Slashdot Mirror
Stallman Unimpressed by Nokia Patent Pledge
Joe Barr writes "NewsForge is running a commentary by Richard Stallman on the recent PR blitz by Nokia concerning their promise not to enforce patent claims against the Linux kernel project. Stallman's take? "In effect, Nokia is lobbying the European Union to give Nokia and many others a new kind of weapon to shoot at software authors and users with--and telling the legislators, 'Don't worry, it's safe to let private armies carry these guns, because we promise that our gunmen won't shoot anyone in that building.'""
Some details at GROKLAW http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200505251 80125237 1 04251332&mode=print
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050530
...and Hitler promised that he would stop after annexing the sudetenland. Appeasment and promises never work. I hope the EU doesn't give in. We've seen what happens when they (europeans) do. (Of course, we aren't talking about World War 3 here, but still, we've seen what happens)
I have this really funny quote that I like to put here. Unfortunately, there's this really annoying thing called a char
Imagine such a thing. I think highly of the man, and admire his dedication, but when did we ever hear of Stallman being pleased.
This is NOT a signature.
When did RMS become such a cynic?
1) Try to make software patents valid everywhere
2) File some patents
3) Allow open source software to use your patents
4) ???
So, if patents are a "good thing" that encourages innovation, why is nokia allowing open source (ie: anyone) to use them for free? As far as I can see, they're contradicting themselves
Did only take 6 minutes to godwin this Topic.
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Previously unenforced laws suddenly being enforced has historically led to massive resentment and revolution. Some of the taxation that was collected prior to the american war for independence had been on the books for some time. Imagine what would happen in the us if police routinely started pulling people over for speeding only a few miles over the speedlimit. (provided that they, of course, removed the uncertainty from the guestimation of the speed of trave)l.
On the other hand, reminds me a bit of the 'patriot' act. Oooh, don't worry, we'll only use it for the terrorists (which we now include people who disagree with the president).
Lack of enforcement is a tricky tricky thing. I've always thought that regulations should represent how things work, not the way we wish they worked. Saves this kind of doublespeak from occurring.
A Nokia executive has publicly stated, "Our failure to impress Richard M. Stallman is a failure to the entire open source community. We are greatly ashamed that we could not meet the golden standards of such a modern visionary as Mr. Stallman, a man who has contributed much to society in the form of... We're not sure, but we're very ashamed that Mr. Stallman 'is not impressed.' As a result, Nokia will never again attempt to collaborate with the open source community. We are just not the type of corporation that can handle rejection."
The executive later killed himself.
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
I know I sure don't. It seems that compaines (you know, entities in it for the money) that do anything remotely open he has to chime in and dismiss it as insuficient or something.
Companies can't make money giving their crown jewels away. Their jewels are their investment in their employees who generate code. Sometimes, companies can afford to do that because it generates income on other levels for them, sometimes, companies can't.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
The patent pledge is important: it removes the uncertainty that Nokia might find its (already) patented tech in Linux, and sue; Nokia guarantees they wouldn't. But it's mostly important to Nokia. I'm not aware of any credible evidence that any Nokia tech is actually in the kernel, so it's really more of a gesture. And a way to warn off future inclusion of their tech in kernels, by saying "we were generous before, don't exploit your friends".
But Stallman is right about the other Nokia stance on European patents. They're bad, for Nokia like everyone else in the long run. They prevent Nokia from improving on innovation elsewhere. With a big company that can't take risks like small developers, Nokia benefits from unimpeded traffic in software. And as a hardware vendor, more software sells their products, with a protected base that can be protected by valid, traditional hardware patents.
Stallman's also right that Nokia's "harmless" patent guarantee is more important as propaganda to mollify the Linux community, their most dangerous opponent in the EU patent debate. We should accept their guarantee on its own merits, but not grant an inch on the meritless demands to chain innovation.
--
make install -not war
Stallman's take? "In effect, Nokia is lobbying the European Union to give Nokia and many others a new kind of weapon to shoot at software authors and users with--and telling the legislators, 'Don't worry, it's safe to let private armies carry these guns, because we promise that our gunmen won't shoot anyone in that building.'""
;-)
No wonder RMS is ignored outside of portions of the FOSS community. With crackpot analogies like that he will never be taken seriously by outsiders. He gets quoted by the mainstream media for his humor value. All we have here is the reinforcement of negative stereotypes of Linux advocates.
Richard, please let other people do the PR. Stick to writing the next version of the GPL and adding another meg of code to emacs. Please.
Yes, he's always pissed off and lives in a fantasy land where everything is free.
Can we put him out of our misery yet?
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
'Don't worry, it's safe to let private armies carry these guns, because we promise that our gunmen won't shoot anyone in that building.'
Isn't this basically what the US says about those "minutemen" guarding the southern border?
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl
He's fighting on your behalf as well. Never forget that.
Think about it next time before you troll.
VStrider.
I think he's just mad nokia didn't pick his kernel.
PS. If you can present me with a copy of a real threat letter that was sent by a patent holder to a free software developer, that would be useful.
So its pretty safe to say then that FOSS is not exactly being swamped with patent infringment claims, no matter how massively Mr Stallman like to exaggerate the 'threat'. So his point, other than FUD is what exactly?
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
That said, RMS is way out of line here comparing software patents to firearms. What most left-wingers don't realize is that they are on the wrong side of the gun control debate: most Americans support the right to bear arms, and will automatically assume that anybody who opposes the 2nd Amendment is a kook from Berkeley or a communist.
(While this may indeed be true in RMS' case, it detracts from his argument nonetheless.)
Yes. Imagine that. It would suck, wouldn't it. Whatever happened to quality of life.
Get your own free personal location tracker
1) Try to make software patents valid everywhere
2) File some patents
3) Allow open source software to use your patents
4) ???
5) PROFIT!
You don't give a loaded gun to someone unless you want them to be able to shoot someone. Conversely, you don't carry a loaded gun unless you have the resolve to use it should the need arise.
Anyone telling you they want to carry a loaded gun around just because they want to brandish it or "just because", is either lying to you or is a fool. Since decisions like this are made by lawyers, it's very unlikely they are playing the fool. That leaves only one alternative.
Companies will take their actions and determination as far as they possibly can, "to the full extent of the law" is the usual phrase used. If you give them a foot, don't expect them to stop at 10 inches just because they say they will. They have absolutely every intention of using the full foot when push comes to shove and they want something bad enough. If they had no intention of using the full foot, they wouldn't be even slightly concerned about you trying to limit them to 10 inches.
Laws are there to STOP people from taking things too far. If the law places the line anywhere besides where it belongs, the law is broken.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Patents don't kill innovation, people with patents kill innovation.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
"the kernel Linux, developed by Linus Torvalds and others, which is most prominently used as the kernel of the GNU/Linux operating system. "
I love that quote. He just can't get over his whole "I matter! Really! I do!" kick.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
You are entirely wrong. The language of business is strongly based on terms of war: conquest, crush the opposition, gain territory...
Patents are most definitely weapons, using the same language. Patents are used for offense and for defense and are expensive. The patent industry are arms dealers (again, using the same metaphorical language) and the sale of patents, just like the sale of arms, will enable war and violence between those who want and those who have.
Patents are weapons and unfortunately are used mainly by the strong against the weak.
And Stallman is most definitely sane, and exceptionally clear in his analysis. If you do not understand him, that's OK. It's a bit intellectual. But kindly don't insult one of the visionaries of our age... it just makes you look silly.
My blog
The problem with patents is that noone outside of the safe haven nation is allowed to run the programs developed there. The same thing goes for writing the programs.
Not legally. But at least development could continue and the software would be available once the patent expires. It's still a terrible outcome for those who oppose software patents though. Still, if it's going to happen - what's the fallback position? There has to be one. Either that or - FS/OSS developers give up and stop coding? That seems an unlikely outcome. --M
Well, I wish he wouldn't.
