Slashdot Mirror
RMS Cuts Through Some SCO FUD
sckienle writes "ZD-Net has a commentary by Richard Stallman about the SCO case against IBM, kind of. It does provide some history on what the GNU organization did to protect itself from such lawsuits. Favorite quote: 'Less evident is the harm it does by inciting simplistic thinking: [Intellectual Property] lumps together diverse laws--copyright law, patent law, trademark law and others--which really have little in common.'"
RMS sounds like a broken record. How many times do we need to hear the explaination of Linux and GNU/Linux?
He has an new and interesting take on the SCO cr@p too. It's here.
The simple truth is that interstellar distances will not fit into the human imagination
- Douglas Adams
I don't think there was much in that commentary that was actually relevant. Horn blowing about GNU/Linux - you know, RICHARD, most people building an OS START with the kernel, not the other way around. If Linus hadn't gotten something pulled together the FSF would still be wandering in the wilderness.
One good point
The Free Software Foundation's lawyer, Professor Moglen, believes that SCO gave permission for the community's use of the code that they distributed under the GNU GPL and other free software licenses in their version of GNU/Linux.
the kernel is still essential due to the high level of hardware support.. but hopefully if something would happen, the drivers get ported to other kernels..
For great justice, the GNU must survive!
- I choked on the red pill and now I'm stuck in limbo
RMS SCO FUD!!! Meltdown meltdown!!!
Slashdot, the site where everything's made up and the points don't matter
I can sum up the article in a few lines.
"We developed the whole GNU dealy so we wouldn't have to pay for software or go to jail for pirating it. I don't know what the dealy is with this SCO/IBM jazz, but we aren't responsible. Sic your ravenous dogs on somebody else. Oh, and I didn't say Linux is a copy of Unix."
Am I the only one who sniggered?
This obsession with the naming of the OS can seem a bit weird, I agree. But reading things like what you just wrote, "like he want's it to be known", really makes me understand how incorrect spelling/naming can annoy people!
While SCO's claims are certainly annoying, they don't pose much of a threat to the open source community since the code in question (if it exists and is ever revealed) can be removed.
Honk if you're horny.
I thought SCO's ancient unix sources where free to download?
I didnt really get what RMS said...but if RMS said it, it must mean something profound.
When Microsoft made it's licensing agreement with SCO, I then began to consider that the whole tone and nature of the SCO lawsuit was a FUD campaign to hurt OSS, subsidized but not directly linked to Microsoft.
I keep switching back and forth as to which I think it is. Of course, it might be both.
the GPL should be the only license EVER
he actually mentions that the GNU system runs on a couple of BSD kernels as a point of pride.
MORTAR COMBAT!
however, I am most curious to know what IBM's commentary will be. Will they just wait until SCO drags them to court, or will they try to prevent that from happening. It seems (of course the only info I have is the daily /. SCO dose) that IBM is not very active yet. There are two potential explanations for that behavior.
A) IBM knows that SCO has no case, and will stomp SCO when they feel like it.
or
B) IBM thinks that SCO may have a case, and is secretely preparing contingency plans on how to best resolve a potentially harmful and complex situation, thus needing a lot of time.
For the sake of all involved, I hope it is option A !
We also suggested design approaches that differ from typical Unix design approaches, to ensure our code would not resemble Unix code.
Hence, the infamous GNU indentation style.Wow....
who-da ever thought that RMS's paranoid-bordering-on-schitzophrenic obsessive ranting about words, language and semantics would have actually come in handy?
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
TLA = Three Letter Acronym.
You should know better than to have forgotten about that.
love,
RMS
I would like to see Richard Stallman write a piece that's relevant and express a thought without four paragraphs of text explaining why he is a very important person, and his organization is very important.
If you keep having to explain to people what the FSF and GNU are on about, then there might be something wrong with the message, not necessarily the messenger.
----
i do not use drugs, i AM drugs -- Dali
to GNUBICFS (Gnu's not unix but it's coming from SCO)
(sorry)
SCOs intent appears to be to widen the concept of a "derived work" to encompass eveything that behaves, looks or even smells like Unix.
If sucessful GNU software would not be immune. SCO actually claim that code written by 3rd parties is theirs if it's written to a Unix API...
They are a bunch of landgrabbing carpet-baggers.
I am the only one to wonder what RMS was doing during all those days of SCO FUD ? I mean i don't agree with all the things he says, but to me he has the key role of the gardian of the door, the "You shall not pass" man, damnit.
;)
So I expect him to defend the GPL, and not only with words...
Now I'll admit he can have some vacations like everybody , heh. Must be pretty tiring to be a full-time RMS
too bad we can't moderate RMS as off topic. most of this is just his petty little gnu/linux crusade. he doesn't even bring up SCO's code copying accuation until the 7th paragraph. he needs to get over it.
sure, GNU code is an important part of what we call linux. so is xfree86, but i don't here them whining about the xfree86/gnu/linux operating system. or what about gnome/kde/xfree86/gnu/linux. the most basic definition of "operating system" is "software that controls the execution of computer programs and may provide other services". the kernel qualifies. everything else is an add-on for usability.
anyway, it's pretty pathetic of RMS to use every single issue or topic to push his name agenda.
If for some reason all copies of the Linux kernel source code was wiped of the face of the earth tomorrow people would still be able to run a Free/Open operating system.
Sure there would probably be major setbacks. It might take another five years to get to the point were we are now but things would eventually get back to normal.
So RMS's statement that the Linux kernel is no longer essential is true.
I use Gentoo Linux and I love it. But if I _had_ to I could learn to live with a FreeBSD kernel. I know both Debian and Gentoo are working on getting there userland stuff working under a BSD kernel.
If the Linux kernel went away tomorrow it would be a real shame (understatement of the year) but it would not be the end of the world.
Some things are more important than an animated rat
I agree. While I'll admit that the GNU/Tools are an integral part, if not most, of Linux as a whole, RMS must realize that Linux (both kernel and name) brought a huge boost to GNU in general. The name is now ubiquitous. Furthermore, if Linux (the kernel) were to be removed, then GNU would be pushed back out of the mainstream. At least now it has a foothold. It would lose that without Linux. It would still exist, but to what end? It would be just another collection of utilities (BSD notwhithstanding). >
Who'd have thought that the filthy socialist hippy would be right?
:)
Um, that would a "filthy socialist GNU/hippy" to you, pal!
My journal has hot
If I had mod points now I would. What this article provides is a good attempt to cut throught the FUD and make clear that it's the kernel that's under attack, and that the term "IP" is very misleading. People commenting on SCO need to think more clearly, and explain more clearly, what the issues are, what the GPL claims etc. SCO and it's lawyers will try to muddy the waters at every turn, copyright is different from patents is different from ...
BTW, what is it with your critisism of the way RMS looks? When you've contributed enough to the community that people will care to listen to your opinion then you can have a little picture of you posted next to your articles and we can all have a good laugh about the way you look.
development.lombardi.com
You have to admire his persistence with the GNU/label, but I would have to disagree with one of the statements:
"Linux itself is no longer essential"
Which is just egotistical masturbation, the very nature of OSS/FS at this moment in time is focused around Linux almost exclusively in terms of press and business marketing, GNU/hurd or anything else right now could in no way compete with anything Linux has achieved, in terms of market share, popularity and rate of growth.
Not that I don't appreciate what GNU has done, and will continue to-do, it's just that Linux is essential to the community, and OSS in general, hence the amount of heated debate.
ok, lets try to make sense of a few interesting facts and see if we can find an explanation:
1) MS hates Linux (it is a 'cancer')
2) MS licensed some code from SCO, granting some force to SCO's claims and giving them more money to pursue their lawsuit against IBM
3) SCO will not produce the evidence prior to the case - the offensive Linux code will be kept under wraps until trial time
I think that MS and SCO want to spread FUD for as long as possible, knowing full well that this case won't get anywhere. Even if they do win in court, they are withholding the offensive code because they know once they present it, the Linux community will up and change it. If they were to present it now, Linux can move merrily along (though IBM may still be liable to damages). They want to hurt the GNU/Linux movement for as long as possible though.
smd4985
Please RMS get off the GNU/Linux soapbox. Yes GNU tools are in Linux. But then I use GNU tools on my XP box so should I call it GNU/Windows.
RMS did not invent open source or free software. The first programer that offered to give his code to a friend did and it has been going on ever since.
So I guess I should call the OS on my Linux box. GNU/XWindows/Apache/KDE/OpenOffice/Mozilla/LINUX?
What RMS has fame envy. He feels that poor GNU has been forgoten. We like our GNU tools but this whole stamping of feet and chanting "GNU/LINUX" makes RMS look silly. His chance to do something positive was wasted by his little lecture on GNU/LINUX. Most non technical people will say, "Wow Linux must really have IP problems they stole GNUs code as well".
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
This is how it's going to be settled : IBM sends grim looking men in black suits to SCO, and a representative named "Smith" (who looks oddly familiar) confronts Darl Mcbride.
Smith: As you can see, we've had our eye on you for some time now, Mr. Mcbride. It seems that you've been living...two lives. In one life, you're Darl McBride, CEO of what used to be a respectable software company, you have a social security number, you pay your taxes, and you help your landlady carry out her garbage. The other life is lived in lawsuits, where you go around accusing everyone that they are guilty of virtually every computer crime we have a law for. One of these lives has a future, and one of them does not. I'm going to be as forthcoming as I can be, Mr. McBride. You're here because we need you to cut it out. We know that you think you can get your ailing company to be bought out. Now whatever you think you know about intelluctual property laws is irrelevant. You actions are considered by the open source community to be the annoying and disruptive. My colleagues believe that I am wasting my time with you but I believe that you wish to do the right thing. We're willing to wipe the slate clean, give you a fresh start and all that we're asking in return is your cooperation in dropping your stupid lawsuits against IBM.
Darl: Yeah. Wow, that sound like a really good deal. But I think I got a better one. How about I give you the finger... and we see you in court.
Smith: Um, Mr. Mcbride. You disappoint me.
Darl: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap. We own UNIX IP rights. I want my lawyer.
Smith: And tell me, Mr. Anderson, what good is your IP rights... if your company has violated so many of our patents.
(Smith drops a huge pile of legal papers on the desk with a thud)
Smith: You're going to help us, Mr. McBride whether you want to or not.
(Darl screams hysterically)
"Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
F*&^*. Someone take Stallman into a corner and beat him about the head with the clue stick. His zealous campaign to have his pet project - GNU - put over anything that even smells of free software was tired long ago.
Who gives a sh!t about what the name is? We are getting to the point where key IT decision makers know of and want Linux. Don't confuse the issue with a bunch of idealogs ranting about the computing equivalent of how many angels can stand on the head of a pin.
To RMS - get a life, and do something useful again.
http://www.sec.gov/complaint.shtml
/ os/lin ux/story/0,10801,81495,00.html
l inux.h tml
SCO's Stock Plot
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics
What SCO Wants, SCO Gets
http://www.forbes.com/2003/06/18/cz_dl_0618
No, Linux is a kernel. You are a piece of shit. Learn the difference.
I actually thought the other SCO news today was more interesting: SCO may audit IBM AIX customers.
How do SCO want to use the discovery process> Darl said: "We get to really shake things up". I don't know what was in Darl's mind when he said that, but I assumed (I'm not a lawyer though!) that discovery was supposed to be about collecting evidence not shaking up IBM's customers. I'm also unclear (the sentence doesn't parse) what Darl means by using discovery as a "vehicle" - again I thought discovery was supposed to be about collecting evidence prior to the case, not used for some other purpose. Anybody care to comment??
There are also some more Darl (longer quotes in more context) on the same subject here.
You, know I reallly wish there was a:
-5 : They asked me to
Moderation option...
Combination - fun iPhone puzzling
I note he didn't use GNU/NetBSD?
Had you actually tried to understand RMS's message, you'd have noticed that in the two instances he mentioned *BSD in this article, he was talking about the Kernel only - had he talked about the whole system, I'm quite sure he'd have used GNU/*BSD.
I really don't understand people here raving about RMS, he does have a clear position and is consistent with his beliefs - much more than can be said about most other people. I've seen him at FOSDEM in Brussels, where he made an excellent impression IMHO.
How much do you wanna bet that RMS is secretly hoping the SCO's suit against IBM prevails, so that no one will touch the Linux kernel with a ten foot pole.
At that point, RMS steps in and says, "No problem, just install the HURD kernel, and continue on..."
That entire article was basically RMS saying, "But it's only the linux _kernel_, not the system. If you put our kernel in, you are O.K."
So much for defending _all_ GPL software.
I don't have a sig...Do you??
Who gives a rat's ass about the proper usage of GNU/Linux? This guy deserves a beating. Reminds me of the one nerd in every BBS that corrected every post with a standard refrain "It's not 2400 baud, it's 600 baud. You guys who confuse baud with bits/second amuse me." - then jerked off to ASCII art.
[Intellectual Property] lumps together diverse laws--copyright law, patent law, trademark law and others--which really have little in common.'"
This is true, but in each case "intellectual property" is still a dishonest concept. With Trademarks - it is dishonest, because most trademark violations could better be covered under fraud laws where cases like suing people for painting a mickey mouse on the preschool walls is much less likely. But going after someone who claims to be IBM when they're not is still just as possible.
Copyrights and patents monopolies are dishonest applications of property all together. Both of them restrict what others can do because "I don't have an incentive!". That is a fraud, perhaps I don't have an incentive to grow potatos unless I can rip up your yard and plant some too, perhaps I don't have an incentive to process cotton unless I can own slaves on the plantaion. This kind of logic has resulted in countless murders and atrocities for centuries. I challenge anyone to prove that they have a moral right to restrict what inventions and creative works people can copy and immitate.
I know you received the rating of flamebait. But somehow I have to agree with you. From the various commentaries that he has made I get the REAL feeling that he is actually enjoying this.
HE REALLY goes out of his way to point out that GNU does not have the problems that the LINUX kernel does. Well he is going to be REALLY surprised because SCO has made comments that they might go after the BSD's as well.
Is RMS right? I think not. If it was not LINUX, then it would have been FreeBSD, and if not that then [Fill in OS here]. Why? Because Linux has the momentum and it pisses SCO off. Essentially this is what it is about. SCO thinks they own UNIX and they are pissed that they are going to go bankrupt!
He in a way is as dangerous as SCO because he is not exactly proping up Linux or IBM! And that makes me more nervous that anything else. Because at this point in time we need to come together and focus and eradicate this problem. Not talk about how GNU will never die, BLAH, BLAH... But at least we have ESR!
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
I love the way everyone who gets into this fiasco brings their own agendas to it! For RMS this is just another chance to explain why "Linux" isn't an operating system, only "GNU/Linux" is an operating system... The difference between SCO and Stallman is essentially the audience that they are bringing their agendas to, not the opportunistic way that they force their agendas into any situation that might benefit them.
Stallman the coder is a man to be respected. Stallman the politician really needs to go away and stop hurting the cause he claims to care so much about.
Until then, I insist everyone refer to him as "MIT/Stallman" and his project as "MIT/GNU" since he wouldn't be where he is now without the space, time, and other resources that MIT has given him over the years.
For short, just call the OS "MIT/Linux", since "MIT/GNU/Linux" to too long. After all, that's why he says that we shouldn't bother calling it "GNU/X/BSD/Apache/MIT/CMU/DEC/HP/Sun/IBM/Red Hat/SuSE/Slackware/Debian Linux". Of course, that's just an abbreviation. The correct name lists all of the contributors and their curren email addresses as well. Credit where credit is due, after all!
I'm going back to my MIT/Linux system now to get some work done!
...but who will cut through RMS's GNU FUD?
I'm sick of the guys' posturing. Why can't he just let go?
I propose to rename GNU/Linux to GSD Linux, as in "GNU Software Distribution".
GNURMSSCOOSSFSFMSIBMBSDFUD
Sweet - more acronyms. I didn't add spaces because the PHB won't use them right either. Now back to my XMLEJBFOOAPP.
If only I had learned to write BAR instead of just FOO I would be a real programmer. sigh
Don't agree to the license... It's a trap. You'll have to agree to their license, and you'll then have a contract with SCO. SCO has already stated that breach-of-contract was stronger than general copyright infringement... They just want more people to sue...
