Linux.com

Feature: Free Software

Behind the doors of the Free Software Foundation

By Bruce Byfield on August 28, 2008 (9:00:00 PM)

Share    Print    Comments   

The purpose of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) is probably obvious from its name -- but what does promoting free software mean in terms of everyday activity? Examining the roles of the organization shows how complex the FSF's advocacy role has become. It also reveals the range of services available to the free software community, and helps to explain how such a small group has had such a major influence on computer technology.

As a 501(c)3 charity in the United States, the FSF is run by a board of directors. The current board includes FSF founder and president Richard M. Stallman and long-term member Henry Poole, but, in the last few years, new faces have appeared on the board.

According to director Benjamin Mako Hill, "The board's most important responsibility is to protect software freedom and to decide the FSF's goals and tactics. That means that they are ultimately responsible for the GNU General Public License, the LGPL, AGPL, and GNU Free Documentation License, for FSF-copyright-assigned software and manuals, and for much of the infrastructure of running the GNU Project. As a result, board members must first and foremost be committed to the cause of software freedom."

The board members meet several times a year to decide the FSF's activities and budgets. "New campaigns, new staff, and new directions for the organization are ultimately discussed and approved by the board," Hill says. Between meetings, board members may be consulted or polled as issues arise.

The executive

Under the directors falls the executive branch, which consists of the president, executive director, and manager of operations. The division of responsibility between the president and executive director is not firm -- in fact, Peter Brown, the current executive director, had to think for a moment before he could articulate it.

These days, Stallman spends much of his time traveling to promote free software. However, contrary to what outsiders might expect, as president, he remains closely involved with FSF policy, asking frequently for status reports and making policy decisions that do not require other members of the board.

Moreover, Brown says, "Richard can be very hands-on in relation to a specific target that he needs to be speaking about."

As executive director, Brown's role is technically to implement policy rather than set it -- that is, to determine tactics rather than strategy. However, from Brown's description, there seems to be more give and take between the president and the executive director than this division might imply. For instance, while Stallman might call upon Brown to carry out an action, Brown says that sometimes he will "say why it's not a good idea" instead.

Manager of operations is a position that was calved from the executive director's in recent years as the FSF's activities have increased. As with the president and the executive director, the dividing line between the executive director and the manager of operations is not completely clear, but, in general, while the executive director implements strategy, the manager of operations oversees the work of the staff. The current manager of operations is John Sullivan.

The executive office also comprises two support staff members: Stallman's personal assistant and an operational assistant. As described by Brown, these roles are not simply clerical or administrative: Stallman's assistant also does marketing for the FSF in general, while the operational assistant runs the GNU store and press. Further, the individuals currently in these positions are now in the process of taking on more responsibility, which seems an indication that their roles are not simply supportive.

Other roles

Perhaps the best-known of the remaining roles in the FSF is the compliance engineer, a position currently held by Brett Smith. Working with a small team of knowledgeable volunteers, the compliance engineer answers questions about free licenses and responds to reports about possible license violations. Where a violation has actually occurred, the compliance engineer tries to take a non-adversarial role, offering to help the violating company or project to come into appliance, rather threatening legal action. The compliance engineer also works closely with the Software Freedom Law Center and organizations such as GPL-violations exchanging information and, when necessary, coordinating strategies against violators.

As the FSF becomes increasingly focused on social activism, another role that has become increasingly important is campaign manager. The foundation currently has two: Joshua Gay and Matt Lee. The campaign managers are charged with organizing efforts such as the anti-DRM Defective By Design and the anti-Windows BadVista campaigns. Such campaigns are intended mainly to respond to threats to free software, but also have the benefit of encouraging people concerned with a certain issue to explore free software as an option to what they find objectionable.