In the spirit of absolutly over-the-top militaristic crazed-libertarian analogies, its like Tim McVeigh being picked as official spokesperson for the ACLU.
Now, that was flame-bait. The foregoing was just expressing honest annoyance, a sentiment which - if other posts are any clue - is not unique to me. I mean if a guy doesn't sit well with most of the OS community, how do you think he sounds to outsiders?
A weapon doesn't have to be a gun. Patents are weapons in a struggle for economic dominance, both between companies, between countries and between systems (as in the traditionally closed-IP-driven industries vs. the Open Source movement). Therefore the analogy is quite valid (and much better than most analogies found on Slashdot).
richard simmons unimpressed by stallman's pledge to lose 50 lbs!
Yes. That's the spirit! Damn those trolls who won't support the GNU-troops and march lockstep with the true believers. Off with their karma.
The owls are not what they seem
Stallman ALSO suffers from an acute failure of personal hygiene.
Trim the beard, take a shower and brush your teeth. You look like a freaking bum.
I really don't se wherein the difference lies? The one can kill somebody, the other can ruin lives (by ripping someone off financially) and make a piece of software unavailable to the public. It's the same principal, just not to the same extent.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
A weapon is a tool which can be used during combat to kill or incapacitate, to destroy property, or to otherwise render resources non-functional or unavailable.
Patents used against me clearly render my intellectual resources unavailable, because I can't use them.
How are we supposed to make money if we cannot protect our inventions/innovations? Years of our hardwork that results in an IP can be stolen by anyone.
Do we have an answer to that?
http://www.rajeshgoli.com
Everything IS free when you're already rich...
For example, it could just be an imperfect analogy. Reasonable people make them occasionally. Or, it could in fact be a very good analogy, and your dislike of it is due to poor judgement on your part. Given your evident tendency to hyperbole, I favor the latter explanation.
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
Patents can be renewed. And what pray tell is the current lifespan of the proposed Europatents?
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
I, for one, am thankful he didn't use a Star Wars analogy of treachery and love.
;-)
I'm sure he hasn't seen Star Wars. A ticket would only give money to the capitalist fascists who want to kill us. I'm sure he's holding out until Star Wars is released to the public domain. Err, I mean until ownership of Star Wars is transfered to the FSF and the movies are rereleased under the GEL, Gnu Entertainment License.
It's not just about Open Source
Patent Trumps Copyright.
You have a nice application, say a web cart you have written.
Presently your code is protected by Copyright.
Patents trump copyright, under patents there will be only one Cart, only one One Click Shopping, only one conversion to XML possible.
This sells out everything owned by British, French and European Software developers to those who own patents, or will be awarded patents due to their pre-existing American Patents.
Liscensing Costs will become huge, progress will fall and be done only with permission.
This is about a Critiacal as it gets, if this passes it is all over,
Ludicrous patents will be issued, blanket cover all of ideas existing before implementations.
And without money for lawyers and spare cash to survive while you can't sell due to injuctions and the appeals progress drags on, so even oning a patent will not help. It is a system where only the richest survive.
All of this has occured in America and now Japan, soon it will be here unless we take Richard Stallamn very very seriously on this.
I was at a FFII panel presentation last week. I spoke to representatives from Alcatel and British Telecom.
Very pro-patent. They argue that patents are all that protect them from "invasion by the Chinese". I asked the woman from Alcatel whether they used Linux. Yes. In house, for much of their development. In their boxes, it's Linux everywhere.
These companies, like Nokia, are profiting from the rising sea of open source and especially Linux, which is more and more becoming an essential ingredient of their production process.
So it's normal that they want to "protect Linux" in some way. What they still have to face, and this is what I told them, is that their precious patents will cause the demise of the open source economy, including Linux, in Europe, and hasten the advance of competitors who do not have the same patent regimes.
Indeed, patents in Europe are a threat to everyone including large vendors like Nokia, and even Microsoft, but people are so panicked that they can't see straight.
Basically the software industry has been hijacked by the patent business - the EPO burocracy and patent attorneys. These people are simple parasites and if they win this battle, they will suck the life out of the software industry.
The reason many open source projects are not being attacked today is because software patents are still settling. There are some attacks but overall the goal of patent owners is to enforce their patents against smaller commercial rivals, collect larger patent portfolios, and only attack open source projects where there is direct and immediate competition.
My blog
Open source isn't the same as "anyone". If Microsoft wants to use patents freely licensed for open source use in the NT kernel they have to distribute NT under an open source license. That's actually a good deal. If all software patent holders did that, it would be a real boost for open source.
Furthermore, one can well make the argument that encouraging open source development is good for innovation, since a lot of (arguably most) innovation in the industry has first appeared in open source form.
I'm not sure yet how legally solid Nokia's commitment is, but if it is solid, it's a good thing for open source, regardless of what Nokia's stance on software patents is otherwise.
or is RMS just some old fucking nut who's been getting way too much publicity?
I mean I appreciate everything he did with gnu in the past, but lately, he's been out there in conspiracy theory land with the rest of the nuts.
I just hope that peopel get there opinions from other sources too, rather just the rants of this one possible deranged man.
It seems that whenever he opens his mouth, it's to berate something, or belittle somebodys efforts.
Move sig!
Don't worry, it's safe to let open source armies carry...
I have to say, mouth-foam aside, I have a lot of respect for the guy. There's usually a kernel (heh heh) of truth to most of his arguments. He's right in this case; software patents are bad, and exempting the Linux kernel from some of them changes nothing. Sure he's off the deep end, but he's basically on the right side, and more importantly, he's incredibly straightforward. +1, Transparent agenda.
If other reasons we do lack, we swear no one will die when we attack
Stallman's take? "In effect, Nokia is lobbying the European Union to give Nokia and many others a new kind of weapon to shoot at software authors and users with--and telling the legislators, 'Don't worry, it's safe to let private armies carry these guns, because we promise that our gunmen won't shoot anyone in that building.'""
;-)
It's no surprise RMS is ignored outside of portions of the FOSS community. With crackpot analogies like that he will never be taken seriously by outsiders. He gets quoted by the mainstream media for his humor value. All we have here is the reinforcement of negative stereotypes of Linux advocates. Richard, please let other people do the PR. Stick to writing the next version of the GPL and adding another meg of code to emacs. Please.
Civil disobedience.
Rejecting the EU.
That's about it.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
I don't think you understand me. You seem to assume that I want EU software patents to be enacted, when that is not the truth. As a US citzen I've certainly seen the downside of this in action. I do not ask this question to promote software patents, but to consider the fallback outcome should they (in all likelihood) be enacted. It's a rational question. To bury one's head in the sand and refuse to consider the outcome is most irrational. IMO) --M
Alan Cox, the famous linux kernel guru, also had a comment on this matter a couple of days ago:6 38576
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=150685&cid=12
OK. For some reason I thought you were the same poster who replied to my top post. Please accept my apologies if my first reply to you appeared uncivil due to exasperation. --M
Gee, that's one of the most idiotic statements I have ever read. An analogy by definition notes similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar. So contending that things compared by way of anology have nothing to do with one another is basically stating the obvious.
Now whether the anology is useful is another matter. But even the act of proffering a bad anology does not make one dishonest, stupid, or insane. Personally, I'd have to very seriously question the motives of someone like yourself that wants to make a mountain out of a molehill this way.
Stallman's point is simply to say that when rights are created in law, it is reasonable to expect the enforcement of those rights. And that is essentially a fact, why lobby for rights you don't intend to use?
Whenever Stallman gets mentioned here, the trolls come out in force. Nothing else seems to do half as well at motivating them.