Looking for any old 8-bit Heathkit/Zenith software/hardware - http://heathkit.garlanger.com
For some reason I see Stallman wanting to get in on this because he's Stallman and that's what he does. No one really cares, henec why ZDNet is the only one carrying his rant.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Also, the ethics thing. Who is he to tell me what is morally/ethically right or wrong?
Random is the New Order.
copyright law, patent law, trademark law and others--which really have little in common.
They have lots in common. All three were designed to force the properties of materials on information so it could be owned and exchanged in a capitalistic society just like other goods. All three attempt to drive a square peg through a round hole, and all three are ultimately impossible to enforce because information just won't accept the awkward attributes that governments attempt to assign to them.
Allow me to go out on a limb. I'm not claiming to know what the next big thing in Linux will be. I'm thinking of what will arrive by, say, 2006: Operating Systems.
OK, I've stated the obvious, right? No, not really.
I either smuggly smirk or bury my head in my hands when Linux Evangelists state that Linux is an OS. It's a kernel. FreeBSD is an OS. Debian is an OS. Gentoo is an OS. It happens that Debian and Gentoo run the same kernel, and a different kernel than FreeBSD.
In other words, the emphasis is going to shift away from what Linus, et. al., are doing with Linux to what others are making from Linux.
Why? The Linux kernel is a groovy, funky piece of technology, and it's the heart of a movement. But hearts don't live outside of rib cages. Kernels don't run without OS's. Companies don't migrate high-end, mission critical servers to OS's that barely run the super-fast kernel beating at its center. They want -- scratch that, they need a full OS that does the job. Whether the kernel is trendy or not doesn't matter in the end.
FreeBSD has shown that a free, stable, solid Unix-like OS system is possible. If not for its license (sorry, BSD license lovers), it might have stood a chance at the top spot in the Free OS world. Debian and Gentoo have shown the first real movement toward something like a complete OS on the Linux side, especially Debian. Deb was first, and it's still around, but it's stodgy to the point of ridiculousness (from the POV of a power user). Thank God for Gentoo.
Sure, Gentoo may not be ready for mission critical servers simply because it offers you the latest, untested code. But power users get their candy and their popped-up engine. And how sweet it is.
For anything that must stay up, that's when Debian wins points for its stodginess. And here's the kicker: you get to choose your kernel.
This is the development that turned on the little light-bulb that floats above my head. This is the future of Linux.
Think about it: Debian runs on the Linux kernel, the Hurd kernel (no chuckling, please), and the NetBSD kernel. So, which OS runs on the most hardware in the world?
Debian! (10 points.) What does this mean? That we're moving away from a kernel-centric universe. It's not which kernel to choose from, it's which OS. A savvy sysadmin can just install Debian everywhere, choosing the kernel that fits the situation. The key phrase won't be: "I must run Linux." It will be: "I must run Debian." Choosing the kernel will secondary to getting the right OS. I doubt it will be long before Debian is joined in this effort by Gentoo or a similar project
So, how does an OS-centric universe differ from a kernel-centric? For one, Richard Stallman might get the recognition he feels has been wrongly given to Linus. For another, "GNU" will be just as important a word as "Linux", which again will make RMS a much happier camper. On a technical level, the emphasis will shift from the sophomoric question of "Do you run Linux?" to "Which OS do you run?" Debian with a 2.2 Linux kernel. Debian with NetBSD. Gentoo with a development kernel. FreeBSD, modified with OpenBSD security, running a NetBSD kernel. Whatever. Hackerdom may offer near unlimited possibilities.
The point is, the whole OS will finally be greater than the sum of its parts. Watch for the Linux kernel to lose prominence (slightly) as OS's that offer specific features (stability, the latest-and-greatest, etc.) begin to move to the forefront of user consciousness. Watch for a port of Gentoo to include a non-Linux kernel; watch for Debian to support a fourth kernel; watch for a commerical product that produces custom OS's based on Free and Open Source software that emphasizes the Linux kernel without excluding other options.
Yes, Linux Evangelists will kick and scream, but for the wrong reasons. If this scenario comes to pass, the world will be filled a much better breed operating systems than we have now.
Linux itself is no longer essential: the GNU system became popular in conjunction with Linux, but today it also runs with two BSD kernels and the GNU kernel.
- RMS, June 23, 2003
Nice to beat RMS to the punch.
RMS:
... shit."
"Hey guys. look at me! I'm over here! Come pester me, not that stupid old Linus guy. Forget IBM, it's all about me."
"I'll knock you down a peg if you would just PLEASE-OH-PLEASE-OH-PLEASE validate my existence by attacking me. It is GNU not Linix!"
"Won't anyone listen to me?
Mod RMS: -1 Troll
Heh. You could show me this article without the copyright notice, and I'd tell you immediately who wrote it. :-)
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
BTW, what is it with your critisism of the way RMS looks? When you've contributed enough to the community that people will care to listen to your opinion then you can have a little picture of you posted next to your articles and we can all have a good laugh about the way you look.
I found a decent picture of him here
"Quoting famous computer scientists out of context is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming." - K
Standing up for your beliefs and acting like a total loon are not mutually exclusive.
I have a lot of respect for RMS and the FSF (having used GNU tools before Linux was around). The man has his ideas and stands by them, no matter what.
But this (GNU/Linux) is one idea that is just way off base for reasons that have already been said a zillion times.
Then suddenly my world gets put upside down with RMS responding against SCO. Now what? Should I side with SCO because nothing good comes out of RMS's mouth? Should I side with RMS and his GNU/Linux FUD that fragments the OSS community?
I'm confused!
<grub> Reading
If people like you'd just start admitting that he's right and that GNU, like Linux, is an important part of GNU/Linux systems, and that FSF did do a lot for the whole OSS community, he wouldn't have to repeat it over and over again.
And I don't really like your remark about "filthy" socialists. I'm guessing you're from the US, but where I live, it's still considered normal to have political ideals - we're at least far away from calling it "filthy". This isn't meant to be a flamebait, but I DO feel offended, and I felt I had to let you know, cuz well, I don't like that.
Indeed. It's one of the only things I've seen that approaches the stupidity of people who go on and on about the hacker/cracker "problem". There is no problem. The majority decided on a usage standard. Just because Joe Geek doesn't agree doesn't make him right.
I've known RMS peripherally for years, and I am constantly impressed by him. From first hearing about the GNU project, to this article, I find him an inspiration for anyone who wants to do the right thing, and keeps on until it's done. Sometimes I don't agree with him, but I have to respect his opinion none the less.
The world is a bit better place because of RMS.
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
has anyone else noticed that RMS looks somewhat like a young Jimmy Page ?
The problem is they didn't boost GNU in general, Linux boosted OS in general.. which really is not the same as Free Software. Stallman has all these years tried to put more attention to the ideals he and others made GNU for, instead of the stuff Linux stands for, and I can't blaim him for that. I would too if my life's work'd be used to do something you don't agree with.
1. standard RMS history lesson/rant about terminology
2. admission that he can't really comment on the SCO case, because he doesn't know the details
3. make broad claim about hypothetical cases *like* SCO, and what *he* thinks should happen
Accept I think it is fair to say that in this particular situation the fact that GNU stands for GNU's Not Unix is relevant in light of the fact that SCO accuse rms of stating that "Linux is a copy of Unix".
I think rms's article, while not amazingly enlightening, did help to underline the point that Unix is a complete operating system and Linux is only part of one. I consider this point to be important as companies like Microsoft and sco often use vague and ambiguous language in their campaigns of fud. It is just as important to distinguish GNU from Linux as it is to distinguish trademark law and copyright law. Rms is right in what he says because companies like sco like to use confusion to their advantage, to confuse one set of laws with another unrelated set of laws, one lump of software with another. Their aim is to create doubt about the future of GNU/Linux and make money in the progress, ambiguous language helps them to do this.
Yah, the world could live w/o North America. And the galaxy could live without humans on earth and so on and so on.
Sure, it would suck for those of us who live here if there were no North America, but we're not the center of the universe. As much as I like the Linux kernel, it too is just a smaller piece of the bigger picture.
How is that relevant to the factual basis of his statements? rms uses specific language and terminology because he knows this frames the debate and underlying assumptions to best make his case. This is no different from any other PR message. That you dislike his looks (which is a personal matter) makes little difference to the debate at hand (other than as a smear).
rms is certainly a quirky character, with idiosyncrasies that some may find offensive. But any fair observer must agree he has worked his ass off building and creating that which he fervently believes is ethically right. I believe this deserves honest credit. Anyone who uses GNU software should thank him and the FSF for the hard work they've accomplished. And if you disagree with his stated opinions and assumptions, say so. I certainly won't use the term GNU/Linux, whatever he may think. But I thank him just the same.
Cheers,
--Maynard
GNU's Not Unix
Can't get much simpler then that.
I would too if my life's work'd be used to do something you don't agree with.
You mean freedom is a two edge sword? Who would have thought?
Well said, Thanks.
Acquiescence leads to obliteration
I'll grant that I wasn't really around much in the early 90's, so I can't speak from the first-person in regards to what he's talking about. I would guess that Linux Torvalds really didn't think one thing or another about GNU when he wrote the first Linux kernel. He probably approved of it, but I don't remember reading anywhere in his initial post in 1991 (or 92?) that his brand-new kernel was developed specifically so GNU could be complete.
GNU and Linux may have grown up together, but they weren't born in the same house... or even in the same neighborhood. Linux became popular practically IMMEDIATELY. GNU's still kinda working on it.
About your rant about filthy socialists... Um... RMS looks filthy, and from his past remarks, he tends to be socialist. The parent's comment was 100% accurate. At no point did he say that all socialists were hippies, or that all filthy people were socialists. I know quite a few filthy SOB's that aren't socialists. He also didn't say (per se) that socialism was bad, even though historically, there's never been a country that survived for very long in socialism.
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
I note he didn't use GNU/NetBSD?
RTFM. I agree, though, that I have better things to do with my time than pedantic semantics (rhyme not intended).
I know you were joking, but I want my Karma, so I'm going to reiterate your post in a serious tone.
RMS sez : Linus Torvalds made his kernel, Linux, free software. Others combined GNU and Linux to produce the first complete free operating system, GNU/Linux.
Doesnt BSD count?
.ACMD setaloiv siht gnidaeR
I find it interesting that for a while I heard little to nothing from the FSF about the whole SCO-incident. It occured to me that they must be using the same tactics as the IBM legal team, for what are now becoming obvious reasons. SCO really wants to make noise, publicity cannot be bad for them, only good. /. to vent that anger and tell about the injustice. Most people here /can/ understand what you are talking about, and will agree. The (manager) person you will be talking to will NOT. He will think there's something to it since even you seem to get worked up about it, and will start reading the FUD out there, giving SCO exactly what they want, free publicity.
/not/ a "practical" one, and thus, that whatever might happen to linux, GNU can continue without it (although I truly hope that will never happen).
/do/ have some insight into such matters. They will indeed see throught the smoke and mirrors that SCO have made with huddling together everything under the term UNIX-IP, trying to misdirect everyone. So in court they won't stand a change. Unfortunately, they don't need to win inside a court to win, they can win outside by smearing linux and getting free publicity. If you care about GNU/Linux, it's up to you and me to make sure they don't stand a chance outside court as well. So, if anyone asks, shrug your shoulders, and act like a member of the general public... "SCO who ?"
People who buy stocks can and will not understand the issue at hand. All they know is they hear the name SCO alot in the news, so something must be going on.
You should help fight this too. If someone of who you know that he/she is not technical asks about SCO (since, well you seem to talk alot about linux and they have something to do with the matter too it seems), shrug, and tell them 'Isn't that some lawyer company trying to pull a scam on IBM', do NOT start talking about IP,copyright, rights to the source code etc.... Come here to
I can see the replies coming in already 'How often can RMS rehash the same old story','I'll call linux whatever I want it','RMS is such a zealot','I don't know RMS but I'll whine anyway'.
Thanks to people like RMS we HAVE a system such as GNU/Linux. It's easy to have critique, but I think very few of us were sleeping "at the office" 20 years ago coding to make a better world.
His strict "zealotry" has made sure that at this moment it is almost certain that the GNU project is clean, since it written from an ethical perspective
Obviously it is very important to re-re-re-rehash the same old story over and over again, since people still don't get it. A bigger percentage of the slashdot crowd might, but "normal" people don't. To them it should be explained, nice and easy, what the difference between GNU/Linux and Linux is,and what exactly the word "free" entails when it comes to software. Ignorance breeds fear, and fear leads to free FUD and rising stocks.
RMS doesn't need to call it GNU/Linux for his own personal ego. He is already a known icon. He is asking, not telling, you to honour the thought of freedom that stands behind the GNU-os, and also to honour his co-workers at the GNU foundation, and try to put them into the spotlight a bit more.
I for one, am gratefull he spoke up, even against what I just advised here. I , in fact, did need a reminder that when people start throwing terms together in the word IP they usually don't know what they are talking about. I'm not a lawyer, and don't know exactly how all the assets like copyright, patents etc.. work, but fortunately most judges
If all else fails, just remember, "GNU's not UNIX", and build your own little green rosetta.
I believe that Sun may have more to gain from SCO FUD than M$. SCO even made comments were even M$ OSes may have violated its IP by have trace of UNIX-likeness. SCO stated that Sun is only one who is free and clear from any future law suit, the fact that Sun itself like to flaunt. Think about it.
At first, Sun bashed Linux. When it seemed like Linux was here to say, they decided to praise it and started producing Linux products. After the SCO law suit, Sun jumped on the SCO FUD bandwagon and pushed its products over Linux and AIX as the safe alternative. Iâ(TM)ve decided that from now on, Iâ(TM)ll trust Sun as much as Iâ(TM)ll trust M$.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
What's that? 80 lines of infringing code?! Quick, replace the linux kernel *entirely* with the Hurd!!
I wonder if RMS would be willing to swap out the entire GNU system if a Ctrl-Meta-Compose option in EMACS turned out to be infringing someone's copyright/patent...
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
By the way, here's what I was talking about. The guy is obsessed with words.
Now, I can understand why a lot of you might think that he's nuts for continuing to rant on and on about the same 15 things over and over, but step back and read this page for a minute.
He has a point.
There is far too much slop and inprecision in the common language, and that breeds sloppy imprecise reasoning. It's one of the really big reasons why we have lawyers and marketroids in the first place, let alone explaining why they have been so successful.
You can think he's nuts if you want to, but words mean things; they carry momentum and inflection, and they guide your perception and expectations. As expert participants in a medium (the Internet, for those of you who are metaphorically challenged) that has really little to do with anything beyond raw, unadulterated communicative horsepower, that you should be able to at least apreciate that about him!
P.S. Plus, I'd rather be considered a user than a consumer anyday.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
It's just the standard FSF press release with "SCO" pencilled in. He barely even mentions SCO except to use it as the latest example of why everyone else in the world is a cretin for confusing GNU and Linux.
Did you even read the article?
If so, you are being profoundly obtuse, perhaps deliberately so, or perhaps merely so blinded by your hatred of Richard Stallman that you cannot see past your own prejudices and comprehend what he actually wrote.
Richard Stallman has always been a stickler for licenses and for nomenclature. His entire GNU/Linux v. Linux crusade boils down to nomenclature: he is a pendant about differentiating between one projecct (the linux kernel) and another (the GNU system of utilities and programs that makes up the rest of what we consider a basic *nix-like operating system). Right or wrong, his entire GNU/Linux bit is about clarity, the antithes of the 'newspeak' you accuse him of speaking, newspeak epitomized by terms such as "intellectual property" and nearly all of the drivel eminating from Redmond and Utah.
Indeed, his entire article is about clarity with respect to the $CO nonsense, and how that clarity requires a clear, concise, and above all accurate use of language to be achieved.
