Slashdot Mirror
When Stallman is Attacked
writes "Linux Tech Daily has an editorial slamming a recent Forbes.com attack piece on Richard Stallman and GPLv3. Loved or hated, do you agree with the author that the piece is FUD and completely unprofessional? Love him or hate him, is this unfair treatment of rms? Does he leave himself open to these kinds of attacks with his behavior?" The problem with the editorial of course is that many of the points made in the original Forbes piece are completely valid and true. So basically you get to choose between the linux zealot, and a writer who is obviously fairly hostile towards Stallman's ideas.
You could be like me and think they are both loud mouthed baffoons.
"Da ist ein Technölüst in mein Unterpanten!"
Did forbes report facts, or make stuff up?
He does not deserve the treatment Forbes gave him. Quotes include:
"a lesser-known programmer-infamously more obstinate and far more eccentric than Torvalds-wields a startling amount of control as this revolution's resident enforcer"
"He and a band of anarchist acolytes long have waged war on the commercial software industry"
"A cantankerous and finger-wagging freewheeler, Stallman won't comment on any of this because he was upset by a previous story written by this writer."
"in some ways he is downright bizarre. He is corpulent and slovenly, with long, scraggly hair, strands of which he has been known to pluck out and toss into a bowl of soup he is eating."
"Stallman engages in what he calls "rhinophytophilia"-"nasal sex" (also his term) with flowers"
"His site also boasts a recording of him singing-a capella and badly-his own anthem to free software."
"He hasn't hacked much new code in a decade or more."
"Stallman labors mightily to control how others think, speak and act, arguing, in Orwellian doublespeak, that his rules are necessary for people to be "free.""
"Long ago Stallman was a gifted programmer."
"Most major tech vendors declined comment rather than risk tangling with Stallman's enforcers, such as his sidekick and attorney, Columbia Law School professor Eben Moglen."
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I don't mean this as flamebait but isn't RMS irrelevant already? Back when it needed a knowledgable geek champion who understood the situation at the time, RMS was great.
Since that time it appears that the real world operates on a different set of rules than RMS's "Free no matter what" and reality be damned.
Forgive me for not being so knowledgable but it does seem like RMS's ego is now driving the train.
None of this diminishes RMS' contribution but some may think his time as a cult of personality is over.
Yeah,..mod me down now.
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
This is 2006.
I think Stallman is proving himself more and more irrelevant as time goes by.
I think overall, he is actually now hurting the revolution he started.
= Grow a brain...
I know this is Slashdot, but do we really need a thread engaging in metadebate about an article? Why not spend time discussing and proving (or refuting) the points made in TFA. Even if TFA is using ad hominem attacks, just point them out and move on -- we really don't need "talk radio" on Slashdot, getting all frothed up about who is the bigger doo-doo head.
The Forbes piece is written by Daniel Lyons. Lyons bashes Stallman, GPL, Linux, free software, open source etc. every chance he gets. He has been writing FUD for years. Just do a Google search for Daniel Lyons and you can read people's thoughts on this. He came to the article with an axe to grind.
"such as his sidekick and attorney, Columbia Law School professor Eben Moglen."
Didn't Eben record that song "Aeiou sometimes y" in the early 1980's? Way cool!
Where were you when the voynix came?
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Love him or hate him, did that post contain the love-him-hate-him phrase too many times?
I think the word "bears" belongs there somewhere.
Where were you when the voynix came?
Anyone who believes anything written in Forbes is either an elitist or some sort of incredible moron.
Richard Stallman disagress with random Forbes magazine pundit. What a revelation.
Stallman is not the most socially gifted, err, person. However, he is correct in his views on software and society. Moreover, he is absolutely correct to take the issue as seriously as he does.
For some reason many geeks like to attack what other geeks find popular to stand out and appear "different" or "superior". For example, in discussions of Linux one geek will stand out and write something anti-Linux (maybe pro-BSD) and get modded +5 Insightful. Same with anti-Apple, pro-Microsoft etc. However once in a while this gets completely un-productive. For example, when a girl starts posting naked pictures of herself on a message board. Reasonable persons write nice comments. Then comes the geek and writes "damn you're ugly". Thank you fucking much for spoiling it for everybody. Now no girl will post naked pictures of themselves. It's the same thing with attacking RMS. He is working for us, and you better damn appreciate it. Attacking RMS is like telling a girl she's ugly when she posts naked pictures of herself on a message board. Completely unproductive.
...
Oh damn, I put "naked" and "RMS" in the same sentence.
Crow T. Trollbot
He's irrelevant and has been for quite a while now. The entire thing has evolved beyond him now and he's desperate to force the open source movement to go in the direction he wants. Only it won't, nor should it. He gives open source a very bad name, is an embarrassment and is the poster boy for all that's wrong with open source in general.
*Fortitudo, aequitas, fidelitas.*
By reading the article you can tell there is an obvious dislike for RMS there. When is the last time you saw someone from Forbes saying this about anyone else? IMO they basically made him out to be "hippie scum". Any person not knowing who he is will get that impression of the article. I think it is poor journalism on Forbes part. IMO there certainly were some valid points in terms of his actions but commenting on appearance and eating habits is just a low blow. Eccentricities aside he has done a great deal for the free software movement. It shows that forbes (or at least the article author) is more intrested in judging on the GQ level of a person rather than IQ. If I were a reporter in this case I would certainly refrain from personal eccentricities and focus on the accomplishments and proffessional failings of that person. This person injected way too much personal opinion into the article. Recently I am no big fan of RMS becuase of the GPLv3 DRM issues but he has done alot and is doing alot outside of that and should at least be recoginized for those things.
Terrans should use firebats, or marines inside bunkers. Zerg should just use mass zerglings. And of course, any air unit, since zealots can't attack them.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
Does he get a cape, and ride in the sidecar of the GNUcycle?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
from TFFA: "Stallman won't comment on any of this because he was upset by a previous story written by this writer"
Sounds like quasi-journalistic sour grapes to me. Interesting that Forbes chose to publish what amounts to little more than a long digg comment. The editors must owe Lyons ('article' writer) a favor. At any rate, what's a cantankerous, finger-wagging, freewheeling, corpulent, slovenly, scraggly-haired, hair-in-his-soup, bizzare, bad-singing, orwellian doubletalking, robe-wearing, animal-jumping, rock-abusing, carot-eating, bovine-spotting, air-breathing, water-drinking, land-crawling, soap-in-his-eyes-blinking, wax-in-his-ears, book-reading, greasy good-for-nothing to say about such allegations?
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
To me, his vision is too much of a good thing. When I saw his interview on "Revolution OS", I was shocked by his analogy about software sharing and freedom compared with what children are taught in elementary school regarding bringing snacks into the classroom. We are not ten anymore! Almost everything taught at that age is meant to build conformity, complacency, and fear of authority. While I agree that sharing ideas is a good thing, he slams everyone that doesn't feel as he does. At the same time, he wants to be sure that GNU is recognized for being responsible for Linux and free software in general, much like Al Gore wants to claim resposibility for building the Internet.
In a nutshell: RMS is a sharp guy, but probably not someone you would want to be around for long. He has no delivery tact for his opinions, and is as close-minded to outside influence as any religious zealot.
Click here or here.
"""So basically you get to choose between the linux zealot, and a writer who is obviously fairly hostile towards Stallman's ideas.""""
Logical Fallacy: Drawing the Line, also called False Dilemma.
Is it too much to ask that the *editors* refrain from using these?
Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
I always thought of him as the sole founder of GNU and the FSF. Assuming I was wrong and this article has got it right, does anyone know who the other co-founders were?
IIRC, we are supposed to number our points "0, 1, 2, 3", not "1, 2, 3, 4".