I have to say, that's a pretty good indication the man is on the right side.
Rock on Richard.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Holy fuck, talk about redundant.
At first I thought it was a troll, because I've seen trolls copy legitimate posts and repost them. But you reposted your own friggin' thing?
Mods, please correctly mark this -1, Redundant. If people want to read this exact post, they can go below this and read the actual THREAD that got started, with a discussion and all. No reason for this to take up space on the first page that would be better served by letting someone else's post appear.
And if you fucked up and left something off, you shouldn't start a whole new thread, you should reply to yourself.
What Stallman should do instead is put together a LARGE portfolio of patents based on GNU software. I'm sure there's a ton of patentable inventions in FOSS, and I'm also sure many developers wouldn't mind patenting their stuff to protect it from being ripped off by large corporations, given that FSF holds the patent and provides a perpetual, royalty free license to whoever wants to use it for developing open source, GPL/LGPL licensed software.
Let's face it, software patents as ridiculous as they are, are here to stay. This is why to stay in the game an organization like FSF needs a large protective patent portfolio (kinda like the one Microsoft has).
This also creates some money making opportunities for FSF, because they could sue the most vehement opponents of FOSS software pretty much at will for infringement on FSF and its contributors' "intellectual property" and request ridiculous sums of money in damages.
Because GPL software cannot benefit from the patent pledge unless it covers all GPL software. The license does not allow for software to be subject to separate licenses. If I were to fork Linux, I should not have to ask Nokia if it's okay with them for me to publish my work.
Hmm, so the number of trolls is inversely proportional to the distance into the "right"? Microsoft must be so far into the "right" they looped back around.
Just because you may not have the balls to stand up and announce to the world what you think is right doesn't mean you should ridicule or belittle those who do.
Both the Linux kernel and the GNU tools are essential for an operating system.
Though he may be eccentric at times, I wholeheartedly applaud Richard Stallman and what his efforts have provided to the rest of the world (for free as in freedom and beer, I might add).
Why the younger generation open source enthusiasts continue to badger Mr. Stallman is beyond me. Shame on you.
When someone sends you a letter telling you to cease-and-desist from infinging their patent, it's annoying and maybe expensive, but at the end of the day you go home to your family.
A bullet, on the other hand, can put your internal organs through a meat grinder.
See the difference?
A big problem with equating everything to physical assault is that it justifies responding to a legal or verbal attack with actual aggression since, after all, what's the difference?
Obviously RMS is appointed by God almighty to be our savior.
It seems that everytime something comes out of his mouth, it's intended to create controversy; or should we say, trolling for responses?
nt
Sounds like he's against the freedom guaranteed by the 2nd amendment of the US constitution.
So in his mind, a freedom is ok if HE supports it.. But if he doesnt support it then its not a freedom?
Never took the man seriously before, now i know why: Aside from his mindless rants that often border on lunacy, he's also a hyprocrit.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
That's really easy to say ... but if you're a creative engineer designing some slick-ass stuff maybe worth some big bucks, and somebody's intellectual property lawyer points a bogus patent at your head and says "Freeze or I'll blow your innovation clean off!", it will suddenly seem very weaponlike. Your livelihood may well depend upon whether you can successfully defend yourself from that "non-weapon".
... well, I'd say that puts them firmly in the "offensive weapon" category. Whether or not society should put such power in the hands of individuals and corporations is a matter of some debate, but the very fierceness of that debate is some indicator of the destructive potential of software patents, and indeed the unbalanced application of intellectual property law in general.
A weapon (any weapon) can be used to intimidate and/or destroy. Patents are capable of doing both. Given the number of people and organizations that are being unjustly threatened by software patents, or being destroyed by them
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Both the Linux kernel and the GNU tools are essential for an operating system.
I see and have used lots of Operating Systems that dont rely on either the Linux kernel or the GNU tools. Neither are essential for an operating system, but both are often seen in operating systems, quite frequently together in the GNU/Linux OS. Please dont make it sound like an OS cant exist without the Linux kernel or the GNU tools.
And your finances are destroyed - with could have been used to by resources, or render things such as your car non-functional (no money to buy gas)
Freedom or George Bush
Whenever there's a story about Stallman and you get all these hundreds of vehemnent posts with these absurd degrees of loathing people on Slashdot have towards this guy who is a leading figure in the free software movement and you see so clearly that the people who post on Slashdot, versus the reading audiance at large, are predominantly composed of anti-free software people. There's nothing like a Stallman story to flush them out in droves like great flocks of quail darkening the sky on the approach of a bootstep crunching on the gravel.
Being a great advocate of free software myself the reason I tink this is great is because it shows you just how scared these small-minded, misguided fools are of Open Source. I mean what are these weirdos doing here at Slashdot if they hate Open Source? What compells them to vent their rage so loudly and spend their time in an ostensibly pro-free software forum? The answer is simple and it is impressive --they are scared.
Listen, the bootstep approaches. . . fly away in your great masses. The Stallman approaches, take to your wing. Click the submit button now, quickly. Fly away, fly away.
humm.... this nokia thing for opensource... is so good -_- for me to poop on...... d-_-b
I *do* stand up for what I believe in. It is also perfectly within my scope to say that I think the man went off the deep edge a looooong time ago and needs to get the hell out of the spotlight.
The linux kernel and gnu tools are essential for *that* OS *as it stands now*, not for all operating systems. Logically your statment is valid, but not in the spirit in which you likely made it.
He has worked on some decent projects, yes. This does NOT, however, mean that he can stand up and basically spout off that the world needs to be "free" and expect to be taken seriously by anyone who is actually in buisness.
"knowledge wants to be free". People want to eat.
Personally, I think the protocols and languages (which are only concepts) should be open and what is made with them should be up to the developers as to whether it is released under some OSS license or as closed source.
The crap he spews about everything should be "free" no matter what the people making it think is just that - crap and people are beginning to realize it.
How's that for standing up for what I believe?
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
I think you missed my point.
Both the Linux kernel and the GNU tools are essential for an operating system.
One without the other is an incomplete operating system.
I think you missed *his* point. A set of tools is necessary for an OS to be useful. It does not necessarily have to be *that* set of tools.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
They would be specifically granting the Linux kernel developers a license to their patents. Or more specifically, issuing a general unlimited-use license to use the patents in any GPL software, which is a legally binding document and not just a PR promise.
(Maybe they have done this? In which case RMS should shut up and go home, once Nokia issues such a license they can't take it back.)
It is possible to issue such a license - A few years ago Cornell issued such a license for a few videoconferencing patents related to their CU30 algorithm, which was initially released as an open-source implementation. Basically anyone could use the patents for free if it were in software with specific licenses, but if you wanted to use them in close-source commercial software you had to pay $$$. Also, I remember someone with a number of font-related patents (Including the underlying patent behind Microsoft's ClearType technology) did something similar - issuing a free unlimited-use license for any software that met certain open-source criteria.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Nokia Unimpressed by pissed off stallman.
Nor does it need to be *that* kernel. What's your point?
"Nokia not interested in Stallman's opinion"
No, I didnt miss your point, your point is wrong. There is nothing inherent about the Linux kernel and the GNU toolset that binds them together, or makes one entirely dependant on the other, its just that they are very rarely seen apart. You can theoretically run the Linux kernel with a BSD userland set, and you can run the GNU userland set under either a BSD kernel or the Hurd kernel. Neither is completely indespensable in the Operating System world.
That would have been correct for the US, but the really big thing nowadays is the EU patent discussion.
In that terms, most europeans see americans and their right to bear arms as gun nuts.
This does NOT, however, mean that he can stand up and basically spout off that the world needs to be "free" and expect to be taken seriously by anyone who is actually in business.
Has it ever occurred to you that he might not be aiming to persuade those "in business"?