He is absolutely correct in pointing out that, outside of the court room, $CO's entire strategy is one of muddying the waters and playing up anti-freedom stereotypes ('free software developers' == 'napster', i.e. giving away your own work == violating the copyrights of others, etc.). Their press releases constantly mix up trademark law ($CO does not own the UNIX trademark, the Open Group does), copyright law (Novell and IBM appear to own the copyrights in question), patent law (Novell and IBM again own the patants in question, not $CO), and contract law under one heading: "Intellectual Property."
RMS is absolutely correct in emphesizing that muddy language leads to muddy thinking, and with respect to $CO, using muddy terms such as "IP/Intellectual Property" and throwing all kinds of radically different legislative regimes into one pot inevitably plays into the hands of those who seek to sow confusion, fear, uncertaintly, and doubt, namely Microsoft and their current lackey, $CO.
He is correct in pointing out that this irresponsible misuse of terminology is getting us into trouble, and being used by $CO's propogandists masterfully. He is also right to point out that much of the confusion as to what part of the operating system (the linux kernel, other utilities, or what have you) were being targeted result from an obfuscation between was in Linux (the kernel) and what is not (the GNU system, xfree, etc.).
In short, he is right, our use of language is important if we wish to discuss and think about issues as complex as these in a coherent manner, and your ad homonem attack doesn't change that in the least.
And since his article deals with the importance of clarity in the use of language when discussing and dissecting the $CO FUD campaign, no one should be surprised that he isn't discussing free v. open or the GNU community as such, since that particular tangent is off topic for this discussion (and obviously brought up by you for the sole purpose of propogating negative stereotypes about the man and his views).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Now that Gnu/Linux is an international business force, playing with all the Greedy Trolls who make a capitalist world work, you better get used to playing by their rules. Linux will be involved in all sorts of legal wranglings as long as it is a big time product in a who knows how many billions a year industry.
You probably can't even be a major player in the paper clip industry, be doing business with the Mega Corporations, and avoid legal wranglings. It is just part of the landscape. All the chit chat about right and wrong makes lacks meaning in this environment
The point is missed in alot of these articles. The Big Trolls dont care about Linux one way or another, except as how it affects their products, cash flow and power. Gnu/Linux/BSD etc and its descendants will do just fine. They are based on revolutionary ideas that cannot be put back in the bottle. People that are involved in this software for business reasons need to worry. People who are in it for the love of great ideas are already pretty much immune from the legal proceddings.
HenryJamesFeltus.com
Whats this GNU crap doing on my system then? I just want Linux damnit!
Stallman talks like he had this fully functional operating system without a kernel. If by this he means he had some text editors and stuff, sure. But to call that an operating system is a bit rich. In other words, a car without an engine or a transmission isn't a car.
Furthermore, I hate to tell him, but not everything in a Linux distro is GNU. Just because someone GPL's some software doesn't make it GNU-made. Additionally, there's a lot of BSD-licensed code in the kernel. So if nothing else, shouldn't it be BSD/GNU/Linux?
Don't get me wrong, GNU's written some great software (I love GRUB), but when his answer to any question starts with three paragraphs of the GNU/Linux thing, it's hard to take him seriously sometimes. Makes you wonder why he does what he does.
And no, this isn't a troll, just a serious question.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
SCO is one of many member organizations comprising UnitedLinux. The other companies in this mix should abandon SCO. If they don't, they are implicitly supporting SCO. This includes SuSE, Conectiva, and TurboLinux.
I not only refuse to patronize SCO, I refuse to support any organization who's affiliation with SCO bolsters their cause.
Darl McBride should go to jail.
--Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
He sure did, but that wasn't a very creative failure post. Maybe you could be the failure lymmerick guy since there is already have a failure haiku guy.
something like:
you're such an mf'ing queer
you couldn't first post in a year
you'll try till you die
in a lake of fire you'll fry
because satan isn't a fan of fail'iers
(a little poetic license on that fail'iers thing to make it fit, but I think the true trolls of Slashdot could forgive it.
I think a lot of people are missing the point. Yes, RMS has said all of those things before. But this case demonstrates why it is important. Free software users on slashdot know the difference in GNU and Linux (I hope), but corporations do not. Therefore, a company that uses GNU/Linux on an Enterprise level may overeact and go back to proprietary software. They don't realize the problem is with one specific part of their OS.
And as he points out in the column, it can now be replaced, if the situation were irreconcilable. I think the point of his article is that Free Software is bigger than this case and will continue.
I think he did a fairly good job of writing that without saying "I told you so" about proprietary companies.
-t
http://unmoldable.com W:"No one of consequence" I:"I must know" W:"Get used to disappointment"
The reason he doesn't insist on GNU/NetBSD is that the BSDs are based on a codebase that was originally UNIX.
.tar.gz, IIRC, and I'm sure other distros allow you to install a bare-bones system as well). Hell, throw in the compiler as well.
Back when AT&T owned UNIX, some of the UNIX source was released freely, and the rest was rewritten by the educational community and released freely as well.
BSD (Berkeley Standard Distribution, as in the University of California at Berkeley, as I recall) is UNIX-based, through and through, since it derives heavily from "UNIX", which at the time was the OS owned by AT&T.
The BSDs "forked" from UNIX proper, and later branched into Open, Net, FreeBSD, et. al.
In the early 1980's, RMS (among others) realized that since UNIX was a commercially owned and controlled OS, certain freedoms were lost. In order to prevent this from being a future limitation, he started GNU, which, again, means GNU's Not UNIX.
GNU includes much more than just GCC -- such as the standard command-line utils (GNU textutils, binutils, ls, sed, etc. are used by most [all?] distributions of operating systems using Linux as their kernel, for instance). Much of the base system, which other programs depend on to run (this includes the C library itself, a central part of any UNIX-like system).
GNU's software includes everything that a UNIX-like OS needs, except for a kernel. That's the "Linux" part.
Now, again, the BSDs came from UNIX (so, BSD Was UNIX, you could say). This includes the BSD kernels, libraries, and command-line utilities.
The only GNU major component that the BSDs use is GCC.
RMS doesn't insist on GNU/NetBSD for the same reason that nobody insists on calling it DevStudio/Windows XP -- it'd be idiotic, since an OS is much more than just the compiler which built it (which is NetBSD's relation to GNU tools). He insists on GNU/Linux because GNU is the operating system proper, and Linux is the kernel on which it runs. Insisting on calling it GNU/Linux is like insisting that Apple call their OS "MacOS" or "MacOS/BSD" instead of just "BSD" -- there's much more to an OS than the kernel, and it wouldn't make sense to call Apple's newest OS "BSD" just because of the kernel itself.
If you really, really don't think that GNU is that important, go install a base installation of your favorite "Linux-based" distro (Debian's base system is roughly 15 MB worth of
Now, look at exactly what is installed. How much of it is GNU? Here's a quick list utilities which contain either an "@gnu.org" email address or an FSF copyright notice in their --help output on a Debian-based router that I administer:
[ a2ps aclocal aclocal-1.5 addr2line ar as autoconf autoheader autom4te automake automake-1.5 autopoint autoreconf autoscan autoupdate awk basename bash bashbug bc bison build-prc c++ c++filt card cat catchsegv cc cg_annotate chgrp chmod chown cksum cmp comm cp cpp csplit cut date dch dd df diff diff3 dir dircolors dscverify du echo env expand expr factor false find fixps flea fmt fold g++ gawk gcc gccbug gcov gdb gencat getconf getent gettext gettextize git gitaction gitkeys gitmount gitrgrep gitunpack glibcbug gnut gpg gpgsplit gpgv gprof grep grep-excuses groff groups gunzip gzexe gzip head hindent hostid i386-linux-cpp i386-linux-g++ i386-linux-gcc iconv id ifnames igawk info infobrowser infokey install join ld ldd libtool libtoolize link ln locale localedef locate logname ls make makeinfo md5sum.textutils mergechanges mkdir mkfifo mknod msgattrib msgcat msgcmp msgcomm msgconv msgen msgexec msgfilter msgfmt msggrep msginit msgmerge msgunfmt msguniq mtrace mutt muttbug mv nano nawk nice nl nm nohup objcopy objdump od paste patch pathchk pdiff pgawk pinky pr printenv printf psmandup psset ptx pwd ranlib rbash rcs2log readelf readlink rm rmdir screen sdiff sed seq sh sha1sum shred size sleep slrn sort split stat strings strip stty sum sync tac tack tail tar tee test texi2dvi texi2dvi4a2ps texi2html texindex touch t
Somebody get that guy an ambulance!
Today, GNU runs with various kernels including Linux, the GNU Hurd (our kernel), and the NetBSD kernel. It is basically the same system, whichever kernel you use. Has anyone actually seen GNU Hurd run anything outside of a testing situation? Nothing against RMS, but isn't it about time to put Hurd to rest?
-Cnik
Starting with burying them in legal motions, and moving to cut off SCO's remaining revenue with IP lawsuits.
RMS has created an infrastructure for software development that leaves users better off, promotes the sharing of ideas and knowledge, and has turned the software industry on its head. In addition to the GPL, and the foundation of the GNU project, he has contributed significant software products such as the original version of GCC. In doing all of this, he's proven himself to be one the world's foremost experts on copyrights, IP laws in general, and their effects. Personally, I value his input, and continue to find it bizarre that Slashdotters treat him as the worst thing since Hitler.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
So he said what everyone else on /. has said for the last month? Actually, that's not true, it's the first time I've seem that it's the kernel under attack, but it seems obvious enough. Of course, until SCO points out the offending code, how can you be sure? Anyway, if RMS talking about it helps change opinions outside of the technical world, that's great. I think the opinions within the technical world have pretty much crystallized by now.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Every time I read the actual words of Richard Stallman, I can't help but ask "What planet is he on??"
His assertion that copying Unix code is not unethical is curious. Let's suppose I'm a teacher, and young Richard turns in a history paper that I recognize as a verbatim lift from the encyclopedia. I give hime a failing grade. He asks why. I tell him he cheated when he copied from the encyclopedia. Cheating, at least on my planet, is considered unethical.
Now, let's suppose young Richard then goes to his Beginning Programming course and turns in some coding homework. Being sharp-eyed and an Bell Labs veteran, the teacher spots code lifted verbatim from Unix. Richard gets another failing grade for cheating.
Yet, today, Stallman seems to argue that copyright s on Unix code prevent him from otherwise engaging in what he considers an ethical act: "sharing" someone else's code.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
If RMS hadn't started done the GNU project way back when he did, we would still be working out zillions of bugs in things like ls, rm, mv, getty, etc.
So how come the BSDs aren't innundated with bugs in these utilities?
Hey, don't get me wrong, he's 100% correct. I just wish he'd drop the evangelising, just once, and deal with the issue at hand rather than turning it into yet another opportunity to deliver the stock lecture.
Also, read what I said: "filthy socialist hippy". Singular. Have you met him? I have. He's filthy. He's a socialist. He's a hippy. It was meant in a jocular way, but it's completely accurate.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
RMS is still relevant? It's ironic that RMS is whining about SCO and FUD when he's been bitching for years that Linux is *his* and that it should be called GNUnix...
I see - as usual - a lot of criticism towards RMS. And I deeply feel this criticism is profoundly unjustified.
Most of it is directed to his insistence on calling the system GNU/Linux, and not just Linux, as the media does. Let's analyze objectively this issue: we all know what the GNU project stands for, and why it was released under the GPL license: to guarantee the freedom of computer users. That is the goal, a goal which requires a huge effort. The GNU project provided most of the utilities and subsystems needed; Linus provided an esencial and complex component. It seems to me completely logical to call it GNU/Linux.
And I think it is not only logical: it is important. GNU/Linux is not a better OS because it is cheaper; it is not better because it is faster; it is not better because it runs on more hardware or because it is configurable; it could even be that any or all of those characteristics are not true. It is better because it gives us back the freedom that we had lost. And the best way to recognize this fact is by calling it by its name: GNU/Linux.
Read my post that he is responding to
Some things are more important than an animated rat
I'm just surprised RMS didn't call SCO's tactics SCO/FUD.
"The Free Software Foundation's lawyer, Professor Moglen, believes that SCO gave permission for the community's use of the code that they distributed under the GNU GPL and other free software licenses in their version of GNU/Linux."
This was my initial thought when the whole SCO nonsense came to light. If the sold a Linux distribution with a GPL license that included their code, isn't that the same as releasing their code under the GPL?
I initially thought it must be an over-simplification. However, in light of the above quote, maybe it is that simple. If I were sitting on the jury for that case, that's certainly how I would see it.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Topic in #os: hey guyz, stop pickin on irix. /msg atnt haha. idiot. :~(
<SCO> w00t! i bought unix! im gonna b so rich!
<novell>
<novell> whoops. was that out loud?
<atnt> rotfl
<ibm> lol
<SCO> why r u laffin at me?
<novell> dude, unix is so 10 years ago. linux is in now.
<SCO> wtf?
<SCO> hey guyz, i bought caldera, I have linux now.
<red_hat> haha, your linux sucks.
<novell> lol
<atnt> lol
<ibm> lol
<SCO> no wayz, i will sell more linux than u!
<ibm> your linux sucks, you should look at SuSE
<SuSE> Ja. Wir bilden gutes Linux für IBM.
<SCO> can we do linux with you?
<SuSE> Ich bin nicht sicher...
<ibm> *cough*
<SuSE> Gut lassen Sie uns vereinigen.
* SuSE is now SuSE[UL]
* SCO is now caldera[UL]
<turbolinux> can we play?
<conectiva> we're bored... we'll go too.
<ibm> sure!
* turbolinux is now turbolinux[UL]
* conectiva is now conectiva[UL]
<ibm> redhat: you should join!
<SuSE[UL]> Ja! Wir sind vereinigtes Linux. Widerstand ist vergeblich.
<red_hat> haha. no.
<red_hat> lamers.
<ibm> what about you debian?
<debian> we'll discuss it and let you know in 5 years.
<caldera[UL]> no one wants my linux!
<turbolinux[UL]> i got owned.
<caldera[UL]> u all tricked me. linux is lame.
* caldera[UL] is now known as SCO
<SCO> i'm going back to unix.
<SGI> yeah! want to do unix with me?
<SCO> haha. no. lamer.
<novell> lol
<ibm> snap!
<SGI>
<SCO> hey, u shut up. im gonna sue u ibm.
<ibm> wtf?
<SCO> yea, you stole all the good stuff from unix.
<red_hat> lol
<SuSE[UL]> heraus laut lachen
<ibm> lol
<SCO> shutup. i'm gonna email all your friends and tell them you suck.
<ibm> go ahead. baby.
<SCO> andandand... i revoke your unix! how do you like that?
<ibm> oh no, you didn't. AIX is forever.
<novell> actually, we still own unix, you can't do that.
<SCO> wtf? we bought it from u.
<novell> whoops. our bad.
<SCO> i own u. haha
<SCO> ibm: give me all your AIX now!
<ibm> whatever. lamer.
* ibm sets mode +b SCO!*@*
* SCO has been kicked from #os (own this.)
Incidentally, the FSF has done nothing for the "OSS community", because it eschews it. Please don't lecture me about understanding RMS's philosophy when you can't even make the distinction between Free and Open.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
- In this particular instance (SCO FUD) the use of the terms GNU/Linux, GNU, and Linux, to differentiate between the tools+kernel, the tools alone, and the kernel alone, is not just appropriate, it's probably one of the best ways to cut through SCO's FUD;
- It's unfortunate that in many cases, standing up for your beliefs rather than "going with the flow", is sufficient excuse to be labeled a loon.
- Many of us started with a version of this
Linux in a Nutshell book.
The first (and most important, IMNSHO) part was the GNU toolchain. Without mastering that (especially in the pre-everything-in-3-cds-and-a-fancy-installer days) you really couldn't do anything.
I've always referred to it as Linux, but now I think that, to help combat al the FUD out there, I'm going to have to go along with RMS and start calling it GNU/Linux, if only to help provide an opening to explaining to non-users exactly what this whole mess is aboutFine. I'll cal what I use GNU/Linux then. And you won't complain about it right?
Un-news
Yes it did. The OS community uses GNU stuff (without GNU, there never would have been OS, too. GNU/Linux would never have skyrocketed as it did if it'd only been the Linux kernel, of course) while it's totally different, so yes GNU has done stuff for OS... as someone just told me "freedom is a double-edged sword". And thank you, but I've read that article.
