Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Eben Moglen Leaving the FSF

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the he'll-be-missed dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Eben Moglen, general counsel and board member of the FSF and chairman of the SFLC, has announced on his blog that he will be resigning from his leadership position with the FSF now that GPLv3 draft 3 is out the door. "

75 comments

  1. Surprising. by pyite · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I heard him on Leo Laporte's FLOSS Weekly podcast and was very impressed with his knowledge and was happy the FSF had such good leadership.

    --

    "Nature doesn't care how smart you are. You can still be wrong." - Richard Feynman

    1. Re:Surprising. by Workaphobia · · Score: 4, Interesting

      He's also an excellent speaker. I particularly like this quote from a DMCA discussion, in reference to the media industry:

      > "Now if you leave them alone to buy more congressmen, in this very corrupt time of ours, they will survive for a little while longer but all of this talk is about the technicalities of the adjustment of the terms of their demise. When we want to start talking about something that matters, we would do better to begin from some basic social propositions. Everybody is connected to everybody else, all data that can be shared will be shared: get used to it."

      Given his accent, this makes for a very interesting voice-over when combined with electronic music.

      --
      Evidently, the key to understanding recursion is to begin by understanding recursion. The rest is easy.
    2. Re:Surprising. by Raenex · · Score: 1

      I particularly like this quote from a DMCA discussion, in reference to the media industry:
      "[..]all data that can be shared will be shared: get used to it." That means your personal data, too. "You have zero privacy anyway. Get over it." -- Scott McNealy.
  2. It makes sense. by brennanw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Eventually the all-consuming nature of that kind of job is going to wear you down. Getting out before it breaks you into a thousand pieces and then remakes you into a twisted version of yourself you barely recognize seems like a pretty good idea to me.

    --
    Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
    1. Re:It makes sense. by onion2k · · Score: 1

      Has that already happened to RMS? Or is there a barely recognizable twisted version of him on the horizon?

      I'm not sure I can even imagine something like that.

      --
      http://twitter.com/onion2k
    2. Re:It makes sense. by RealSurreal · · Score: 1

      Of course, those thousand pieces are GPL'd so we can just fork a new FSF lawyer project.

    3. Re:It makes sense. by tinkertim · · Score: 1

      Eventually the all-consuming nature of that kind of job is going to wear you down. Getting out before it breaks you into a thousand pieces and then remakes you into a twisted version of yourself you barely recognize seems like a pretty good idea to me.


      Sometimes you can also be more effective as a heckler rather than the guy behind the wheel. I don't think this is any kind of farewell. GPL3 will be done far before he's done with it.
  3. New job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I heard he took a job for Microsoft.

    1. Re:New job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "all the recorded outrage has been emitted by Microsoft or its surrogates"

      No, it seems that Linus Torvalds took a job with Microsoft according to EM.

  4. Out of FSF but not Open Source in general by humphrm · · Score: 5, Informative

    It should be noted that he's leaving the FSF board to devote more time to the SFLC. Which means, less Eben in FSF but he's still going to be a strong contributor to the legal protections and mitigation of risk of software developers and projects who participate in Open Source Software.

    --
    -- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
    1. Re:Out of FSF but not Open Source in general by byolinux · · Score: 4, Funny

      The FSF and the SFLC are about Free Software, not Open Source. Come on! It's in the name! :)

      --
      Join the Free Software Foundation
    2. Re:Out of FSF but not Open Source in general by _|()|\| · · Score: 3, Informative

      Eben Moglen has been the highlight of the FSF member meetings. As much I respect Richard Stallman's accomplishments, he's just not that much fun to listen to, especially in discussion. For example, Lawrence Lessig gave a great presentation on the Creative Commons his first year on the board. (He gave one striking example of a home movie that someone made over the course of several years for the cost of a camera and a bunch of tapes; when it got picked up by a studio at a film festival, it cost $400,000 dollars to license the music and TV shows that happened to be playing in the background.) All Richard wanted to talk about was how evil Flash is.

      Eben tells you about some dire threat (usually from Microsoft), and how he and the little old FSF have a plan for it. I passed on the meeting this year, because I'm not that interested in GPL v3. I do hope Eben will continue to attend.

    3. Re:Out of FSF but not Open Source in general by KokorHekkus · · Score: 1

      The FSF and the SFLC are about Free Software, not Open Source. Come on! It's in the name! :)
      From the SFLC homepage: "We provide legal representation and other law-related services to protect and advance Free and Open Source Software." And the X.org project is an example of one of their clients that aren't connected to Free Software.
    4. Re:Out of FSF but not Open Source in general by Freed · · Score: 1

      Huh? You mean that X.org is not directly affiliated with the FSF. However, X.org certainly produces free software and thus is connected to it.

