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.'"
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
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?
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.
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.
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.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
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
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.
[
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.
...but without all of the GNU software, the Linux kernel would be nothing...
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., instead of having a full-fledged unix-like OS ready to go with the Linux kernel when it came into being.
Sure, RMS may be somewhat of a wack-job at times, and I don't agree with him all the time either, but lets give credit where it's due. It was due to his vision and hard work that Linux was ABLE to take off and start flying high right away instead of floundering around in the muck for a long time.
(Stolen sig) Remember: it's a "Microsoft virus", not an "email virus", a "Microsoft worm", not a "computer worm
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
Surely all of us can see that there is a big difference between the kernel and everything else that sits on top of it. Is SCO's lawsuit relevant to Gimp, for example? Or /bin/ls?
The real world considers "linux" as an entire package. SCO, even in their wildest dreams, won't be able to force me to move from Apache to IIS.
But SCO has stated that they think Linux will still exist, but not be free (cost) anymore. Now if they did in some twisted universe win, do you really think everyone won't just flee to BSD (which just happens to have a heck of a lot of GNU stuff on top of it as well).
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.
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??
[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!
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".
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
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.
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.
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
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
You're confusing two things. RMS newspeak (GNUspeak?) means exactly squat. Maybe a dozen hippies worldwide care about it, and Linus isn't one of them. What does count is his paranoid-bordering-on-schitzophrenic obsession with making sure that GNU's Not Unix is true in fact as well as rhetoric.
He'll get his though. Sooner or later, one of the GNU (not Linux) contributors who hasn't assigned copyright to the FSF will go off in a huff, send a cease-and-desist, explicitely revoke the implicitely licensed GPL right to duplicate their source (note: license != contract), and then bring a suit for copyright infringement if the FSF distribute even one more copy of their source.
To achieve his dream, the GPL needs to mandate (at most) assigning copyright to the FSF, or (at least) demanding that the distribution license is irevocable and in perpetuity and that patent licenses must also be so and be explicitely disclosed and licensed in GPL source distributions.
It won't happen, because to do so would highlight that GPL version 2 does not demand this. Oopsie.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
As many times as it takes for it to sink in.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
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 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
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
Hmm, I don't know about you, but I'd have a good deal of trouble trying to make a kernal a compiler. Furthermore, the amount of time that all the command line utilites save is well worth the effort to write them - and they were immediatly usefull to people using BSD and semi-free UNIXes - alot more usefull then a bare kernal. I think that GNU/FSF had it's priorities very much in line.
The reason that linux took off and HURD did not, was not at all due to the incomepence of the programmers, but is an interesting study in software engineering. In all the CS classes I have had they stressed how important is was to design everything first and then code - which is what the HURD team did. Linus's approach was different. He starting with something simple, and then improved it (call this iterative programming, agile programming, whatever - it's the same thing).
It turns out that traditional software engineering doesn't scale very well, and that this iterative approach is actually more effecient. This seems strange - you would think that doing everything right from the beginning would be better then having to rewrite large portions of the code with each itteration, but that is assuming that it is actually possible to get the design correct on the first try - it isn't. Large software programs can be very complex and expecting to be able to design something as big as an OS on the first shot is like expecting Henry Ford to design a car like we have today on his first shot. He didn't, and the cars we have today are the result of decades of design iterations. We shouldn't expect software to be any different.
In addition, Linus was the first to stumble upon the benifits of distributed open source development - which go hand-in-hand with iterative programming because other programmers rarely get interested in an open source program until you have something working - which linux did and the HURD did not.
But the HURD team had no way of knowing about that, and you can't blame them for writing software using the best methods that anyone knew at the time.
P.S.
People always raise the point of the HURD being a micro kernal vs linux being a modular monolithic kernal, but I think that had little effect on slowing the development compared to these other two issues.
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
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
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?
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.
I'm just surprised RMS didn't call SCO's tactics SCO/FUD.
Because we all know the old saying:
Or something like that, anyway."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.)
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
[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"?
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.
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
>> Is SCO's lawsuit relevant to Gimp, for example? Or /bin/ls?
/dev/null
Well, it's actually more relevant to
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
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
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
Many slashdotters rant that ownership of information is immoral, but I doubt that many really consider the alternatives.
Once the printing press was invented/commercialized by Guttenburg, It suddenly became orders of magnitude cheaper to produce books. In the disorder that followed - the disorder present whenever technology leaps ahead of law - publishers found new material to publish by simply walking into the shops of other publishers and buying copies of their books. Publisher Foo would pay an author to create content, then publisher Bar would buy one copy of Foo's book and copy the contents. Bar would unercut the price, since he didn't have to make back the money paid to the author.
In the long run, there is no motive to pay authors. Authors need to eat in order to write. Therefore the government stepped in and created copyrights.
With patents, the issue is slightly different. If the invention was the product, there is little to protect the inventor from copying, hence little opportunity for the inventor to benefit.
If the invention, however, was not the product, but a process or procedure to make the product, it could be protected by keeping it a trade secret. Trade secrets are just that - secrets. Therefore, there is no way for another inventor to use one invention as the starting point for another. This is bad for innovation.
Patent law was created to give inventors limited monopolies on their ideas in exchange for publishing them for other inventors to use.
Patent and copyright law is useful and beneficial for society. The problem today is two-fold: protection is granted to overly broad "innovation" and protection is granted for increasingly long periods of time. I think we all intuitively agree that "1-click" purchasing shouldn't be patentable. But a truly new and innovative scheduling algorithm might be worthy. And it seems that exclusive periods are much too long for many inventions.
A few ideas I have for reform...
