Slashdot Mirror
Will Stallman Kill the "Linux Revolution?"
frdmfghtr writes "The October 30 issue of Forbes Magazine has an article speculating that Richard Stallman's efforts to rewrite the GPL could threaten to 'tear it apart.' The article describes how the GPLv3 is expected to be incompatible with the GPLv2, causing trouble for Linux vendors such as Novell and Red Hat. The article wraps it up: 'And a big loser, eventually, could be Stallman himself. If he relents now, he likely would be branded a sellout by his hard-core followers, who might abandon him. If he stands his ground, customers and tech firms may suffer for a few years but ultimately could find a way to work around him. Either way, Stallman risks becoming irrelevant, a strange footnote in the history of computing: a radical hacker who went on a kamikaze mission against his own program and went down in flames, albeit after causing great turmoil for the people around him.'"
Exactly. Personally I think that Stallman is a visionary and Linus is too pragmatist in a sense, as Stallman clearly wants to avoid the DRM/"Trusted computing" trap with GPLv3 and Linus can't see medium/longterm about this. Also, he doesn't seem to be really understanding the v3, since he claimed things like digitally signed repositories like apt-get would be not allowed with v3, while Stallman clearly established that it's not the case.
I think Linus is a good coder and project manager, but we shouldn't expect him to "show the way" in issues of principle/vision. He's an engineer, not a "freedom fighter".
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
And as far as any possible splinter goes, this will separate the wheat from the chaff in both directions. It may be painful, but good will come of it.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
This has happened before. A while back I tried without success to convince Richard Stallman that continuing to promote a license (the GNU Free Documentation License or GFDL) :-)o n_License
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html
which was incompatible with the GPL was a bad thing.
See for example some reasons at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentati
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html
My particular interest was to use information from the GFDL-licensed Wikipedia in GPL programs. I'd go further and question the very reasons the GFDL was created in the first place -- just to make dead tree book publishers' lives easier? Where is the emphasis on freedom there?
I think it is easy for any technologist to underestimate community issues and then to see a license as a program for individual behavior instead of a constitution for a community. The GPL works. It has problems, sure, but it works well enough as a constitution for cooperation. More variants of licenses mainly just make more problems IMHO.
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Here's part of the problem:
Stallman doesn't believe in compromising his ideals. His life's work is Free Software.
We can call him a weirdo, mad, an ass, but without his conviction we would all be locked into proprietary products. Unlike some things that happened because the world was ready for it (cell phones, computers), I don't believe that Free Software would exist if not for Stallman. That is, without him, I don't think another person would have dedicated his/her life to the cause.
Corporations don't compromise. Look at Microsoft's business tactics that were either outright illegal or bordering on the illegal. If they had their way we would not be allowed to write our own software, not be allowed to trade software with the original authors, not be allowed to listen to our own music. And this nightmare world is happening.
Sure, there has to be regulations, but not those imposed by corporations. Look at the radio broadcast spectrum, the automobile industry, etc.. for parallels.
So here is Richard Stallman. He's probably closer to the end of his years than to the beginning. His life's work is almost happening but Linux, for good or bad, is not at all what he envisioned. He's trying to fix it while he can. If I were in his position, I'd probably do the same thing (if only to be an ornery bastard).
Stallman is not compromising, but neither is Microsoft.
It's not libraries that you distribute he's talking about, it's libraries that you USE in your code, but someone else maintains.
Example: You make application A. To work, it needs libraries Z, Y, and X. All of these are GPL v2, but library Y is 'or any later version.' Person P makes a contribution to library Y under GPLv3. Y is now GPLv3. If you wish to use the latest version of library Y, you must now license your application A under the GPLv3.
If the libraries were under the LGPL, you wouldn't have to use GPLv3 as your license, but your application still has to follow ALL of the LGPLv3 stipulations for use, because of that library, if you want to use the latest version.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
This is Forbes magazine.
The consequence of Richards vision is plenty for everyone and no capacity for hoarding, depriving, controlling and trading.
You think global warming holds a candle to something like this? He's a dangerous athiest among the flock.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I really don't see any FUD here.
Fear?: Fear of what? The GPL software movement is splitting. This may be annoying, but hardly anything to fear.
Uncertainty?: There is little uncertainty, the split is now almost certain.
Doubt?: Doubt of Linux's survival? Anyone paying the slightest attention should have no doubt about that.
The article is filled with what I consider to be libelous comments about RMS: I don't think he is an anarchist, anti-corporate or against the sale of software. That sort of reckless disregard for the truth has no place in such a major publication, and I think Lyons should be fired.
a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
Precisely. Forbes should stick to pork belly futures. It would be humourous to revisit Forbes' predictions about GPL v1 and v2, had they even been aware of such things at the time.
None of the symbols we use to communicate are immutable. ;)
The opinions of the dudes who wrote the Bill of Rights were not constant, either.
Why is this dark vision so resonant?
Because the increasingly complex legal system, far from being a means to the end of regulating society, is more a means unto itself.
One wonders what a graph against time of the legal costs spent on software by all companies would be. Frightening, I'd expect.
Your wish for an immortal law doesn't fit the legal business model and, ultimately, is just not quite real.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
I don't think "expand" is the right term here. "Preserve" would be much better.
Keep in mind that when GPL-2 was created there was no such thing as DMCA and software patents were a rather exotic idea. GPL-3 is the answer to new laws and aggressive interpretations of old ones.