I don't think anyone can argue that Stallman hasn't helped free software in the past. In fact, the Forbes article goes into detail about what he's done for linux. The thing is, that was then and this is now. His tactics and outspoken ideology are giving free software a bad name these days. Look at the progress Firefox, mySQL, etc have made in getting their software used by the masses and accepted by managerial types. The way to advance a free software culture isn't to rant about minute details (GNU/Linux)... it's to put out great software and market it like businesses do.
If you're trying to get people to adopt free software in their company or home, and you had to choose Stallman or Mårten Mickos (the mySQL CEO that recently did a Slashdot interview), which would you choose? Which would be more likely to convince people that free software is the way to go?
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
of RMS nowadays due to his increasingly extreme views. However, when it comes to choosing between what he says and the utterances of that well known purveyor of utter shite Daniel Lyons on _any_ topic, I'll choose Stallman every time.
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
... when it comes to how he chooses to preserve the fruits of the revolution he created, but this is a hit-piece. It is possible to respect the man and disagree with his methods.
There *are* problems with GPLv3, in my opinion, and it's possible that GPLv3 contradicts some of Richard Stallman's "freedom of use" ideology, but there's no way it is going to "endanger Linux" because -- and I'm not entirely sure why the press doesn't get this -- GPL V3 DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY REPLACE GPL V2. This isn't a EULA, it can't be udpated and replaced at any time at the whim of Richard Stallman, the license you get when you get free software is the license you get, and that's that. If the person who created the software decides that the next version will be GPLv3, you are free to fork the old one and develop it yourself.
Honestly, 90% of the media who covers the technology beat are the biggest pack of crybabies in the world. I'm pretty sure the reason so many of them hate Free Software is because they like being in a position where companies give them comp versions of software to play with. In the free software world, that's the only kind of software there is.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
Still trying to figure out why, if a GPL2-licensed kernel can coexist with GPL2 utilities, LGPL libraries, BSD-licensed apps, GPL2-licensed apps, and proprietary apps, somehow a GPL2-licensed kernel can't coexist with GPL3-licensed utilities.
The Linux Tech Daily editorial makes good points. If fails to mention one of the startling inaccuracies in the Forbes piece: namely that they claim that RMS argues they should be giving it all away. This is one of the oldest slurs in the book (it has to be deliberate at this stage so I won't dignify it by calling it a mistake). There's nothing to stop you making money selling Free Software, you just can't stop people reading, modifying, distributing and selling the code you sold to them. They don't HAVE to do any of the above but they can if they want.
What a garbage Forbes article. It reads like a piece written for a red-top tabloid.
As regards the characterization of RMS as "extremist", I agree with him and thus see him as reasonable and everyone else as clinging onto their own unreasonable extremism, especially those people that run around trying to convert people to being a Moderate.
He's either right or wrong. Stop putting silly monkey labels on people and deal with the issues: does the ability of manufacturers to sell hardware with non-modifiable (GPL'ed) software on them defeat the intention of the GPL? If so then if you don't like GPL3 how do you propose to stop this? If you don't object then why are you using Free or OpenSource software at all? Go use VxWorks, QNX or WinCE.
Trollaxor: Hey, RMS, what the fuck is up? I'm glad I got the opportunity to perform this interview with you. [coughs]
RMS: Hello, Mr. Trollaxor. I'm glad I got the opportunity to speak to another individual, interested in Free Software, that will eventually reach millions with the message I wish to express in this interview.
Trollaxor: Yeah, whatever. Let's get this over with. Firstly, let's talk about the origins of GNU. We all know it's Not UNIX. But where, exactly, did it come from? What was your prime inspiration for such a fine, grand, practical idea?
RMS: I'm glad you asked that.
Trollaxor: I'm not.
RMS: Ah [laughs]. You have a unique sense of humor, comrade Trollaxor!
Trollaxor: I know. And don't call me comrade. Or your friend, ally, brother, homey... I don't even like you. Now answer the question.
RMS: Ah, [laughs] yes. GNU. Well, after reading the works of Marx and Lenin, and having attended MIT and created several programs (GCC among them, of course) to which the source code was freely (as in speech, and beer) available, I began to see a certain communal effort begin to take shape among the software developers in the labs where I worked. However, the administration at MIT improperly thought that, since my works were created at MIT, they, and their source, belonged to MIT. This was in conflict with my embryonic philosphy--
Trollaxor: Hey, could you just cut your ideological bullshit and get to the part where you were taking a dump and farted out the GNU/Free Software concept as we know it today?
RMS: Ah, I don't think I know what you're referring to, Mr. Trollaxor. And I certainly don't remember any toilet episodes being involved with the creation of GNU or Free Software.
Trollaxor: Oh really? It's hard for me to imagine a toilet not having been involved in the creation of Free Software. No, I'm talking about how one day you were sitting in a stall at MIT's grand restroom facilities, peeped thru the glory hole bored in the stall wall to look for customers, and saw a man's ass tatooed with a bull or yak or something?
RMS: WHAT!?
Trollaxor: Okay, okay, okay. Let's move on. How about your musical talents? From graphics posted at your homepage, it looks like you're fairly proficient on the flute. How's you obtain that talent?
RMS: That's rather simple: just a lot of practice and determination. The instruments you've seen me playing on my website are plan-pipes, actually, and not flutes. I began taking lessons from my father while him and I were still talking. I can play the flute, however, and--
Trollaxor: Skin-flute.
RMS: Excuse me?
Trollaxor: You heard me. Skin-flute. You play the skin-flute. That's why you're so good on those porn-pipes or whatever the Hell you called them. You are a skin-flute virtuoso and can play them like nobody's business. "Master skin-flutist RMS." Skin-flute.
RMS: Ah, I think this interview's getting a little off-track from its focus of Free Software and the GNU philosphy.
Trollaxor: Of course it is. And why the fuck do you begin every sentence with "ah?" Anyway, I'll indulge you. New question. What's all this I hear about you dropping acid like there's not tomorrow?
RMS: Hey, look, I'm willing to spend my time discussing and even debating about the GNU concept and Free Software. I'm a very busy man--
Trollaxor: No you're not.
RMS: I'm a very busy man and I simply cannot tolerate spending my valuable time digressing onto useless topics, much less helping you slander my good name--
Trollaxor: Shut up.
RMS: I believe we're talking at cross-purposes here and I wish to terminate this interview now.
Trollaxor: I believe your style is cross-dressing and I wish to inform you've been trolled. Do you know what a DGH is?
RMS: What? Excuse me? I said I wanted to stop this interview now!
Trollaxor: A DGH is a Dirty GNU Hippie. You're a DGH. You're a pinko Commy too. Learn to bath, shave, and wipe your ass properly, and we in the Ministry of Love will welcome you with open arms. Good day, Corporal Crapola of the GNU Commando!
Ok,
With his ranting and extreme views on Software he is making me really think twice about linux. Everyday BSD looks more attractive.
I think more corporate people will start to shy away from linux because of RMS and all of the crazy licensing issues.
BTW At this point I find OSX a better system than linux. BSD has a license I agree with and will develop for it(give back to the source base.
GPL 3 will really put a stop to a lot of linux migrations, unless it is toned down.
Most of the sane here know that Forbes and Lyons are servants of Microsoft. The question I have is why is /. adding to the FUD yet again? I have had enough of it.
The forbes article was a hack piece. Unfree NVIDIA driver blobs in linux, DRM nobody asked for in both major OSs, consumer "fair use" being reduced at every turn.. I'll take an ugly, uncompromising freedom fighter over corperate fascism any day.
Linus is free to release his kernel under any terms he sees fit to, but the GNU folks are also not compelled to "port" to Linux .
Ya know, those people who thought the earth wasn't the center of the universe when everyone else clearly knew it was. they were Zealouts.
