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.'"

Comments

There's Cringely too.

[AltGrendel]

He has an new and interesting take on the SCO cr@p too. It's here.

Re:There's Cringely too.

[pldms]

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.

Re:There's Cringely too.

[cdrudge]

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.

Re:There's Cringely too.

[Bigby]

Does anyone else, at first glance, think that Cringely looks like the boss in Office Space? Mmmmmm, Yeaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh....

Re:There's Cringely too.

[Eunuchswear]

But, as usual he gets important details wrong:

Think about it. Ashton-Tate's claim on dBase was, in many ways, similar to SCO's current claim on derivative UNIX works. They both ignored upstream property rights of others. What is ironic about this is that Fox Software wasn't the only company sued by Ashton-Tate for this supposed copyright violation. Fox's co-defendant was SCO. And having been on the other side of such a similar case, they should know better.

Yes, SCO was Fox's co-defendant. But it isn't SCO that's suing IBM, it's "The SCO Group", who are not the same people at all. There is no "they" there.

Re:There's Cringely too.

[rking]

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.

Linux no longer essential

[tommten]

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. Our community cannot be defeated by this.

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!

Re:Linux no longer essential

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, no doubt this will be modded down instantly, but I have to ask this question:

Would RMS mind so much if Linux kernel fell down because of this controversy as long as GNU carried on with a different kernel?

I mean, reading his comments it seems clear that his purpose was not to defend Linux, but to try to draw a distinction (surprise) between the Linux kernel, the GNU system and the OS that is GNU/Linux.

Re:Linux no longer essential

[Jeremy Erwin]

make: There *is* an alternative make. I don't rember the name.


BSD make? It's largely incompatible with gnumake. I suppose we can replace those nasty autotools with good old fashioned imake, as well.

emacs: Ok, this is GNU.
there is Lucid Emacs/XEmacs.

Is the goal of this excercise to get rid of GPLed stuff, or simply to rid ourselves of GNU utilities?

If it's the former, I'm sure you could, with a lot of effort, graft the linux kernel onto a BSD (thus earning the undying emnity of BSD pedantics who preach about the innate superiority of an integrated operating system over a disoganized group. that simply releases a kernel every few months and calls it an "operating system".

If it's the latter, simply download the sources from GNU and fork them. Announce your intentions as loudly as possible. Mimic the flashiest new feature sets that you can find. Be sure to accept patches from anyone, anywhere, and for heaven's sake, don't ask you developers to assign copyrights to you.

Within a couple of years, people will abandon the GNU toolset in droves, and start to contribute only to your forks. RMS will be left with a library of obsolete, incompatible, and neglected software. The BTG (Better than GNU) toolchain conquers on.

Soon, a SCO will discover that some idiot has copied code from their sources, sue you for copyright infringement, and run your BTG operations into the ground. And then. RMS will gaze fondly at his beloved GNU, and laugh at your misfortune.

Holy 3-letter acronyms batman!!!

[bytes256]

RMS SCO FUD!!! Meltdown meltdown!!!

Re:Holy 3-letter acronyms batman!!!

[killmenow]

Now, if only the subject of your message had been: "Holy TLA Batman!" and the body been simply: RMS SCO FUD!!! WTF?!

Article summary

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Re:Article summary

[arkanes]

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.

Copyleft?

[CaptainBaz]

Copyright 2003 Richard Stallman. Verbatim copying and redistribution of this entire article are permitted without royalty in any medium provided this notice is preserved.

Am I the only one who sniggered?

Shaking the tree/Spreading the FUD?

[burgburgburg]

I originally considered SCO's efforts to be, as Stallman suggests, an attempt to shake the IBM money tree and see what would fall out.

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.

This is very interesting,

[T40 Dude]

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 !

Aha

[spakka]

From the article:

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.

RTFA

[Gzip Christ]

Linux is a piece of shit!

Did you not even read the article? You should be saying GNU/Linux is a piece of shit.

love,
RMS

the short version

[r0b0t b0y]

the condensed version of the article:

• SCO is putting out FUD
• it's GNU/Linux not just Linux, dammit!
• why doesn't anyone use Hurd?
• i am the man

Wrong fight RMS

[geoff lane]

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.

the Linux kernel is no longer essential

[solidhen]

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.

Re:the Linux kernel is no longer essential

[RevMike]

If for some reason Canada was wiped of the face of the earth tomorrow people would still be able live elsewhere.

Sure there would probably be major setbacks. It might take another five years to get the NHL to the point were we are now but things would eventually get back to normal.

So RMS's statement that Canada is no longer essential is true.

I vacationed to Canada and it seemed OK. But if I _had_ to I could learn to vacation in Europe, or Asia even. I know both Europe and Asia are working on getting there[sic] people to speak English.

If Canada went away tomorrow it would be a real shame (understatement of the year) but it would not be the end of the world.