Another role is management of copyright assignments to the GNU Project, which remains closely connected to the FSF. While maintainers of GNU projects are not required to reassign copyright to GNU, many do so in order to guard against the consequences of key developers either dying or withdrawing from the project. Once a project has decided to reassign copyright, each contributor must sign a separate contract. According to Brown, the FSF receives "thousands" of contracts each year, and "we've just had our busiest year for copyright assignment."

A role that is just being created is membership coordinator. It is scheduled to be filled by Deb Nicholson, the former maintainer of the Free Software Directory. Speaking of the need for this new role, Brown says, "We have a growing membership, and we have a view of what we want the membership to be. Our membership program provides the bulk of our funding, but we also want a deeper engagement with out members, in the sense that we want them to be activists, and we want to be able to provide them with the resources necessary for them to be more effective in this role." The plan is for the membership coordinator to attend major free software and open source events to meet local supporters, especially those who might not attend the FSF's annual meeting in Boston. Already, the FSF has held such events in the vicinity of OSCon and Linuxworld.

"And there's a very good reason for that," Brown says: "not just out reach out to our members and tell them what we're doing, but because we get a lot of good ideas from them." For example, Brown says that both the Defective by Design and End Software Patents campaigns were a direct results of membership suggestions.

The rest of the FSF staff is supported by a trio of system administrators -- Danny Clark, Joshua Ginsberg, and Ward Vandewege. All three are active in free software projects, especially when the FSF needs some specific functionality implemented. Vandewege in particular is a major contributor to coreboot (formerly LinuxBIOS), whose goal is implement a free BIOS. The system administrators have been converting the FSF infrastructure to coreboot for the last couple of years, and are now only a few workstations away from completing the task. When the task is complete, the FSF itself might very well be the largest user of free BIOSes in the world.

Conclusion

Positions in the FSF are fluid. Like any small company, the FSF does not have a rigid structure, and people regularly get involved in activities beyond their immediate job descriptions. For example, both Peter Brown and John Sullivan tend to be active in various campaigns. Similarly, board members often pursue their own interests within the foundation. Benjamin Mako Hill, for instance, says, "I tend to have close relationships with the campaigns team, the licensing expert, and the new membership coordinator, and have at least weekly conversations with those staff members on particular issues and projects."

In addition, while the board and executive branch of the FSF seems relatively stable, other positions are constantly changing. Right now, Jeanne Resata, Stallman's personal assistant, is expanding her role to include promotional work for both Stallman's speeches and the FSF in general, as well as shepherding a second edition of his book Free Software, Free Society through publication and translation, while Samuel Choi has been hired as copyright administrator while this article was being written.

Similarly, the foundation is currently looking for a replacement for its operation assistant, since Kelly Hopkins, who held the position until recently, is moving on to handle press relations and organization's online store, as well as the jobs, software, and hardware directories.

In addition, the FSF is planning to hire a new manager for its End Software Patents campaign. In the near future, the FSF may also hire someone to work on its high-priority projects, trying to encourage the community to become more focused in filling in the gaps in free software.

"We have to work carefully, with support from the community and from a very small financial base," Brown says. "We also have to make sure that we remain coherent with what we're doing. We've got some chief things we'd like to accomplish in the next couple of years, but we're taking small steps toward them."

Bruce Byfield is a computer journalist who writes regularly for Linux.com.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Behind the doors of the Free Software Foundation

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

BadVista is not anti-Windows

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 82.192.250.149] on August 29, 2008 10:11 AM
The BadVista campaign is NOT a campaign against Microsoft Windows. It's what it says, against Vista specifically, because of unpleasant features which are in Vista and not in other versions of Windows.

The FSF is not the only group which doesn't like Vista. Bruce Schneier, the respected expert on computer security, has also pointed out that Vista contains features designed to allow the big media companies more control over what you do - at the cost of making your computer less reliable, less secure, less stable, and slower. Check out Bruce Schneier's blog at
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/02/drm_in_windows_1.html

These are NOT just matters that only extreme software-freedom advocates are concerned about.