... what's it gonna take. From the very first day we have been "warned" that our zealot IP attitude is going to ruin Linux and open source, well more bullshit. One of these days they're going to realise that they need us more than we need them, and that they're the followers while people like RMS are the leaders.
And those people who believed that religion and government should be chosen by individuals and not kings, they were zealots also.
And those people who wanted to kill slavery and the US plantation system and go up against the big business plantations, they were also zealots.
And those black people who wanted to use the same bathrooms, and sit at the front of the bus. They were zealots too.
Well FUCK. The copyright cartell trys to treat information exactly like it's a property right when it's clearly not, and then force massive government regulations down our throat to fence off every bit of it, and then those of us who try to secure our right to share information freely in the information age - we're called the zealots? God fuckin dammit
Oh No!!!! Big companies want to have their cake and eat it too. Well too bad for them. The Whinery tour is over. Either honor the license or don't use the software. Nobody cares which choice you make. It's a choice. As far as I know, RMS isn't going into corporations with a bazooka and forcing anyone to use GPL'd software. There's always MS Vista and expensive proprietary OS's out there. Apparently, it's perfectly OK to say "If you don't like the DRM don't buy the music," but somehow "If you don't like the GPL(v whatever) don't download the distro" is evil. Maybe it's because the latter is a perceived obstacle to profiting from the generousity of others???
I deal with the technical press frequently. The golden rule is never piss somebody off. Stallman did and he's paying the price. Actions often have consequences.
Is the story slanted? Definitely.
Is it factual? I don't know about how much code rms has written recently, but other than that, it sure looks factual to me.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Stallman, can you give them funding?
Reality is nothing but a collective hunch.
I've watched Stallman in several interviews (techtv, etc.), read his stuff, etc. From my novice pov, most notably, I remember his presence in Revolution OS. Torvalds had just finished speaking, was remaining on stage, and Stallman gets up to give a rambling "talk" about open sournce. The gist of what Stallman was trying to say, to me, was, "I made open source! Not Linus! It was mine! I wanted herd to be the kernel! Rosebud!..."
While he rambled, Torvalds played with his kids who had ran up on-stage. While having fun as a father in front of all, in seeming bliss with his children, Stallman continued to ramble in an obvious, "me! me!"
I can empathize with Stallman. I work in a large corporation and have had ideas, projects, code stolen by others, presented as theirs and/or subtley been pushed aside by someone with an agenda I didn't see coming, or wasn't prepared for. But you have to learn to adapt, give, agree, comply and, yes, work with others.
Stallman strikes me as a very bright, visionary guy who simply doesn't play well with others....
Torvalds handles the whole affair with poise....
Perhaps the best description of Stallman now is the man of yesterday wondering about, rambling "rosebud...."
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
Anyone else misread the headline? I expected the article to be another instance where he was lambasting a company for misusing GPL code.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
I really don't understand the hostility and vilification directed toward Stallman. He is simply a man with ideals who tries to persuade others of the merit of his ideas (something we all do). I have read many of his articles and interviews and he speaks only with calm deliberation and conviction. He goes further than most of us in "living the life", so to speak, by offering freely his work and time to the cause he espouses, which has benefitted us all tremendously. One can take or leave what he offers. Nothing Stallman has done has ever harmed anyone or deprived them of anything they might otherwise enjoy. There are numerous other individuals who have tried to destroy, undermine, or deprive us of things we enjoy, but towards whom no one directs similar hostility and vilification.
Linux can't be distributed under anything other than the modified GPL license that it is distributed under. Red Hat is a Linux distribution. I may not fully understand what you're saying, but I don't see Red Hat forking its own distribution any time soon (though you might argue that Fedora is such a fork.)
The only legitimate "end run" around the GPL -- the only one that I know of, anyway -- is to customize it and not distribute it. This is what companies like Google and Amazon do. In that case, they have already forked Linux, and any further development (in order to get their special pieces to do what they want) is their responsibility to begin with.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
I have a friend who tells me he met Stallman at a convention once. Afterward, he remarked to a friend he was with about Stallman's case of con-grunge, and his friend said, "Oh, no, that's the way he always is."
Of course, someone's personal habits don't necessarily have much to do with the quality of the code he writes or the viewpoint he espouses--but they sure don't help when it comes to politics and personal image.
Editor Emeritus and Senior Writer, TeleRead.org
is that everyone else gets to eat the cake.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
When Stallman's ATTACK!
Bad boy, bad boy, whatchoo gonna do when they come for GNU?
(cups hand to ear and hears a Gomer Pyle voice "You're gonna burn in hell for that one!")
Have you read the moderator guidelines? Well, have you, PUNK? (and I want a Karma: Gnarly option)
Forbes, a publishing house pandering to the monied elite, criticizes someone whose ideology is the polar opposite compared to that of their own and that of their readers. And this is interesting somehow? It's as if an organization representing the interests of the 2.5% wealthiest and mightiest of the population were to criticize anarchist ideas. Oh, wait.
It is interesting though that Americans seem to believe that there is some kind of neutrality in the media. Even when we're talking of someone as entrenched within the current power elite (and the wannabe elite, hi!) as Forbes.
Is that a red dot next to you?
Just ask the good Jedi how they feel about "Balance" now...
That alone is enough for anybody with a loose grasp on reality to completely dismiss Forbes.
I think we do not need to argue about the fact that that article is moronic. Lyons fails to attack the idea, so instead he attacks the messenger in a most pathetic way. He also distorts many things in a way that make RMS look like an overzealous lunatic to the uninitiated in a sad and again pathetic attempt to discredit the ideas he stands for.
As far as the accusation of overzealousness from within the slashdot populace goes, my opinion is this: RMS has ideals that he fights for. 'Ideal' means "A conception of something in its absolute perfection" - not something you will ever achieve in reality. BUT reality is oft derived from ideals that pull it one way or another. The stronger an ideal, the stronger it's potential pulling power. If you start out with an ideal of "I want some freedom... maybe", you're just not going to get very far. If you want results, you have to have vision.
Translation for geeks:
Well, if you're going to make a point why not make it so that no one misses it?
-- Delenn, Babylon 5 episode "The Paragon of Animals"
If a train station is a place where a train stops, what's a workstation?
Regardless if you are with or against Richard Stallman the Forbes article is just VERY bad journalism. I would rather call it flamebait than an article.
i.e. suggest that he's radical (outside the mainstream) because he sticks with his principles. And implying that he's a hypocrity because he encourages freedom but nevertheless has ideas about what people ought to do.
"He seems to think that his way is the only way"
He thinks his way is the right way. You think your way is the right way.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
I read this article a day or two ago, now, I know a lot of people think Stallman is really extreme, and well, he is. But this writer treats him like the new Hitler or something, this guy is taking lessons from GW. It's not the facts so much that I dispute, it's the way he treats Stallman, abuses him, insults him and everyone in FSF. The hard spin the writer puts on everything casts a huge amount of suspicion on everything he says. Does this guy work for Redhat or Oracle or what?
Eternity is a time bomb.
In the beginning he alone was trying to stop it. He built a foundation, a following, a suite of software, a philosophy all based on one principal FREEDOM(s). He champions these freedoms where ever he can and he is resolute and unshakable. You may disagree with him all you like. But to say he is irrelevant is a bit of a stretch. His foundation has copyrights to an assload of GPL'd code. That alone makes him relevant.
I believe his views are correct as far as they concern Proprietary software, DRM and Free speech. I use proprietary software, hell I even write a little. About the only differences in our software related ideology is I like the terms open source and free software. I prefer free, but will settle for open.
The Forbes article is a anything but journalism. Opinion Editorial page material at best, maybe. But it is a business oriented magazine. Is free software good for business? Depends on the business, doesn't it? Is RMS good for business? In no way can that arguement be made. GPL3/Linux issues aside. RMS deserves his place of honour among the IT pantheon of GNODS. If you doubt this, you need to read more.
