Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

When Stallman is Attacked

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the problem-with-zealots dept.

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.

3 of 562 comments (clear)

  1. Of course Daniel Lyons is spreading FUD by br00tus · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  2. Re:True of false? by gclef · · Score: 3, Informative
    Honestly, the whole DRM fight is really a mistake, if you ask me, for several reasons:
    • Calling out specific parts of the US code just *begs* for someone to go change that part of the law. Once they do that, we'll need a GPL v4, and fast.
    • Calling out specific parts of the US code make it much harder to internationalize the license. General principles are always better, since they translate better.
    • It's very narrowly focused on DRM. If someone comes up with another scheme to accomplish the same thing, without cryptography (don't ask how, I'm projecting the future here), then we will need GPL v4 (or 5 or 6, whatever we're up to at that point) to cover that loophole, as well.
    If Stallman/et al really want to handle the DRM stuff, they shouldn't put in the convoluted bit about encryption keys, etc. They should simply include a new line along the lines of:
    If you distribute this work, you may not restrict how the recipients use it, nor may you restrict how derivates of this work are used or executed by the recipients.
    The second clause would prevent TiVO from distributing both a DRM'd box *and* GPL'd software. They could distribute the box still, but they couldn't distribute the code with it, since the box is restricting how derivatives are executed.
  3. VIPER by br00tus · · Score: 3, Informative

    Whether you're serious or not, there is a VI within EMACS called VIPER (Viper Is a Package for Emacs Rebels). Scary.