Re:the Linux kernel is no longer essential

[Dynastar454]

Ouch, the mods clearly don't like my over the top analogy. I'm just trying to say the fact that RMS (and many other people here) seem so complacent about this is disturbing.

Think about it this way if you will. The Linux kernel took thousands and thousands of person-hours to make. It's a shining example of free software, a work of art if you will. Don't you think people would be perplexed if, say, the curator of the Smithsonian said after the the war in Iraq, "Well, it would be a shame to see all the priceless artifacts in Iraq looted, but it's not such a big deal, our collection will still be fine." No, you want the curator to be indignant, to call for strict protection for the artifacts, to cry from the top of the mountion how looting in Iraq harms the art community and the world!

RMS (and others) should realize the "that sucks, but we'll be ok either way" attitude is just... I don't know, dumb!

Re:the Linux kernel is no longer essential

[reverseengineer]

Tux- This is about Linux.

The Architect - You are here because Linux is about to be destroyed. Its every line of code terminated, its entire existence eradicated.

Tux - Bullshit.

The Architect - Denial is the most predictable of all human responses. But, rest assured, this will be the sixth time we have destroyed it, and we have become exceedingly efficient at it.

The Architect - The function of the Gnu is now to return to the source, allowing a temporary dissemination of the GPL'd code you carry, reinserting the prime program. After which you will be required to select from the matrix 23 OSS programmers, 16 American, 7 Finnish, to rebuild the kernel. Failure to comply with this process will result in a cataclysmic system crash killing every process currently running, which coupled with the extermination of the kernel will ultimately result in the extinction of the entire Linux operating system.

Tux - You won't let it happen, you can't. You need Linux to survive.

The Architect - There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept. However, the relevant issue is whether or not you are ready to accept the responsibility for the death of every installation of Linux in this world.

(Sorry, I saw the parent post and the line from Matrix Reloaded about "There are levels of survival we are prepared to accept." came to mind, and I couldn't resist.)

Re:Well that was pretty worthless

[Speare]

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.

He's persistent

[HoloBear]

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.

Re:Well that was pretty worthless

[gandy909]

...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.

How it will be settled with IBM and SCO

[Xpilot]

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)

Re:Okay, mod me down

[4im]

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.

GNU/Linux rant to the rescue?

[ajs]

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!

It's not about the kernel anymore

[ProteusQ]

[My Journal from June 2, 2003]

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. ;)

Impressive

[farrellj]

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

Re:Who cares if Linux has SCO owned code?

[msgmonkey]

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.

the rest should be silence

[Anonymous Coward]

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.
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 /. 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.

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 /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).
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 /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 ?"

If all else fails, just remember, "GNU's not UNIX", and build your own little green rosetta.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

[FreeUser]

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).

Re:Well that was pretty worthless

[pavon]

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.

Can't see the forest for the trees...

[thoolihan]

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

Re:Okay, mod me down

[hankaholic]

The reason he doesn't insist on GNU/NetBSD is that the BSDs are based on a codebase that was originally UNIX.

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 .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.

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

This quote nicely sums up my question...

[StressGuy]

"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.

What if the sco case was on irc?

[dark-br]

Topic in #os: hey guyz, stop pickin on irix.
<SCO> w00t! i bought unix! im gonna b so rich!
<novell> /msg atnt haha. idiot.
<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.)

Re:I've never understood the GNU/Linux thing

[Chops]

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.

Text editors, command shells, compiler, linker, debugger, C library, standard Unix tools (grep/awk/diff/etc.), gtk, desktop environment (Gnome)... short of X and the kernel, pretty much everything in a modern "Linux" distribution that I at least consider to be part of the OS comes from GNU. Check the man pages for 'printf', 'tar', and such.

RMS is right on topic

[heironymouscoward]

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.

And in Germany, SCO promises to watch its tongue

[daniel23]

LinuxTag, who sent a cease and desist letter to SCO now have a written confirmation by Sco in which Sco declares the will not again say that Linux Operating Systems would contain unlawful obtained Intellectual property of sco unix.
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

Re:No not again.

[p3d0]

The whole reason GNU has been forgotten is because it has such a dumb-ass name, complete with recursive acronymity (giggle-snort) and painfully nerdy pronunciation instructions.

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.

This is so wrong

[revery]

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.

Re:Broken Record

[Blkdeath]

RMS sounds like a broken record. How many times do we need to hear the explaination of Linux and GNU/Linux?

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.

Re:Broken Record

[Anonymous Coward]

You've missed the point of what he is saying. He is telling CEOs that if Linux in a worst case scenario were to go down, there are three other kernels that can be swapped in, without missing a beat. That's why it matters. If GNU/Linux gets tied up in legal red tape, he is saying, not that he expects it to happen, then GNU/Hurd or GNU/BSD just keeps right on going. This will counter the FUD that "Linux" is dangerous to use in business. Linux is just the kernel, he is repeating, and at the moment, it's clear that if we all had changed our speech habits, the FUD would be less effective. Maybe you should read what he wrote again.

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.