To Richard, Thanks. If ever you are in Central Florida drop me a line, dinner is on me. Keep it up, the more you piss them off the closer we are to winning.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
More interesting to me is article 6 of the GPLv2: I can see a number of lawyers making hay of that, saying that GPLv3 introduces further restrictions. Note that when someone releases under "GPLv2 or any future version", the choice belongs to the recipient, not the licensor. The licensor can't grant rights under a license that doesn't yet exist when he makes the grant.
So, what do we get? All existing GPLv2 software is, and will forever continue to remain, licenseable as GPLv2. Even a new version of an existing program released under GPLv3 will still have its prior version and source available under GPLv2. And the first lawyer for IBM/RedHat/Novell who cares enough will use article 6 of GPLv2 to declare the extra restrictions of GPLv3 invalid for the new version of the existing program.
It's a shame that Stallman has gone on this crusade, but my money says GPLv2 is here to stay. Not many people will be releasing GPLv3 code, and the GPLv2 mainstream will fork them into irrelevancy.
Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
Honestly, 90% of the media who covers the technology beat are the biggest pack of crybabies in the world.
I don't think you need the qualification in boldface.
I've just read every post on this topic. The serious ones are either for or against Forbes and Stallman all four ways that can happen, with not much support for Forbes. Fine, okay so far.
But this reminds me of a fundamentalist Christian having a conversation with a committed Atheist. Forbes and slashdot are two different worlds inhabited by people with completely different views on reality. It's not surprising Slashdot readers disagree with Forbes; it would be surprising if they did not. But by and large Forbes readers agree with Forbes. And by and large, Forbes readers run the companies slashdot readers work for.
Now this is just one editorial, but it reflects a point of view that will become, I would guess, more prevalent as companies begin to take a hard look at just what they've gotten themselves into. The one thing the editorial does well is lay out the case in a way that is understandable: Socialist engineering by a radical. Uh oh! That's all I need to know. Any company executive looking into this issue is likely to come away with the idea that Stallman and GPL are bad news and that the company cannot afford to get close to either. Without even getting into the idea of social engineering by software, the controversy alone makes the uncertainity of the GPL path more than just a niggling worry. It becomes a feduciary responsibility to avoid it. To knowingly jump into version three is grounds for heads to roll.
Many "people's revolutions" such as the French or the Russian, for example, wind up fragmenting as some people want to be more equal than others. Neither Trotsky or Robespierre survived the zealotry they helped create. It will be interesting to see if the "Open Source Revolution" can survive this, or whether it will shoot itself in the foot while people such as, oh, Microsoft, for example, stand on the sidelines with their arms folded, and big grins on their faces.
It seems to me that it is time for the Open Source "Community" to prove they can do it.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
It is absolutely laughable that you equate the human rights movement with differences in how software is licensed.
Just a quick clarification
It is interesting to see the same post of yours a few days ago got +2 insightful... let's see what your new "mod me down" line will do for you.
Seriously, I don't understand why people copy & paste his own comments. Karma whoring? Or you just hate RMS so much you want the world to know how "irrelevant" he is? Apparently he's still very relevant in your world...
`Either honor the license or don't use the software`
The GPL is not a EULA.
Meaning: you do NOT need to honor the license if you want to use the software. You only need to do that if you want to redistribute it.
The GP stated linux would not be released under GPL, he should have said GPLv3 as Linux is already under v2.
Why not?!
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
EMACS
I don't think there's any deep complexity here.
First off, the GPL is RMS's. It is no more possible for RMS to ruin the GPL than it is for humans to destroy the Earth. The Earth is the Earth. It may not support human life, but it will be just fine even if we kill ourselves. Likewise, the GPL is what RMS wants it to be. He wants it to be a tool for social change. That renders it incompatible with some other people's goals. So what? It's his work. He can do with it as he pleases. Furthermore, the GPL is GPL'd. If Forbes doesn't like it, they can write a derivative; the Forbes Public License. Many have.
Second, ummm, geee - Forbes doesn't grasp the GPL?!? I'm shocked! Really, I'm so stunned you could knock me over with a sledgehammer. Forbes is an outstanding journal of capitalism. The GPL is one of the foremost modern examples of successful communism. Capitalism is a good theory. Communism is a good theory. But they're not exactly compatible (or, IMO, practical) when taken as religion. Is it any surprise that Forbes not only fails to understand the purpose of the GPL and it's creator, but villifies it and him? If they had known the GPLv2 existed before Linux became one of the three most installed operating systems in history, you can bet your last dollar they would have villified it as well.
You want something shocking, read the article about the IE team sending a cake to the Firefox team. That is very cool, and at least somewhat surprising. Coke claiming Pepsi is bad? What do you expect?
Is the GPLv3 going to be as successful as the GPLv2? Well, it took 20 years for the GPL to get to the point where a magazine like Forbes wouldn't scoff at it as utterly impractical hippy idealism. Most people don't understand why DRM is a bad idea - hell most of them don't even know what DRM is. It'll probably be another 10 years before we can even begin to judge the value of the GPLv3. Anyone claiming to have the answer today is either a snake-oil vendor or, as in this case with Forbes, a religious zealot.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
the ridiculousness some see in stallman is really the ridiculousness some see in themselves but refuse to accept...
http://alternativefreedom.org/
A Documentary About the Invisible War on Culture
That should read "Linux/Stallman", since the majority of his fame derives from the work of L.Torvalds and friends.
Red to red, black to black. Switch it on, but stand well back.
Have you actually read the license? GPL v2 gives me the right as code author to use that license forever with a project contrary to points within the Forbes article..
Fred Grott(aka shareme) http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com
Who are you responding to? Forbes had an article about RMS and how he's off his rocker. The current article is a zealot article saying, "Sure, most of the facts were right, but he's my heeeero". Forbes didn't say anything abot what you're talking about, and the current article is knocking the Forbes article. I don't know who you're talking to.
Ah yes, there's another reason to hate RMS.
The owls are not what they seem
Of course, the editorial pulls quotes out of context and fails to address the arguments in article. Instead it rambles on with it's own odd statements and arguments and then concludes the original is bullshit. Maybe the writer is correct - he's created so much bull he mus be an expert on BS.
Is rms' behaviour odd? certainly, and no doubt turns off people.
Is the GPLv3 a threat to free software? Maybe, maybe not.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
What the Forbes article comes down to is telling people that if you want to use OSS, then the leader is this nutjob. Knowing that, do you want to use software that is being driven, or at least led by this guy? Do you want to invest your business in this guy? I own a small business. I knew most of this before the article, but as somebody who owns a business that relies on software, I would have to say, "No, I'm not going to trust my livelihood and the livelihood of my employees with software being driven by this nutjob." It's that simple.
If they *choose* to use the GPL3 to license their work, then they can hardly complain it removes their freedoms.
If you want someone else's work and they've chosen GPL3, then get off your fat smelly arse and code it yourself.
I was, in fact, equating the kernel with the distro -- which is flat-out wrong. Sloppy thinking on my part. Obviously anything that is GPL v2 right now that is not the kernel can, if the respective authors choose, be re-released as GPL v3. That said, I don't believe they can do this retroactively -- anything that was released under GPLv2 remains under that license.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
RMS is the guy who climbed the great mountain, and is now required to carry it. Carrying said mountain is bound to screw anyone up. Why can't there be a new Linux 'licence'? Which is very much 'Inpsired' by GPLv2 or one that is already out there (BSD anyone?). Any new code which is made use the new licence and slowly phase out GPL based code... It won't be overnight but when GPL is no longer applicable, then RMS will truly be irrelevant.
