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.

Comments

You don't have to choose...

[TechnoLust]

You could be like me and think they are both loud mouthed baffoons.

Re:You don't have to choose...

[dingbatdr]

I use his software every work day of my life. What have you done?

True of false?

[winkydink]

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."

Re:True of false?

[smittyoneeach]

"He hasn't hacked much new code in a decade or more."

This, at least, represents a questionable assertion.
A glance at http://news.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel indicates that the gentleman stays fully engaged in emacs development, though one could contend that he does more managing than hacking, I suppose.
One could probably derive a text metric based on the number of gratuitous negative adjectives used in a piece against a target.
Past a certain limit, the author is wasting the reader's time.
This Forbes author broad-jumped past that limit, and deserves to be ignored.

Re:True of false?

[Pantero Blanco]

I got the same feeling from reading the article that I did when I watched a couple of episodes of the O'Reilly Factor. Someone with only a vague idea of an issue attacks an expert, and instead of actually debating the issue they launch a tirade of personal attacks and accusations, most of which are based on out-of-context quotes.

The "rhinophytophilia" term is a joke that should have been terribly obvious. He's SMELLING FLOWERS. The attacks on his personal habits don't even make sense. An aging programmer is overweight? THE HORROR. He sings karaoke? SOMEBOY STOP HIM! And how would the writer know how much Stallman codes, does he watch him through a window at night?

Re:True of false?

[drinkypoo]

But it's not all false! Especially:

"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.""

And no, I haven't read the article. I've been reading on the GPLv3 and I don't like it. I think that RMS has done a lot for us, but he might do even more if he were more palatable to the mainstream. I don't think that's sufficient reason to ask or expect him to change - it's his life, after all - but it still is a valid point. If his real purpose is to provide freedom to others, then I think he should act like it.

But seriously, that line pasted above is an excellent summary of what I don't like about him. He seems to think that his way is the only way. I don't know if GPLv3 is going to die or not but I do know that the GPLv3 will cause irreparable harm to the open source community and it already has caused enormous harm to the reputations of RMS and GNU. The clause in GPLv2 about applying any future version of the license to the code can be revealed for what it is: an attempt for stallman to retain personal power over the future of FOSS development. And the simple fact is that many have long complained that the GPL is less free than the BSD license (or similar) due to its viral nature, it is undeniable that not allowing the use of GPL in DRM is less free. You cannot create freedom for users by taking away freedom from programmers.

On the rare occasion that I wrote anything worth releasing I used to use the BSD license. Today, I use the GPLv2. Anything released by me in the future will carry a modified GPLv2 that does not permit the use of any future version of the GPL simply because this is a deliberate railroading of the purpose of the GPL. What's next, the no-military-use clause? Because the GPLv3 is so different it will make many more licenses incompatible with the GPL, thus further forcing a rift in the "programming community" (whatever that really means.)

I'm not saying RMS' heart isn't in the right place, it's the location of his head I'm concerned with.

Re:True of false?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

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."

That one, at least, is hard to challenge credibly. As H. L. Mencken once remarked, "The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule." I don't see why Stallman is different to anyone else in this regard.

Re:True of false?

[Alphager]

Ok, explain me: How does DRM allow the user more freedom?

Re:True of false?

[Omnifarious]

I consider the GPLv2 to be less free than the BSD license in precisely the same way as living in a country with a constitution and laws is less free than living in a country without them. Which of those two countries would you rather live in? I know which I'd rather live in. The GPL is a statement of the rules under which we are all free.

And the GPLv3's insistence that I be able to replace the GPL code in my Tivo with my own versions seems to me like a restriction much along the same lines. Whether this is an encroachment on freedom that the GPL should be concerned with is open to debate. But that restricting my ability to do this is an encroachment on my freedom is not open to debate.

Re:True of false?

[mrchaotica]

I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Absolutely, indefensibly, completely wrong. I usually don't make absolute statements like that because most issues are complicated, but this issue is not a complicated issue:

Stallman, GNU, and the GPL are about freedom FOR. THE. USER. They always have been, and always will be. By definition, DRM is all about removing freedom from the USER, and therefore DRM is inherently incompatible with the GPL. Don't like it? Then you either don't like the GPL, or don't understand what the GPL is.

As far as the GPL is concerned, developers and distributors can go fuck themselves -- they're not the ones who deserve freedom, except to the extent that they're also users.