Your ideas aren't particularly new or revolutionizing, stating that everything should be owned by those who make it and nothing can be free. Maybe that's why nobody listens to you, while a lot of us listen to Stallman for an interesting opinion. While his system is unlikely to be the next world order, his predictions on the advance of FOSS seems to be quite spot-on.
Roses are #FF0000, violets are #0000FF, all my base are belong to you
Why the younger generation open source enthusiasts continue to badger Mr. Stallman is beyond me. Shame on you.
The younger generation? Hah! I'm old enough to have worked on hack and awk, and I find Stallman's "GNU/Linux" thing totally ridiculous. It's not just the younger generation that badger him, but OSS enthusiasts of all ages, ever since he started this ridiculous GNU/Linux campaign. I lost a lot of respect for him when he started that, and I, and others, will continue to badger him as long as he badgers us with his GNU thing. Shame on RMS and shame on you for continuing with this stupid bickering. "Linux" may not be the exact correct name for that OS, but it's the common name used by everybody and it's not going to change anymore than the (mis)use of "hackers" is going to change. It's just a fucking name. Give it up already and gain back some of our respect!
Korea has had those speed cameras on a few major roads for some time now (e.g. the road to Incheon airport). Last year when I was over there, the cars would suddenly slow down at odd spots in the road. They would then accelerate like mad a quarter mile later.
I asked what this was about; they said "you learn where the cameras are".
Speed cameras == STUPID IDEA.
Unless you think burning more gas and causing accidents due to erratic driving are good ideas.
That's why it is a threat, and not a different kind of problem, yet.
The American administration would probably be nice enough to not to use the authoritorian powers granted to it by law unjustfully, but that does not mean a future administration will not exploit those. That's what "threat" basically means here.
Nice troll. Please learn to read before posting again.
I didn't say that *nothing* should be free. I said that the people who are responsible for making it should be able to decide how they want to release it (free or otherwise), as opposed to Stallman who wants *everything* to be free and thinks that people who want to keep their work are evil.
Besides, as far as my view goes, it happens to coincide with the view of another person who was actually giving a talk on open source and licensing last week.
Leo Laporte is sane about license issues in that he believes it should be up to the creators to make it open or keep it closed (and that nobody should bitch at them for doing so with *their* work as long as they don't try to force it on other people).
This was a view I've had since I started coding. It was just nice to see someone else have the same opinion.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
"Stallman very pleased with Linux remaining GPL"
"Stallman very pleased with his dinner"
"Stallman took a crap"
"Stallman very pleased with his love life"
(Okay, the last one is newsworthy)
as "Stallman uncompressed".
But when a company like Nokia gets attacked by a patent profiteer, that only has a patent and doesn't make any products, then the big company has to pay up. Since the profiteer is not producing anything (except lawsuits), Nokia can't threaten to counter-sue. So they have to pay --- one percent, two percent, whatever the patent profiteer fancies, actually. Perhaps it won't kill a company like Nokia, but it certainly won't help their bottom line either.
A well known case is Acacia, which is a firm consisting entirely of patent lawyers, that has a patent on the idea of sending video over a computer network. Acacia's standard licence terms are to ask for 2% of the other company's turnover (regardless of how much of the revenues come from products that have anything to do with the video patent).
I wonder what Nokia's shareholders will say when they find out that Nokia's own patent lawyers have been lobbying hard for EU legislation that will make Acacia's patent enforceable in Europe.
2% of Nokia's turnover is a lot of money.
But perhaps mobile phones with cameras will go out of style anyway...
Christian Engström, Former Member of the European Parliament 2009-2014 for The Pirate Party, Sweden
It is rather odd that Nokia is singling out the "Linux" kernel as a benefactor of its largess. I would agree with Stallman's point (albeit poorly made) that the granting of "immunity" to the Linux kernel implies some manner of "threat" to other projects, including FOSS.
What would Nokia's motivation be for making this announcement? I doubt they need the clout for getting patents crammed through the EU -- it's just a matter of time, unfortnately. My guess is that they have some skunkworks project using Linux embedded (like the dead Media Terminal ).
I'm unimpressed that RMS is unimpressed.
6F 9E A9 1E 96 9F 74 27 ED B8 81 6D 0C 4E 1E 78
My other Sig is a 229.
Both the Linux kernel and the GNU tools are essential for an operating system.
i nux
Just as for a *modern* operating system, X, KDE, and Mozilla are all essential.
How come he doesn't call it "Mozilla/[KDE|XFCE|OTHERWM]/[X.org|XFree86]/GNU/L
? Oh yeah, *BECAUSE IT'S TOO DAMN LONG*
Just like I believe "GNU/Linux" is too damn long.
I'm just sick of his hypocrisy.
nothing to see here, move on.
Nokia has to do this because of newly announced LINUX tablet. It is not goodwill, they are obligated to do this under the GPL.
"The GPL says: "[..] if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies [..] through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program."
Nokia is it seems releasing a Linux based device. When they do that the GPL is quite clear about the patents and that you *have* to give usage. So in fact the GPL says _more_ than Nokia do." - albalbo
"Nokia has to licence its patents, or people who receive the software through it are unable to redistribute that software. That would not satisfy the GPL, hence, they would not be able to distribute the software.
Nor alas is this just PR spin to make them look good. Nokia is lobbying hard to get almost unlimited software patenting allowed in Europe. This press release is part of a game to fool the parliament into believing that open source is not threatened by patents and to make them feel more comfortable. Right now the Finnish MEP's in particular face difficult choices - Nokia is almost "Finland the company" and Linus is "Finland the rockstar" , and they say exactly the reverse about patents." - Alan Cox
At the same time, just because somebody is espousing their beliefs it doesn't mean they can't be crackpot beliefs that are ripe for mocking.
Freedom of speech. He can say what he wants, and I can say what I want about what he said.
all business relationships take a bad turn now and then and whose to say they won't retract this promise.
Look at IBM and SCO -
rofl
;)
short sweet and oh so true
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
Helmut Dersch and his PanoramaTools became victims of US software patents cf. http://www.virtualproperties.com/noipix/noipix.htm l.
This is probably dumb, If patents kill "software", Couldn't we re-define sofware? ie I not writing software, I am writing a mathematical manipulation string. Math can't be patented right?
We live in a capitalist society. What fuels our growth and success is the ability to make money. Large corporations make more money by locking out competition with patents, therfore also being able to provide jobs and health benefits and retirement plans that everyone likes. We also have free software. Great, but software patents restrict it from using xyz feature. Then we have company's who say here you go guys use it for free if your software is free.. Sounds good. It's a heck of a lot better than having an evil corporation prosecuting open source software developers. We're stuck in a catch 22 if no one registers the patent an evil corp will, and open source gets the shaft. What's the solution? Maybe an open patent registry company funded by open source supporters? maybe.. but I personally applaud Nokia, and must ask RMS to take a step down from his cloud and ask him to put up or shut up. His ideals just dont work in todays society
Later,
Phil
I wonder what are the appropriate fallback positisions
What happens when you try to squeeze sand too hard? It slips through your fingers. So just like the little grains of sand, countless developers will still write software, either circumventing all those frivolous patents, or infringing them (wether by device or unintentionally is irrelevant). FOSS is here to stay too.
The safe haven are the countless (encrypted!) harddrives all around the world. If a few countries mutated into police states for a while, so be it. The whole world won't. Just like in Fahrenheit 451, people will hide FOSS in a safe place, until the dark ages come to an end.
cpghost at Cordula's Web.
What you said made me think.
Patents are weapons. Just like guns. Gun control, like all other forms of prohibition, does more harm than good. The reasons for this apply to any weapon to a greater or lesser extent, so why do we not allow software patents?