Ya know, those people who thought the earth wasn't the center of the universe when everyone else clearly knew it was. they were Zealouts.
... what's it gonna take. From the very first day we have been "warned" that our zealot IP attitude is going to ruin Linux and open source, well more bullshit.
;-)
You realize that the people with the opposite view, that the earth was at the center, were also zealots? They imprisoned people after all, maybe even tortured and killed some.
And those people who believed that religion and government should be chosen by individuals and not kings, they were zealots also.
You realize that the people with the opposite view, that the only law is God's law, were/are also zealots? They killed/kill people after all.
And those people who wanted to kill slavery and the US plantation system and go up against the big business plantations, they were also zealots.
You realize that the people with the opposite view, pro slavery, were also zealots? They started a war after all.
And those black people who wanted to use the same bathrooms, and sit at the front of the bus. They were zealots too.
You realize that the people with the opposite view, segregationists, were also zealots? They killed people after all.
On second thought, the heroes above do not seem like zealots. They are a little too peaceful, reasonable, non fanatics. However the villains I mentioned certainly do seem to better match the definition of zealot, actual fanatics:
zealot
1. a person who shows zeal.
2. an excessively zealous person; fanatic.
3. (initial capital letter) a member of a radical, warlike, ardently patriotic group of Jews in Judea, particularly prominent from a.d. 69 to 81, advocating the violent overthrow of Roman rule and vigorously resisting the efforts of the Romans and their supporters to heathenize the Jews.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/zealot
Well FUCK. The copyright cartell trys to treat information exactly like it's a property right when it's clearly not, and then force massive government regulations down our throat to fence off every bit of it, and then those of us who try to secure our right to share information freely in the information age - we're called the zealots? God fuckin dammit
Oh dear, that certainly sounds fanatical. I'm afraid you seem a zealot, in the actual derogatory sense, not the false sense you portrayed above. You also seem a little clueless, but that is typical for fanatics/zealots I suppose. The GPL only exists because copyrights exist and are enforceable. If information were *truly* free I could take Linux, tweak it, and use it in my proprietary commercial product and provide no access to the source code.
One of these days they're going to realise that they need us more than we need them, and that they're the followers while people like RMS are the leaders.
Another example of the delusions of zealotry? For example no one needs Linux. If Linux were to somehow vanish then servers and infrastructure would simply move to a product of the evil corporations and government, BSD. Linux is not a necessity, it is one of several options and it is sometimes the most convenient or reasonable option.
Yeah, a long response, but I still waiting for Ubuntu 6.10 to download.
what happened to the objective and impartial media?
or is that just some kind of pipe dream?
why is it that more and more in the world today one if forced to make a black or white choice when the worlds is infinite shades of gray?
why is it that one is either for something or against something?
comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
It may not have much to do with the quality of his ideas or his code, but it does seriously affect their reception. I agree with most of what RMS says, but he does not present his ideas in a convincing way. I would much rather see him take a more behind-the-scenes rôle; have him remind everyone one the inside what the Free Software movement is about, but don't put him near anyone who doesn't already agree with him.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Are you stupid? In what way exactly will the creation of a new license "cause irreparable harm" to anyone? Do you even know what a license is? I'll explain
A license like the GPL is simply a set of conditions stated by the author (or copyright owner) that must be obeyed by whoever wants the privilege of using his product. To put it in other words, it states the author's wishes about how his work may be used. The author can state whatever conditions he sees fit, as long as they do not impose any legal problems. When the author states them, we can only choose between respecting the author's wishes or not using his work at all.
So where does the GPL come in? The GPL is simply a pre-defined set of conditions that were compiled by RMS and the FSF in the past. RMS and the FSF sat down, wrote them up, adopted them in their works and also made the set of conditions available to whoever wished to impose the same set of conditions in their works. So in the end no one is forcing any author to adopt a certain license for his work. Whoever wishes that the users of their work obey the conditions stated in the GPL can do so but no author is forced to do it. The author is always free to define the conditions, whether he devises them personally or adopts another pre-compiled list of conditions.
So, now that you know that, where exactly does the compilation of a new list of conditions affect anybody? Where in fact can a new set of conditions do "irreperable damage"? It doesn't and it cant. It will only be a list and nothing more. To really affect anyone, first an author must adopt it as his work's license. But even then it will still be the set of demands that all users must obey to have the privilege of using someone's work. And then what? Will the author's demands do irreparable damage to anything? To what exactly? It's his work and he bloody knows what he wants to do with it.
This "sky is falling" paranoia which revolves GPLv3 is mind bogling, really.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
The retard answered to the question: what have you done with the wise words:
"Apart from your mum"
OK, we'll forget that since the dickless wonder probably can't find his cock and obviously doesn't know whose mum it would be. So next:
"Well, I've written software used by many large corporations including but not limited to: a Global 500..."
Well, EMACS was written by RMS. And that is used in MANY Global 500 corporations.
RMS also got paid for it.
Ergo, Techno-twat is LESS competent a programmer than RMS. By TT's own meandering "thought" processes.
That EMACS is unfriendly to someone trying to learn it is, therefore, irrelevant. It still is used and counterpoints the tosser's self aggrandisement (who is it? What companies? What code? without some of those answers, we don't know that prawn-balls even wrote "Hello World".
Most of this article is absolute trash (as I'm sure anyone who reads it can immediately see). The tired old call it "GNU/Linux" tirade is a good example. While I personally find it silly that rms has spent years essentially being 'that guy who's always trying to change his nickname on campus', implying that such a campaign is inherently "Orwellian doublespeak" or attempting to "control how people think" is plainly retarded. He's free to NOT talk to some people as he chooses. His campaign may be doomed at the start to failure, but the way he's going about it is perfectly consistent with the ideals of freedom.
As far as I'm concerned, there is only one question to ask: will GPLv3 be compatible with GPLv2? A highly related corollary is: will the GPLv3 be compatible with the large body of Open Source and Free Software licenses that are currently supported by GPLv2.
If the answer to that question is "NO" then the author, despite his vitriol, is essentially correct. The mere fact that rms and the FSF cannot immediately and unambiguously answer "YES" to that question is doing more damage to Linux than 100 years of Microsoft FUD. Do we really want to restart the license compatibility wars of the 90's?
Does rms really want BSD vs GPL round two, now with 20+ competing licenses, billions of dollars, and millions of users at stake? Are we truely doomed to repeat every stupid mistake we've ever made over and over? It was bad enough when you could characterize the whole thing as some geeks in Cali spitting on each other's lawns!
... if that were the case, it would change nothing they are using now. All that code would still be licensed under GPLv2.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
Not to argue for or against your point, but this isn't a capitalist society - it's a capitalist economy. Capitalism isn't a type of society any more than it's a form of government.
The urge to save humanity is selfish, but doesn't necessarily come from a desire to rule. Me, I just don't want a bunch of desperate, unhappy humans around me. Personal preference, you know. Maybe other people enjoy watching people suffer. Me, not so much.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Which means the first entity to not like you can put you out of business by giving away what you charge for. Rare indeed is the company that has made a significant amount of money selling purely GPL- or BSD-licensed software (Red Hat is one, sendmail probably is another).
Basically if you're depending on income from software sales of GPL software to sustain your business, you're a moron. Even Red Hat these days is mostly known for selling development and support rather than the actual CDs the software comes on -- probably the only reason they even still sell CDs is to get some face time in places like CompUSA.
-- Old Man Kensey
Stallman is a idealist, they don't really have too much contact with reality.
there is a saying that a idealist rides on the shoulders of a pragmatist/realist. in this case, because stallman's ego is ridding on the people who use linux. the majority of whom just use it because it's the best tool for the job(like me) don't really care about how using binary drivers that i can't see the inside of or signed code that i can't get access too as long as they work and work good violate his idea of freedom. because of this his ego gets inflated and he thinks he actually matters when in reality his idealism turns people off, while there may be people who follow him because they too believe what he believes, they are the minority. for example, debain, they were the only ones to get into a nit fit and fork Firefox because *gasp* they changed the rules on how one should distribute their trademarked image.