    5. Re:Out of FSF but not Open Source in general by byolinux · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um, yeah... except X.org is free software, heck.. it's not GNU software, but even then it was adopted for the GNU Operating System in 1984.

      --
      Join the Free Software Foundation
  5. Amen by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    Getting out before it breaks you into a thousand pieces and then remakes you into a twisted version of yourself you barely recognize seems like a pretty good idea to me.
    RMS seems to be going down this path. Trying to fight closed hardware, DRM, MS/Novell, allow exceptions, try to be compatible with other licenses? I fear GPL3 is trying for too much.

    Can someone please explain what it means for licenses to be "compatible"? If I've got code under Apache license and code under the GPLv3, I assume those can not be merged anyway because each body of code says derivatives must be under the same license. What then does license compatibility really mean exactly? Wouldn't it be better to write other apps from scratch under GPL than alter the license to be compatible with certain apps license?

    What about DRM? GPL3 says you have to provide everything needed to make the app run. Does that mean the compiler too? Will every GPL3 project have to provide the whole toolchain? That would seem like a good idea if it were not such a burden. After all if someone uses a proprietary processor with a proprietary compiler they can Tivoize anything they like without using DRM. Should they have to provide the compiler? Does every project need to?
    1. Re:Amen by Arker · · Score: 5, Informative

      What then does license compatibility really mean exactly?

      Two licenses are compatible if a licensee can fulfil the conditions of both licenses simultaneously. Another way of saying this is that two licenses are compatible if the requirements of one are a subset of the other. For example the BSD is compatible with the GPL, because it is possible to fulfill the conditions of both simultaneously, since all the BSD requires is a subset of the requirements of the GPL. So it is possible to legally use BSD code and GPL code in the same work.

      Wouldn't it be better to write other apps from scratch under GPL than alter the license to be compatible with certain apps license?

      That depends on how much work would be involved and what requirements the other license makes.

      There's no point to reïmplementing something already available under the (modern) BSD license, for instance. This should be fairly obvious.

      On the other hand, code available only under the old BSD license should probably all be reïmplemented entirely. The advertising clause may not look like much at first glance, but when you consider how many thousands of different copyrights might apply to a single commercial distribution, you can see what a nightmare that clause could become in time.

      On the third hand, consider the Sun license. It's not compatible with the GPL v2, because the GPL has a requirement that no further conditions may be added, and the Sun license has patent provisions that the GPL doesn't. This makes it legally impossible to use code under these two licenses together - they are incompatible. BUT, aside from the fact of incompatibility, there's nothing wrong with Suns license. The FSF had already stated they wanted to add similar patent provisions in the future, and a similar clause would probably have been in the GPL v2 had software patents been an issue when it was written. So in this case, making the GPL v3 compatible with Suns license might not be a bad idea at all - the details of wording may be a pain to work out, but the patent requirement itself is not onerous, to the contrary, it or something very much like it is a desirable addition anyway.

      What about DRM? GPL3 says you have to provide everything needed to make the app run. Does that mean the compiler too?

      No, of course not. Your paraphrase is not what the license says. The actual wording has been reviewed and revised very carefully. The DRM section doesn't say anything resembling what you wrote.

      3. No Denying Users' Rights through Technical Measures.

      No covered work shall be deemed part of an effective technological measure under any applicable law fulfilling obligations under article 11 of the WIPO copyright treaty adopted on 20 December 1996, or similar laws prohibiting or restricting circumvention of such measures.

      When you convey a covered work, you waive any legal power to forbid circumvention of technical measures to the extent such circumvention is effected by exercising rights under this License with respect to the covered work, and you disclaim any intention to limit operation or modification of the work as a means of enforcing, against the work's users, your or third parties' legal rights to forbid circumvention of technical measures.

      To paraphrase, you can't use Free Software to build a system and then use the DMCA to forbid modification of that system. That's it.

      There are no sections of the license that say anything more than vaguely resembling what you wrote. The definition of "Corresponding Source" for instance says:

      The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    2. Re:Amen by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      Can someone please explain what it means for licenses to be "compatible"? If I've got code under Apache license and code under the GPLv3, I assume those can not be merged anyway because each body of code says derivatives must be under the same license.

      It would work by the very definition of "compatible." If you can license the whole codebase under both licenses simultaneously without conflicting, then you distribute under both licenses. You can take BSD code, modify and re-release under the GPL if you want, as long as you preserve the notices on the BSD portion of code.