Obviously you wouldn't be able to go around suing people just for doing something harmless like infringing upon them, but if somebody does it to you, or violates your copyright protection or demands that you fork over your customers' data or they'll DoS you or something, pull it on them and bam! If you're quick enough on the draw, they'll be forced into bankruptcy; if not, you have only yourself and them to blame.
Just like guns, the use of patents needs to be regulated, not the distribution of them.
ah yes, the freedom of choosing not to be free.
hey wait a minute
If you don't want someone to copy something, don't give it to anyone.
Sorry, you need to read some more, son.
An important requirement for an analogy to be strong is that the the entities being compared do not have significant differences, especially including consequences. The consquences of holding and enforcing patents are wholly different than shooting up a building. Stallman's analogy is contrived and ridiculous just to evoke some disgust in the reader.
You question my motives. Go ahead, question them. Please tell me what motives I have for calling Richard Stallman dishonest, stupid, or insane. If it were anyone else, I'd settle for dishonest but, as many other have pointed out, Stallman has a long history of just this sort of warped view of reality, long enough for me to bet that he is insane.
I'm not against patents, nor even SW patents, for genuinely original thinking that was unlikely to be derived or released elsewhere. RSA is perhaps the best example. But many patents are far less than original or non-obvious, and that is the major problem. The US has a very bad situation (patent everything), the EU has a somewhat better but still bad situation (no SW patents).
An incredibly important distinction: using a weapon results in someone being physically harmed or killed; enforcing a patent does not. Think about it for a moment.
Now think a moment longer.
There's a reason that laws were created to encourage innovation while there are not laws to encourage people to shoot up buildings.
The FLOSS Prophet of Truth
Although, once you get the reference...
Uh...the similarity is sufficient that I understand the point of Stallman's statement - in fact, so do you. We differ merely in that you reject the utility or reasonableness of what he stated.
Let's face it, you're just trolling here...
If I follow you logic then the inverse must also be true? If they don't do anything for pay back, which they have, the Stallman must be wrong and should public ask Nokia for forgivness? Yea I thought so. You really don't like to play by anyones rules but your own... and when when your rules don't favor you call foul... wait that sounds like the RIAA & MAPPA how ironic.
You want to know? Personally speaking, he lost a lot of my sympathy when he started insisting on tagging GNU on the front of Linux. If this is "free as in speech", why the merry hell is he telling me how I may and may not refer to the operating system I use.
I read an interview where he said the only reason was that it provided an "educational opportunity". I could respect that if he insisted on Linux/GNU. On the other hand, his continuing insistence on first billing smacks of a personal dislike of Linus, and of sour grapes regarding the marginalisation of the GNU Hurd.
I won't dispute the good Stallman's done, but really, he does himself no favours sometimes.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
mod parent up! how can this be a troll?
In the eyes of the world, the Bush government is truly a fascist one!
No, you think for a moment. The patent and copyright system is not a joke. Software patents are not a joke. Industrial and technological innovation, the creation of wealth and its attendant prosperity are not a joke. Software patents are not (lather, rinse and repeat until this sinks in) not intended to encourage innovation, which is why so many are against them. They are intended to increase the transfer of wealth to the few at the expense of the many, and incidentally as method to selectively control what technology ever makes it to the marketplace. Actually, that applies to much of "intellectual property" law as implemented in the U.S. today and soon in Europe. You're correct: the copyright and patent system was created to encourage innovation (and economic health) but software patents cannot be justified in Constitutional terms as "promoting the useful arts and sciences". Truth is, they have pretty much the opposite effect, which is the whole idea.
An economy that tanks because its manufacturing lifeblood is squeezed out causes a lot more harm and devastation to a society than any number of handguns would. I'm sorry, but you apparently don't get the point. Modern economies and the people that run them live or die based on their competitiveness on the global scene. That's especially true now that we've voluntarily given up any significant degree of economic independence. The Founders would be proud, I'm sure. Anything that impedes the ability of an industrialized nation to compete will hurt its citizens. Make your artificial distinctions if you like, but people still get hurt, and the reason that software patents are weapons is that they are expressly used for that purpose.
And where you got the bizarre idea that a "weapon" must have only a physical manifestation is beyond me. A very narrow vision of reality, at best. Words make perfectly good weapons, for example, and have arguably been responsible for more death and suffering than anything else in history.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
You can build an OS using the Linux kernel and not the GNU userland. Such an OS wouldn't be ethically obliged to credit the GNU Project. Now, has anyone bitching about it actually done that?
Never trust what a corporation says unless you get it in writing and notorised.
The problem is that the use of any weapon, technology or idea is dependent upon the ethical structure of the society in which it exists. That, ultimately, is the root of all evil, but I haven't the slightest idea of what to do about it. As Congress has discovered, it is really, really hard to legislate ethical behavior. To a degree, you can coerce it ... but you lose something when you do that.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Recently I have come to the conclusion that most people perceive the FSF description as something other then what it is , even myself I whas in that category of people.
.
The FSF is a "Political" group of people who gets to decide what software get the mention Free software certification by FSF. They absolutely do not base there descision on the merits and quality of software or there license , but on what political views and favor they support at this momment in time.
I dont think that the Nokia issue is really a big problem people see them coming a mile away.
But the fact that many software license which are certified Free Software when in fact in there design it allow for the closing of the source code and removal of the basic freedom which are at the core of the FSF and this for us all and that this is acepted by the politcal body controlling the FSF at this time in my opinion is absolutely wrong.
Many people knew me as one of the most vocal defender of the FSF and OSI , but in recent years both group have became politcal body instead of defender of rights of the users and access to the code.
When the OSI allow for many license to close the source code in there design I think that its absolutely wrong that they are certified and called Open Source, I view this iin the same way as a murder law which is illegal inside the country but when your outside of the limit of the country you can kill your neighboor for any reason , for me its absolutely wrong , allowing the closing of the code for Open Source is the absolute opposite of what The OSI stands for and is supposed to be certifying
When the FSF allow for many license to remove the basic rights for which the FSF stands for and allow them to be certified and called Free Software it become a mockery of the principle and of the value that is perceived as the basis for the FSF very existance.
Bot license are missing some final and decisive wording , both have the same flaw, those words which are missing : AT ALL TIME.
The Fact that those word are not in the description that The OSI and FSF use for there certification allow for a real problem which allow cetification of license which are absolutely the opposite of what those groups stand for and are supposed to protect.
By this text I encourage everyone to refuse the Current FSF and OSI certification as they are political motivated scam of what they really stand for.
I myself refute the validity of both certification at this period in time as the description they use is politicaly motivated and not based on the defense and protection of the right those two certification are suppose to be protecting.
Free Software certification should be given to free software who are Free Software at all time , not just when some people decide they would like it to be.
Open Source certification should be given to Open Source software who are Open Source at all time , not just when some people decide they would like it to be.
Sorry for the disturbance , but I am making you aware of something absolutely wrong in my view. And shall continue to do so every time I see a posting refering to the FSF and OSI as I belive them to be politcal scammer at this moment in time.
I am a REAL American from Canada , not a wanna-be from the country , self called "last remaining superpower" "of America
The reason for the patent announcement is simple. Nokia has announced that they'll be shipping a Linux-based device. Once they do, they cannot assert their patents against the Linux kernel they have been shipping, otherwise they'd be violating the GPL. In fact, the same applies to any vendor that ships Linux, including Cisco, IBM, and Sun, all of which probably have more significant patent portfolios in this space than Nokia.
Nevertheless, Nokia didn't have to choose Linux. They could have shipped BSD or QNX, for example. Someone did a cost/benefit analysis inside Nokia and found that Linux was worth it. That's a good thing. In fact, I think it's a better thing than if they had done this for publicity or other intangible reasons.
It's true Nokia is also lobbying for software patents. I'm not convinced, however, that the two actions are necessarily related, however. Companies aren't all that organized or coordinated internally, and there are far easier arguments for them to make.