It's pathetic that Forbes has begun to publish this tabloid level garbage. It reads worse than a low budget attack ad. The author there, Lyons, has already shown his butt on the SCO case. Someone must have had a lot of leverage at Forbes to get him published again.
I do have some problems with it. Not with RMS writing a license with those DRM restrictions. But with making that be the GPL3. It perhaps could be called the GPL4.
The GPL3 apparently contains a lot of cleanup of the writing, clarifications, and fixes for international use. In particular the text is clarified so that the LGPL is a small "exception" added to the GPL, rather than an entire seperate document. All of these have results identical to the intentions of the GPL2 or are slight relaxations of the requirements. All of this is good and everybody likes it, and I would like to use it.
However it also has this stuff that most people here are calling the "DRM restriction". I actually have reasons to not want it:
First I feel it is bad as it will reduce usage of GPL software in devices. Knowing how the device works is still extremely useful, including knowing the reason why you can't change the software. The GPL forces the company into allowing people to know how the device works. Stallman originally wanted to fix a printer *driver*, not the code in the printer! His attempt to make sure he can change the code in the printer may result in being unable to write the driver again, which is completely counter-productive. Knowing how the device works means you can probably communicate with it and emulate it and make competing products. (yes I know DRM can keep unauthorized things from communicating with it, but the GPL3 does not prevent that type of DRM anyway, as has been pointed out about six thousand times to anti-GPL trolls here).
Second, my own software already contains an exception (to the LGPL), which is intended to make the LGPL work the way I think makes more sense. Basically you are allowed to link the unmodified software with your code and do anything you want with the result, such as sell it as closed-source. However if you *modify* the software, you must release the modifications (and then you can link with the modified version and release that any way you want). The purpose is so that the algorithims and code cannot be "stolen" but can be used by as many people as possible. You can remove the exception in your own version, so you can merge in GPL/LGPL code, though we can't accept any such changes. As far as I can tell, this exception makes the "DRM restriction" nullified, though I guess you can't build the DRM into the derived version of the library, it must be in your program.
Like many people I would very much like to get the cleaned up and internationalized language of the GPL3. However I don't want the DRM stuff, as I disagree with it somewhat, and my exception probably nullifies it, so I don't want to confuse people. Unfortunatly my code says "GPL2 or any later version" and lots of others have contributed to it so I can't change that. So I am stuck, the only way to get the cleaned up language is for it to be in something the FSF calls a "later version of the GPL". So I would really like them to provide this option. This does not mean they have to back off on their DRM stuff. Just put that in a "GPL4" and let people choose. It would be no worse than the current situation where people who don't want the DRM stuff will stay at GPL2. (future changes would have to be called "GPL3.1" and "GPL4.1", etc, with rules that increasing any number is a "later version", so you can change 3.1 to 3.2 or 4.1, but cannot change 4.1 to 3.2 or 3.2 to 4.1).
It also appears, as others have pointed out, that the DRM stuff (and perhaps the Patent stuff) is an "additional restriction" which means you are not allowed to modify code from saying "GPL2 and later" to saying "GPL3 and later". This kind of means the GPL3 can never be enforced unless the code is written from scratch. This could be another reason to make a GPL3 and a DRM-restriction GPL4.
(as above - I'm lazy, so don't mark me down a redundant just because someone else has the same clever observation -have YOU read every post?)
Stallman is no Linux zealot.RMS hates Linux. Linux stands for everything he has failed at in life, such as Hurd. He had no part of the Linux kernel, and is visibly intimidated by the success of Linux. Is he even relevant? I have no doubts of the future of the OS that I've made a career out of.. Especially none related to an old hippy who is pissed off that the world won't bow down to his heavy-handed approach.
Neither Trotsky or Robespierre survived the zealotry they helped create
Things have been going downhill ever since they nerfed the Zealot class. If anyone needs them, I've got a +5 greathelm of Protection from Icepicks and an Anti-Vorpal Gorget.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Marroon
because his work can be equally used by regular joes as well as the robber barons?
seems robber barons don't like level playing fields
doesn't appear to be "for sale", robber barons operate on the ideal that everyone has a price
for www.forbes.com is running Apache, under Linux. GNU/Linux.
And the operating system you are refering to is not yours, it is ours (and to some point, nobody's).
Actaully he is not a promoter of Linux, but that seems to be escaping you and many other people that have no idea what they are talking about.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I love multiple quess exams!! Here we go....
"a lesser-known programmer-infamously more obstinate and far more eccentric than Torvalds-wields a startling amount of control as this revolution's resident enforcer"
False. This is a tough one because it contains true items (eccentricity, for example) but RMS's control is neither "startling" nor, really, particularly well enforced.
"He and a band of anarchist acolytes long have waged war on the commercial software industry"
True. Also difficult, because Stallman's "war" is analogous to a blind man's "war" on pavement ants, and his band of acolytes includes as many socialists and libertarians as it does anarchists.
"A cantankerous and finger-wagging freewheeler, Stallman won't comment on any of this because he was upset by a previous story written by this writer."
True. Ha ha! An easy one! RMS may be cantakerous, but he's not an idiot.
"in some ways he is downright bizarre. He is corpulent and slovenly, with long, scraggly hair, strands of which he has been known to pluck out and toss into a bowl of soup he is eating."
True. He's not corpulent by modern American standards, which is to say, he is corpulent. And bizarre (like Robert Morris who invented DES unix passwords, or Alan Turing, who was gasp! actually gay!)
"Stallman engages in what he calls "rhinophytophilia"-"nasal sex" (also his term) with flowers"
True. OK I'm guessing here (and it sounds fairly benign, since flowers are sex organs and our olfactory sense is one of our primary interfaces to flowering plants) but it sounds pretty likely.
"His site also boasts a recording of him singing-a capella and badly-his own anthem to free software."
Oh, True. So very horribly, horribly true. Especially the badly part.
"He hasn't hacked much new code in a decade or more."
False. It appears the reporter hasn't done much research in a decade or more.
"Stallman labors mightily to control how others think, speak and act, arguing, in Orwellian doublespeak, that his rules are necessary for people to be "free.""
True. No, False. No, wait, the first part (mighty labors) is true, the second part (doublespeak) is false. He wants software to be free, and the whole reason he's controversial is that he doesn't much do that doublespeak thing (like combining a truism and a falsehood in a single sentence, eh?). He definitely wants to change how people think... almost like a biased reporter, but probably less effective.
"Long ago Stallman was a gifted programmer."
True. But then he wrote emacs.
"Most major tech vendors declined comment rather than risk tangling with Stallman's enforcers, such as his sidekick and attorney, Columbia Law School professor Eben Moglen."
False. Most major tech vendors are dependent on GPL'ed software, but have no need to talk to a hack tech journalist writing an attack piece. They aren't afraid of Eben Moglen because they are multinational and Moglen hasn't the funds or time to prosecute them internationally.
What's my score, perfesser?
RMS may be an overbearing nitwit but at least HE IS TRYING and actually DOING SOMTHING. Forbes is a MAJOR contributer to the FSCK'ed business world as it is by perpetuating the corporate BS as they do so well. Both Forbes and Gartner have done WAY MORE HARM than good period...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Whether you're serious or not, there is a VI within EMACS called VIPER (Viper Is a Package for Emacs Rebels). Scary.
