Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Feeds Gates His Own Words
soloport writes "C|Net has published an article, written by RMS, in which Stallman points out that Gates is merely calling the kettle communist. Toward the end of the article, Stallman strengthens his point by feeding Bill his own words. Back in 1991, Bill said, in an internal memo: 'If people had understood how patents would be granted when most of today's ideas were invented and had taken out patents, the industry would be at a complete standstill today...A future start-up with no patents of its own will be forced to pay whatever price the giants choose to impose.' Now, if only Bill were as clear-minded on the subjects of Innovation and Interoperability."
Or it could be said that Bill just took his own advice. Depends on what he was looking to accomplish.
I think Bill could learn a lot from Stallman and by examining his own past and the way MS and Apple took the computer industry off of IBM in the early days.
How saddeningly true - the more patents there are, the less innovation, the less motivation for innovation. Ironically, I was going to use Microsoft as an example, before I realized it.
All your searching needs (and free money!) - 4Lancer.net
Now, will this story actually get read by Microsoft-hugging MIS types and pointy-haired bosses?
;) ) from a lentil bean.
The problem with Stallman is that, brilliant as he is, he only ever seems to garner attention from those who are already on his side. He preaches to the choir and only to the choir, which is kind of useless when 99% of the world wouldn't know a Linux (err, GNU/Linux
What would it take to get a story like this onto the desk of every Gates-worshipping, MSFT-stock-owning, spyware-infested-Windows-machine-running, Gartner-Group-report-reading, pointy-haired boss?
And... holy crap, Stallman trimmed his beard???
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
I thought the best line was: "Thanks to Mr. Gates, we now know that an open Internet with protocols anyone can implement is communism; it was set up by that famous communist agent, the U.S. Department of Defense."
Of course, he's twisting the meaning of things as much as Gates has, but of course that's the point.
sigs are a waste of space
It's not uncommon to see young companies have the same type of attitude but along the way, as they become big, their strategies have to change based on the experience they have gained.
RMS is the driving idiological force behind GNU. People don't live forever. One day, someone else is going to take over and how do we know that the same ideals will be followed. More than that, how do we know that Stallman won't just decide one day that he's tired of living and dieing for free software and will shave his beard, take a shower and go on a date that doesn't charge by the hour?
Microsoft was the underdog for a long time. They came in cheaper and good enough. GNU/Linux right now is coming in as the cheaper/good enough solution. While there are some people that use free software on principle, the people paying for free software are doing it because it makes sense in their business... When something else makes sense, the money will follow.
One day, something else will take that spot and you're going to see a lot of whining and tantrums most likely followed by agressive tactics. To be perfectly honest, you see that now with competing open source technologies.
So, instead of seeing how Bill Gates has changed... consider this a warning as how F/OSS might possibly change in the future.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
FTFA: "If somebody sues you, you change the algorithm or you just hire a hit-man to whack the stupid git." - Linus Torvalds More people really need to take his advice...
That's what he always does. Love Stallman or hate him, man is a genius.
I'm posting AC for obvious reasons, but when I worked at MSFT (for a little over a year, I quit voluntarily), I was given a presentation on software patents by the legal department.
They were clear in saying we/they were making a push to patent more, and that the patents are intended entirely to defend against litigation, as against "submarine" patents like those used in Eolas v. Microsoft.
Take it for what it's worth...who knows if that's just the official line and the higher-ups have a different plan.
You know, people are realizing that patents are a liability these days.
If I am a big corp and I have a patent on X (let's say)
And startup "Wewantfunding" goes looking for money to implement their plan to dominate the world, the VC will say: sorry, no money for you, your idea is already patented by BigMegaCorp.
But it 40 hackers around the world are building FOSS, integrating some of the ideas of the patent into a radically new piece of software, then BigMegaCorp is screwed, because no matter how much money they spend (waste) on fighting this they can't recover it (since the 40 hackers are not a company--and they're poor(not even 1M between them all)). Plus BigMegaCorp will look like the bad guy and people won't buy their products (can you say Adobe (skylarov)), and they can't develop anything that uses their patent to compete, because the FOSS is most likely better and definitely cheaper, and they can't get rid of the patent because they mark it on the books as an asset.
So now, BigMegaCorp calls HugeCustomer and says: Hey we have this new product that you'll love, it's patented, so send us $1M!
HugeCustomer replies: "Hum, sorry, our admins just found this great little tool off the net that runs on linux and does everything your app does and then some."
Finally, the patents are a drain, because they weren't cheap to get, and the idea was either to develop and sell a product on using the patented tech, license them to third-parties that need those functions, or sue the daylights out of any startup foolish enough to release a product based on the patents.
FOSS makes all these arguments moot, and now companies are asking themselves why they should file for patents if they can't profit from them in the future.
So yeah, FOSS is kicking ass.