""Stallman's take? "In effect, Nokia is lobbying the European Union to give Nokia and many others a new kind of weapon to shoot at software authors and users with--and telling the legislators, 'Don't worry, it's safe to let private armies carry these guns, because we promise that our gunmen won't shoot anyone in that building.'"""
;-)"
;-)
"It's no surprise RMS is ignored outside of portions of the FOSS community. With crackpot analogies like that he will never be taken seriously by outsiders. He gets quoted by the mainstream media for his humor value. All we have here is the reinforcement of negative stereotypes of Linux advocates. Richard, please let other people do the PR. Stick to writing the next version of the GPL and adding another meg of code to emacs. Please.
At first I thought it was a troll, because I've seen trolls copy legitimate posts and repost them. But you reposted your own friggin' thing?
First an aside, the real point comes later, please hang in there. I can understand how the orginal above would be considered a troll by some. I accept that. I expected "-1 troll" mods by some but I don't think that should deter one from offering a controversial opinion and I don't have the instincts of a politician who can couch every comment in a politically correct non-offense manner.
Now the real point. Does anyone think that "overrated" and "underrated" invite abusive moderation? They are so bland they effectively allow zealots to advocate or silence positions without fear of metamoderation. This thwarts the entire moderation process. I think they should be done away with, when you moderate take a position or pass.
This was just a thought as I noticed the above getting insightful and overrated mods. It seemed weird to get overrated rather than troll, which I was not shooting for but at least would make sense. Now when someone mods this post as overrated how can we award that mod a point for humor.
Doesn't help to be registered, even posted logged-in and non-cowardly.
"To confirm you're not a script, please type the text shown in this image: TIFQMIW"
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
Are we to draw the same ahistorical conclusion for older versions of the Linux kernel, which Linus Torvalds gets untold amounts of adulation for?
Torvalds began what would become the Linux kernel, but Torvalds doesn't work on every line of Linux code anymore, he hasn't for some years now. Older versions of the Linux kernel aren't under Torvalds' managerial control because he has passed on the task of maintenance to other people (such as Marcello Tosatti who took over Alax Cox's job overseeing the 2.4 version). And we musn't forget the other forks of the kernel maintained and distributed by various GNU/Linux distributions, or the private derivatives (like the variant of the Linux kernel running on my machine right now) which contain code these maintainers never see.
Torvalds gets a lot of credit for work he did not do -- even going so far as to not correct anyone who calls "Linux" an operating system, not just a kernel -- very few people bother to mention Cox, Tosatti, or other maintainers of their distribution's derivative of the Linux kernel (various people at IBM, Red Hat, Novell, Canonical, etc.). This might be a side effect of the name "Linux" itself, which serves as a reminder of Linus Torvalds.
But you would have us believe that GCC (which contains no mention of Stallman by name) should grant Stallman no credit. Interesting, that in one respect this is part of an unbroken line of attempts to deny Stallman credit for valuable work he's begun or done, but also interesting in that it denies the iterative improvements that are at the heart of human achievements in art and science. Everyone stands on someone's shoulders and I think it's a big step in the wrong direction to deny credit to someone who's work has been of such enormous value to us all.
Digital Citizen
The US is the same as Germany in WW1 and Nazi in WW2. They pick on everyone who dont agree with them.And they enforce there view by military coup and illegal millitary actions. They think themself as superior and are cowardly making themself into some superior race.
They forget that there is only one race : The Human Race and that not only are they the weakest armed force with the money they invest in it , they have also been defeated every time in the past by enemy they had created for themself.
First strike whas the beginning of last drop for many people , they close the gasket when they called the UN irrelevant.
WW3 is already started , the armed conflict will begin soon.
I think you misspelled "totally out of touch with reality" there.
Seriously. The rather embarrassingly obvious insanity of rms is dragging down free software something fierce.
"Insightful", my ass. If he would live in this fantasy land, he wouldn't be pissed off about unfree things. At least get your basic logic right!
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Yes, I dont believe that the busybox application set is GNU orientated, and there are many 'microdistros' based on it and uClibc. With this in mind, and the fact that these microdistros are predominent in firewall/router systems such as the netgear range, they are on a par in usage figures as GNU/Linux systems.
Perhaps you are unaware of the common practice of military analogy in the business world?
The following statement goes beyond normal business analogies:
"Stallman's take? "In effect, Nokia is lobbying the European Union to give Nokia and many others a new kind of weapon to shoot at software authors and users with--and telling the legislators, 'Don't worry, it's safe to let private armies carry these guns, because we promise that our gunmen won't shoot anyone in that building.'"""
Seriously, if a CEO went to such extremes you would not expect him to be rediculed and blown off as a nutcase? I'm sure some CEOs are nutcases prone to speaking like that but that is why they have PR departments to keep them from reflecting poorly on themselve and the company. Unfortunately FOSS has no such leash and RMS is free to reinforce all the negative stereotypes others are trying to undo.
You could at least honor the man and his work by reading what he actually wrote about the issue and his reasons.
/.
Then address his arguments, and if you think you are so right, try to destroy them. But fuck off with these stupid strawmans that you picked up on
RMS:
"It is possible to write good free software without thinking of GNU; much good work has been done in the name of Linux also."
"
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
1) he doesn't tell you how you should refer to it. HE refers to it that way
2) he won't sue you if you call it different
3) He basically invented GNU which is indeed a major part of what most people call 'a linux installation'. Please give the man a break when he wants to refer to it as GNU/linux.
4) if you think of something similar as GNU, you can call it anyway you want.
it's all in good fun :-)
Man, where have you been? In this age of South Park Conservatism and forgotten accountability, standing up for anything is LAME. It really does worry me about not only the future of Free Software, but the future of this country. I know it sounds like hyperbole, but talk to a random sampling (or on /., a not so random sample) of kids about *anything* that smacks of idealism and you get some bullshit about "reality" or "pragmatism" (and I use those terms in jest). Huge swaths of our populace has forgotten what one idealistic person like RMS can do. IMO, at our own peril.
"You know why you do not see me styling wit my homies? Because I have no homies!!" -Mojo Jojo
Man, read the GNU page. Nowhere did RMS say "knowledge wants to be free". There even is some interview on the web where he specifically denies to have said that or even believe in what it's commonly taken to be its meaning*.
Nowhere does he say that "everything should be free no matter what the people making it think". He just says that users better reject unfree stuff because in the long turn it is shackling them.
* In fact this commonly understood meaning is (i) stupid, but (ii) not what was originally meant.
(i) Obviously information does not "want" anything. Obviously producers can in some way and extent (to be defined by law) regulate what can be done with it
(ii) Originally that phrase was a joking way to refer to the characteristics of information control under the influence of entropy.
The thing is, while you can limit information transfer even when communication channels are very good, doing so forces you to spend energy. Left to its own devices, information will spread in a well-connected environment. (Finding examples in history is left as an exercise to the reader.) You can't keep it from spreading for an unlimited time.
This property makes information behave in a way that to the naive observer may suggest that it "wants" to be free. (That was the joke.)
It also ensures that at one point it will be free, i.e., be available to those who care. (This assumes that the medium of information exchange keeps intact, and that the knowledge repositories are not destroyed by external influences)
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Funny, he refused to speak to a linux user's group unless they changed their name to be a GNU/Linux group.
I'd say that qualifies as telling people how to refer to it.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
You know, he _does achieve what he wants - that the GNU name and ideas remain in circulation. The simple fact that every time RMS says something, the main part of the "discussion" is about RMS's personality, and about the naming issue, already ensures that people coming to free software can't avoid to know about GNU.
