Slashdot Mirror
RMS Responds To Allchin's Comments
Thanks to Dan Gillmor for pointing out RMS' response to the commentary from Microsoft's Allchin recently. The comments are pretty normal for RMS - the delineation between Open Source and the Free Software Movement, and what the differences are, as well as his non-opinion of "intellectual property". I've been notified that this response was a draft of RMS' - we'll update it with the final when it's ready.
Richard Stallman writes: "The standard, free software version of Kerberos cannot communicate with Microsoft's modified Kerberos server."
a nn ing/security/kerbsteps.asp
I have a DECstation 5000/133 at home which was running NetBSD 1.5. (I'm now back to Ultrix 4.5)
I also have a Windows 2000 Server running Active Directory that I wanted to use as a Kerberos authentication server.
So I downloaded the latest Krb5 software from MIT's distribution site. I compiled this under NetBSD and installed the various binaries, etc.
I then went to Microsoft's site and read this document:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/library/pl
Which describes how to configure your Kerberos client to authenticate with a Win2k domain controller.
I sat back, opened a telnet session to the NetBSD box and successfully logged in to the box using my Win2k password.
This works, it works very well.
I'm planning to set my Sparcstation up to authenticate the same way, as well as my DECstation now running Ultrix.
Richard Stallman is wrong. The free kerberos can communicate with the Microsoft server.
Interesting. It never occurred to me before that the GPL is also an "embrace and extend" strategy. While RMS and Bill Gates seem to be polar opposites, they both play the game the same way -- Microsoft prefers that Microsoft code only play nice with other Microsoft code and RMS prefers that GPL code only play nice with other GPL code. Both hope to eventually conquer the entire software industry through network effects. The GPL uses viral licensing while Microsoft uses proprietary secrets, but it remains the same game, and Microsoft has been more successful at the game.
Does this make RMS hypocritical for criticizing Microsoft's "embrace and extend" practices while essentially playing the same game? His goals may be noble and selfless, but do the ends justify the means?
Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
The Open Source Movement is content to co-exist with proprietary software--that is why I do not support it. The Free Software Movement has a more ambitious goal, to replace proprietary software with free software that respects your freedom.
It should be clear from this paragraph that RMS is only interested in his own freedom, not your freedom. In particular, not your freedom to refuse to share.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
The Kerberos community was incensed when they saw this, but they had no way to stop it. Kerberos had been developed at MIT, and released as free software--but not under the GNU GPL. The lax license used for Kerberos was no bar to Microsoft's plans. If the Kerberos developers had released Kerberos under the GPL, Microsoft could not have undermined it in this way.
This doesn't make sense at all--Kerberos is an open protocol (RFC 1510), so how would GPLing one specific implementation prevent embrace-extend tactics? The worst that could happen is that Microsoft be declared non-compliant, but even that didn't happen because Microsoft was simply using bits specifically reserved for implementation-specific use.
This seems like such an obvious error, am I missing something?
--
Then, he throws the obligatory intentional misstatement: Why focus on the distinctions between open-source and free software? Allchin didn't address the distinction.... Pretty much guaranteed to draw a bevy of people screaming how Allchin explicitly drew the distinction between GPL and non GPL code and explained how it was only the GPL code that was Un-American.
Then, he employs the standard technique of quoting out of context, ala "I have no opinion 'intellectual property rights,' and if you are thoughtful you will have none either." Read the rest of that statement in the original story and you'll see what I mean.
The final part of Chuck's troll demonstrates his knowledge of the community he is trolling. In this case, he knows the /. geeks don't have much respect for the mental capacity of marketroids so he suggests Stallman, a mental giant, is not up to going toe-to-toe with marketers and executives.
I'd have to say, Chuck - you pulled out just about every trick in the book. And judging from the response, I'd say you succeeded.
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
"A few atoms won't even light a match" - Dr Jones, 1933
Although it pains me to agree with an M$ representative who is speaking in his company's commerical interests, I must agree with Allchin that free software and open source primarily clone existing user-facing commercial products rather than innovating in that space.
Tim
You know what? I hold RMS in the highest respect. If I had to choose one reason, this would be it: the Free Software Foundation is not a "pet-project" to him that was interesting for a few days and then faded to the back of his mind. He believes strongly in something, and he does what he believes. Ten years later, he is still doing what he believes.
I can't believe anyone would complain that:
I'd like to know, if the distinction between two philosophies is a "tired argument" then what exactly is Microsoft's argument? Every single sentence that comes out of that company includes the word "innovative." Well, if Microsoft is so innovative, why do their products suck so much? Why, in order to increase their profits, do they have to send lawyers after a free software community? This is, after all, what this story is all about. They want to damage the community in such a way that will benefit them. Is that what you call innovation?Let me tell you what I believe. Innovation is finding out what is better for the consumer and then delivering a solution that satisfies all involved parties. Innovation is raising yourself by climbing higher, not by pushing others down. Microsoft actually never rises. They only push others down and step on them harder and harder. They constantly destroy the software industry for their own benefit. In my opinion, if anybody is spouting a "tired argument," it is Microsoft claiming how innovative they are. They aren't.