``There *are* problems with GPLv3, in my opinion, and it's possible that GPLv3 contradicts some of Richard Stallman's "freedom of use" ideology [eviscerati.org], but there's no way it is going to "endanger Linux" because -- and I'm not entirely sure why the press doesn't get this -- GPL V3 DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY REPLACE GPL V2.'' ...especially not for Linux, which is explicitly licensed under GPL, version 2; the "or (at your option) any later version" clause that so many other packages include is left of.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
GPLv3 is designed to be compatible with other free licenses (like the SUN license, the apache license, etc) which are okay licenses but incompatible with the GPLv2. This was one the the primary design criteria of the GPLv3 and it's one of the major reasons why people will use GPLv3.
By definition, a GPLv3 which meets that criteria is incompatible with GPLv2 code UNLESS the GPLv2 code in question included the recommended but optional "or any later version" clause.
The GPLv2 code is flawed because it is only compatible with itelf, licenses functionally equal to itself, and licenses which are really verbose ways of saying "attribution kinda, and no warranties". This is a substantial bug and the GPLv3 addresses it.
It amuses me to see how often this important point is ignored in the slashdot flamefests.
... Daniel Lyons about ESR http://geekz.co.uk/.
While people insist on confusing free (unrestricted) with free (zero cost) they will never understand a word than that RMS is saying.
I thought gp was asserting that the GPL3 restricts the freedom of developers to develop DRM code and the freedom of users to use such code. If speech/ideas want to be "Free", then surely DRM speech needs to be "Free" too.
Seems reasonable to me.
DRM isn't about user freedom, anyway. It's about the creator being able to control and grant rights to work she has created.
I have watched a clean, neatly-attired Richard Stallman totally charm a group of mostly female Commerce Department lawyers while speaking against an intellectual property treaty.
I mean "charm" to the point where the lawyer-ladies surrounded him while we all ate lunch on the lawn of the Library of Congress building in Washington, DC.
While I do not always (or even necessarily often) agree with Mr. Stallman, I have usually found him to be intelligent, interesting, and good company.
As far as anyone who talks about Eben Moglen being a "dirty hippie" or some such: Prof. Moglen is one of the best-dressed people you'll ever meet at a FOSS gathering, and one of the best speakers, too.
You can truthfully criticize RMS for being an unyielding prick who often gets irritated by little things (I, for one, think his GNU/Linux insistence is both childish and a waste of time -- and I've told him so a number of times), but he has more charisma and sheer brainpower than most other people I've met in my life.
Besides, he helped Marty Connor get accepted by the MIT crowd, so we might say that without RMS Marty might today be managing a multiplex movie theater in Pittsburgh, and that would have been a huge waste of IT talent.
- Robin
NO. IN FACT IT DOES NOT DO THAT AT ALL.
Why don't you read it first, since it appears that you haven't. What part of "GPL v2 or any later version" is so hard to understand? You continue to have the option to distribute the program under GPL v2.
Wrong again. Under copyright law, only the copyright holder can change the license under which a work is distributed. For non-copyright holders, "GPL v2 or any later version" remains "GPL v2 or any later version". Only the copyright holder can take the GPL v2 option away, and then only on versions not previously published under a GPL v2-or-later license.
There is nothing "automatic" about a relicensing by the copyright holder, and you continue to have the option to obtain the non-relicensed version and even develop it further. It is impossible, even for the copyright holder, to take away the right to redistribute and further develop the existing, GPL v2-or-later licensed program under GPL v2.
If you contribute code and retain your copyright to that code, you can license and relicense it however you like, and any licensing issue is irrelevant to you. If you sign over the copyright to your code to someone else (e.g. the FSF for GNU software), you consent to have it licensed however they want it licensed.
just not gpl3
My favorite part:
"I won't even get into the inaccuracies of the GPLv2 vs. GPLv3. Unlike the author, I realize I don't know enough about it to comment."
If the author doesn't know enough about the GPL to comment on it, how would it be possible to start talking about "inaccuracies" between different versions of it to begin with?
The things that qualify as news on the dot these days...
This signature has Super Cow Powers
I respect rms for making a stand. He is an idealist. A utopian idealist. I socialist utopian idealist. I don't think his views fit in with reality, but I respect him for making a stand and his stance against DRM.
But as far as the article goes, if he "hasn't hacked any code in 10 years", and he decides to go with the crazy/draconian/save-us-from-drm v3, what is to stop anyone from just ignoring him? How is he relevant if he isn't contributing anymore? Who is likely to jump ship and stick with v3 as far as software goes? GCC? Obviously not the kernel itself. What about XOrg and X11? What other important packages (in the general sense) are out there that might suffer?
And I hate how the article says rms "attacks" companies to get them to open their proprietary code. They didn't have to use any GPL stuff. They are obligated to do it by the license that they agreed to.
Quite frankly, I think you need someone like rms in charge of something like this kind of a license. If you leave it to the corporations, it will not benefit anyone except that company. See Microsoft's "Shared Source" initiative.
Linux was not successful in *spite* of rms, but partially *because* of rms.
It really is GNU/Linux if it uses GNU components for a lot of the OS. Forbes author fails to realize that what he considers Linux is not just the Linux kernel, but an OS built of many tools.
-- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
I'm really not surprised, but I am saddened.
First, its Forbes which has a track record of providing ideological comfort versus harsh reality for its readers. Then its a Daniel Lyons article which typifies the depth of ignorant PR masquerading as op-ed to which much journalism has sunk. It's not enough to disagree with the man, he has to be vilified as an 'anarchist' (what a quaint old phrase, but 'communist' would sound dated, wouldn't it), then confuses the FSF with Linux quite deliberately.
It's neither informative, coherently argued, or more than simple preaching to a converted radical fringe.
insecurity asks the wrong question irritation gives the wrong answer
You missed the point :
DRM grants the media vendors more freedom.
It allows them
- to have the user format-locked
- to earn each year eleventeen gazillion $$$ by re-selling them the same products they already have paid-for before.
- to blame 'those freedom-hating kitten-killing pirates' whenever sales drops because people get sick of buying the same crap over and over.
Didn't you read the memo ?
----
On a more serious note, Frobes is a journal for enterprise managers.
What they are interested in, is a big buzzword (called Linux (tm)) and technology they can take and use in their products for free. They want technology that enables them to sell whtever they want.
RMS, by being a proponent of user-freedom is their exact nightmare. He's the one one who's trying to limit companies' freedom to make profits at any cost, he's the one who want to enable user to do what they choose even if that choice reduces company's margin.
RMS is the enemy of Frobbes lectorate. Therefor, Frobbes puts a huge chunk of uninformed ad hominem attacks and FUD.
And all the commercial linux-freeriding manager who want's to show DRM down their users' throat feel happy warm and fuzzy.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
You might want to tell Eben Moglen that - since he seems of the belief (borrowed from another poster) that anyone has the choice to designate a project GPL3 unless it is specified "GPL2 only":
I believe you underestimate the power of philosophy. The "proprietary model" is the result of one such philosophy, one which places corporations and corporate profit at the center.
RMS espouses another philosophy, one which places the individual, ideas, and the free interchange of ideas, at the center.
That is more than just setting the computer industry back 50 years. That is setting civilization back several hundred (since before the advent of scientific reason and discourse).
I know which side I choose.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
Of all people, Forbes' heavyweight Dan Linux-is-for-terrorists Lyons has tuned into RMS wavelength ... and given us a welcome preview of what the founder of GNU really wants to give us, loyal FS users: ... Free Beer! ...
... Of course, I've been wishing to FINALLY be offered what should REALLY make one happy, i.e., what FS users REALLY deserve after many a long day's work of coding & compiling: Free Beer * !!
... Linus Torvalds (now there's a man who ought to drink more beer, by the way!) ...
Just when everybody had been misled during all these years, into believing it was all about such a pointless thing as Free Choice (!): it looks like we'll be getting something useful, after all! --Thanks Dan, for spreading the word!