Honestly it wasn't a criticism of his looks... It was meant as a joke. I just found it kinda ironic that he is seen as many as (for a lack of a better word) a 'prophet' or 'messiah' of software freedom and the guy looks like Jesus. While I don't see eye to eye with him, I'm glad to know there are people out there who stick to their convictions and are willing to do things because they feel they're right, not just for personal gain. Whether or not you agree with them that they're right is another matter altogether. :)
My main beef was that he took what should've been an article about the SCO/IBM case and used it to rehash what we've all been told before about the GNU/Linux argument and I'm just tired of hearing it over and over again. I don't think it was necessary to go over again for his argument... But then again it was his place to make whatever comment he felt was appropriate.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
Nice RMS quote:
"The idea that laws decide what is right or wrong is mistaken in general. Laws are, at their best, an attempt to achieve justice; to say that laws define justice or ethical conduct is turning things upside down."
That is just so true.
Computers are useless: they can only give you answers. -- Pablo Picasso
Oh, and since I had always though Linux stood for "Linux Is Not UniX" (more syntatically euphonious than "GNU's Not Unix" I feel), how about we settle the whole GNU/Linux naming quandry by gene-splicing the two at the "n" overlap to GNUX. That way our enemies have handy rhyme for SUX.
</silly>
"[...] without GNU, there never would have been OS [...]"
If by OS you mean OSS and not Operating System then I'm afraid that I respectfully disagree.
Niiiiice. Counter an ad hominem with a pro hominem. Way to show me up.
What arguments did he make directly related to this case? If he'd bothered to make a (new) argument, I'd have bothered to comment on it. But this is just the standard FSF press release. We've been over this, again and again. There's nothing new here. It's just the exact same rhetoric as he's been pushing since 1990 or so.
By the way, it's completely correct rhetoric, as I said (and if you've met RMS, you'll know that "filthy socialist hippy" is a completely factual description). But enough with the sharing, Richard. Try creating some new content.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Even though I do agree that it makes no differnce what RMS looks like, Wouldn't it be cool to have
"What would RMS do?" bumper stickers like all those other freaks?
I.E. "What would Jesus do?" "What would Usama Bin Laden do?" "What would Saddam do?"
[Intellectual Property] lumps together diverse laws--copyright law, patent law, trademark law and others--which really have little in common.'"
The point being, "Intellecual Property" is a superclass and the copyright, trademark, etc. are just subclasses. Certainly these laws all have more in common with eachother than they do with, oh, say... export regulations or farm policy.
This business of RMS refusing to recognize the relationship is right up there with "GNU/Linux" as one of the top 10 dead horses that he likes to beat. Others include "don't say piracy", "free as in freedom" etc.
Now, if RMS wants to invalidate the concept of IP, he's perfectly welcome to do that, but for cryin' out loud RMS, don't you have anything better than a mantra of logical fallacies and slogans with which to back up your arguments?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
So You have check the tools they are using to develop their respective OS?
Are they not GNU Tools?
The same apply to them.
assert(expired(knowldege)); core dump
Face it. He would have SO much more credibility with the corporate crowd (and, please... spare the "we don't need no stinkin' corporate crowd" bullshit - we do) if he would clean himself up a bit. Couple his looks with his fairly radical communal (not necessarily communist) views, and he's pretty much something people point to and laugh at. It's a shame too, because he's contributed ALOT.
Now, it's true that SCO is being fuzzy with regards to Intellectual Property. They've been making noises about vigorously protecting their "Intellectual Property", as technologists-turned-litigators are wont to do, whereas in actual practice it seems they're taking the stance, "we have enough piles of legal crap here that we're sure we can sue someone for something fairly big".
Even so, I think Stallman's "thou shalt not use this language in this manner" decrees are not only futile and tedious, but wrong in an important respect. The perception that intangible abstractions like names, ideas, and images can be considered property is not because of widespread use of the term "Intellectual Property"; rather, I submit that the cause and effect are the other way around. After generations of ever-increasing patent, copyright and trademark restrictions, why wouldn't people start thinking in terms of "Intellectual Property"? It's a well-ingrained cultural norm by now! Copyright infringement isn't theft, but we've been treating ideas as property for so long that it's not a distinction that's clear in people's minds anymore. They'll forget it for a moment when they violate copyright for their own convenience ("it's not hurting anyone"), but people are, by and large, of the opinion that it's wrong to "steal ideas".
It's not immediately clear to me (in the space of one Slashdot posting) how we can reverse this trend. How do we remind people that "Intellectual Property" is actually "Intellectual Privilege"? These "rights" are supposed to exist in order to benefit the public, not to protect private interests. People aren't outraged by the perpetual extension of copyright terms because they've been born in an environment where people own ideas, and it seems reasonable that people shouldn't have their property taken from them. Simply insisting that "Intellectual Property" is wrong-thinking doesn't suffice, because when you look at the law as-is, "Intellectual Property" is exactly what you have.
proof, n. A demonstration that a conclusion is implied by certain premises and axioms.
This GNU/Linux is a bunch of krap, my slack and gentoo distros don't mention anything about GNU/Linux so niether shall I.
"The Slackware Linux Project" is not called the "The GNU/Slackware Linux Project"
As long as where naming things I gotta few suggestions
C++/KDE -- Its wouldn't be KDE without Dr. Stroustrups nifty language
C/UNIX -- I see UNIX play
IEEE/Intel
IEEE/AMD
If Stallman had been born 2000 years ago it'd be like the Monty Python film, Life of Brian. Only Stallman would be handing out Gnus and bread instead of fish.
Jesus would be beaten into submission by RMS and his GNU / religion. JC's followers wouldn't understand why it wasn't the religion that mattered, but the GNU. For without the GNU there would just be a kernel...ur..religion with no prophets. A leader with no followers
Then the Romans would come for Jesus, RMS would say "let them take him, the GNU community will survive", for RMS knew that GNU worked with the teachings of Moses and Buddha. GNU was safe.
One nation under GNU.
Hopefully all those newbies who are puzzled by the insistence of RMS that GNU on Linux be called GNU/Linux can now see the wisdom of the distinction. SCO is only attacking the linux kernel, nothing else--the lax use of "Linux" to describe the whole system amplifies the SCO FUD.
FWIW, even during SunOS days, the first thing I'd do with a new system was "civilize" it by installing the GNU environment. And yes, I'd call that GNU/SunOS, since there was a BIG difference between the GNU stuff and the painfully crappy native SUNOS stuff. (Same goes for ALL commercial Unices).
Dave
This thread is not Slashdot at it's best.
e rs.html
Some rant that Stallman should have spoken up against SCO a long time ago and some rant that he is injecting himself into it for the publicity (never mind that SCO was the first one to inject RMS into this by attributing a made up quote to him).
My understanding from Stallman is that he has stayed out of the SCO/IBM fight the advice of his counsel. Moglen has done most of the talking for FSF and since this is about a lawsuit after all, it is good advice and to Stallman's credit that he seems to have been taking it. To those who complain that his commentary is mostly a recycled FSF press release, it probably is (aside from his newsworthy denial of SCO's misquotation). But if I was his lawyer, I wouldn't want him saying much since SCO will try to twist whatever he says into an admission of guilt on behalf of all free software coders.
Stallman is repetitive and sometimes difficult in his insistence on the precise use of terms and in his adherence to the principles he holds. But leaving aside the value of his code contributions to free software, it was his muleheaded insistence on precision and principals that brought about the GPL in the first place.
I won't second guess people who dislike or even detest Stallman for his idiosyncrasies or because they do not share his beliefs. But if you believe that what SCO is doing is illegimate, at least have the honesty and/or decency to concede Stallman's foresight in keeping GNU clean of Unix code and in not giving SCO rhetorical ammunition through sloppy terminology. If you will remember, SCO was able to take Bruce Perens' quotes out of context to make him look like he advocated infringing copyright but for Stallman, they had to make up a quote (which they have now quietly deleted from their website without acknowledging its falsity). See http://www.caldera.com/scosource/quotes_from_lead
in a proper analogy, you would have to fail ALL the class, like SCO is trying to condem all Linux when it may be just a few developers fault. (I'd also like to point out that a class room is as far removed from the real world as RMS is.)
Stallman is correct in the narrow sense that if one part of the code is plagurized, not all of the code is suspect.
I can't believe I just defended RMS, I feel so dirty.
P.S> You can sum all that ranting up in "GNU not Unix. Linux is not GNU." Move along, nothing new to read here.
Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
After AT&T had it's posterior handed to it on a platter in Federal court in trying to sue BSDI and UCB, UCB immediately filed suit against AT&T in California State court, where they settled for terms that were rather advantageous to UCB (but the settlement terms were sealed).
AT&T was not able to suppress BSDI (for the most part), *BSD, or the work of the CSRG.
While IANAL, a BSD player should sue SCO immediately, if only to open the closed settlement terms between UCB and AT&T. SCO has threatened the entire *BSD userbase, and this certainly seems like tortious interference with a business to me.
The most sensible BSD player to sue SCO at this point would be Apple, but perhaps Apple/Free/Net/OpenBSD should act in concert. IBM might even be willing to foot the bill.
What RMS has fame envy. He feels that poor GNU has been forgoten. We like our GNU tools but this whole stamping of feet and chanting "GNU/LINUX" makes RMS look silly. His chance to do something positive was wasted by his little lecture on GNU/LINUX.
Even philosophies need marketing, which involves consistent public exposure. If it was a case of "Ok, we wrote a load of old no-longer used tools in the past but now our job is done we might as well pack up and go home" then I would agree with you. However GNU have their continuing active agenda and would like to use it to make this world a better place. RMS is a self-appointed GNU PR man, and is doing an excellent (in terms of coverage, you can't please all tastes though) job in steadily providing that stream of exposure. The fact he is intelligent, insightful, talented and stubborn has pushed GNU to where it is and kept it somewhat in the limelight. He has his agenda, you don't have to agree with it, but don't expect him to shut up because you've heard the story before. Others many not have. Look on his 'rantings' as the safety announcements that the cabin crew give before the plane takes off, ie if you think you already know it off by heart then switch off the moment they open their mouths.
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
My ideas are right. Your ideas are wrong. I am important.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
While SCO's claims are certainly annoying, they don't pose much of a threat to the open source community since the code in question (if it exists and is ever revealed) can be removed.
You're incorrect on this one. SCO has claimed in several forums (see especially the Byte interview) that all commercial operating systems and all *BSD operating systems at this moment are derivative works of Unix System V and thus that SCO has "IP rights" to them.
Now, they further claim that since all of IBM's operating systems (from PC-DOS to AIX to OS/2) are derived in some way from Unix System V and are therefore property of SCO, IBM's act of contributing code to Linux also makes Linux SCO IP as well, since Linux is then a "derivative" of Unix System V and since without SCO's IP, IBM has no operating systems or operating system knowledge whatsoever.
So, according to SCO, Linux itself became a derivative work of SCO IP once IBM contributed any code. Now, years later, much has been added to the Linux kernel by others and much other software has been developed using GCC on Linux. SCO's claim is that none of this would have been possible if it wasn't for the fact that Linux became a derivative of Unix System V, and thus, all kernel code or userspace code since then are essentially Unix System V derivatives as well.
As a result, SCO has asserted in several interviews (I believe the CNet Darl McBride interview was the strongest in this regard, but I may be wrong, so much shit has flown around) that it is no longer feasible to simply remove code from Linux, because even after this is done, the Linux kernel and Linux userspace will remain derivatives of Unix System V in a fundamental way. SCO believes that the only way to remedy the situation is to license Linux through SCO, and it appears that this is what they are shooting for -- "control" of Linux, which they now assert should be legally and morally theirs anyway.
Point: They have stated on numerous occasions that simple removal of code does not address their claim or the harm that they say continues to be done to them through "theft" of their IP.
Of course, this is all crap (as is the simple phrase "IP rights", as Stallman points out) but none of it matters, because they don't plan to play it in court, they plan to write it all into a letter and send it to companies along with a demand that they "license" SCO Linux for $$$. They'll get rich on Linux licensing long before this ever goes to court. That in itself is reprehensible but not too scary...
What's scary is that from this position, the more money they rake in through Linux "licensing" the better position they'll be in to make the claim that Linux actually is theirs, to corporate America, to world governments, and to other clueless bodies who nevertheless have rather a lot of de facto market power.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
Can you explain precisely what "GNU stuff" (i.e. GPL licensed code) is used by the "Open Source" community, when "Open Source" is defined by the FSF to mean software that isn't Free, i.e. GPL? It's tautology.
Hint: you can argue that Open Source projects can use GPL binaries to produce their software. But so can Microsoft.
You can also find some (not many) examples of code being released under the GPL, then later released under a different Open Source license by its copyright owner. But the FSF never does that, and that's what we were discussing.
Now, exactly what "GNU stuff" are you talking about?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
That's easy: Linux Kernel, GNU tools, Linux OS.
It's unfortunate that in many cases, standing up for your beliefs rather than "going with the flow", is sufficient excuse to be labeled a loon.
Respecting someone and agreeing with them are usually two different things. You'll also note that I made that reference to this specific action.
Many of us started with a version of this Linux in a Nutshell book. The first (and most important, IMNSHO) part was the GNU toolchain. Without mastering that (especially in the pre-everything-in-3-cds-and-a-fancy-installer days) you really couldn't do anything.
Irrelevant (and I got started in Linux before LJ even got started). In fact, Apache and Samba existed by then (1997), and helped fuel interest in Linux.
At best, GNU and Linux have a symbiotic relationship. Linux could not have gotten where it was without GNU, but GNU would not be as popular today if it weren't for Linux using GNU utilities. Even today I'll spend many hours installing GNU utilities on a Solaris box because I know how the GNU tools work and don't want to spend time relearning the Solaris quirks.
While I realize the GNU/Linux versus Linux issue is a sore topic for many slashdotters, RMS is correct. The kernel is useless without the rest of the software. And having just finished making a Linux From Scratch system, I now know just how correct he is. Most of the software I dowloaded came directy from the GNU ftp site.
Also in light of the SCO lawsuit, he has to make sure that Linux and the GNU software are viewed seperately. If for some strange reason SCO manages to nuke Linux, he can't allow it to nuke the GNU projects as well.
Also assuming for some strange reason SCO manages to get rid of Linux, the GNU project will in all likely hood go on and so will the free software/open source communities. I like "Unix" like operating systems and so do a number of other people. They will continue because we need them to.
It seems to me that RMS is doing damage control, he is disassociating GNU from linux so when linux "goes down in flames" GNU will live on (perferably with a GNU kernel. I got that feeling from his article that I couldn't bother to finish reading. Did anyone else get that feeling? Did he finish the article defending linux ?
-Rev
If you want an example: GCC. Can you imagine Linux without GCC? I can't. Someone else would have had to write something similliar back when Linux started off. Would they have? It took the creation of the FSF to build all little lovely tools like that, I don't believe Linux enthousiasts would have been so enthousiastic if work like GCC hadn't already been done for them.
Check out Debian's GNU/Hurd port. It's running from Debian's unstable branch (sid), but it looks installable and usable. GNU/Hurd isn't dead. It's just starting to stablize.
assert(expired(knowledge));
"If SCO's aim is to shake the tree and see if any money falls down..."
Can't beat a quote like that!
I just want to focus on the idea that intellectual property (IP) is a conglomerate of many laws, such as copyright law and patent law. My belief is that IP goes far beyond any laws that we have right now. RMS thinks that all of these laws have very little in common, but I think otherwise.
IP is very simple. It is the right of whoever made something to have control over how that something is traded or used. This is very obvious with physical things because the issue remains simple as long as reproduction of an object is not trivial. One guy making tables can sell those tables, but if you want to compete with him you will have to make tables yourself, from scratch, just like he does. But what happens if you then copy his work, and make a factory where robots will do the work for you? You see, you are not paying for the table; you are paying for the work that went into the table.
You could have taken some milk crates and a piece of plywood and made your own table in 2 minutes, but you purchased one from this fellow because of the work and skill that went into the object. Same way you donâ(TM)t buy a music CD for the plastic disc, you buy it for the skill and work that went into the music. So what does this have to do with IP?