#

Behind the doors of the Free Software Foundation

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 24.176.24.76] on August 29, 2008 05:14 PM
Nice way to gloss over the fact that the FSF has essentially failed to grasp the point that the only way free software will be perceived as a valid replacement for proprietary software is if it is a 1:1 replacement. gNewSense's latest release should prove that FOSS developer's time would be better spent at improving their software rather than wasting their time with the FSF. Especially considering that the FSF is run in a non-democratic manner.

Thankfully other organizations exist that realize this and don't attempt to have us all waste time as the defective by design campaign does.

#

Understanding the focus of the FSF

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 200.105.168.90] on September 02, 2008 01:09 AM
> gNewSense's latest release should prove that FOSS developer's
> time would be better spent at improving their software rather than
> wasting their time with the FSF.

The FSF originally did develop free software and did create a distribution to promote that software, but it has since decided to decided to focus on the structural, legal, and activist issues which weren't being done by other groups in the free software world.

Until the mid-90s, the FSF was dedicated to creating free software and it paid programmers to create the GNU Tools which are included in every distribution of GNU/Linux today. It also sponsored the creation of a distribution which would promote freedom. It was called Debian, and it initially attracted many developers because it was THE distribution sponsored by the FSF. Debian eventually decided to go its separate way when RMS demanded that Debian include debugging info in the software which slowed down execution and made the binaries much larger. For the first decade FSF was one of the principle organizations developing and promoting free software, but when Linux began to take off in the mid-90s, the FSF realized that its original mission to create a clone of UNIX had largely been accomplished. There were hundreds of different groups developing free software and many distributions to deliver it in a nice packaged form. Other groups and businesses were doing a great job of developing free software, so the FSF decided to focus on what wasn't being done by the other groups: namely, political, legal, and activist work. This shift was partly caused by the fact that the FSF was broke. When the FSF was one of the few organizations developing free software, it received a sizable amount of money to pay developers, but by the mid-90s, the rise of the comercial Linux companies dried up the contributions to the FSF. RMS might have been able to do what the Linux Foundations has done and gotten contributions from tech companies to continue software development, but his rhetoric and style scared off the corporate crowd with the deep pockets and many users stopped sending contributions to the FSF, asking why they should pay for development of free software when they can get it for free from companies like Red Hat. In addition, RMS was constitutionally unsuited for the role since he was a horrible project manager, a inadequate promoter and a very divisive figure.

The FSF decided to shift its focus from software development to the general promotion of free software and its values. In the end, we all benefitted from this decision. First of all, it helped decentralize and diversify development of free software since no one group controlled the movement. Plus, it allowed the FSF to focus on the political, legal and activist issues, which no other group was willing to do.

People who say that the FSF should focus on creating free software rather than talking about it and its values, should realize that that plenty of other groups today are focused creating free software (and do a much better job than the FSF ever did as software developers.) Rather than compete with all these different groups, the FSF wisely focuses on what isn't being done and helps to coordinate efforts of many different groups, so that the dream of the GNU Project can be realized. Today the FSF acts as the chief cheerleader and promoter for essential projects like coreboot and Gnash, which are the last pieces preventing people from using 100% free software in their computers. Likewise, the FSF publicly encourages people to use distributions which only include free software such as Ututo and GNewSense.

#

Behind the doors of the Free Software Foundation

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 70.91.34.61] on August 29, 2008 05:31 PM
Nice article, Bruce. It's nice to know how the FSF is structured and have a little more detail on the kind of things they do. I read the Emacs developers' list, and there's no doubt that Richard Stallman is still very much involved.

Regardless of how one feels about the FSF's philosophy (and I'm somewhat conflicted ) there is no denying that they have contributed immensely to the users' benefit.