"Global" and "Internet" are not just empty words. Combine a potential loophole (as one can use GPL source and lock down binaries with crypto key and DMCA) and millions of people and there *will* be a few unscrupulous ones that will spoil it for everybody (example: e-mail).
So, yes, we do need GPL-3, but the issue of how to deal with existing GPL-2 software is truly a hairy one.
GPLv2 contains the following language in paragraph 9:
If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
This provision gives the option of deciding whether to follow V2 or V3 to the person making a copy of V2 code, not to the author.
There is a serious ambiguity - if that person adds or changes some of the code, can that person convert the entire module to V3 or is the module now fragmented? And if the latter, how is anyone supposed to keep track of what statement of code is under what license?
Personally I have abandoned publishing code under the GPL - I now use the less restrictive, non-viral MIT/BSD style licenses.
There is another situation that few have discussed - The rules of copyright in the US are defined by statutes enacted by, and changable by, Congress.
There is a chance that Congress could amend the US copyright law to deny the right of enforcement to anyone who has made only a partial or small contribution to the totality of the work or if that contribution has been subject to several intervening layers of further contributions. (It would be a bear to define these things, but the Congress critters would be getting a lot of help from the IP and non GPL software industry.)
Let's see:
Ten commandments?
I'm not religious, but...
"Thou shalt not murder"
Is pretty clear to me. Although apparently it wasn't to Christianity. Then again this wasn't an issue of not being clear rather than the people this is and was addressed to, putting their fingers in their ears and singing "LA LA LA LA LA LA I can't hear you LA LA LA!!"...
There are two rules for success:
1. Never tell everything you know.
So you have a law phrased in several different ways so that everyone understands... what do you do if there is ambiguity between phrasings?
a ctions.html ), since language is just an abstract way of communicating our thoughts.
Nothing's ever going to be perfect and eternal. Things and language are changing all the time, and there's always going to be something that somebody never thought of. You can keep adding words and sentences and specifics until your face turns blue, but the law will still have uncharted territory - maybe not today, but eventually.
The nature of this conversation reminds me of The Law of Leaky Abstractions ( http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstr
Think of it this way: Was the Windows API perfect when Windows 3.1 hit the shelves? No. They've added functions and parameters, which most likely were not needed at the time of its original creation.
Buckle your ROFL belt, we're in for some LOLs.
I'm not defending anything. I pointed out that among all the obviously inflammatory bullshit there are issues about the GPLv3 that are valid - issues that people like Torvalds and choice kernel hackers have raised repeatedly - and that have been consistently dismissed with the usual "nothing to see here, move along" line.
Assuming the author knows anything at all about RMS and the Free Software Foundation
It's of course disingenious to say that Stallman doesn't want anyone to charge for software; at the same time the confusion about "free-as-in-whatever" (confusion for normal people, not the normal Slashbots) is all the FSF's doing. They are sleeping in the bed they made. And of course Stallman himself has not exactly told the world how it is that you're supposed to make money while giving away software if you're not RedHat or Novell. And no, I don't include PayPal donations there.
RMS, as far as I can tell, has little interest in damaging the commercial software industry
Huh? He has repeatedly attacked them for not following his mantra. Where have you been the last 20 years? To Stallman anyone who writes "non-free software" is immoral, and by definition an enemy of his ideals. Please, I'd love for you to prove me wrong. Where do people like you who like to sing his praises get off telling everyone else that they "dont get it"? It's very convenient to ignore anything that complicates your rationalization of these issues, isn't it?
"dubbing tech giants "evil" and "enemies of freedom" because they rake in sales and enforce patents and copyrights--when he argues they should be giving it all away." Again, utter nonsense
Utter nonesense? That's *exactly* what Stallman does! I'm not going to argue the relative moral value of what he does, but how can you deny that that is exactly Stallman's modus operandi?
If there are such unthinking followers, I have not met them
Really? You must be new here.
Absolute freedom - everybody does what he wishes - is anarchy. Nothing surprising.
Have you read what you have wrote? Are you from US? Are you listening speeches of George W. Bush often? Because he uses the same pattern: to stop wars, we need to wage a war.
Restricting people for sake of freedom? How more dumber it could be.
What you are trying in fact to say, is that GPL tries to establish system of compromises which leads to sustainable software ecosystem. Rules and discipline are must for any system to be sustainable in long term. But also, both rules and discipline has to be flexible so that system can survive cataclysms.
As sign that Stallman/FSF are not capable of building such system, you can take the fact, that they have never managed to produce usable OS kernel. In other words, they have not compromised enough. End of story.
So you think GPLv3 does it right? Prohibit trucks? And prohibit debris? That's just dumb. You cannot prohibit everything.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
I think if you actually read what he writes, you'll find that the only thing he cares about is that the sourcecode be 'free' as in speech. That's why TIVO doesn't bother him. It's a hardware issue. The sourcecode is 'free'.
There was a discussion on Groklaw a few weeks back & for him, the whole issue is tit-for-tat - we give companies code, they give us back the changes, what they do with that code is their issue. As long as the code changes come back, the community has been improved & the process continues. It doesn't matter if the company ships that code in a ROM based brick, an open flash system, or a Locked down flash box - if the code is available, you can make one yourself & impliment any changes you want.