Well, as you can see, what has value in a product is not the product itself. This is true for most products. An exception for example is food. That has a value all of its own, plus the work that went into growing/preparing the food. But a glass vase or car have no intrinsic value beyond of what we give it. So my livelihood, the reason people give me money for work, is really for the stuff that I have in my head, and what I do with it. Anyone can learn how to play a guitar, but only some people play it well.
I think it is pretty obvious that my thoughts and ideas should be protected just like my physical properties are protected. In fact, they should be protected even more, since it is so easy to steal an idea. That leads me to what I think of theft. Theft has nothing to do with you removing something. People abuse the excuse that since the original owner still has the property (code, for example) then no theft was committed, and it is âoejust a copyright issueâ. But as I have tried to explain above, what has value is the code itself, and the coder was not compensated for that work that you are using.
It is all very simple. One person creates something. That person then decides how that something will be distributed, who can get it, and how can they use it. It is their right. Period. No way around it. If an artist tells you that you canâ(TM)t download their song, or you canâ(TM)t download their code, or you canâ(TM)t download their photograph, then you shouldnâ(TM)t. And if you do so, then you should accept the consequences of your actions.
Sorry, was that not enough for you? If not, why?
And I'm sorry, but "filthy socialist hippy" is nothing but an irrelevent and insulting description. It has nothing to do with this discussion, and appears to be included purely to attempt as mudslinging by a total wanker.
Sorry for calling you a mudslinging wanker there, but you certainly do both, don't you? I mean, most men do the latter, and the comments I've been replying to certainly are examples of mudslinging. Therefore I'm fully justified in applying the term to you. According to your logic anyway. But feel free to explain how this comment hurts my argument but yours about RMS doesn't.
(Posted AC because this is pretty much off-topic at this point.)
Right.
"I really don't understand people here raving about RMS, he does have a clear position and is consistent with his beliefs - much more than can be said about most other people. I've seen him at FOSDEM in Brussels, where he made an excellent impression IMHO."
Idiots don't have the capacity to judge intelligent people properly. It's just dogs barking at the wind.
Well, GNU Hurd has run more or less as well as it does today (i.e. not very well, on two specific machines in RMS's basement), since 1993 or perhaps even earlier. It's a toss up whether GNU/Hurd, GNU/BSD or GNU/Linux came first; mostly it depends on what you define as a complete operating system. BSD seems complete enough for most of its users and their rummage sale hardware. Linux will never be complete, because it's always playing driver catch-up with new hardware. Hurd... is complete in the way that special needs children are all winners for taking part.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
At the risk of /.ing one of the best sites for free computer science information, you can download the audio for a talk given by Stallman at ArsDigita University where he describes origins and differences between the GNU Operating System and the Linux kernal.
.ogg format.
In defference to Stallman, the the talk is distributed in the
If you find this site interesting, please send them a donation to keep it available for others.
Personally, I stopped about what RMS and ESR think a long time ago. Linus is still interesting, but not because he played (and still plays) such a central role in the development of Linux.
Come on RMS, please explain to everyone how the GNU license is a Microsoft like ploy to allow GNU to sue everyone in sight in 10 years just like SCO is doing now.
Code exists to provide solutions to problems. Code sharing is just that - using already established solutions to problems, instead of reinventing the wheel at each given time. The point is that it is there, and can be useful. The fact that code may be shared does not entitle would-be cheats to falsely claim solutions as entirely their own. To take your history analogy, what young Richard did was plagiarise; if he had quoted at length, with proper attribution, he would probably have added something of real value to his paper. So it would be with Richard's programming class; if he had provided a critique of this otherwise lifted Unix code, and/or produced better, he'd doubtless have gained marks for actually demonstrating some skill, especially given that assignments exist to provide a measure of learning and skill.
Just my 5 cents' worth.
first, it's M$, now it has moved on to $CO. you are truly a comedic genious.
no, you don't look like an immature wanker at all by doing this. you really are making a great point by putting dollar signs into companies' names you hate.
fucking moron.
he IS jesus!!
Unlike just about every other pundit writing on this matter, notice that RMS did not lambast SCO or try to claim that Linux is clean. Everyone who is following this case and rooting for Linux should consider this possiblility: somebody (IBM) may have stolen SCO's code. The community does not owe IBM loyalty, and should be wary of them for apparently contributing code that _at least_ could be construed by a former partner as their intellectual property. Maybe they are guiltless, and maybe this is just a SCO cash grab, but I don't owe IBM anything and will not be surprised if someone from a big corporation accidentally or purposefully contributed code that wasn't their's.
I know GNU's Not UNIX, and RMS makes sure we know it. But GNU is a UNIX clone. No matter what RMS says, the GNU system is very similar to UNIX and I imagine that a GNU/Linux system is about 80% compliant with The Open Groups Single UNIX Specification. In addition RMS said, Unix is and always was non-free software, meaning that it denies its users the freedom to cooperate and to control their computers. What is this 1984? UNIX is an open standard now, UNIX is no longer this mass of proprietary code. GNU may not be UNIX, but it sure as heck wants to be... nuff said.
Later,
Phil
Yes, "linux" is just the kernel. "Redhat Linux", or "Debian GNU/Linux" is the who OS distribution.
I know that Unix no longer belongs to AT&T, but you gotta wonder what Ken Thompson and Dennis Ritchie think about all this. Say what you will about Linux/GNU/NetBSD/SCO/IBM/etc., it's still their baby.
Just curious.
Read up your computer history. GNU was popular before Linus even had a though about Linux.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
If you want an example: GCC
This is a perfect example. GCC is unquestionably a valuable tool and, while there are better options now, at the time it was absolutely essentioal for the development of Linux. No one would deny this.
What gets on people's nerves is when RMS starts calling GCC (or the gestalt of gcc ls pwd and sed) an operating system This is just plain stupid. The only project that RMS has been involved with that has produced anything that could even remotely be considered an OS is EMACS. (I don't count the HURD because I don't expect it to be ready for anything useful for another 50-60 years)
Thank you RMS. GCC is a useful tool and was absolutely essential before other options were available. This does not mean that I am ready to bow to your demand for branding my Operating System. If you want OS credits, get the HURD off the blocks. Don't try to take all the credit for what others have achieved. (with the assistance of your tools and utilities)
Look, are you taking the piss? Do you recall what you said? "FSF did do a lot for the whole OSS community". If you meant something by OSS other then Open Source Software (or Solutions in market droidish), please say so now.
Free Software is not Open Source software. This is not my opinion, it is the opinion of the FSF that you are evangelising. You said you'd read the article. Did you comprehend it? Are we clear on this issue?
Linux - even according to RMS - is Free software, not Open Source.
There may be circa 1991 Open Source forks of it kicking around, forked before Linus made it Free (i.e. GPL). Can you find any?
Linux is Free, not Open Source.
Try again. Try the same argument with GCC and BSD. That does work. The same argument can be made for GNU tools helping non-Free, non-Open developers, but that doesn't invalidate the GCC helped BSD argument. It's disappointing that I've had to make that argument for you. I'll try and not draw too many conclusions about what that says about the standard of Free (or Open) software users.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Can IBM or others reciprocate by requesting to "audit" the current SCO source to look for instances of GPL code.
If you look at the two personalities that are most influential in the GNU/Linux combination, RMS and Linus (just my opinion of course), I think it's the individual personas of these two individuals that form a striking combination that makes "Linux" (as RMS is loth to call it) so popular.
RMS is a philosopher, an evangelist. True, he's a brilliant coder too, but his primary mission now seems to be selling this "vision" that he alluded to in this article --- that of software (and consequently computing) without ownership limits.
If you read Linus' interviews on the other hand, he tends to be much more pragmatic in his entire approach to life. He's more of a "ah to hell with all this lawyer bullshit --- this is excellent code for the kernel, let's put it in" kinda guy.
If you look at the surge of "Linux" popularity over the last decade, it's primarily been the GNU/Linux combination that RMS refers to (although other combinations of GNU/* exist). I would think that it takes this combination of individuals to have this happen --- the idealistic evangelist in RMS, and the pragmatic engineer in Linus.
I speak mainly from the point of view of being a graduate student. It is frequently this relationship between an advisor (providing the vision), and the student (with the hands on hacking/research) that bears fruit.
I could be wrong... just my $.02
"In mathematics, it's not enough to read the words -- you have to hear the music"
Criticize RMS at your peril. This is a very smart and tough mind who understands clearly the dangers facing free software developers.
RMS has spent the last 20 years building structures designed almost exactly to avoid this kind of debacle, in which a widely-used piece of free software falls victim to spurious but dangerously credible IP allegations. Remember Unix?
What SCO are doing (with or without MS's help) is putting OSS at serious risk. RMS has defined a fire corridor, putting the Linux kernel on one side and all the rest on the other.
Software is incredibly easy to mix up, we hate making boundaries and we love to apply generalistic labels. The fact is that this is a dangerous convenience. GNU (to take one example) represents a vast investment of effort. Being mixed with Linux into one convenient box is not simply frustrating for the GNU team, it also puts GNU at risk. And I don't think I would stand by and watch my life's work being put at risk without speaking out.
RMS has the right of reply, after SCO published his misquoted text.
Shame, shame, and more shame on those of you who do not respect this man. He is one of the geniuses of our age, a rare and valuable mind. Go home, build one good and solid tool, read the GPL, and consider what it means to dedicate your life to protecting the concept of free software.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
So I guess I should call the OS on my Linux box. GNU/XWindows/Apache/KDE/OpenOffice/Mozilla/LINUX?
How about this...Instead of being lazy and calling Apace, KDE, OpenOffice.Org and any other programs Linux just because they are shipped on a disk labeled 'Linux', you refer to them as their name?
Linux is *JUST* a kernel.
GNU is in fact an OS without a kernel, not just some text editors. Perhaps its most important core-OS component is the GNU C library (glibc), which performs a similar function to the core system DLLs in Windows. There's also the GNU Compiler Collection (gcc) which is absolutely essential for actually using software, as there are no other Free compilers of which I'm aware (even Free/Open/NetBSD use this GPL'd compiler for that reason).
Frankly, the OS is more essentially GNU than Linux. As pointed out, it's possible to replace the Linux kernel and still have a working OS, albeit one that's quite a bit less advanced than currently. However, it's completely impossible to replace the GNU components in any timespan less than decades.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
"the ideals he and others made GNU for"
i.e. getting their own way
(background - Emmett put a lot of effort into the OGG / Vorbis group)
Sco Group will not say again that Linux end users could be held liable for using Linux, had to fear legal consequences nor will they repeat that Linux is an unauthorized derivate of Unix.
There is a fine of 10.000 EUR if SCO fails to comply with that written confirmation.
More details (in German):
heise.de
605413? Yes, it's a prime.
You won't be able to escape their license, just because the Linux kernel is under the GPL. But you can find other implementations of *everything*. First, there are the *BSDs, which have nothing to do with GNU. Then, there are alternative shells, C libraries, compilers (as you mentioned), etc., etc.
Anyhow, search around; I'm sure other people have tried this, and there's very little actual FSF-related code that is absolutely necessary for the basic operation of your average Linux box.
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
You can find a BitTorrent of the MP3 right here, or read the comments and find the original link attached to the story.
Due to licensing and ideological issues the free *BSDs have been trying to do this for years, but have not succeeded in replacing GNU components of their OS.
If you're willing to use non-Free software, you may be able to come a little closer, by replacing gcc with icc as in your example. Clearly this is unacceptable to those building Free operating systems, however.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Seriously... we know that not all GPL stuff is actually "GNU", so how much of the GPL'd stuff that comes with Unix actually *IS* part of GNU? Can anyone actually itemize what official parts of GNU are actually included with Linux? And what percentage of a typical Linux distro does that actually come out to?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
print version of same article (sans navigation, cruft, etc... plus its easier on the zdnet website).
Corporate Gadfly
Jonathan Archer: the most beaten up Enterprise captain in Star Trek history
Why don't you try removing all the gnu software from your machine and see how much fun your shiny Linux kernel is without it.
Linus' kernel is fantastic, but it needed some utilities to be of use, and GNU was already high quality and in somwhat common use. The only reason I call it Linux instead of GNU/Linux is because I'm lazy, and I sort of forget that there's a whole lotta "freshmen" who don't have any idea what GNU is.
1993, the year that September didn't end (and it seems it never will.)
The biggest culprit for FreeBSD's lack of popularity compared to Linux is probably not the license, but the unfortunate mess of lawsuits all the *BSDs were involved in in the early 1990s. After the resolution of these lawsuits, Linux had already started. FreeBSD was probably still ahead of Linux at this time, but the developers had already gained some momentum behind Linux and didn't want to switch. The BSD vs. GPL issue isn't really relevant there, because if they had wished a group of developers could've taken the FreeBSD kernel, modified it, and relicensed the modified version as GPL, and continued development from there (since the BSD license does not prohibit adding additional restrictions to derived versions, which is why you can use BSD-licensed code in GPL-licensed projects).
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
In a nutshell:
Wah wah wah, it's "GNU/Linux"
Move along.
From the article: "To copy Unix source code would not be ethically wrong, but it is illegal"
How can purposely doing something illegal be considered ethical? The law may not be "ethical"... but is intentionally disobeying a law ethical? I don't think so.
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
This is what the Free Software Foundation is all about. SCO, M$ and friends continue their fight to own all ideas. It's what motivated RMS and others to create the free software movement in the early 80's. ATT tried to grab control of other people's work through the use of NDAs. SCO's suit is an audatious attempt to further extend ATT's land grab to independent works by anyone even vaugly familiar with OS concepts ATT develped. ATT was stupid then and lost. SCO is insane today, but they can get away with it if they can dumb down the world with talk of "intelectual property" instead of copyright, patents and trademarks and no one bothers to correct them.
RMS figured out this game years ago, which is why his article is dead on target. It's a good article to show anyone who's interested in free software, afraid of the SCO lawsuit, but only has the average 15 minutes to get their news. Show it to your boss if he asks. If your boss is really into the mess, show them the OSI detailed refutation. Stallman has been getting good about delivering his message in a clear and consise way.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
for anyone from the FSF to talk without mentioning how its really GNU/Linux and not just Linux. I know I know, they're right. They are right, its true. But to me, that's like saying "I run a AMD/ATI/Western Digital/Crucial computer system." ACCEPT IT PEOPLE!!!! GNU/Linux will be referred to as Linux. It's just a fact a life. Is it correct? no. It's just like Rollerblade and inline skates, and Kleenex and tissues. Does it suck for the FSF? Probably a little. But thtat's life.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Lost Sheep to Shepard, you got your ears on?
Zillions of bugs, huh? With ls, rm, mv, getty, etc?
I highly doubt it. Even Microsoft has not been faulted for having low level tools that don't work (such as move, copy, del, and a bunch of others).
The basic programs of a shell are simple enough that you can actually try pretty much all possible states of them to get rid of bugs before shipping them. Someone else could have just as easily done all of the coding parts that RMS did in the beginning.
HOWEVER, I'm sure that his zeal did something to convince other coders to write more complicated pieces of code that are quite important, complex, and difficult to duplicate.
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
I think he meant filthy as in dirty, as in the hippy sterotype of somebody who never showers. Not saying I agree either, but there is a distinction.
I don't understand the reasoning for calling the operating system GNU/Linux. The purpose of an operating system is to manage computer resources (i.e. memory, cpu time, files, processes, hardware, etc.) What part of GNU software does any of that on a Linux system? None. Absolutely none. The kernel is the operating system. Everything else is just an application.
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
...SCO's worst offense is confusing Linux with GNU/Linux!
>GNU was popular before Linus even had a though about Linux.
GNU was around in one form or another before Linus even had a thought about Linux. You'd have to be charitable to call it "popular" even now, except in the sense of base, common and popular.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Did you fail basic English? RMS obiously meant it is wrong because it violates any ethics!
Good God people!
I use GNU tools on my XP box so should I call it GNU/Windows.