#

Behind the doors of the Free Software Foundation

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 212.219.74.29] on August 29, 2008 06:56 PM
Has anyone ever, ever gotten a straight answer from licensing@fsf.org about GFDL queries? I have never even heard of an answer from them that isn’t their Magic 8-Ball imitation. “Reply hazy, read the license text and ask your own lawyer.” I've written asking about Wikipedia/Wikimedia-related questions. Our lawyer is Mike Godwin and he says it makes his head hurt. YOU WROTE THE DAMN THING. WHAT DID YOU MEAN? WHAT WERE YOU THINKING? ANSWER ME! - David Gerard

#

Re: Behind the doors of the Free Software Foundation

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 192.91.172.36] on August 29, 2008 09:24 PM
You fucking idiot, do you think they might tell you to consult your lawyer because the license says what it says and the judge isn't going to ask them what they were thinking when they wrote the license? Maybe? Yeah?

#

Behind the doors of the Free Software Foundation they also have a Staff Comedian

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 207.138.32.130] on August 29, 2008 08:06 PM
I heard this one from RMS himself!

"How are anarchists biologically different than citizens?"

The answer, ROT-13 encoded, is:

Vafgrnq bs univat n "cebfgngr" tynaq, gurl unir na "nagvfgngr" bar.

http://cackl.com/joke/view/595/How+are+anarchists+biologically+different+than+citizens

#

Behind the doors of the Free Software Foundation

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 60.241.42.37] on August 30, 2008 04:36 AM
Good article Bruce, thanks.

Just one small correction. Jeanne's surname is spelt Rasata, at least according to an email I received from her.

#

Behind the doors of the Free Software Foundation

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 71.188.245.175] on August 30, 2008 06:13 AM
"Nice way to gloss over the fact that the FSF has essentially failed to grasp the point that the only way free software will be perceived as a valid replacement for proprietary software is if it is a 1:1 replacement. gNewSense's latest release should prove that FOSS developer's time would be better spent at improving their software rather than wasting their time with the FSF. Especially considering that the FSF is run in a non-democratic manner."
Indeed I am not a fan of every part of the FSF. I am not participating or believing in most of the FSF campaigns, and I doubt coreboot is practical, but GPLv3 isn't that bad.

#

Behind the doors of the Free Software Foundation

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 75.131.172.157] on August 30, 2008 03:54 PM
Keep the doors closed. It just fuels material for site like www.promotinglinux.com

#

Behind the doors of the Free Software Foundation

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 66.26.91.67] on August 31, 2008 04:52 AM
I personally think its time for the FSF to squash these Linux distributors that bundle proprietary software with their distros. These distros have no place in the future of computing and just taking up valuable server space. Linux Mint, PCLinuxOS, Mandriva, gOS, Novell and the many smaller obscure distros need to be put on notice. Unbundle the proprietary software or the FSF will seek legal measures to make you comply. proprietary software is a violation of the GPL version 2 and version 3.

#

FSF is the reason that we have Free Software ecosystem again

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 98.172.26.6] on September 02, 2008 05:03 PM
The FSF is wonderful. No, Richard is not perfect--far from it!--but the organization that he started is why we have Free Software platforms like GNU/Linux or *BSD at all. I'm typing this on my newly installed CentOS box. I run Debian and OpenBSD on my SPARC boxes, as well as Yellow Dog on my Power Mac. I also run OpenBSD on my VIA C7 due to the C7's crypto engine (I'm pilot-testing a VPN gateway).

I couldn't do any of this without the FSF's hard work. They got the Free Software community started, and now millions of others have joined.

However, I disagree with the notion that one poster made about the FSF "squashing" Linux distributors that bundle proprietary software with their distros. First off, they can't "squash" anybody. The FSF will be among the first to tell you that such Linux distributors have the freedom--the right--to do that, so long as they don't violate any software licenses by doing so. However, they'll also explain why it's not good for you, long-term, to use such distros, and they'll ask you not to patronize such distros. Given the long-running issue with proprietary, secret/patented file formats and network protocols (think MSOffice and OOXML), the FSF have quite a good point there.

--SYG

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya