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.'"
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
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.
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.
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 wish folks would just stop with the GNU/Linux junk.
In this specific dispute with SCO, we're not talking about the userland tools but about the kernel itself. I seem to remember someone named Linus calling the kernel just plain "Linux" and trademarking it to that effect.
As for distributions, they can call their product whatever they want. If they include self-licensed elements, I can see why they wouldn't want to name it "X/Perl/Apache/BSD/Mozilla/GNU/Linux". I'm personally glad that Red Hat hasn't succumbed to the annoying GNU/affectation. "Red Hat Linux" says what customers need to hear, and no more.
[
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.
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.
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!
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
The reason it matters is because SCO are n't going after just the kernel they are saying the whole Linux "system" infringes including all the tools that range from ls to gcc. Since for example GCC has nothing to do with Linus than it does concern RMS. If SCO have a problem with GNU they should point the finger at them too and not just Linus.
I mean look at it this way, however unlikely it is lets say SCO managed to kill the Linux "system" and get that to encompass GNU stuff. It would n't affect just Linux it would effect anything with GNU stuff in it and that's ALOT of systems and not all of them are OSS.
The problem with SCO is that they keep moving the goal posts. One of their later arguments is that they claim that anyone who developes a "Unix-like" operating system owes them money. Infact they take it further saying that Unix is the basis of all modern OS's and in that respect that can go after anyone including presumably MS.
I know you're just being trollish and scathing, but "I didn't want to pay for it, so I made it myself" is an excellent attitude for someone to have. IMO, anyway.
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 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!
I also use and endorse 'Cringley article'.
RMS's article is pretty light on the full horror, but Cringley's gives a nice idea what a tangled mess the simple phrase "our IP" can mean.
Slashdot looked deep within my soul and assigned
me a number based on the order in which I joined
"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
I didn't take RMS's article to be the typical "Say, would you like to try GNU/Hurd?" that is often brought up. I thought it was a good article. It's goal was to fight the smear campaign against GNU, Linux, et al. It clearly explained the basics as to the differences between Unix, Linux, GNU, and GNU/Linux. It only mentions Hurd twice, both times in conjunction with Linux and the BSD kernels. Hardly a press release.
Overall, I think that his article was more of a pep talk that GNU, Linux, whoever won't ever die then a article about SCO.
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
OTOH, Linux is a cool name (because it contains an X), and Linus doesn't care how people pronounce it.
This is only half-joking. I think the name might really have something to do with it.
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
Agreed. And his saying "If there is material in Linux that was contributed without legal authorization, the Linux developers will learn what it is and replace it. SCO cannot use its copyrights, or its contracts with specific parties, to suppress the lawful contributions of thousands of others." was far from critical of Linux or a call to replace it. It seemed pretty clear that he thinks Linux (by which we can be sure he means the kernel) will survive this, although he was also making the point that it is replaceable if it did come to that, which is also true.
He's not addressing Slashdot, he's addressing the slightly technically inclined people who read technical headlines on Ziff Davis's network. Those slightly technically inclined people include managers and CEOs.
Moreover, how many times do we have to hear the RMS bashing? Yes, his ideals are extreme, but where do you think the free software community would be without such extreme, uncompromising ideals?
I, for one, laud the man for being so steadfast especially in the face of so much opposition. It takes courage and conviction to be true to one's ideals in our largely hypocritical world.
BD Phone Home!
Shameless plug. Like you weren't expecting it.
And moderators: since when is whining about rms "Insightful"? I've read this identical comment every time rms says anything in the last two years. Insightful implies something new has been discerned and expressed. Sheesh.