Re:True of false?

[dgatwood]

Dude... that's what the emergency showers in the chem lab are for. Don't you know anything?

:-D

Re:True of false?

[h00pla]

The fact that Lyons put so many of these anecdotes into the piece made me dismiss it as an ad hominem attack on Stallman and nothing more. I personally disagree with some of what Stallman says (and agree with other stuff) but if you write an article which pretends to explain why Stallman may be hurting Linux adoption, then write about what he's doing that hurts Linux. Don't write about how he eats soup with his own hair in it.

That's like writing a piece to call into question Bush's handling of the Iraq war by starting by pointing out that he farts around the less experienced White House aides. It's apparently true, but that isn't the best way to back up your anti-war position.

Re:True of false?

[gclef]

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.

Re:True of false?

[OrangeTide]

It is hard to deny that RMS is a weird guy though. He has eccentric behavior and an unusual sense of humor. He does not fit in with the "suits" in the business world at all. His ideas are too strange and radical for most corporations, and he tends to go around and carry a big stick to enforce his will on others. To be fair, people ought to respect software licenses. If you think GPL is so evil, too bad, nobody is forcing you to use it and infect all your source code with it. The alternative is to pay through the nose for propriety software.

I personally think RMS is a kook and GPL is usually the wrong license to choose. But what I think is irrelevant, I can safely ignore RMS and choose not to make my own software GPL. I never understood what all the crying was about.

suit: boo hoo. they give us zero cost software, but there are strings attached. boo hoo. the horror of it all, I'm going to bash their leader because I am so upset that I can't get something without giving something in return. This has devastated my business, which is apparently based on ripping people off. I HATE YOU RMS.

Re:True of false?

[bcrowell]

Ok, explain me: How does DRM allow the user more freedom?
Sure, I'll try. My conception of freedom is that as a free man, I get to make my own bargains. If I'm considering eating in a certain restaurant, I'll consider the price, how good the food and service are, and also maybe whether they allow smoking. I dont't smoke, and I don't like breathing other people's smoke, so I wouldn't eat in a restaurant where smoking is allowed. On the other hand, someone who smokes might want to eat there for the same reason. That's freedom. If there's a local ordinance that forbids smoking in all restaurants, then that's an ordinance that takes away some freedom; you could argue that the lost freedom is worth it, because it serves some public good, or because waiters and waitresses are in a weak bargaining position if they don't want to breathe smoke -- but there definitely a loss of freedom to be balanced against those considerations.

DRM is the same way. I dislike DRM, and for that reason (among others) I don't use iTunes. My wife, on the other hand, likes iTunes, and doesn't feel that the DRM is that onerous (and knows how to circumvent it if she feels the need), so she uses iTunes. Because we live in a free society, we get to make that choice.

Getting what you want is a good thing. Freedom is a good thing. They're not the same thing.

Nobody is being forced to use GPL 2. Nobody is being forced to use GPL 3. If RMS made a press release tomorrow, and said, "I've changed my mind, and I no longer think GPL 3 was a good idea," the current draft of the GPL 3 would still be a perfectly valid possible license for people to use, if they didn't like DRM. Nobody is being forced to use DRM. If you hate DRM, but your favorite band is on a label that only sells their music in a DRM'd format, then you're sort of in the same position as someone who says, "That house on the corner is really nice. I'd like to buy it. Too bad it's not for sale." You don't have a God-given right to have that band, or that label, sell you something under conditions of you choosing.

Re:True of false?

[theStorminMormon]

Nail. Hammer. Done.

As a general rule it's incoherent to treat the word "freedom" as a grammatical entity rather than to think seriously about whether the words you're typing would mean more or less freedom. In other words, just because freedom is usually associate with saying things like "is allowed" doesn't mean that just plugging anything into this formula "x is allowed" gets you more freedom.

This logic would result in fun things like: "kidnapping is allowed" because otherwise ("kidnapping is not allowed") you're restricting freedom. The trouble is that "kidnapping" inherently takes away someone else's rights, so we have no trouble saying that - in the interests of a free society - we're going to put a restriction on this particular activity. DRM works the same way. It is by definition restrictive and antithetical to freedom. Therefore we can say "no DRM" and have free software just like we can say "no kidnapping" and have a (relatively) free society.

-stormin

Re:True of false?