Richard Stallman, I salute you for your efforts. Keep up the fight and never give up.
To think intelligently about copyrights, patents or trademarks, you must think about them separately. My views about copyrights are too complex to fit in this article, but one general principle applies: they cannot justify denying the public important freedoms. As Abraham Lincoln put it, "Whenever there is a conflict between human rights and property rights, human rights must prevail."
I have never heard any coder so frquently invoke the mythological heroes of the American nation.
orwell's 1984 would call this doubleplusgood duckspeaking, i.e. lots of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
It makes a lot of open sourcers and free software folks feel good about themselves and their movement, when, at least in a small part of their souls, they should be at least somewhat concerned that Allchin's offhanded, unprepared commentary got such widespread press coverage.
The great abolitionists of the 19th century used their wonderful oratory to combat slavers, whose crude cuss words and uncouth bribes beat the orators every time. They had to fight a war to work it out.
RMS has to directly take on Microsoft et al. I work with a third party and I will tell you, high-faluting speech about abe lincoln will not win that war. What will win that war is systemic, on message and practical stuff about pertinent American values- in this case, free enterprise.
Goat sex free since 2001
Everything you need to know in order to fully understand the RFC-complaint changes that microsoft made to their Kerberos implementation can be freely found online or in the MSDN materials. A good place to start would be here.
The changes microsoft made were to make kerberos understand the more flexible security model and ACL scheme in Win2K, and are not at all an attempt to embrace and extend. If you're running Win2K, the changes are crucial. If you're not running Win2K the changes are irrelevant, so they're not going to entice people to migrate away from the MIT implementation.
This is a misreading of what he said. He did not say he was against them. He said he had no opinion at all on them because the whole term is too encompassing for one opinion to cover all the things the term covers. He's right beyond a shadow of a doubt here.
I would say this one attempt to misread what he said casts a great deal of doubt on your ability to make even the vaguest stab at objectively judging his opinions.
I will agree with you that he trotted out the whole 'Open Source' vs. 'Free Software' thing again, and it wasn't particularily relevant in this case. A few of the things he said are relevant though.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
He mentioned their decision to embrace and extend Kerberos in Win2000. I thought that this was a particularly good choice because it showed:
An example of free software so innovative that Microsoft wanted to use it (scratch the "Free Software stifles innovation")
How a BSD-style license, which Microsoft advocated, let them take it and
How Microsoft then turned around and screwed the people who had written the software in the first place by deliberately destroying interoperability
I'd like a large serving of evidence and proof please.
Having hacked around the binaries of the MS Kerberos implementation, I can find no evidence that they've used any of the MIT implementation of Kerberos.
So what makes RMS so sure that it is using their source code? After all, the spec is out there online for anyone to implement for free. Why does he think they didn't do that?
Pretty strong claims to be making in public. Well, here's one in return -- Richard M. Stallman, You are a LIAR -- Back Up Your Claims.
Heck, I'll even challenge him to a one-legged arse kicking contest if he's interested.
Simon
Coming soon - pyrogyra
What salient points do you want RMS to discuss? As RMS never grows tired of stating, he is a representative of the Free Software Movement which is about freedom at all costs, while most people including yourself are members of the Open Source movement which is willing to compromise with closed source developers.
They're the responses of someone who's been spouting the same party line for the last twenty years and who will gladly and graciously take any opportunity to do the same anew. This isn't a criticism of the free software movement.
Yes, it is. You're so called tired party line is the ethos of the Free Software Movement. People like you and ESR are members of the Open Source Movement which RMS keeps pointing out in the article (did you read it all?), he is not a part off. The Free Software Movement is not about compromise it is about "Give me freedom, or give me death".
Finagle's First Law
Richard Stallman has to repeat his message because people are too daft to understand it. that Allchin doesn't get it is not very surprising, but that the open source hangarounds don't get it is downright disappointing.
if I were RMS, I'm not sure I would be so patient. I would probably blow up every now and then, when people don't bother to make the mental effort to understand exactly what he is talking about.