You might. If you use Apache, Mozilla, Open Office and X Windows instead of the default M$ software, you are using GNU more than anything else on that XP box. I'd suggest you go all the way and get rid of the last non-free tools and move to a system using Linux, BSD or Hurd. When you compare the codebase provided by M$ with that provided by GNU tools, your XP box might very well be considered a GNU/Windows computer.
Public ingorance about where free software comes from is why SCO FUD has what little effect it does have.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
There is often a relation between which things are moral, legal, and ethical, but there is often a difference as well. Ethics is separate from the law, and rightly so, since it is that which can help people to act better than simply following the minimum requirements of law.
To use the usual inflammatory examples, if an officer in any army refused a direct order to kill a civilian, his behavior is illegal but most definately ethical. On a smaller scale, simply look at the civil rights movement. When Rosa Parks sat down on the bus instead of giving her seat to a white man, her action was illegal, but most certainly not unethical.
In summary, it may always be considered ethical to disobey what one believes to be an unjust law.
Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
Uh, do you use gcc? bash? glibc? I thought so. Gnu is just as popular as Linux, because virtually no one has Linux without having more GNU than Linux.
The trademark "GNU" is much less known than the trademark "Linux", but as far as tools go, GNU tools are at least as popular, people just don't know what the hell they're running.
Also, SCO's been making noises about stuff outside the kernel (it's hard to keep track, their story changes so often).
At the very least, we wouldn't have to have conversations like this:
I'm sure you've been there tooMostly RMS being RMS, but he makes one point that stands out -- regardless of how many times its been said:
The term IP is dishonest in its use. Lumping the various property interests in code under one label creates both ambiguity and dishonesty, and the SCO case is a shining example.
SCO's contract/trade secret action against IBM concerns one kind of property interest in code. Even if upheld, it may or may not bear on copyright interests in Linux code and may or may not bear on SCO's right to seek recovery. A whole host of issues come into play, not the least of which is whether the code in question display sufficient authorship to warrant copyright. That's not an issue for trade secrets, but does matter for copyrights.
And so on.
SCO have been bleating elsewhere about how IBM hasn't filed for summary dissmissal. And it's odd. I am seriously underwhelmed by the IBM response. If SCO are so in the wrong, IBM could have come out more aggressivly on this, or even counter-sued by now. That they haven't is a bad sign.
You're the one hung up on a very specific and non-standard meaning of the words "doing a lot for". If I hold a position that your ideology sucks and you're evil for convincing people to think like you, but I build a whole lot of tools that help you fulfill your ideology, then I'm doing a lot for you. That's this exact situation. Yes, we all understand that the FSF sees a huge distinction between open and Free software, and they would probably kill the OSS movement if they could, but that doesn't change the fact that the OSS movement gains a lot from the fruits fo the FS movement.
There are correct ways to say things, and there are what people actually say; in the long run, what people actually say will win. GNU/linux insisting folks might be right, logically, but the tide of the times is washing them away. Just like Xerox cannot stop people from using their trademark in a generic way, GNU folks in the long run will not be able to tell people how to use the word Linux. In the long run, they also paint themselves in a bad light (self-righteous and whinny). I'm no way saying that their argument is incorrect; I would love for them to win, since they deserve it, but the zeitgeist (spirit of the time) is against them.
Having been an officer in the U.S. Army I have to take exception to your example.
An order to kill a civilian would probably be an unlawful order. Therefore, said officer is duty bound (by his oath of office and the Uniform Code of Military Justice) to not follow the order. Therefore, his behavior would be both legal and ethical.
I do not disagree with your general premise though.
If IBM filed for summary dissmissal, and didn't get it, maybe due to a clueless judge, then it would only help SCO's true aim... ie: to raise their stock price.
This isn't any ordinary darkness. It's advanced darkness.
That's a bad bet. If you read the article you would have seen him acutally saying, "We did our best to avoid ever copying Unix code, despite our basic premise that to prohibit copying of software is morally wrong." The immorality he's refering to is the intentional waste inflicted by preventing people from co-operating to solve problems. This is what free software is all about, the creation of software that can be used for any purpose, modified and shared without ever preventing others from doing the same. RMS would be extreemly anoyed if the last 10 years of work put into the Linux kernel were somehow co-opted by SCO and people were cut off from it.
If the world ever gets that dumb, Hurd, BSD and all other software, free and non-free, will be up for grabs. It's a situation only the greediest corporate droid or dedicated statist wants. The economic harm is inclaculable.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
In our case, the GPL enables programmers to protect Free Software from becoming proprietary into Microsoft products. As a programmer, I would be angry if the fruit of my efforts becomes a charity that benefits Microsoft or any 'looter' who just grabs and profits from my code and (also) has the audacity to sue me (see Caldera/SCO) without I can do anything about it. ( In the case of Caldera, we now/ find that it was a good idea that the linux kernel is under the GPL and SCO will soon have to close their mouth as people begin to understand that we are protected with the GPL shield. No. RMS's revolution is not about who will write gcc(1) first. It is about the creation of a society of like-minded people who new see that their collective efforts under the GPL is not a straight donation of code to Microsoft. It is about the your right to benefit from your work, as opposed to have your IP confiscated by someone else.
He in a way is as dangerous as SCO because he is not exactly proping up Linux or IBM! And that makes me more nervous that anything else. Because at this point in time we need to come together and focus and eradicate this problem. Not talk about how GNU will never die, BLAH, BLAH... But at least we have ESR!
WTF?? Linux and (especially) IBM need to be propped up?
Wake up, people, RMS is right! The fight is FREE VS. PROPRIETARY software, and FREE software is here to stay.
And how do you propose to "come together and focus and eradicate this problem"? The "problem" doesn't exist. It's just FUD!! Where've you been, under a rock?
Go look it up. I don't think that word means what you think it means.
I give RMS his due resepct. They guy has done the work of a titan, and been instrumental in providing all of us with something great.
Talking to humans is part of the job. It's just another task, you're a programmer, learn the freakin' language! So the OS you're writing for is wet, squishy, and inconsistent? Fine; it's a flaky language. But if you're going to use it, use it right.
To all who act as spokespersons for the freedom in general and free software in particular:
When you speak in the popular press, (ZD-Net is not 2600.com, folks!): Try not to make us look like the whackjobs!
Really, people. How seriously does the mainstream take the Libertarian Party? How effective are they in real-world politics? Do you really want that for all of us?
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
SCO is now claiming they have the right to audit AIX customers here. I believe the proper response to the arrival of SCO auditors is the response to salesmen shown in this trailer for Secondhand Lions
Instead of "doing a lot for" which implies proactivity, how about "Free Software has been used a lot to create Open Source software". Fair compromise?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
For someone always being laughably pedantic about misspellings and incorrect usage of vague terminology (like .NET framework), I would think that you would know that there is no GNU/BSD. The BSD project is based on 4.4 BSD Lite, with its own userland. The only GNU projects included are gcc and possibly emacs.
Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
Sure, I use it and you use it. When my mother uses it, I will accept that it's popular. Until then, it's popular only in a very narrow sense, e.g. "Originating among the people".
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Well, if the argument is about whether the FSF has helped the OSS community, it is obvious that providing a compiler and editor is helping. They may not be compatible in license, but helping...it is.
Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
"There is a fine of 10.000 EUR if SCO fails to comply with that written confirmation."
Oooh, 10,000 EUR! Bigtime! Look out SCO!!
you will be required to select from the matrix 23 OSS programmers, 16 American, 7 Finnish,
Even in our fantasies, we don't get girls...
--
Was it the sheep climbing onto the altar, or the cattle lowing to be slain,
or the Son of God hanging dead and bloodied on a cross that told me this was a world condemned, but loved and bought with blood.
The BSD people have replaced most of the gnu utilites (not the compiler though). It's false that the GNU shit runs on two BSD kernels. glibc only works well on Linux and the (incomplete) Hurd.
The author doesn't 'give up' anything other than (potential) profits. Copyright compels people to do something, so does 'copyleft'...or to put it another way it's just a particular type of copyright. No difference as far as the weight of 'protections' provided by copyright law and conventions. The term 'copyleft' is kind of silly for just that reason.
I did not intend to imply otherwise, my apologies for not being clearer. I was speaking of cases where it was a lawful order, such as has unfortunately been the case in some armies in previous conflicts (tring not to invoke Godwin's Law :)
Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
> there is no GNU/BSD
"Today, GNU runs with various kernels including Linux, the GNU Hurd (our kernel), and the NetBSD kernel. It is basically the same system, whichever kernel you use [...] today it also runs with two BSD kernels"
When you assert "there is no GNU/BSD", are you saying that RMS is a liar or a cretin?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
No Gnus is good Gnus... with Gary Gnu. Never mind. So why did I pick *this* time to actual RTFA?? I have not positive karma because I have no positive karma because I have no positive karma because I have no positive karma becuase I have no positive karma becuase I have no positive karma...
next($sig) unless($sig =~
Yes, us poor, stupid individuals don't correctly appreciate his stellar, godlike contributions. We must be reminded of what a great man he is.
If RMS sat down and shut up, I might respect him. No one likes a loud mouthed bad mannered pedant, even if he's "right." Except fellow loud mouthed bad mannered pedants, I assume.
If I could, I would challenge RMS to write a book about the genesis of GNU, without ever using the words "I" or "me." I bet he couldn't do it.
Seriously. He's a fucking liability.
It is exactly RMS' single mindedness that will save the day, and if you have to say GNU/Linux, so what.
And no, in the context of your time period, a bad hack running Hurd with a BSD or compiling your own with a GNU userland does not count.
Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
For MANY people, me included, the line between GNU and GNU/Linux isn't all that clear. It is VERY important the point that RMS is stating, wether you like it or not.
The fact is that any case that SCO *could* have, would affect the Linux kernel, and not what people often call Linux, which is a collection of thousands of programs. That MUST be said, and that MUST be understood, to cut straight through SCOs arguments.
That said, and understood, it's kind of irrelevant what the personal feelings of RMS are. I personally understand that if I gave years of my life to get GNU moving, and then everyone called GNU/Linux just Linux, I'd be a bit upset.
The Linux kernel, is a SMALL part of Linux as we see it. Where would you be without "bash", "ls", and all those little programs you use daily, and which are by no means affected by SCOs claims?
What about Apache, MySQL, sendmail, postfix and a pletora of other programs which define Linux?
No - a line has to be drawn. Put your personal feeling aside, this is a serious issue. it's incredible how 90% of these comments just strike on the possible 2nd meanings of RMS' post, without even commenting, the primary, VERY IMPORTANT aspect. Linux is NOT GNU, and GNU is NOT Unix.
http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html
Someone hit the nail on the head. MOD this UP!
Those of you who complain about RMS's point of view regarding Linux need to see this film. I can understand why those of you who think he is envious of Linus would think so, but only if you haven't seen the film or had a couple beers with the guy.
So shut up. Quit putting words in his mouth. He has forgotten more about philosophy and technology that most of us will ever know.
You are about to give someone a piece of your mind, something which you can ill afford...
Correct, filthy as in dirty. I've met him. His hair was greasy, and he smelled pretty bad. AFAIK, this was choice, not necessity, as he hadn't just stepped off a long flight.
Does that matter? Not a lot, but it didn't endear me to him.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
This single line sums up what the defense against SCO should be:
'The name GNU stands for "GNU's Not Unix." The whole point of developing the GNU system is that it is not Unix.'
These two sentences clear up what SCO is really trying to do: they are trying to grab ownership of everything that looks even remotely like Unix. As the acronym goes, GNU's Not Unix, so no cookie for SCO.
I am the only one thinking that RMS anachronism of GNU über alles is beggining to get really really boring?
C'mon Richard, do yourself a favor and stop trying to get attention all over you and your wonderful GNU, if we could count the packages on a Linux system right now I really doubt that 20% of them would be related directly to GNU.
GNU GPL license is really great, and I really think that RMS is a great politician/social freedom fighter, but I also think that his ego is bigger than Texas.
Nothing personal RMS, I just think Linus attitude is really more of a leader than yours.
May the source be with you!
As I said above, no, taking a NetBSD system then compiling all the GNU utilities does not count, since the BSD's are defined in terms of a project, not just a kernel. It no more becomes a GNU system than GNU/Windows XP is valid when you install Cygwin.
Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
Am I the only one who has a difficult time reading RMS' writing without thinking of Laslo Holyfeld from the movie "Real Genius"? Imagine RMS offering to loan you his pajamas.
include $sig;
1;
"If that's the case, then why is SCO going after IBM instead of Linus?"
Because Linus has no money, comparatively speaking. Even if SCO had sued Linus Torvalds, all other senior kernel developers, and Transmeta, they wouldn't have gotten much out of the deal. IBM has a lot of money.
If SCO had actually had real concern besides raw profit, they would have intervened when things were much less entrenched. They also would have ceased distributing Linux. They haven't even completely done that, since you can download source RPMs off of their site.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Cringely actualy knows who wrote this code Paul McKenney at Sequent (now IBM). And how the code got there (Paul copied and pasted some of his own code into the Linux kernel). And exactly why SCO is wrong (They don't own the 'general concept' of RCU and other tech thought up by Sequent).
This should be what slashdot linked too, not RMS's rant. Cringely did some real reporting and answered a lot of important questions.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
He claimed GNU was the "operating system" and that Linux was just the "Kernel". I find this a little specious. Syscalls and other OS level stuff are all pure Linux and don't have much to do with the GPL. GNU is more like the "Operating environment" used with Linux. Just like Finder on the Mac, and explorer, IE, etc on windows.
That said though, there are a lot of other technologies that make up the Linux "environment" so it's kind of silly that GNU should get top billing.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I'm totally impressed. I think that's the first article i've ever seen that did not come across with RMS as being a blathering, zealous idiot.
Which is amusing, because he's not, he just has the social skills of a louse.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
(Before I address this post, I think it is important to remind the community that Offtopic means not relevant to the subject at hand and that even ACs with against-the-grain opinions should have a voice. This particular post might be a Troll...but then again it seems to express a sentiment that is commonly seen here. Please open your mind and use your mod-points to stimulate interesting discussions between intelligent people with opposing opinions.)
To sum up your post: Blah blah blah, RMS is an unwashed hippie, blah blah blah, non-free software is good for the economy, blah blah blah, intellectual property is a good thing.....ad nauseum.
Arguments like that don't do much to advance the debate. RMS is at one end of the spectrum of the software debate and SCO is at the other end of that spectrum. A healthy debate between two such polarized positions usually results in a compromise that advances a position which is generally acceptable to everyone in between.
Left-side: Ideas cannot be controlled because the cost of their propagation is negligible on the Internet. Software is simply an expression of ideas in computer-understandable language.
Right-side: People that contribute new ideas to society deserve the right to control the use of those ideas perpetually in order to collect compensation for the effort they put forth to generate those ideas.
The balance lies somewhere in the middle, and I believe that that is the position RMS advances and which recent history supports. Linus gave his hard work away, yet last I heard he was driving a BMW convertible sports car. RMS himself somehow manages to fly around the world and appear at conferences, yet he doesn't charge a dime for his code.
It always seems to come down to control. Those who profit from control are threatened by those who seek to undermine that control. So then we have to ask why people seek control as well as why others seek to destroy control. In this light, I believe that RMS' intentions are mostly benign (I say "mostly" because I find it hard to believe that he doesn't have an ego at this point). RMS is a very fact-driven individual with little to no interest in personal wealth. He understands the fact that 1s and 0s cannot be constrained so he resists any effort to impose a false-property regime over those 1s and 0s; obfuscation is something every good programmer instinctually avoids.
On the other hand, our economy is built upon the concept that people who contribute to society are properly compensated. I don't believe that RMS would dispute this; I just think his idea of the mode of compensation flies in the face of accepted industry norms.
There's an acceptable middle-ground that we're still trying to find...but inflammatory rhetoric just hinders that process.
--K.
Sig: Bad people happen. Try to avoid being one of them.
The only question you actually asked was, "shouldn't it be BSD/GNU/Linux? " after wrongly asserting that parts of the Linux kernel are "BSD-licensed".