[newt0311]

just out of curiosity, what exactly is the difference between emacs and xemacs other than the fact the xemacs is a fork of emacs.

Re:True of false?

[nutshell42]

Between the weak and the strong one it is the freedom which oppresses and the law that liberates (Jean Jacques Rousseau)

Re:True of false?

[smittyoneeach]

Aw, c'mon.
While I pretty much disagree with everything on http://stallman.org/archives/2006-jul-oct.html,
I will say that if you drop RMS a dispassionate, sincere note discussing most anything, he will eventually respond in kind.
Two points in particular he has made, privately (which I shall paraphrase here) that I'm still chewing on are:

• Don't place blind faith in Adam Smith's "Invisible Hand" to guide the marketplace.
• Don't confuse power and freedom

The second one is still rather Yoda-ish to me.
Wishing out loud, I'd like to see RMS publish a fully-worked philosophical system. I'm still trying to puzzle out the foundations of his thought.
But, based on experience thus far, "gentleman" fits.

Re:True of false?

[Bill Grates]

But it should be noted that Stallman would be the most vigorous
defender of your right to fork his codebase against his interest
in the project. This in my view is fairly convincing that all the
accusations of ego and agenda pushing on the part of rms are more
than a little bit unfair. He is at least consistent and refreshing
in his viewpoint.

Re:True of false?

[kimvette]

To be fair, there are no strings attached when it comes to USE of the software. Those strings only apply if you wish to incorporate that software into products you choose to distribute. There is a BIG difference.

Compare to Apple's "Thou shall not install OS X on Non-Apple-Branded PeeCees even though you paid for it" or Microsoft's upcoming "We give you two activations, and if a video driver upgrade triggers the need for a third activation, tough shit, you need to buy another license."

  (and yes, a NIC or video card DRIVER upgrade CAN trigger Activation, I just had it happen on two machines last week. Fuck Microsoft)

The point is, do you prefer Apple's or Microsoft's strings, or the GPL's strings?

But when you come down to it, BSD's and MPL's strings (keeping copyright notices intact in the code, IIRC, and in certain cases having to give credit in an about screen) are the [i]most[/i] free.

Re:True of false?

[CableModemSniper]

No then he'd just demand it be called BSD/Linux.

Re:True of false?

[OrangeTide]

exactly. I don't like GPL, but there is stuff out there that is way worse. Companies somehow got it in their head that open source was the same as Public Domain, and start crying when the FSF gives them a call to explain the difference.

The software licenses that Apple and Microsoft give you are more like renting than buying. You didn't really purchase Windows Vista, you paid for the right to install it on one computer. That's the sneaky thing about copyright, it allows the holder of the copyright to determine the conditions in which you may use and copy the material. It's all legal and okay, but sometimes it seems a bit unfair. Especially when we end up paying $100+ for software that we can only use under very specific circumstances. (linux is great in this way, less bullshit than the competition)

sure, no strings attached to users of the software. that's nice. I'm a developer, so I tend to focus on how a license applies to modification and redistribution. When I license software it tends to have expensive royalties, paying an extra $3 on a device that might only cost $150 on store shelves is a pretty big deal. It's no surprise that some of the more aggressive companies are willing to accept the terms of GPLv2.

Many are pretty terrified of GPLv3. Some networking/router companies (who will remain nameless) are concerned v3 will require that users have the ability to upgrade software built-in to the device/appliance. This is a problem for this company (and others like it) because to be more efficient they sell the same hardware but install different software on it and "license" software through hardware. There are little authentication/DRM chips on the devices to ensure that only Software A is run on the device, and not the more expensive Software B.

These companies will have to adapt their business model to be compatible with GPLv3, or not use GPLv3 software in their products. Likely the later, especially since Linus does not seem to want to push Linux into using GPLv3. It could be a problem if glibc goes to GPLv3 though, it is hard to find a Java JVM for Linux that runs on anything but glibc. you end up having to twist the vendor's arm to get updates.

Re:True of false?

[wordsnyc]

The first one is right on the money. The "wisdom of the free market" is as much specious bullshit as the manger scene and the Easter Bunny.

Re:True of false?

[cultrhetor]

Stallman, GNU, and the GPL are about freedom FOR. THE. USER. They always have been, and always will be. By definition, DRM is all about removing freedom from the USER, and therefore DRM is inherently incompatible with the GPL. Don't like it? Then you either don't like the GPL, or don't understand what the GPL is.

