Linus Torvalds about SCO, IP, MS and Transmeta

strmcrw writes " San Jose Mercury News has an interview with Linus. He talks about about SCO vs IBM and gives his opinion on Microsoft. He also shed light on his decision to leave chip maker Transmeta for a Linux corporate software consortium, the Open Source Development Lab."

Comments

The Linux "Operating System"

[Anonymous Coward]

From the article:

Linus Torvalds is the creator of the Linux operating system, the open source version of Unix that is sweeping through the software world in a direct challenge to Microsoft.

[Emphasis mine]

From Rob's own http://cmdrtaco.net/ :

What? You haven't heard of Linux? It's an operating system created by Linus Torvalds, and a band of hacks scattered accross the globe.

[Emphasis mine]

Sorry GNU/FSF/RMS. You're like Rodney Dangerfield; you never get respect...

Unfortunatly, SCO's case is not about IBM

[Billly Gates]

Linus should be more carefull about SCO. Its not a SCO vs IBM at all. They are trying to squash it via fud and legal options. Look at this.

I agree with Linus that Linux will be damaged if the case is not resolved soon. It already has with assholes like McBride suing everyone who mentions the word Linux.

Re:Unfortunatly, SCO's case is not about IBM

[the gnat]

Wow, it just keeps getting more bizarre:

I saw what appeared to be a word-for-word copy of about every third line of code in the central module of the Linux kernel," said Enderle of Giga Information Group, who viewed the alleged code violations two weeks ago. "The lines of code contained typos, misspellings and even copyright disclaimers. It appeared to constitute a violation of the license."

Hmmmm. . . whose copyright disclaimers, exactly? Like, say "Copyright (c) 1985, 1986 The Regents of the University of California."? Puh-lease. Unless the Linux kernel contains code that is clearly labelled as "Copyright AT&T", this particular nugget of wisdom mostly just suggests that SCO copied someone else's code. (FYI: there are a few bits of kernel 2.4 labelled with AT&T, but they're also identified as being freely usable.) How fucking stupid do they think we are? And what is the "central module"?

I guess on the bright side this means that all we need to do is hunt down every copyright notice in Linux and we'll prove or disprove the code copying... anyone? anyone? Bueller?

Re:Unfortunatly, SCO's case is not about IBM

[SpaceLifeForm]

You are 100% correct.

This is telling:

However, Linux is in many ways a throwback to more primitive systems. Not only is it repeating the mistakes of its predecessors, it apparently is introducing a brand new set of problems, having to do with intellectual property.

This line of propaganda was expected. This is the entire goal, to break the collective thoughts of disparate programmers around the world. They want to *blame* Linux, to belittle Linux, so that the megacorps can control.

You can guess the nature of future propaganda.

More FUD, step around, nothing to see here.

Direct from Linus: Linux is like Microsoft.

[SN74S181]

Direct quote from the article:

"I think they are struggling to deal with Linux partly because Linux is undermining them the same way they undercut their competition."

I guess the old goose-gander thing should apply.

At risk of being modded as flamebait...

[Big Sean O]

I think GNU did themselves a disservice back in the late 80s/early 90s by not getting HURD written sooner.

If that had happened then they could have named it whatever RMS wanted. Instead Linus cobbled together Linux, GPL'd the source, and pretty much stole the show as far as naming the operating system.

Yet, much of the success of GNU is the freedom to distribute it WITHOUT permission of RMS (just as long as you provide the source code...). Of course, you can do this with non-GPL code too (*BSD, perl, python) but RMS hacked the copyright system first.

So the real success story is that GNU's bash can be used with Linux, Windows (under Cygnus), or with Mac OS X. RMS might have lost the battle (over GNU/Linux), but he certainly won the war (bash is just one successful example).

Qualms with the article

[101percent]

"Linus Torvalds is the creator of the Linux operating system..."

More misunderstanding. I know it's preaching to the choir, but Linux is just the kernel, and the GNU project deserves just as much representation as does Linus Torvalds for it's creation of low level tools such as GCC. Linus is hardly the sole creator of the base system, although he did write the kernel as I'm sure you know.

"...the open source version of Unix..."