What I don't think you understand is what GNU is. GNU + Hurd has more functionality than most comercial operating systems do. GNU + Linux and other GPL'd software makes traditional comercial software unnecessary.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
The fact is, "Linux" is the defacto standard way of referring to the LinuxKernel + GNU. (Just like capitalizing "Internet" has become the defacto standard, despite the whines and rants of certain geeks.) For a guy that I have a hard time distinguishing from a communist, RHS sure is hell bent on GNU getting the credit he thinks the GNU name deserves. Why can't he just be happy that GNU has done its part to further the creation of the Software Workers' Paradise he apparently wants, without stewing over who gets the credit? Get over it.
--Slashdot: News for Turds. Stuff that Splatters.
Linux is a better name than GNU. Get over it and come back to play.
There's no question that RMS resents the fact that Linus gets more credit than he deserves. ,
without quoting RMS. The rest of your post moves on to interesting Debian work with an unecessary insult to the Hurd. Don't like how the Hurd works? Go fix it. It's free, why complain about it?
RMS's concern over the confusion between the Linux kernel and all the other software that comes with it is grounded in free software advococy. Everything I've read from him, especially this last article, seeks to point out where free software comes from and why people make it. It's designed to combat the "intelectual property" propaganda machine that continues to spit out nonsense designed to devide people and keep them from co-operating. If you don't understand how free software is made and how well that way works, you are likely to surrender your rights to SCO. To frame this as personal resentment is missinformed.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Says Stallman:
To copy Unix source code would not be ethically wrong, but it is illegal
Uh...? It's one thing to advocate Free Software, I can even live with advocating that people stop using proprietary software, but this seems to imply that RMS thinks it's OK to willfully and intentionally violate licensing agreements that one has (presumably) voluntarily accepted? That's going a bit far.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
The only question you actually asked was, "shouldn't it be BSD/GNU/Linux? " after wrongly asserting that parts of the Linux kernel are "BSD-licensed".
Not referring to the kernel. We're talking about the prospect that any part of what I call "Linux" should be prepended with "GNU." That would, by definition, be extra-kernel, as what is in the krnel certainly isn't GNU (though it is GPL). And my stipulation is that there is a lot of BSD-licensed stuff in the non-kernel portion of my linux distro to give it equal billing with GNU, assuming either of them should get even remotely equal billing with Linux, ie the kernel, in terms of what constitutes the OS.
GNU + Hurd has more functionality than most comercial operating systems do.
That's great, but kind of outside the scope of my point. I've never tried Hurd - don't really have any interest in it, but obviously one would certainly refer to that as GNU through and through.
GNU + Linux and other GPL'd software makes traditional comercial software unnecessary.
Again, well outside the point. Commercial software isn't the issue here - the question is whether the GNU portions of a linux distro constitute an OS. And I stipulate that they don't, in that they aren't responsible for the things that are characteristic of an OS, ie device handling and I/O. All of that is done by the linux kernel and possibly X, neither of which is a GNU product, though of course Linux is GPL'd and X even less restrictive. So this certainly isn't a "free vs. proprietary" thing.
My original point was that Linux is an OS in and of itself, and that the GNU contributions to *linux* (ie, not Hurd), while a damned great bunch of utilities, aren't an OS nor a portion thereof. I then asserted that if you considered the non-kernel GNU utilities part of the OS, that the non-kernel BSD daemons and utilities that ship with almost every linux distro are certainly part of the OS. Hence, BSD/GNU/Linux. Although I would consider plain ol' Linux to be perfectly correct.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
--He also didn't say (per se) that socialism was bad, even though historically, there's never been a country that survived for very long in socialism.--
Republics don't last long either except of course the "Great Republic". How much longer will even this last at this rate.
This illustrates why RMS has been so adamant about calling it GNU/Linux: he really wanted to get across that GNU software and Linux are two separate entities. The GNU project has been quite careful about intellectual property. If the developers of the Linux kernel screwed up with intellectual property, that should not affect the GNU tools at all. But by lumping it all together as "Linux", companies like SCO may not just cast a shadow on the Linux kernel, but also on the completely unrelated GNU tools. And one of the simplest remedies to address the SCO claims would be to replace the Linux kernel with, say, BSD or the Hurd. Is "RedHat Linux" going to rename itself to "RedHat Hurd" then? I don't think so. In fact, as long as they have all the drivers they need, most people wouldn't even notice that they are running a different kernel.
I'll take that same train of logic and replace "my mother" with "my supervisor". When my supervisor uses it, I will accept that it's popular. However, if I told my supervisor that we're running GNU upstairs, he'd have no clue what I was talking about (not that that's new...).
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
Which gets down to what I said originally - the linux-es we use also have a ton of BSD code in addition to GNU code. Hence, my argument that BSD deserves equal billing with GNU. So if you argue that Linux is based on GNU, I'd say the same for BSD. To say nothing of all the code developed by independent developers. To me, Stallman's position gives the impression that all these GNU-written utilities were sitting around waiting for a kernel, at which they became a fully functional OS - and I don't see that. The credits on the man pages for popular utilities show a lot of independently developed code, a lot of BSD code, and, indeed, a lot of GNU code. So to me, non-kernel portions of linux seem to be a hodgepodge of a lot of sources, which lies in stark constrast to Stallman's description in the article today.
So bottom line, even if one accepts a generous definition of an OS as "everything that comes with the distro," there still seem to be too many contributors to single out GNU as being *the* main contributor.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Well, according to history, no governments last... so with your logic, anarchy is the best.
Republics last longer than socialist governments. Prove me wrong...
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
GNU/Linux *is* a copy of Unix!
Most people hear that IBM is being sued for Linux IP violations and they think that all 3Gb of data on the RedHat CD is going to be trashed.
RMS makes this statement and suddenly everyone realizes that:
A) Worst case, say 20Mb of code is at stake, not 2.4Gb, so were talking 1% of the RedHat CD. (I'm just making wild ass guesses here)
B) That 20Mb/1% of code is modular and already has functional, but maybe not optimal alternatives
C) That RMS reminds them what their own lawyers tell them about IP, it's a vague term and is really many many forms of court determined litigated things. And then they realize, well while worst case is that 1% of the code is tossed, RMS points out that between the courts and the coders, most likely that very little will be tossed.
So by making a clear, factual and neutral statement about Linux the kernel, RMS shines a light on the scary shadows of FUD created by SCO.
So now the CIO realizes, okay, overnight my RedHat, my server room is not going to be forced to shutdown. I will not be forced to pay massive royalties and penalties. Worse case, we pay a royalty for a year or so and then we switch to an improved alternative kernel. Okay!
RMS's insistance on the "GNU/Linux" terminology is starting to look very prescient - it makes SCO's claims look exceedingly foolish and vague.
--Republics last longer than socialist governments. Prove me wrong...--
Socialism usually falls under it's own weight. Republics turn into dictatorships. The US hasn't turned into a dictatoship yet, but it is getting there. The executive branch is becoming more and more powerful with less and less oversight.
So, I don't know which one lasts the longest. Anarchy by definition can't be a form of government. RMS may be left wing, but I don't think he is entirely socialist. Maybe he's a Radical Libertarian?
RMS is mentioning the GNU/Linux vs. Linux thing because it is very relevant to the issue. Because SCO says "IBM misappropriated code into Linux", they are creating confusion, as Linux -- which properly refers to only the kernel -- is also loosely used to refer to what should be called GNU/Linux distributions (28% or so of most distributions is GNU). RMS is not explaining this stuff for you and me, who should know it -- even though, judging from many of the comments on /. recently, many here obviously don't know the difference between the FSF, the OSI, OSS, FS, and their ass. RMS is explaining this to the mass-public, to new GNU/Linux users who don't understand such details, to businesses, etc. It is a very important distinction. SCO's charges are specifically against Linux the kernel, not GNU/Linux; however, they purposefully word things so as not to make that clear. To businesses and the mass-public, it sounds like they are alleging code was misappropriated into the entire GNU/Linux distributions, not just the Linux kernel. That is quite a different thing, and would be a much worse and more massive problem.
RMS then went on to mention the problem with the word "intellectual property". "Intellectual property" can be loosely used to refer to patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, and other types of IP. These things are different in what things they cover (ideas vs. expressions vs. logos/words vs. secrets) and they differ in the duration and scope of protection. It is misleading to lump them all together. Specifically, SCO is very vague about whether it is invoking copyright or patents.
Finally, RMS points out several other important things. (1) FSF did not copy any code from Unix, as that would produce code that is not free; (2) The FSF believes that SCO gave the community permission to use the code they distributed under the GNU GPL in their GNU/Linux distro; (3) In a communities so large as the overlapping communities of FS and OSS developers, plaguarism is inevitable, no matter how many precautions are taken, but the community will discover it, will discard the code, will replace it, and will move on; (4) The contributions of thousands of individuals to Linux cannot be suppressed; (5) Linux the kernel is no longer essential. There are other operating systems that are entirely Free, as defined by the FSF, which use different kernels (e.g., the BSD kernel, the GNU HURD kernel).
How people take this as an illogical rant, which will divide the community, is beyond me. His message is unifying and clarifying, not divisive and obfuscating. "Our community cannot be defeated by this."
P.S.: Stallman's arguing for calling it GNU/Linux is not some egotistical stunt. He has done this for precisely one reason: because GNU makes up a larger percentage of distributions than anything else (~28%). He has not argued that *BSD be called GNU/BSD, for example, because little GNU software is used in *BSD OS'. There is nothing wrong with requesting that credit be given where credit is due. He is also not trying to pull the rug out from under Linus, as he specifically rejects the idea of just calling it GNU.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Frankly, Stallman's ego is just too big for my limited system. Other than the gcc compiler and linker, I don't use GNU tools. I use ksh, busybox, KDE and man. Everything GNU gets its hands into turns to crap. See emacs, info, gcc before the egcs fork, erc. etc. etc.
I have no need for a GNU/Linux. My Linux system works fine by itself.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Sure, I use it and you use it. When my mother uses it, I will accept that it's popular. Until then, it's popular only in a very narrow sense, e.g. "Originating among the people".
No, it's quite definitely popular in the sense of
frequently encountered or widely accepted. And as the earlier poster said, since there's as yet no application of the Linux kernel that doesn't also involve use of the GNU tools, the GNU tools are, at a minimum as popular as the Linux kernel.
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
The GCC compiler is required for compiling the Linux kernel and user programs. You can replace just about every other piece of GNU software in a Linux system with better, non-GNU alternatives. Try it. You might like it.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
SCO responds to RMS
If it didn't need sayiing, you wouldn't be so confused about what SCO is going after, the kernel or the whole GNU/Linux thing. You see now why it matters what you call it? If not, I give up. Really, all the folks who have been mantra-like opining about rms annoying the community with the stupid distinction haven't yet observed that they were wrong all along, and they still are. You can read more about the SCO legal mess on Groklaw and get yourself unconfused.
The point is that the Open Source movement is relatively unlikely to try and sue the pants off of someone for 80 lines of shared code than a litigious titan like Microsoft or someone like SCO.
It's also much harder for an open source community to take your work away from you like in the case of what SCO's trying to threaten... Worst likely case is you have to release the source code to your work, and then get the contribution of anybody who's willing to fix it.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
If you can't reply in a normal tone, I don't give a fuck what you're saying. We might not agree, but being *polite* is a good thing - especially if you're complaining about RMS being arrogant or whatever. So, if you're can't do that, don't bother replying this time.
I'm not talking licenses here. Of course Linux is GPL code, which makes it Free Software. I'm talking about communities. Linux, though it may be FS in essence, gave birth to the Open Source community as we know it today. The term Open Source was divised to market Linux (for a nice explanation, see Revolution OS. Okay documentary - and if you want proof that RMS can stop talking about himself (some people say he can't), it's good, too.). Which, as you so kindly pointed out, is not the same as the FS movement. This could not have happened if the FSF hadn't developed GNU. Therefore, GNU made Open Source possible. It helped Open Source, even though it doesn't share the same ideals.
The problem here might be that the GPL is both FS and OS, unlike for example, the Mozilla license. Free Software is always Open Source, but OS isn't always FS.
True about Boies, but they also later felt the need to hire an attorney inhouse. No doubt he gets paid plenty, unless like some of the SCO execs he mostly gets stock options.
Do you have to use Linux? No. Right there we can say Linux is not essential.
Everyone seems to forget that the true nature of OSS/FS is not about market share, popularity or growth rate. The nature of OSS/FS is freedom.
Push the envelope. Watch it bend. -Tool
Why do you have so much hatred of someone who has done so much for you?
I think you are jealous. I think you are upset that what you have done in this world amounts to so little compared to what RMS has done for us all. No, he hasn't died for our sins, but he has fought more than many for the freedom of all of society to learn, to know, and to advance.
Well, while you are busy carrying on with your petty adolescent quest of "lashing out at authority figures" and "sticking it to the man", the rest of us will be advancing the freedoms of all of society with every line of code we write.
"Specifically, Sontag believes the 'SCO technologies' which were misappropriated into AIX, IRIX, and the derivative UNIX-alikes (including Linux) are:
JFS ( Journalling File System ). NUMA (Non Uniform Memory Access), a SGI/Stanford collaboration . RCU ( Read-Copy-Update ). SMP ( Symmetrical Multi-Processing ).
"'So you want royalties from FreeBSD as well?' I asked. Sontag responded that 'there may or may not be issues. We believe that UNIX System V provided the basic building blocks for all subsequent computer operating systems, and that they all tend to be derived from UNIX System V (and therefore are claimed as SCO's intellectual property).'"
article 1
article 2
Cutting through RMS' crud.
"I think that when you become a Republican, you don't get to score any more." -- Butt-head
Ok, so why is it GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd but not GNU/NetBSD? Does NetBSD normally get distributed with non-GNU utilities?
The most amazing part is where he convinced the OS really is called GNU. Not GNU/Linux, but GNU. GNU with a linux kernel. GNU with the HURD kernel, whatever. The OS is GNU.
The GNU OS. He's right and it's unfscking believable! Right again, you dastardly villian.
NEXT UP: RMS proves right in the xemacs vs. emacs split... you really do need to collect your copyrights carefully if you ever hope to enforce the GPL, and if not... just use public domain in the first place! He wasn't paranoid... ok, well, he was... but he was right, it really works like that.
Of course, xemacs is still better. But still.
-pyrrho
It may be possible to replace the C library with the one from FreeBSD, but it would likely be non-trivial, and I'm not aware of it having been done -- glibc has been designed to work with the Linux kernel, whereas the *BSD C libraries haven't been.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Hey, that's probably more than SCO makes in a year..
The do not provide everything, however. The X server (XFree86), for example, is not GNU (in fact it is MIT licensed and so is more 'free' than anything GPL'd, or indeed anything BSD licensed).
On the other hand, his point about the use of an alternate kernel is not valid. A lot of people that use Linux use the nVidia binary drivers. RMS, would not admit this, of course, since any software which doesn't include the source does not exist in his universe. The only other kernel nVidia release drivers for (with the obvious exception of the various flavours of windows) is FreeBSD. Note that RMS does not mention FreeBSD as a viable alternarive to GNU/Linux, since it does not use the GNU userland, although it does make use of gcc and gnome, and can run most GNU/Linux binaries. This would arguably make FreeBSD a far more valid alternative to GNU/Linux than GNU/Hurd or GNU/NetBSD, if such an alternative were required.
Actually, it's a good alternative anyway. If you're bored why not try it (or either of the other BSDs, or indeed any other random OS you hear about), after all one of the main points about free software is that diversity is good.
Hmmm. This reads not entirely unlike a rant. For the record, while I disagree with the FSF on a number of points, I can't help but acknowledge the huge contribution that the GNU project has made to *NIX on the desktop.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
I'm a Libertarian... and I certainly don't advocate socialism. In fact, I'd be more for anarchy than socialism. First law of nature: Survival of the fittest.
"It's better to have a gun and not need it than need a gun and not have it." ~ Christian Slater, True Romance
Get to it then. If you have 7 years to burn and can muster enough support to make it happen, I'll pat you on the back. But, I'll look to the future to find things to spend my time on. Stallman's contributions make this possible and I think he deserves to be recognized for it. His position is clear and justified; I've read it and agree with him. I have no problem calling the system GNU/Linux. It is proper.