I have two problems with your line of reasoning:
1 - No piece of code is "inherently" anything but code. Code, by definition, is a set of commands subject to constraints. It is the use to which that code is put that gives it value.
2 - If the GPL and GNU licences are about "Freedom for the user," with software and source so licensed labeled free for all to use, then by definition, exclusion creates a contradiction. As soon as the GPL begins excluding end-users of any sort, it will subvert all of the meanings - explicit or implicit - that are associated with the "Open" source community. Any cultural caché that it has gained as being a software revolution will disappear: the OSS community will become what it supposedly grew to counter. If we're going to go on and on about "freedom" in any context, let's not be hypocritical.

Re:True of false?

[sneakers563]

You don't need to wait for Richard Stallman to publish a fully-worked philosophical system. I almost hesitate to say this because of the knee-jerk reactions of most people, but both of those points come from, and are explained in great detail, by Karl Marx. If you can get past the fact that I just used the words "Karl" and "Marx", and would genuinely like to learn where Stallman is coming from with those two points, pick up Karx Marx: Selected Readings and read the excerpts from "The German Ideology" and the "Preface to a Critique of Political Economy". Read them as philosophy and an attempt to explain human history (which they are) and not as a recipe for a totalitarian society (which they are not) and you'll be fine.

Re:True of false?

[Alphager]

There is a solution for all those problems you mentioned: encryption. Encryption is nowadays inexpensive (the software is free, and the cpu-cycles used by it don't matter nowadays).

Re:True of false?

[dircha]

But the GPL's strings are undoubtedly freedom promoting. The same can't be said of the proprietary licenses you cite. And, I would argue, puts it in a position to be more freedom promoting than BSD like licenses, likely resulting in greater net freedom.

One of the objectives of the GPL (from the recommendation of use of GPL vs LGPL) is the production of valuable GPLd components and libraries to give software producers incentive to produce free software, where they might otherwise take proprietary, LGPL, or BSD like software or libraries and produce propietary software.

In fact, in many cases the presence of a BSD-like licensed solution works at counter purposes to the GPL.

Given the choice of BSD and GPL components or libraries of similar quality, many organizations will choose the BSD component. They choose the BSD component because they want to use the component to produce proprietary software - either as a requirement of their business model or to keep secrets from their users or competitors.

If however the BSD component were not available, the company would choose either a proprietary component and produce wholly proprietary software - in which case the community would lose nothing - or perhaps they would be persuaded by the value provided by the GPL component to choose to integrate it and thereby to produce more free software.

Re:True of false?

[rtb61]

Since when aren't most computer geeks pretty adamant and stubborn. As for any individual choosing what they will or will not do, for what ever reason they deem appropriate, well, that's just freedom of choice. Being a Linux, a GNU/Linux or a GNU supporter does not make you a slave.

The critical point about the critical article, is that any version GPL is not compulsary. Anybody should feel free to comment upon any part of the GPL, including the original creators. I am in favour of moral conditions for GPL4, restrictions on privacy invasive crap, or that code shouldn't be used in acts against freedom and democracy.

I don't even see a problem with a GPL that allows greedy corporations to use code, with out returning code, as long as the make suitably large financial contributions to whatever open source organisations the creators of the code democratically decide is appropriate.

Re:True of false?

[Pecisk]

Disclaimer: I am serious Linux and GNU and GPL fan.

BUT I am saying that you no have any clue what you are talking about.

Stallman CAN'T DECIDE what is "freedom" for me, because it is VERY SUBJECTIVE WORD. All what he was done good was claiming minimal sets of "freedoms" in his GPLv2 licence. NOW what he wants is to impose NON-FREEDOMS, thinking, that in that way he will keep us all free. It is messing with his own version, just because he feels @!$#@%^^ by DRM and Patents.

Patents and DRM are bad, but GPL with restrictions on them are fucked up, perverted version of "freedom", not original, balansed one which was old version.

People want to have a freedom to watch Flash files. To watch WMA files. To use their video cards. Don't like it? Screw you, it is their version of "freedom".

Don't take this personal, but Stallman really doesn't know what freedom really means for others.

Isn't RMS irrelevant already?

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

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.

Re:Isn't RMS irrelevant already?

