it? I don't think the FSF forces anyone to do anything.

Both the FSF and the GPL provide all of these freedoms. The only exception being is "free to not share it". IF you download source code licensed under the GPL and IF you make changes to it and IF you release those changes as a new software application, then yes, you are obligated to release the source code changes you made as well.

Neither the MIT nor the GPL licenses prohibit writing closed source applications and drivers to work with an open source operating system and other open source applications.

This paragraph is all over the place! O_O I will summarize my response as this: Linux is extremely successful at it's goals. It is currently the most popular server OS and the most popular mobile OS. It is perfectly usable as a desktop OS.

Richard Stallman and the FSF do not "love open source" software. They instead promote the ideals of free software. Are you saying this is... bad? Why?

And is a rand from Richard Stallman about free software worse than the rant you posted here? ;)