...Izzy
Now when it comes to marketing, what is proper and what sells are two different things. Redhat's system is called Redhat Linux for marketing reasons. That is the product they are selling. It's probably proper that they should describe it as a GNU/Linux system someplace in there documents, but It doesn't make sense to call it Redhat GNU/Linux. That doesn't meet the needs of marketing.
I don't know whether they do or not (I don't have a version of Redhat handy), but the propper thing would be to use Linux alone only when describing the kernel, GNU/Linux when describing the system, and Redhat Linux when describing their product (which should be most of the uses). I think this even fits within RMS' philosophy.
Given the current SCO FUD, emphasizing the GNU/Linux fact may actually be useful in winning back support from managers worried by the threat of legal issues. In fact, if this FUD drags on for too long, I wouldn't be surprised if Redhat changes their product name to deemphasize the use of Linux. They could still sell a GNU/Linux system, but call it something like...
Redhat Windows -->Assuming MS looses their trademark
Redhat Unix -->Assuming The Open Group looses their trademark
Redhat OS -->Not likely to sell much
Redhat {some fancy name that causes people to drool}
You get the idea. I personally thank RMS for publicly taking this position. This article will be a useful link in calming any fears my customers may have.
I believe that the SCO case could threaten GNU just as much as it threatens Linux. In the long run, they aren't just after IBM or Red Hat; they want to own the rights to the entire *nix paradigm. In addition, the outcome of this case could affect the entire system of "open" development. Even the FSF would feel the chilling effect on development of having to do IP-violation searches or the such.
In the end, I think RMS is shooting himself in the foot by not closing ranks with the Linux community in this time of need.
Sorry, english is not my native language.
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
If there is something more petty than Stallman wanting the OS to be called GNU like he originally named it... this plan you outline is it.
-pyrrho
basically Stallman is right in that the OS was supposed to be called GNU. He's wrong in that Linus didn't make GNU... how could he? That's the Stallman/FSF project.
So stallman, I believe you, the OS is GNU... not GNU/Linux, not Linux, just GNU.
So make a distribution and call it GNU! That was your plan, finish it! If you can't stand having a linux kernel in GNU, use the HURD. If the HURD isn't ready, GNU isn't ready. The world has not seen GNU, just a bunch of the parts of GNU. If you want people to understand the kernel in a given version of GNU, go ahead and call it GNU/Linux... but for god's sake remember you don't have to tell people what to call THEIR distribution! It's free and in liberation software, make the distro yourself and call it what you want.
Honestly, I think there is some kind of mental block here. Why doesn't the FSF have a distro? They are envious AND too good to use the Linux kernel? I don't know, but it's something psychological because as a practical matter it would be nothing for them to roll a distro and call it GNU, according to the original plan (more or less).
In fact, now would be a good time since the FSF is MUCH more careful about copyright than any other OSS effort, clearly, and that could be a serious value-add for a linux distro.
-pyrrho
I have long believed that MS and SCO and other types in that same basket deliberately pollute Slashdot with their paid views, which they carefully craft to sound as authentic as possible ("This will get me modded down but ..." or "I admire Stallman for his work but ..."). I used to do PR, so I can smell it. Your post smells, Sir. I, for one, intend to flag such comments with determination whenever I see them and I hope others in the know will do the same. In fact I just got an account so I can post as often as I see a need. Maybe the PR flaks will then go away, when they see FUD doesn't work in a savvy crowd.
If they renamed the company to GNU/SCO
you can read ESR stuff (like the OSI paper) for your own edification. If you give it to anyone else, it might backfire, that's because while he can make a good point, ESR is crazy and this has a way of coming through in his writing. Kind of like the software engineer you know is valuable for his skills, but whome has to be seated far away from everyone else because they don't understand the tourettes and libertarian mania.
But I love my eccentric geek luminaries! I'm just saying.
-pyrrho
I smell a troll, anyway:
No, I really meant 10.000,00 Euros the way numbers typically are written over here in Europe.
You may think this is laughable or plainly wrong but then again, this is exactly what people in most parts of the world people think about the American way to write numbers, dates, measures or even laws.
605413? Yes, it's a prime.
How does auditing AIX users protect scox's IP? Especially since this IP is supposed to be in Linux. What if AIX users don't cooperate, it's not as if scox has a court order or anything.
And what will scox be looking to find?
I will agree with the people who think he is propping up Linux. He is telling people that they don't have to go out and buy Sun or Microsoft software, because most of their free software is not under any threat. There is no need to get rid of all your Linux servers today, because you won't have to throw out your entire system if SCO should win; the worst case is that you have to get a different more or less equivalent kernel.
I think this is a voice in support in of Linux and free software for the ears of the PHBs.
"Where would we be?"
People would quit looking at us like we were communist whack-jobs when we tried to sell Open Source into a business somehwere?
"In 1991, GNU was mostly finished, lacking only a kernel."
ALMOST FINISHED? That's a laugh, it's STILL not finished. How in the world can he say it was almost finished in 1991?
you'll trust them that much eh? I trust backstabbing friends LESS than honest enemies myself!
Between this and the crappy Ultra 10 hardware that all seem to break down at about 12-18 months old, Sun isn't the same. It's not superfast, reliable, slick Solaris and Sparc. It's bloated, slow, unreliable Java and Hype!
Of course, I shed a single tear at this unhappy change of events. Just one.
-pyrrho
Why is Stallman commenting about a case in which he knows nothing about? If he had any understanding of intellectual property, he'd understand that the merits of the case lie mostly in the contracts between SCO and IBM. He's basically making the same stupid arguement every other OSS advocate has made since the beginning. SCO hasn't showed us the evidence. Therefore, they must be lying. Just because SCO doesn't tell YOU STALLMAN, what the details of the IP violations are, doesn't mean they are oversimplifying the issues. It just means it's not worth their effort or in their interest to tell you the details.
So if I don't prefix every iteration of "Linux" with "GNU/," that means I don't give credit in my mind to the GNU people?
Everybody knows GNU's contributions. Just like they know the contributions of everyone else, like the X11 group, KDE, and so forth. That doesn't mean I have to list everyone off.
Give me a break.
"Sufferin' succotash."
See the Byte article and other inverviews win Sontag. I quote (emphasis added):
"We believe that UNIX System V provided the basic building blocks for all subsequent computer operating systems, and that they all tend to be derived from UNIX System V (and therefore are claimed as SCO's intellectual property)."
In the same article, SCO refuses to rule out going after Apple and Microsoft, says explicitly that they're considering going after FreeBSD already and will only officially exclude Sun from their list of future lawsuits because apparently Sun's all paid up.
You're the one who wasn't listening.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
I thought he was going to talk about SCO there for a bit, but soon realized it was just one more forum for RMS to evangelize the term "GNU/Linux."
I can't understand why the anti-RMS brigade feel somehow hurt by RMS's statement that "Linux [the kernel] itself is no longer essential". It is simply a 100% accurate statement of fact, without any advocacy or preferences to taint it, in view of the undeniable evidence that there are hundreds of thousands of *BSD users and systems spread across the world and doing very nicely thank you, all with their own non-Linux kernels.
It's about as precise a statement as you can make. Those *BSD users are not figments of our imagination, and indeed they might even claim that they run the best kernel. However, that would be advocacy, and others might deny it. The undeniable claim though is the one that RMS made. One should not try to find hidden criticism in an utterly precise and unadorned statement of fact.
I'm completely dependent on the Linux kernel myself so any problems it might suffer could hurt me. But I can't argue with RMS's clear point.
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
This "you can't own an idea" shibboleth is just a smokescreen.
First, it seems to presuppose that every idea possible idea already exists. Therefore, since an idea's existence pre-dates the individual who expresses it, it is impossible for the individual to own it.
I don't believe in that kind of universe.
More importantly, ideas cannot be communicated and shared unless someone creates a physical symbolic representation of that idea: by speaking, writing, singing, painting, etc. That physical representation of the idea can, in fact, be owned.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Well this AC has at least given away that fact that he is an ignorant American. That still leaves us with a fair majority of the population though .... the hunt continues.
"Linux itself is no longer essential"
Is true. In fact, Linux has never been essential. BSD has been around since before there was a Linux.
Which is just egotistical masturbation,
Given the traditional antipathy between RMS and the BSD folks, I don't see how there's anything egotistical about RMS's simple statement of fact.
Your arguments suggest that Linux is important. They do not establish that Linux is essential! Switching to BSD would probably cause some disruption and confusion in some parts of the world, but for the most part, it would be a simple and smooth transistion, and many (most?) of the people involved might not even notice.
For that matter, your arguments about press and marketing only apply to the name "Linux". Which is Linus's trademark, clean and clear. If the existing Linux codebase went away, Linus could simply say, "ok, BSD is close enough, I'll allow my trademark to be used to describe BSD systems." And your problem is solved. Linux is important; Linux is not essential.
I don't think RMS is such a hard ass a all.
In fact his is a bit easy going.
A real hard ass would have a class action lawsuit going on against SCO for all the dishonest and outright intentional damage SCO is causing.
But it is so interesting how such a short and honest article can put down and bring clairity to the endless crap in and around SCO vs. IBM...
I wish folks would just stop with the GNU/Linux junk.
And I wish folks would stop with the "just stop with the GNU/Linux junk" junk. WHO FREAKIN' CARES!
In answer to the oft-mentioned (and incredibly stupid) argument that it should be X/Apache/BSD/Mozilla/GNU/Linux, X, Apache, and Mozilla are OPTIONAL ADD-ONS! You can't boot the freekin' system without GNU's glibc and fileutils and the like! You can run all day and night, doing useful, and even critical work, without any of that other crap. Except maybe BSD, but the fact is that a bare minimum working Linux system is MOSTLY GNU software, with maybe 20% of Linus's code and maybe 5% or less BSD code.
Anyway, RMS has contibuted an awful lot; I'm willing to silently ignore his rants. WTF have you done that I should pay attention to your ignorant opinion?
had he talked about the whole system, I'm quite sure he'd have used GNU/*BSD.
I doubt it. BSD has its own history as an OS, apart from GNU. FreeBSD does borrow some GNU utilities: bc/dc, binutils, gcc, cpio, cvs, dialog, diff, gperf, grep, groff, gzip, man, patch, send-pr, sort, tar, texinfo, and libreadline. We have some GNU libs (such as libiberty and libregex) to support the GNU utils, although we have similar replacements for the rest of the OS. Many of these utilities were adopted later in *BSD's life. For example, gcc replaced pcc.
Most of the rest of the OS is ours. I don't have room to give a comprehensive list, but some key players include fileutils, shellutils, ssh, libc (and most other libs), netutils, vi, init, fsutils, sendmail, and named.
are all pure Linux and don't have much to do with the GPL
Linux is licensed itself under the GPL. I'm not sure what you meant to say but what you did say is just plain false.
In short, the personality of TSG is alien to the personality of SCO, as well as them being two different business entities, and the two should be kept distinct. Muddling them together only aids TSG's cold-bloodedly sown legal confusion.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
9/6/03 - ninth of June or 6th of September? 20030609 - any questions? The ordering of Yankee dates is just bizarre. Where people get frightened by eight-digit numbers, I write 09 Jun 2003.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I'm hearking back to Miguel's oft-quoted comment about users replacing their GNOME desktops with KDE, and parallelling that with The Hurd vs Linux.
Is GNOME taking forever to catch KDE in the huge-invasive-window-manager arena for the same reasons that The Hurd is taking forever to catch Linux in the one-size-fits-all kernel arena?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
More details (in German): heise.de
I'm sick and tired of articles about interesting things happening in Germany being written in German. Every German I've ever met spoke perfect English, so why can't you guys just drop the parochial attitude and start publishing all your stuff in God's Own Tongue?
p.s. Is it true that the reason that Germans have no sense of humor is due to the fact that part of their ancestry includes Black Forest trolls?
"You see this tree trunk here called Unix -- we own all of that". And every seedling that this tree ever produced, including that whole forest out there of C programs of every size, big and small...
And all those programs and content that was created and built on top of Unix platforms, like all those Pixar and Lucasfilm movies, why we own that too..."
The interesting thing at the bottom of that RMS article is that if SCO _ever_ distributed the code that they claim infringes a Unix copyright then by their own action they have legally released it under the GPL. So while this may be a nasty contract fight between SCO and IBM, SCO itself has protected the Linux community itself from harm by distributing its own material under the irrevocable GPL.
The only code that might be at risk is anything that SCO never actually distributed--which would mean only some pretty recent contributions. In other words: not a big deal because the recent stuff could be rolled back and rewritten without much pain.
Clickety Click
The world is a better place because of RMS.
The world is a better place because of RMS.
It can't be said too often.
That it has to be said at all, given his overwhelming contributions, is the weirdo's own damn fault!
GNU/*BSD
I doubt it. BSD has its own history as an OS, apart from GNU.
I assume you didn't read the article. He was talking not about the usual *BSD "distribution", but about the GNU system with *BSD kernel (I'll guess he's talking about Debian GNU/NetBSD). I'm well aware of the *BSD story, but that doesn't exactly apply here in the context of the GNU system.
Presuming busybox isn't using any FSF code, and the Linux kernel isn't either, then surely it isn't "GNU/Linux" anymore ?
So, are you saying that RMS is a liar, or a cretin?
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
This strikes me as one of those brilliant questions like "when did you stop beating your wife?"
The correct answer is neither, you have tried to limit the range of answers to two irrelevant choices, neither of which answers the questions posed to you. Thanks for playing.
Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
Ahh, hit post too soon. Why don't we take the answer to GNU/BSD from Stallman himself, right off the FSF web site.
---
Should we say "GNU/BSD" too?
No, that would not fit the history of the BSD systems.
The BSD system was developed by UC Berkeley as non-free software in the 80s, and became free in the early 90s. A free operating system that exists today is almost certainly either a variant of the GNU system, or a kind of BSD system.
People sometimes ask whether BSD too is a variant of GNU, as GNU/Linux is. It is not. The BSD developers were inspired to make their code free software by the example of the GNU Project, and explicit appeals from GNU activists helped convince them to start, but the code had little overlap with GNU.
BSD systems today use some GNU packages, just as the GNU system and its variants use some BSD programs; however, taken as wholes, they are two different systems that evolved separately. The BSD developers did not write a kernel and add it to the GNU system, so a name like GNU/BSD would not fit the situation.
The connection between GNU/Linux and GNU is much closer, and that's why the name "GNU/Linux" is appropriate for it.
By the way, there is a project to develop a version of GNU which uses the kernel from FreeBSD. Its developers call it "Debian GNU/FreeBSD" system, but "GNU/kernelofFreeBSD" would be more accurate, since FreeBSD is an entire system, not just the kernel. To call them a "Linux system" and a "BSD system" would give a misleading impression that they are very different; this system won't be very different, in terms of the code it contains or how it operates, from Debian GNU/Linux.
Well I'm the doctor and I say you're dead, so shut up and take it like a man!
Daniel, my other post under your comment was of course a trollish parody of english-centrism. In truth I love the plurality of languages on the planet (I'm a linguistics student) and I very much appreciate people who provide summaries or translations of foreign language articles like yourself.
Solferino,
I thought so when I read it but didn't answer since it was hard to top the black forrest trolls. Some may be part of our anchestry but living here I often feel that lots of them survived to the current day.
On the other hand, what you lined out as parody actually appears to be stated policy of those marketing crowds who over the last years have created a languoid which is neither German nor English (nor even comprehensible, to begin with.)
Riding the subway reading the ads you have to wonder how long German as a written language will survive.
But then again, I'm well known for pessimistic opinions I don't believe in myself.
605413? Yes, it's a prime.
It was "mostly finished." RMS may have chosen the wrong word, but what he meant was "completed." Anyone with a 6th grade reading level can determine that.
You win the semantic argument. However, by calling BSD ,a href="http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-software- for-freedom.html">free rather than Open, RMS shows that he can't even keep his own propaganda straight. I call cretin on him.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I do not think that I understand the point here.
What is the connection between IBM and the Linux kernel?
I thought that the Linux kernel has been developed by Linus. Did IBM had any involvement on this?