[Anonymous Coward]

Irrelevant to whom? You paint Stallman as if he were only an asset to open source
advocacy. To me Stallman is another Chomsky. He might not be intelligent or even right
but by god the man has the balls to say it like it is and point out the obvious
directions we are heading in. In a world of weak, spineless, cowardly appeasers and
appologists that is a heroic quality on its own.

Re:Isn't RMS irrelevant already?

[Mr. Underbridge]

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.

Actually, I think Stallman's changed more than the notion of free software. He's gone from "Source code should be free to anyone" to "Source code should be free to anyone who agrees with my politics." Right now, "politics" means DRM. But once that can of worms opens, it might be tough to close.

Re:Isn't RMS irrelevant already?

[Belial6]

I hear that regularly, and every time it sounds like the old "Nobody needs more than X amount of memory" line.

RMS started his crusade because he had a comercial product with broken code. The company would not fix the code, and the company had taken actions that would prevent Stallman from fixing the code himself.

The GPL was designed to allow developers to create code that would not be used in a manner that prevented people from making their own repairs. Yes, some companies have found ways to get around that purpose without violating the letter of the license. Ok, Stallman didn't just scream and yell about these companies intentionally trying to get around the license they agreed to. No, he went out and started making a newer revised version of his license that closed the holes that the license crackers found.

No, RMS is no less relevent today than he was when the GPL 1 was first written. Do you think that any closed source company thought that the GPL would even be a ping on the radar? Yes, RMS might be odd, but in this age of always trying to find a middle ground, there is an obvious need for an extreamist on the side of right, because without people like him, the middle ground would be closed everything.

Re:Isn't RMS irrelevant already?

[lawpoop]

I don't understand your logic.

If "the real world operates on a different set of rules than RMS's 'Free no matter what'", then why was RMS *ever* relevant? In the 1980s, when RMS was first developing the GPL and the GNU tools, was reality different? How could he have ever had any impact if he was totally out of touch with how reality?

Did Stallman's contribution *change* the reality since the 1980s? If so, are you suggesting that the man whose *ideas* changed reality would have nothing more to say about the situation today, and should just sit down and shut up? He once changed reality, but somehow since then he became out of touch?

Re:Isn't RMS irrelevant already?

[mrchaotica]

He's gone from "Source code should be free to anyone"...

Stallman was never about that. He was always, and continues to be, about "the user should have absolute control over the tools he uses." Source code freedom is required for this, but it is a means to an end, not the end itself.

Once you realize this, you'll see that Stallman's anti-DRM stance is entirely consistent with what his goal has always been, and that the GPL v.3 has exactly the same purpose as the GPL v.2.

That's GNU/Linux to you!

[McFly777]

The main article post says:

So basically you get to choose between the linux zealot, and a writer who is obviously fairly hostile towards Stallman's ideas.

Which is an interesting typo, considering that Stallman has nothing to do with Linux, and that the article is about GPLv3, which Linus has said Linux will have nothing to do with.

Re:That's GNU/Linux to you!

[Anonymous Coward]

and the zealot is the admin of a site called 'Linux Tech Daily'

What typo are you talking about again?...

Metadebate

[xymog]

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.

Re:Metadebate

[Dystopian Rebel]

I know this is Slashdot, but do we really need a thread engaging in metadebate about an article?

I'd like to metadebate your comment, Digg style:

lmao omg lol you r such a L3w53r !!!

Of course Daniel Lyons is spreading FUD

[br00tus]

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.

Care to show a few examples Taco?

[A beautiful mind]

The problem with the editorial of course is that many of the points made in the original Forbes piece are completely valid and true.

Seriously, since you're editorializing aswell, which part of the Forbes article is correct about RMS? As I seem to recall I haven't found such part in that article, where the author would be right. The whole thing came off as something written by an ignorant uninformed person.

Forbes?

[wobblie]

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.

Attacking Stallman

[Psionicist]

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.

Overstatement vs. Zelotry

[Cr0w T. Trollbot]

A few points:

1. The language of the Forbes piece is indeed injudicious. Anytime you see someone pile on adjectives like this, you're looking at either a bad writer, or someone with an axe to grind.
2. That said, Pope Stallman is indeed an unyielding zelot when it comes to The One and True GPL Path, and many of the points the Forbes article rasies are valid.
3. As usual, the counter-attack against the article displays the usual marks of Stallmanist zelotry whne it comes to Attacks on the Glorious Leader.
4. However, the whole Forbes article, as well as Stallman's defenders, are irrelevant, since Linus has stated that he isn't going to place Linux under GPL, and few outside Stallman's hardcore Free Software Acolytes are going to use GPL3 as it stands now.