Linux is not a version of Unix. GNU/Linux is a derivative clone of UNIX. The system was initially chosen by the GNU project to be a clone of UNIX because it was the most portable OS at the time. I don't know how closely the Linux kernel compares to UNIX kernels and such, but GNU/Linux is definitly UNIX-like as a result of initial planning by the Free Software Foundation. Furthermore, if Linux was a version of UNIX (all of which must be licensed) wouldn't this whole interview (at least the SCO parts) be pointless since SCO licenses UNIX? Saying it's a version implys that it uses UNIX code, which is what brought us to all this madness in the first instance. Honestly, do these reports even know what they're saying, or do they just run off scripts?

"He is a technical leader and an outspoken advocate of open source development, which allows software users to develop and modify their own versions of software for free."

Notice how they use the term "for free" rather than something like "freely modify". Just a subtle point which I felt was worthy of pointing out. Also, notice the commonly used over-patronage of Linus. I think the media does this, unconciously, to effectivley set the boundaries of acceptable discourse on the amazing social phenomenon that is the movement commonly refered to as the "Open Source Movement," which sets unprecidented examples for healthy human society and interaction in comparison to the failed systems of the past. One can't even begin to draw parallels simply because of this sort-of systematic patronage of one man, and overlooking of an entire movement.

For our readers who don't know the origins of Linux, can you talk about how it was written given the existence of Unix?

A: The origin was all written by me. For the first six months or so I was the only person working on Linux. It took almost a year before there was a major contribution from people outside. It's all original code since day one.

Linus: "I am at the center...

You get a lot of folks bashing on RMS because he politely asks people to at least acknowledge the work of the Free Software Foundation by calling the system GNU/Linux, but here you have Torvalds claiming entire responisibility of the OS, granted in response to a question about SCO's involvement in the origins of the OS, but nonetheless claiming total responsibility. So how can we conclude that RMS is cocky when we have this kind of total disregard for everyone else involved in the development of the system.

Until we stop using terms like Linux meaning the whole OS and Intellectual Property as being every legal issue under the sun, we simply can't even begin to have a logical discussion about the issues at hand, and will only further confuse those who may casually read about these subjects in the news.

After reading this article I really thought about a lot of things, and came to the conclusion that the term "Open Source" is really pointless and should be avoided. If you think about it, all source is open. Propreitary code is open to the developers who work on it. It's just maintained in a system of checks, balances, non-disclosure agreements, and "need to know" prediciments. What you're really talking about when you discuss "open-source" is exactly how open it is, and who exactly it's open to. That's why I think it's better to use the term free when discussing these matters, as it's a more liberating term without the boundaries that "open" source can have. Sure it's "open", but who exactly is it open to? If something's free, it's just free; Their are no heirarchiel limitations.

Re:Qualms with the article

[Kourino]

Uhhhh ... wow.

You get a lot of folks bashing on RMS because he politely asks people to at least acknowledge the work of the Free Software Foundation by calling the system GNU/Linux, but here you have Torvalds claiming entire responisibility of the OS, granted in response to a question about SCO's involvement in the origins of the OS, but nonetheless claiming total responsibility.

That's funny ... in the part of the article you're quoting, Linus is just saying "I wrote the beginning of Linux [yes, he's talking about the kernel] myself, and I'm still the main person responsible for it [yes, he's talking about the kernel]". Which is true, in that he's basically the Linux project manager. (If you disagree with me, try getting something into his tree without convincing him that it's emininently useful and won't break shit.) That's not really saying that he dictates what happens to GNU/Linux, not by a long shot.

Look, as much as I agree with the GNU/Linux terminology in principle, I think it's really clear in context when Linus is talking about Linux and when he's talking about GNU/Linux in this article. Linus may be a bastard with an eye on world domination, but he's not an megalomaniacal bastard with an eye on world domination. (I will not be drawn into the subtleties of this debate here, because my personal opinion is irrelevant, and quite frankly, I have nothing new to bring to either side. And yes, there are people who could read this who don't know the difference; perhaps you should email the article author and ask him to post a revised revision, if you're concerned about it.)

I believe the rest of your comments would be better directed at the conductor of the interview, who's responsible for the content, rather than the people at Slashdot, 99% of whom already know this.