The astounding and sometimes scary thing about RMS is that he doesn't care whether it makes him look like an idiot. I bet he thought this through in this brilliant mind of his, decided that it's the way that promises to be most successful in keeping the ideas around, and just went for it with the same bloody-mindedness that made him start the FSF and GNU in the first place.
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
considering software by its very nature is not patentable except by some dillusion fabracated by man, anythng that suggest otherwise, such as a promise not to use software patents against a named party, is also dillusional and in denial of the genuine nature of software. If one os going to be dillusional, who that is sane would trust them?
Now, the earth is flat and if you sail out there, the dragons will get you.
This is exactly true: A promise without consideration is not a contract. Nokia should be offering a 1-euro license to all comers -- then they would prove that their stance is merely defensive.
Eh, I think RMS is a good guy. The GPL is the best thing that happened to software since the invention of high-level languages.
Besides, it's nice to have one person talk about sharing in this world. It's a good change from all the greed we see everywhere.
That isn't what Stallman says. I expect he should know, right? This is from hios slashdot interview:
That sounds like he's telling me what I should call it.
Never would have occurred to me, personally.
Not that he's letting his personal dislike of Linus' apolitical stance colour his perceptions or anything.See, he says things like this, and it sounds to me like his love of freedom comes second to his love of the spotlight.
2) he won't sue you if you call it different
Oh well, that's all right then. Really, I don't like having branding forced down my throat. Neither by Gates, nor by Stallman, thank you very much.
4) if you think of something similar as GNU, you can call it anyway you want.
Cute, but it misses the point. I'm not telling him anything. He on the other hand is is tellimg me waht I should call a system that uses software he intended to be used freely by others.
Stallman is a great man in many ways. But on this one specific point, he should practice what he preaches a little more rigorously. Such pettiness is unbecoming for a man of his stature.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
"Patents are weapons. Just like guns. Gun control, like all other forms of prohibition, does more harm than good. The reasons for this apply to any weapon to a greater or lesser extent, so why do we not allow software patents?"
Allowing citizens to own and use guns is more liberty.
Disallowing citizens to use methods and inventions is less liberty.
Hm, you have got a point there.
Well, not to nitpick, but he still left the choice up to them, the only consequence being that he wouldn't speak there. I can imagine he doesn't want to spend his time on a group which (in his opinion) doesn't give gnu the credit it deserves.
Still, you (and the GP) have a point there...
why the merry hell is he telling me how I may and may not refer to the operating system I use.
/. so often that even user #613926 can't have missed it. At least in this case it would maybe make sense not to comment.
He doesn't, and it has been discussed on
Every time I read this, I try again if RMS is telling me how to call it. I say "Linux." "Linux." "Linux.". And so far I still could. Not even a puff of smoke from which St. IGNUtius appears.
Sometimes I even try to Google for "Linux" and, surprise, people say "Linux" all the time.
He is just saying that _he thinks it should be called GNU/Linux, and _he will, and if you talk to him ans say "Linux", he will tell you that he thinks etc.
Don't like that, don't talk to him, or respect his wishes.
Otherwise, read my other posts in this thread.
It has been
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Allot new ideas start out sounding like crackpot analogies, especially to people who dont have all the facts. A good portion of people in America today are living under ideals that have been ingrained into the them by the media and society, this usually leads to problems when you need to actually think and do research for your self.
Stallman is man of absolutes, all or nothing. He uses analogies that reflect that, and to make a point. Intellectual Property is a completely insane idea, but its understandable coming from a society of over thinkers. obsessive thinking has lead to the corruption of the patent system which was once used to protect an individual's work from large entities for a LIMITED time. The patent system was never intended for what it is being used for now and should be abolished.
Be carefull on what you call crazy or insane, there is allways a hint of truth in it.
You are not your mind.
Never would have occurred to me, personally.
Actually I did for some time, in between I heard about linux and about GNU. Probably I am not the only one.
See, he says things like this, and it sounds to me like his love of freedom comes second to his love of the spotlight...
Stallman is a great man in many ways. But on this one specific point, he should practice what he preaches a little more rigorously. Such pettiness is unbecoming for a man of his stature.
Yes and no. He is a fanatic no doubt, and maybe a fanatic is what it takes to stand tall and completely uncompromised. I am not an RMS expert, but can imagine that he is just so focused of GNU (not on RMS) that this gives the impression he wants to be in the spotlight. A drawback of fanatics is that they 'draw the line' at infinity. In other words, what you call 'unbecoming' may be unavoidable. (Just like many geniuses were complete weirdos: maybe some characteristics exclude others).
Thank you. I mean I could care less about /. karma, but I think its pretty telling how things are moderated around here. Not that my orignal post was any great shakes, and I know that the /. folks have tried many things to fix it but there is no doubt that moderation is politicized and broken.
Bizarre logic, that. "Lots of people disagree vehemently with Stallman [or more likely, his persona], therefore he must be right." And this gem is moderated as "insightful". Wow, talk about a closed-world.
When was the last time RMS was pleased by anything?
(Richard: one word: Prozac.)
Yes, it gets the GNU name out there. It also gets a lot of people to associate "open source" with "crackpot" (and no, I am not pulling this out of my ass. The opinions were amusing. My personal preference is the best tool for the job - open or closed, but that's just me.)
He's *really* not the spokesman kind of person.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
Yes, and by forcing them to make that choice (change your name, or I won't talk to you), he put yet another bit of bad blood in the community.
I know a lot of people that wanted to let him have it for that little stunt. Some of them are getting so sick and tired of the "spokespeople" that they're not contributing as much anymore because they feel that whatever they do, someone will bitch and moan that it "isn't right".
He's really starting to have an effect that is the opposite of what he wants on parts of the community. By pulling stunts like this, he's really shooting himself (and his cause) in the foot.
Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
... Stallman hysterical FUD...
Stallman... we DONT live in a Star Trek happy utopian... software companies are NOT the Borg (even the most obvious candidate)... get a life... paying for software is not going to cause the "end of the world"...
Lovely! Mind you, I didn't complain about Stallman teleporting into my home everytime I utter the incantation "Linux! Linux! Linux!" Rather, a poster asked why people insisted on badgering Stallman, and I offered a very personal opinion of how the great man aquired Feet of Clay in my mind. You are of course free to accept this information, ignore it, or attack me for holding it.
Nevertheless, to the extent you choose to consider my opinion, I'd ask you to consider it in context.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
1) So no one creates a free / competeing project.
2) Good PR
Your obsession with cold cash is frightening.
Moron, cant you read? I said ANY subject.
So to answer your ignorant question: Correct, your 'contribution' would be of no value.
Furthermore, you should be banished from the country if you happen to live in the USA. ( assuming you disagree with the constitution and its original 10 amendments thats is )
PS, I'm done dealing with you. This is far too OT now to continue.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"It's no surprise RMS is ignored outside of portions of the FOSS community."
Really? Ignored? I was under the impression there was a tremendous amount of invitation for Mr Stallman to speak at all kinds of functions.
BTW you forgot to call him smelly and a communist. Please do better next time OK?
evil is as evil does
So "the UNIX operating system", and "The Windows operating system" are kernels?
Back to school, kiddo.
As Linus said: "Sadly, a kernel by itself gets you nowhere. To get a working system you need a shell, compilers, a library etc. These are separate parts and may be under a stricter (or even looser) copyright. Most of the tools used with linux are GNU software and are under the GNU copyleft. These tools aren't in the distribution - ask me (or GNU) for more info."
Why should Stallman hold his tongue? He laid out the rationale for free software 20 years ago; everything he foresaw has come to pass. I'm amazed he has any patience left. At some point, there's only so much that one man can do. Sooner or later, you, I, the rest of us who write (or use) software are going to have to choose whether to stick up for those beliefs, or bend over and be screwed. To Stallman's credit, he hasn't given up yet.
you had me at #!