Crow T. Trollbot

Slanted article

[opieum]

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.

Re:Slanted article

[davecb]

The article is intended to sell magazines, and for that purpose it is well crafted.

• To someone who doesn't know Stallman, it's misleading.
• To someone who does know him and dislikes him, it's justification.
• To someone who does know him and likes him, its a troll.

All of the above sell dead trees. All of the above are evil.

--dave

Sidekick

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Does he get a cape, and ride in the sidecar of the GNUcycle?

Thoughts on Stallman

[totallygeek]

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.

Logical Fallacies R Us.

[Llywelyn]

"""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?

Re:Irrelevant

[numbsafari]

Actually, he's been HURDing it for YEARS!

Haha... hoohooo.... woah... sorry... bad joke...

I frequently disagree with Richard Stallman

[brennanw]

... 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.

Re:I frequently disagree with Richard Stallman

[joshdick]

"you are free to fork the old one and develop it yourself."

That's easy for you to say. But now imagine you are running a publicly traded company like Red Hat and you're forced by Stallman to fork every single GNU program included in your distribution. And now imagine the FOSS movement without the backing of corporations like Red Hat and IBM.

Stallman is hurting his own movement.

Re:I frequently disagree with Richard Stallman

[Omnifarious]

They do fork over every single GNU program included in their distribution already. You seem to be very confused about how commercial companies in the free software space operate. A request of that nature by Richard Stallman or anyone else would be to point at the .torrent file for the source CDs. It's all there.

That's how Mandrake/Mandriva got their start. They grabbed all of RedHat's source CDs, and re-branded it as their own after making some changes they considered usability improvements.

I think you're so mired in thinking one way about how software can be sold that you can't see the reality that's right in front of your eyes.

Forbes inaccuracies

[crush]

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.

Re:Forbes inaccuracies

[spitzak]

Wrong. Your customer does NOT in any way have the option to get the software for free. You can refuse to give them your modification of the GPL software unless they give you money. Because you are not distributing it unless they pay you, you are not violating the copyright, and thus the GPL has no say in what you do.

The GPL does say the customer can then give the software away for free or try to charge for it, or to modify it themselves and sell that. Because of this it is true that this isn't going to work very well if it is some kind of mass market software where you want to get paid individually for thousands of identical copies.

However it works quite well if nobody but your customer is interested in the code you sell them (ie it is custom software like 90% of the software people are employed to write), or if your customer has an interest in keeping the code secret.

The point has been missed...

[St.Anne]

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 .

Zealots!

[argoff]

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.

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 ... 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.

Re:Zealots!

[khallow]

Actually, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a case where someone called one of the above groups "zealots". Perhaps the abolitionists might have been so accused. Accusations of zealotry get thrown around when one of the parties acts in a dogmatic way.

I don't see anything particularly incorrect about accusing people like Stallman of zealotry. It does get overblown when the zealots are accused of "destroying" something that they are incapable of destroying. For example, we can route around damage like the new GPL license merely by forking GNU. It hasn't happened yet because the need isn't there yet.

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.

This isn't saying much. Stallman doesn't need us and we don't need him.

Crit Bug: cake.eat() - foods.count.minus(1) !!!!!

[tillerman35]

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???

Rosebud....

[Himring]

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...."

Re:If you piss off the press, you pay a price

[MECC]

I can see your point, and no doubt rms probably rubbed the guy the wrong way at some point. Even so, for Forbes to publish an article that basically calls someone a fat booger-picking asshole can't exactly polish their image as a publication of journalistic integrity. Even a lay-person can't help but get that impression from ingesting the string of third-grader descriptives found in the article. I would have thought that at least an editor would know what ad hominem is.

I don't understand the hostility

[Darren Hiebert]

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.

Why would Red Hat fork Red Hat?

[brennanw]

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.

Re:Co-founder?

[TheGreek]

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?

The family of sparrows nesting in his beard.

Next on the GPL channel..

[A_Non_Moose]

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!")

Re:Another interview

[FictionPimp]

I found this amusing.