- Increase the standards for getting a patent - currently almost anything can be patented, the burden of proof that something doesn't deserve a patent falls to accused infringers.
- Reduce the exclusive period in accordance with the type of invention. Pharmaceuticals require huge investment, so drug companies need 15-20 years to make back their investment. Software patents should run out after no more than five years.
- Reduce the exclusive period for copyrighted material.
- Require that copyrighted material also be published. Therefore source code would need to be published in order to be protected.
Trademarks and Servicemarks are not so much about intellectual property, but about allowing consumers to reliably identify producers. Chrysler should not be able to name a car "Honda" and trick consumers into buying their product.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.
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.
...SCO's worst offense is confusing Linux with GNU/Linux!
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 tooI don't disagree with your statement.
I think the way to look at this is like Solaris. Solaris is an operating environment. The kernel is still SunOS.
In GNU/Linux, Linux, or whatever you want to call it: Linux is the kernel, GNU/GNOME/KDE/XFree86 is the operating environment. It is all semantics, but when it comes to the legal system semantics are everything.
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.
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
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.
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.
>>> The reason that linux took off and HURD did not, was not at all due to the incomepence of the programmers, but is an interesting study in software engineering. In all the CS classes I have had they stressed how important is was to design everything first and then code - which is what the HURD team did. Linus's approach was different. He starting with something simple, and then improved it (call this iterative programming, agile programming, whatever - it's the same thing). Let's not pat Linus on the back too much. The reason that Linus' approach was "successful", in part, is because he, nor RMS/GNU, didn't have to design much of anything. So, here, SCO has a point, hardly the first, as many have previously noted, that Linux/GNU has merely copied, with incremental improvements, an already previous well-proven design that itself has been evolving for more than 30 years.
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.
So, most of the "basic" OS, as well as several important applications, are part of GNU. Whether you want to call such an OS GNU/Linux is up to you, but RMS is right when he says that without GNU, there would certainly not be such an operating system based on the Linux kernel available today.
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!
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.
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.
"Red Hat Linux" says what customers need to hear, and no more.
Unlike many here, I have a great deal of respect for Stallman, both as a programmer and as a philosopher of software.
However, "Red Hat Linux", "Mandrake Linux" etc. not only tell customers what they need to hear, IMO they're fundamentally more accurate descriptions of the operating systems in question.
While I certainly agree that the OS running on my machines really shouldn't be called Linux, since Linux is only one small piece of the whole, I think it's equally inaccurate to call it GNU/Linux. How much GNU software is really in there? In any typical desktop Linux-based OS distro?
Trying to figure out how much of an OS is GNU, how much is Linux and how much is other stuff inevitably leads to the question: What, exactly, is an OS? It seems to me that there are several reasonable places to draw that line, but, anywhere you put it you end up with some Linux, some GNU and some other stuff. It doesn't seem to me that it's possible to build a complete, functioning system that contains nothing but GNU tools and Linux. AFAIK, GNU doesn't provide a version of /sbin/init, etc., so a pure GNU/Linux system couldn't even boot. (Does HURD have it's own boot system?)
There's no doubting that GNU software plays an important role, but it seems to me that all of the other software is also important to making a usable system. As such, I think pedants who want to name things accurately should refer to the distro, since that name does encapsulate all of the bits and pieces, as well as recognizing the people who did the work of putting it all together.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
As many times as it takes for it to sink in.
So, if I can take a piece of computer code, and distribute a modified version of that code, why is it such a crime to do the same with an idea?
Isn't GCC part of the GNU "system". I'd say that the community would be a lot further behind where they are now if they didn't have a common complier to work with.
"You can now flame me, I am full of love,"
Ok, so why is it GNU/Linux and GNU/Hurd but not GNU/NetBSD? Does NetBSD normally get distributed with non-GNU utilities?
Indeed, there is nothing wrong with that, but there certainly is something wrong with claiming credit where it isn't due. And that is what is happening when RMS insists on misnaming Linux as "GNU/Linux".
FSF failed to complete a kernel; the Linux developers succeeded. Various distributors such as Red Hat, SuSE and the rest used the Linux kernel, added a great deal of software, and added installers, documentation, and support of various kinds; some of the stuff is GNU software, a lot of it isn't. They now call their products "Red Hat Linux" or "SuSE Linux" or whatever. RMS & FSF & GNU do not deserve credit for the success of the results, and when RMS attempts to claim it, it is intellectual dishonesty that is uncomfortably similar to plagiarism.
Always keep a sapphire in your mind
Heh -- it happens that I use non-GNU versions of some things you mention (zsh & blackbox), and I share your dim view of info for standard commands (though stuff like 'info mysql' rocks) and the GNU "all things can be done with a long enough --option" philosophy. I seek merely to educate those misguided folk who aren't aware how much of the software they're currently running was written by the FSF.
:-)
Speaking of which, you still need to clear out that pesky C library. I wonder if Linux libc is still available...
Libc, gcc (+lots of other development software), emacs, and, er, well, lots of other things I can't think of right now. But definitely lots of them, and pretty vital stuff.
The only really major part (other than the kernel) I can think of that they're not responsible for is XFree86.
I'm pretty fed up with all the RMS bashing as well. Oh yeah. Bash. They made that too! Can't believe I forgot that. So many of these things are the things that we all take for granted- I suppose that'd be why they're so hard to remember.
Be careful! New moon tonight.
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.
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 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...
being that you're so averse to Socialism in all it's forms, I hope you stand by your ideals and never send your childeren to a public school, or ever use public transport... I mean, that would make you a communist!!
Socialism is everywhere... people just don't call it as such...
5468652047616D65