"Piter, too, is dead."
I've tended to consider it ironic on the few occasions when Gates and RMS have indirectly traded barbs...Namely because the two men actually have far more in common IMHO than I suspect either of them would be comfortable to admit. I'm reminded here of a scene from Spiderman when the Green Goblin tells Spidey, "You and I are not so different."
Both men are ideologues, and both, I believe, are megalomaniacs, despite my anticipation that Stallman in particular would strenuously deny such an accusation. But as ESR has said, Stallman wants to be the figurehead of the entire FOSS movement. His flowery speech at times aside, let there be no misconceptions about it...the man *does* advocate a heirarchy, and most especially he advocates himself as the leader of it.
The other irony is that Stallman himself is guilty of exactly the same kind of hypocrisy with which he accuses Gates here...Namely, with regards to the LGPL. Stallman at one point criticised the XFree86 group for using a BSD-like license, calling them sellouts who were doing such in order to ensure that X gained popularity...and he then turned around later and did exactly the same thing with the creation of the LGPL. He actually cites software popularity as part of the reason for the creation of the LGPL. He might not remember this particular inconsistency...I, however, do.
I am not for one moment trying to lump both Stallman and Gates into the same *moral* category here...or not completely, anywayz. Stallman has done a lot of good...I'm aware of that. However, what I think a lot of *other* people need to be aware of is that he still isn't the being of light they think he is, by any stretch of the imagination. He might be different from Gates morally and ideologically in many ways...but the main things that the two do have in common is that contrary to popular belief, both are guided by their ego, and, to a greater or lesser degree, the desire to dominate others. That might sound paradoxical when said about Stallman in particular...but do some research on the man, have a good long think about it, and see what you come up with...you might be very surprised. For the purposes of Linux users, Stallman can definitely be considered an ally...but personally I think "friend" would be too strong a word. The man has his own agenda...and not one that necessarily coincides with everyone else's best interests.
Former Microsoft CTO Nathan Myhrvold obviously saw the intellectual property light: patent it no matter what and you'll own the toll-booth. Stallman's perspective is probably too little, too late and Gates' head has probably been here for years.
Myhrvold started a company five years ago (Intellectual Ventures) that is focused on a strategy to "create or buy new ideas, accumulate patents--exclusive rights to use the inventions--and rent those ideas to companies that need them to do the gritty work of producing real products.">
How is he doing this? As it says in the article, "To generate patentable ideas, Intellectual Ventures hired a dozen top scientists as part-time consultants to participate in several all-day gabfests each month, which the company calls "invention sessions." Lawyers transcribe the discussions, which can range from biotech to nanotech to solid-state physics, and follow up on the most promising ideas with patent applications." He's obviously the most visible person involved in this activity. Pretty soon (if not already) *any* idea you have had better be fully patent-researched before you embark on a new adventure.
IMHO, this activity by people like Myhrvold (and the bleak state of the US Patent Office) is what is going to seriously hamper open source innovation and people taking risks to start up companies.
Take it for what it's worth...who knows if that's just the official line and the higher-ups have a different plan.
<INTRORAMBLE>
I've worked for more than a few large corporations. Some for several years in various positions. There are probably more than a few others on slashdot that done the same.
</INTRORAMBLE>
<FACT>
All large corporations have their "corporate speak" which is nothing more than what the corporation perceives as politically correct messages. What the executives are willing to do and what they say they want to do have very little correlation to the official company messages.
</FACT>
<OPINION>
It is unlikely a corporation as large as Microsoft would openly say we plan to crush smaller players with our growing patent portfolio. But that is eventually what the shareholders will demand, even if the execs don't already plan it themselves.
</OPINION>
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
But a conservative is not a Republican (at least not the Engish kind). Stallman could actually be considered a traditional conservative in Burke's definition -- preserving the institutions of the country (i.e. freely available softwre -- the commons), while raising the condition of the people (users of the common software).
I'm sure Bill respects himself. He got from just being a nerd (yes, Bill was once one of us, too) to being the richest man in the world. We have to keep in perspective: there's more to the world than software, as RMS admits. What RMS does is right, but there's nothing morally wrong with what Bill is doing. I believe that they believe their software is better, and I don't think everyone will suddenly be happy if they all stop using Microsoft (although they won't be as unahppy).
I think Bill has moral clarity in some areas (not business dealings), especially since he's got a ~10 billion dollar charity organization (I think). And I think everybody admires him, unless they happen to be involved in free/open source software or happen to be emotionally linked to Macs. Nobody likes his software unless they're getting paid for it, but everybody admires him.
I don't disagree with you totally (Bill could learn from RMS), but I also think that Bill isn't totally evil and hated, as you suggest (gasp! heresy!).
Before you walk a mile in someone's shoes, you should insult them so you know how they are and what they're doing.