One very nice aspect of Stallman's commentary is that he provided a solid example of Microsoft's behavior relative to Free Software. He mentioned their decision to embrace and extend Kerberos in Win2000. I thought that this was a particularly good choice because it showed:
Having a nice solid example is a big step up from the generic rantings so popular on slashdot. Instead of "Microsoft wants a license that lets them swipe free software for their own ends", Stallman has shown that Microsoft has used more permissive licenses to swipe free software and screw existing users.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Did you actually read what he said, or were you just looking for a nice quote that you could use out of context to give you an excuse to say something nasty about him? If you had a shred of honesty you would have noted that the full context was:
He's not saying that he's against IP rights generally but that they're such a diverse issue that treating them as a monolithic concept is stupid. I'd say that's a very fair comment and shows that he has probably thought about the issue a lot more than most talking heads who blather about the necessity of protecting intellectual property in the media.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
to use the "Rebel Code" book mentioned elsewhere on yesterday's /.:
p.42:
"Though unwilling to release Linux, he [Linus Torvalds] was ready to mention its existence. On Sunday, 25 August 1991, under the subject line "What would you most like to see in minix?" he wrote in the comp.os.minix newsgroup:
...I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing since April..."
It was the Linux development process that was revolutionary... Linus released early and often, kept the other developers directly involved, inviting folks to freely add in anything they wanted (sometimes reworking the entire kernel rather than just bolting a feature on), and to fix bugs, etc. No other project (free or otherwise) moved/moves as quickly (even the long wait for 2.4 was not even close to "long" when compared to other project's dev. cycles, only "long" when compared to other Linux kernel releases...)
About the absence of a kernel for GNU, RMS was working (though not like Linus!) on the Hurd kernel at the time Linux was starting (again, the process was what made the difference... Linux kernel beat Hurd kernel because Linux was done first-- and done very well.)
Again, from Rebel Code:
p.44:
"Linus also pointed out something that would have been obvious to any hacker of the time, but which has become obscured as Linux has become more widely known. 'Sadly,' he writes, 'a kernel'-- which is what Linux is and always has been-- 'by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system you need a shell, compilers, a library, etc.' He then pointed out that 'most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft,' an early indication of the symbiosis of the two systems."
RMS started his kernel last because he first wanted tools that worked (or could be easily ported) on his machine, tools that you need to do any programming... his machine chip (and its assembly instuction set, and it's OS (!)) was already settled, so it made sense to battle AT&T (and Tanenbaum, for that matter) by first writing the tools that would allow a kernel to be written later.
I flee dead people.
<takes deep breath; exhales loudly> What's this got to do with anything? What part of "open source" don't you get? The source code of these programs is openly available and open to modify! Hence: Open. Source. Hello?! McFly?!
I figure you've got this mental image of "open source" as being the product of the übergeeky, hunched over their machines into the small hours, surrounded by a debris of fast food wrappers and mouldy styrofoam coffee cups. Open Source has nothing to do with this stereotype.
That these programs were developed by "private initiatives" and "corporate consortiums" (sic) is irrelevant. Whether these programs were written by the weird on extreme coffee jags or by 9-to-5 MIS minions in suits is irrelevant. Whether these developments were funded by large corporations or done on one's own dollar is irrelevant. The point is, they've made the source code publically available. These "corporate consortiums" have given something back to the community. They have put their money where their mouths are for open standards. They have not locked up their source code behind NDAs and attempted to pervert open protocols and justified this antisocial behaviour by claiming the right to "innovate" like Microsoft have done. These organisations should be applauded for their public spirit, not sneered at.
For this reason, I find it dispicable that companies, such as Microsoft, Sun, etc. would take an open source piece of software and release a proprietary version, often without even providing credit to the original developers. THis practice is plagerism, plain and simple and is a far greater threat to intellectual property than the GPL. But it is legal without the protection of the GPL.
Copyright laws do not exist to make Bill Gates, Steve Balmer, Jim Allchin, Larry Elison, and others as much money as possible. They exist for the purpose of encouraging expression of ideas. When code is copyrightten and kept secret, this is a serious misuse of copyright law and in some ways threatens the entire system. (Patents are another story.)
The GPL is about returning copyright law to its original intent-- the intent to share expression, and this ideal, I believe is one of the things that RMS referrs to in his article.
The software industry is still in its infancy, and this is why companies like Microsoft continu to profit on the upgrade cycle and why cusotmers continue to buy the products. Very profitable but not very sustainable.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Has anyone considered the possibility that RMS might just be an email bot with a web spider hooked up?
I mean, how hard could it be?
Grep the file for "Linux" and if there's X amount of "Linux"es in a certain context, fire off a slightly randomized rant about proper use of GNU/Linux.
Check for certain key words in any discussion FSF or open source, and then fire off a rant.
It couldn't be *that* hard.
Hell, I'm surprised there's no perl script out on the net which lets you auto-create an RMS response to any given statement.
If you release it under the GNU license (wait... he likes the GNU license, right?) he could even use it himself (assuming he exists at all) and save himself all *KINDS* of effort...
Hey, RMSBOT?
I am pro open source Linux, because it should be FREE as in beer, not free as in french revolution.
I like beer. I don't like guillotines.
pvh
"The wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." -- David Hume