Software patents inherently favor large corporations with teams of lawyers over not-for-profit organizations funded by individual donations... in a world of strongly enforced software patents, big companies will have one more effecive way to "compete" with the little guys.
Ummm no.
If you want to get technical, the kernel is the kernel.
An OS is a kernel plus all the other tools that are necessary to actually do something with it.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
The FSF wouldn't be able to shakedown proprietary software companies, as they could just retaliate. But a patent portfoilio would help deter patent attacks from Microsoft: Gates woould know that any lawsuits against Linux users or developers could result in similar attacks against Windows.
Remember: to me, id software is good because every single one of their games uses OpenGL exclusively (if they use hardware acceleration) and either has a native Linux port or a native Linux port with source code.
To Stallman, id software is evil because not all of their games are GPL'd. That's right -- they should not only release the source to Doom 3, but they should GPL it, so that no one can ever make a proprietary game with it again.
In other words, Stallman has no concept of "good enough". More like "Either you're with us or you're against us." Sound familiar? It should -- it's what Bush kept saying when he was trying to convince people to invade Iraq.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Stallman's right and the other poster that mentions how they 'let you' use something. Don't take gifts from these ppl, spit in their face.
How is this insightful. Why do somany ppl find sucking dick to be so insightful. Yeah, well, no shit.
They're trying to whitewash the GNU Project out of history and starve it of new contributors. They aren't part of his community, except as predators.
I haven't read TFA, and I won't be either. I've just had two bottom teeth extracted, and the dentist told me to make sure to take things very quietly for the rest of the day. If there's one thing that normally makes me truly angry, however, it's reading something written by Richard Stallman...so I will abstain on those grounds.
If Stallman actually wants to make himself useful, he might try investigating Red Hat's hijacking of the GNU project...particularly Glibc. The plan on their part is while keeping Glibc under the GPL, to simply make it sufficiently complex that they won't have to fear many people using it, and will thus be able to move closer to their desired general monopoly on Linux.
But to RMS: Either actually do some concrete work on preserving your software's freedom, or go back to sleep...because all pontificating does is piss people off.
Actually, this happened many years ago - long before GPS and modern technology. In South Africa the speed limit was lowered because there was a fuel shortage (around the time OPEC first imposed production restrictions). The problem was that most people just ignored the change and carried on like they always did. The traffic police started enforcing the speed limit by noting license plates as people started a trip between two towns (there was only one road between the towns) and then worked out how long the trip should take if the people were not speeding. In the second town the police then just pulled people who arrived too soon over and gave them fines!
Umm... Who are "they" in this context? Microsoft? Sinister Minions of Eric S. Raymond? The Orbital Mind Control Lasers?
I've just got up, so forgive me if I seem a little dense. Maybe you meant to refer to those of us who support Free Software without the wholesale adoption of each and every Stallman dictum? If we can starve it of new contributors, simply because we don't like the governing mindset, maybe it's an institution whose time has come.
Actually, that's an interesting idea. I remember one slashdotter explaining AOLs latest downturn by suggesting that AOL represented an intermediary phase; that it was internet lite for americans who were interested in this internet thing, but who were used to more the structured world of television. For these people AOL provided a useful halfway house between TV and the anarchic decentralisation of the internet.
The downside of that, of course, was that as those AOL customers came to understand that the internet could and should be, so they came first to chafe under the restrictions imposed by AOL, and then to seek new IPSs.
Perhaps we may then speculate that the GNU Project too may be an intermediate phase - Free Software Lite, if you will. If GNU can be starved of developers in the manner you suggest, perhaps that's because people who understand the idea of free software are now starting to chafe under the weight of groupthink mandated by the GNU orthodoxy.
Just a thought...
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
Which is why people wouldn't be allowed to use their patents to restrict other people from using their methods and inventions, just like gun owners aren't allowed to shoot people offhand.
mod it up, oh baby, mod it up!
mod it mod it up, mod it up, baby mod it up.
I was under the impression there was a tremendous amount of invitation for Mr Stallman to speak at all kinds of functions.
I'm under the impression that it is primarily from Linux user groups, academia, and other parts of the FOSS community. Not from business groups curious about Linux, thankfully there are others available for that.
BTW you forgot to call him smelly and a communist. Please do better next time OK?
Thank you for blowing any credibility you may have had. End of conversation.
I don't like Microsoft's OS, but a lot of the trolling against them has little basis in truth.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
"I'm under the impression that it is primarily from Linux user groups, academia, and other parts of the FOSS community."
Well then you are under the wrong impression.
"Thank you for blowing any credibility you may have had. End of conversation."
I think you blew any credibility you may have had with your pointless bashing of RMS.
evil is as evil does
"I'm under the impression that it is primarily from Linux user groups, academia, and other parts of the FOSS community."
Well then you are under the wrong impression.
Sorry but googling does not support your impression. Are you his personal secretary, care to share his calendar or whatever you use to form your impression?
I think you blew any credibility you may have had with your pointless bashing of RMS.
Sorry, but you are digging yourself in a deeper hole. The criticism of his hysterical analogy was spot on. He does reinforce negative stereotypes. That's reality, get past the fanboi'ism.
Your characterization of his analogy as "hysterical" blows what little credibility you may have left.
It's amazing how he seems to raise the hackles of corporate shills everywhere. We need more people like him. If that makes me a fan then so be it.
evil is as evil does
Your characterization of his analogy as "hysterical" blows what little credibility you may have left.
You have read his comment that started this thread? Here:
"Stallman's take? "In effect, Nokia is lobbying the European Union to give Nokia and many others a new kind of weapon to shoot at software authors and users with--and telling the legislators, 'Don't worry, it's safe to let private armies carry these guns, because we promise that our gunmen won't shoot anyone in that building.'""
You think that furthers FOSS and does not perpetuate a negative image?
It's amazing how he seems to raise the hackles of corporate shills everywhere. We need more people like him. If that makes me a fan then so be it.
I'm a corporate shill? Good lord how ignorant you are. Hint: there are many FOSS supporters and advocates who cringe when RMS speaks in public. And no you do not seem a fan, you seem a fanboi. There is a distinction.
So hows that list of corporate speaking engagements coming along? Yeah, right.
Farewell.
"You think that furthers FOSS and does not perpetuate a negative image?"
Yes, furthermore it's not anywhere near "hysterical".
"I'm a corporate shill"
Yes I do.
"Hint: there are many FOSS supporters and advocates who cringe when RMS speaks in public."
Not many, some, few, but not many.
"And no you do not seem a fan, you seem a fanboi."
And you seem to be shill.
"So hows that list of corporate speaking engagements coming along?"
You can do your research right? Just ask your boss for one. I would think they keep close track of his movements.
evil is as evil does
" Which is why people wouldn't be allowed to use their patents to restrict other people from using their methods and inventions"
If you cannot use a patent to restrict other people, it is not a patent. Installing a patent system for the sake of having a patent system means more government and bureaucracy; bad.
I thought of that. What you say is true, but having a lot of patents would be good for the ego. Perhaps even replacing penis length as the one true indication of authority. And since nobody would really care, it wouldn't have to be privatised; just put it in the public sector and hope people will pay to keep it going.
Twitter, you're a petulant cock-gobbling sycophant to Linux Torvaldyos! Quit taking DP from ESR and RMS's feculent cocks and why don't you try to stop sucking quite so much? Get out of your parents' basement and see the real world - maybe then you'll see how pathetic you sound, with your neverending stream of bullshit about how Microsoft is stalking you. Wasn't it you who said that Microsoft believes your insane ranting is actually a threat to them, so they PAY PEOPLE to reply to you on Slashdot? No sir, I don't get any money. I do it for the love. Someone has to go up against your paranoid whining. So get back in your cage and shut the fuck up already.