I admit to have secretly hoped, for a while, that the GPLv3 might do more than safeguard us from the hated DRM and the Dark Side of the Force (the "Trusted" Computing conspiracy), while perpetuating the brave Copyleft statement that guards y'all's sourcecode from the greedy codegrabbers in Redmond, Washington
* No!, I don't mean it in the old warez sense, so mundane as "free of charge" software applications. I mean Free brew as in draught as in cerveza, as in Miller Time, or, Whassuuuuppaaaahhh!
We already know RMS's Free Software deal, and so far it's really been nothing more than a mere lousy Free Choice (yawn!): all soo nice, but, WHY EVER do we need all that Free Choice?? -if out of the 500-plus PKG's we install there's really only a dozen software packages we'll actually ever use (the odd browser for watching funny videos and writing in "/.", or, the odd BX, Jabber & other addictive programs with which to cheat on our imaginary girlfriends...).
WORST OF ALL, we poor wretches only ever get to know Free Software: so if -when- the code breaks up (usually because of our uncontrollable hacker instincts) we are subtly expected to actually give up all our spare time and to fix it, in stead of comfortably blame someone else who never shared his crummy code!!
A typical user of proprietary software must be envied as a much higher lifeform, by all of Discovery Channel's criteria as in observing groups of mammals interacting: he or she will often be uncomplicated, self-actualized, and even have REAL DATES on Friday night!
So what could -should- set the score right for us, Free Software users, what we really deserve after all we've suffered while studying, downloading and compiling all of that RMS' Freedom into our overclocked computer systems that (unfortunately) never break down to give us a breather... :
is Free Beer !!!
Oh, and about
Maybe Linus doesn't get out of his Ivory Tower often enough to have caught on about [1]; how GPLv3 by no means could impede the use of any previous code if all "old licence" contributors have been referenced in due accordance (-NB- only new code requires such rigorous GPLv3 involvement from all links in the chain), and [2]; in no way will it impede the use of any of the Repositories that people rely on for downloading their software.
So naturally the v3 code can peacefully coexist with v2 code, anarchical BSD code, or what have you... It's not that old Linus would have to decline the v3 licence, on any grounds, I rather see many reasons that he should celebrate it --with RMS, over a tasty Free Beer, if for nothing but for all the right reasons in the world...
* Signal 15... "Ceterum censeo Microsoftem esse delendam." Cheers cq. BRgds: DrS aka UNIXmafia@ribeco.net
Careful reading of that statement simply confirms the fact that only the copyright holder can relicense a work to take away the GPLv2-or-later clause: "we expect that other projects under GPL will make the shift, too with their next release" (implying this requires the copyright holder to change the license), and: "If the projects themselves do not, under GPLv2 section 9, any person possessing a copy of the program can make a release under 'any later version' of the licence, so re-licensing, though not precisely automatic, will be swift" - nothing in here implies third parties can take away the option for other third parties to distribute under GPLv2, only that they have the option to distibute under either GPL2 or GPLv3 or any future later version. His statement that relicensing is "not precisely automatic" also seems to contradict that third parties can take away that right.
Reading the referenced Section 9 of GPLv2 also turns up nothing indicating anyone other than the copyright holder has the right to take away the option to distribute under GPLv2 or later versions: "[...] 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."
All that said, Eben Moglen is not above copyright law, so even if I am grossly misreading his statement and he is in fact saying what you think he is saying, my point still stands: only the copyright holder can change the license(s) under which a program is distributed.
Fine. As you'd expect, copyright holder is the only one who can do so.
If the project (which we could reasonably read copyright 'holder') has not specified GPLv2 only, but also chooses not to move the license to GPLv3 (ie a passive decision, rather than then explicitly specifying "GPLv2 only", or by striking the license section 9 (if possible)), then anyone with access to the code can release it as GPLv3.
The 'swiftness', I take it to read, is that "Unless you explicitly specify "no", you're going to find it being GPLv3 anyway". Re read this point, I think it's quite chilling:
Stallmann has been a piece of history, a "milestone" in the path of OS software, allowing it to grow.
Now he's almost trying to kill his baby, whatever the cause Stallmann is now just the past.
GNU/Linux does make sense in the context of GNU/OpenSolaris, GNU/Interix (Microsoft's POSIX environment which will ship with Vista), GNU/Hurd (a microkernel) and so on. Granted there's a bunch of non-GNU software out there so perhaps it's not relevant to use this terminology, but RMS & the FSF have been paramount in bringing us the tools (toolchains, shells, interpreters, etc.) that has made all this possible.
GPLv3 does tackle issues which are relevant and it has been drafted by people who do know what they're talking about and with significant public involvement. Patents for example are potentially a big issue for FOSS; as is DRM. I don't particularly like the idea of someone controlling what I do with hardware I own and we are getting to the point where running code of our choice on Tivos, XBoxes and so on is going to be virtually impossible, however maybe giving the manufacturers the flexibility to offer us cheaper hardware by sponsoring it with services (in the same way that prepaid phones locked to a given network are often cheaper than retail or even cost price) isn't such a bad thing.
I think the GPL has done us more good than people realise, in that it protects us from any one company or group of companies 'embracing and extending' Linux (which you can bet would have been the outcome were a more permissive license to have been selected). I do think there are issues though with having multiple copyright holders in that it makes changing the license extremely difficult. Whether you adopt the assigning of copyrights approach (ala FSF, which I consider cleaner and safer) or the assigning of license approach (ala ASF, which is potentially problematic for the project), the result is the same - the administrative entity (whatever form that takes, be it a foundation with a board or an individual like Linus Torvalds) has the flexibility to change the license and the users the flexibility to take their tools and fork off if they don't like it (pun intended). In some ways this means Linux is protected; in others shackled.
Granted this is off topic but I wonder if being able to offer commercial/proprietary licenses to fund Linux activities would be a good thing?
I heard that rms' natural scent is licensed under the GPL and that it's a violation of Freedom Zero to wash away the sources of the odour.
Now's your chance to debug it while it's still in development by providing your input. There is an open invitation to contribute. GPL3 is coming whether individuals here or there like it or not, so at least try to make sure it addresses your concerns.
You can't stop progress, but you can help define it.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
There is another option to this argument - its that this article wasnt meant for the Linux using public. It was meant for the capitalist Linux using public and non-Linux users. This is a classic example of the author writing to his audience in place of writing the news. He obviously is picking on Stallman, that much can't be denied with all the person attacks that are present in this article. So what does it boil down to? The author is the kid on the bus picking on the band geek with glasses, nudging his cronies with his elbow as he layers one crack after the other. I dont read a deep dark plot into this article - its simply a cheap writer taking a cheap shot at and easy target so people will "like" him. Lets do ourselves a favor and forget he and his publication exist.
I was crazy back when being crazy really meant something. (Charles Manson)
He doesn't wear a tie, so get over it already. If you can't get your head around that, then you're not going to be able to handle any more complex ideas about technology or democracy.
Hahaha. You really got me laughing there.
"The point is that on RMS's view, the freedoms granted to the user by the GPL are more important than the freedoms of software producers to produce and profit from proprietary software."
This is wrong because the freedoms given to the users are not ones that cause a loss of the programmers' freedom to produce or profit.
E.g. Red Hat sells support for a 4CPU system for about 2K. CentOS produce the same code for free. RedHat is still profitable. In fact, if actions that degrade profitability from its' MAXIMUM POSSIBLE (the only way in which GPL impacts profits) are to be forbidden, then Oracle should be enjoined from their statement about their ULN and should also pay back RedHat the loss of market cap their words caused. To do otherwise means that Oracle has deemed its' freedom to talk greater that the freedom of RedHat to profit.