The obvious

[soccerisgod]

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"

Forbes article is bad taste

[McNihil]

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.

The usual marginalizations

[Mateo_LeFou]

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.

Richard's Defense

[MrCopilot]

Alot of people here are coming down pretty hard on ole RMS. So I will step up and come to his defense. Personally I know him not at all. I have read as many of his essays, code, speeches, interviews, emails as I come across. After much careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that rms does/says/writes these things because he believes he is trying to stop the inevitable result of the proprietary model.

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.

GPLv3 is incompatible with GPLv2

[greginnj]

Anything released by me in the future will carry a modified GPLv2 that does not permit the use of any future version of the GPL simply because this is a deliberate railroading of the purpose of the GPL.

You don't need to do this, just specify "GPLv2 ONLY" when you describe your license. Read on:

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. (GPLv2)

The 'any later version' stipulation is not part of GPLv2, it's part of the text that many people use to announce which license they're using. So you don't need to modify it (furthermore, you can't, if you're releasing a mod rather that something you coded up from scratch).

More interesting to me is article 6 of the GPLv2:

Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.

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.

It's not really about you

[mschuyler]

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.

Re:Developers don't deserve freedom?!

[mrchaotica]

Because the only "freedom" that a developer could want that a user doesn't already have (according to the GPL) would be the "freedom" to restrict others, and that's not actually a freedom. You've heard the saying "your freedom ends where my rights begin," right? This is exactly the same principle -- taken to an extreme, complaining that developers should be "free" to use DRM is analogous to saying that people should be "free" to own slaves.

Do you get a kick out of user-unfriendliness?

[October_30th]

EMACS

Ah yes, there's another reason to hate RMS.

Re:Do you get a kick out of user-unfriendliness?

[TheRaven64]

I disagree. EMACS is a really nice operating system, in the style of the old Lisp Machines. Once it gets a Vim port, I'm switching.

Re:Developers don't deserve freedom?!

[swillden]

Why not?!

Because developers are a strict subset of users. If all users have freedom, then developers automatically have freedom. Therefore, there's no reason to specifically focus on freedom for developers. Developers who would like to have freedom that users do not are the problem that the FSF was created to fix (or at least provide an alternative to).

It's a valid article

[NineNine]

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.

Stallman needs a spokesman

[TheRaven64]

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.

That's a nice excuse for doing nothing

[spun]

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.

My thoughts on GPL3

[spitzak]

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.

VIPER

[br00tus]

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

Re:Stallman Helped Free Software. Hurts It.

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Agreed that morality issues tend to polarize, almost by definition. Most moralists intend to polarize, and there are those who even feed off of the exclusion that polarization provides. I see rms in terms of ethics, rather than morality. I don't think rms would ever say, "its right/wrong because authority says so", but rather rms lays out arguements for a system of ethics based on principles that are almost used like axioms. Maybe his AI background at work there.

A clean RMS is not unusual

[Roblimo]

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

Re:Developers don't deserve freedom?!

[mrsbrisby]

"Once you buy the software, you agree to abide by the terms set by the publisher (seller). If you don't want to do this, please don't buy it."

Nope.

US Courts ruled way back in 1979 that this was _not_ the case.

I have a certain number of rights to use whatever I buy. If you want to take those rights away, you must use a contract. See 17 USC 117 for some very specific rights. Heck read ALL of Code 17: they're your rights. You should at least know what they are.

In Vault v. Quaid, 847 F.2d 255 (5th Cir. 1988), Federal courts ruled that so-called "click-wrap" licenses are NOT enforcable, and NOT legal.

Galoob v. Nintendo, 780 F. Supp 1283 (N.D. Cal. 1991), affirmed, 22 U.S.P.Q.2d 1587 (9th Cir. 1992) and also Foresight v. Pfortmiller, 719 F. Supp 1006 (D. Kan. 1989), say that you are looking at it from the wrong perspective.

(This does not necessarily reflect my opinion, but I like to look at issues from as many angles as possible)

I can appreciate this, but you're still wrong.

Fact is, no matter what Microsoft says, you can reverse engineer, and make changes to their software. It is 100% legal to take a Windows "demo disc" or a XP Home, and apply a patch to the registry that turns it into XP Pro. It's also legal to redistribute that patch.

No matter how many times the SPA says it, doesn't make it law. I'd appreciate it if you only say what you know to be true, instead of what you have heard to be true.