    3. Re:Amen by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the good reply. Sorry about paraphrasing - I did that based my memory of an interview with RMS on some site. It's my memory of RMS paraphrasing the GPLv3. Agreed, the license is the last word. However, no one managed to explain compatibility to my satisfaction. Several (including you) mentioned the BSD which does not require derived works to be BSD licensed. I was under the impression that GPLv3 was trying to be compatible with the Apache license (and Eclipse). That does not appear possible because the Apache license seems to indicate derived works also be Apache licensed - it doesn't explicitly say that but it seems to be a condition since existing copyright notices must be included. GPL certainly requires retention of the GPL license. Neither one indicates that you may use another license with similar terms. Using the BSD license to explain compatibility is almost like using the public domain as an example.

      Now if GPLv3 achieves the same goals as Apache, it seems plausible that Apache could switch to GPLv3 and that would IMHO be a good thing. One less license to worry about, and increased ability to mix and match code.

      I may have been off base with the DRM stuff, but I still say it will be possible to TiVOize code regardless of what terms they put in the license. Requiring that the user be able to hack the box/code in spite of the DMCA seems like a good idea, but in the end it will not stop people from making it very difficult to run modified code on some devices.

      To be clear, I have great respect for RMS and his efforts. GPL is IMHO the best free license available. I just worry that his agenda may have grown to the unachievable. I also worry that adding terms to the license may also add loopholes in the same way that adding more features to a piece of software may introduce bugs.

    4. Re:Amen by Adhemar · · Score: 1

      What then does license compatibility really mean exactly?
      Two licenses are compatible if a licensee can fulfil the conditions of both licenses simultaneously.
      You're right; that's the correct definition.

      Another way of saying this is that two licenses are compatible if the requirements of one are a subset of the other.
      If the requirements of one licence are a subset of the other, then the licenses are compatible. However, this sufficient condition is not a necessary condition. As long as the requirements are not mutually exclusive, the licenses are compatible.
    5. Re:Amen by Arker · · Score: 1

      BSDL, old or new, is nothing whatsoever like public domain. Both require copyright notices be preserved, and neither permits relicensing. This is a common misunderstanding - using code under compatible, but different, licenses does not involve relicensing. For instance using BSDL or X11/MIT code in a GPL project does NOT result in that code somehow being converted to GPL. It's still under the original license. It's simply being used in accordance with that original license, which is possible because the terms do not conflict.

      If you take BSD code and remove the copyright notices, remove the license notices, and publish it under the GPL you *would* be in violation of copyright. But if you take that same code, preserve the relevant copyright and licensing notices, and use it as a part of a larger project, with the remaining code being under the GPL, that is fine. Is that any clearer?

      Suppose you write foo.cc, and release it under the BSDL. I come along and see that this solves some problems I need to solve for my project, so I grab it and use it. I add bar.cc, licensed under the GPL, and the binary I produce is the product of both foo and bar. *The binary* must be treated as though it were GPL, but foo.cc is still and always under the BSDL - the license hasn't changed, and I'm not allowed to remove your copyright notices.

      As to Apache, I'm going to assume you're referring to version 2. This license, like Suns, has a patent clause that renders it incompatible with the GPL v2 for the same reason, and the same comments apply.

      I may have been off base with the DRM stuff, but I still say it will be possible to TiVOize code regardless of what terms they put in the license. Requiring that the user be able to hack the box/code in spite of the DMCA seems like a good idea, but in the end it will not stop people from making it very difficult to run modified code on some devices.

      Sure, it's not going to solve all problems, but nothing will. You should keep in mind that DRM schemes are inherently insecure, and without the weight of law in form of the DMCA-type laws they're quite untenable in the long run. As it is, you may well be able to defeat the DRM on your own machine, but the minute you start helping anyone else reclaim their own rights you fall afoul of the law and face massive penalties. This prevent commercial ventures, in particular, from touching the problem with a ten foot pole - and exposes you to considerable risk personally as well. The DRM provision ensures that to the degree a company relies on leveraging free software to build their systems, they have to give up on that. Without the DMCA, every linux distro could ship with deCSS installed and configured, for instance.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    6. Re:Amen by Arker · · Score: 1

      Quite correct. That usually means one is a subset of the other, but it's certainly possible for it not to mean that. Can you think of an actual example?

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  6. A brilliant guy by mw13068 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've heard him speak at a few of the FSF Associate Member meetings, and I've even had conversation over dinner with him on one occasion, where he was telling the rest of us about the fledgling SFLC project. Just listening to him made me want to start law school (at Columbia, of course).

    I'm convinced he's working with a larger percentage of his brain than the rest of us.

    Creating the SFLC was a brilliant move, as was the drafting of the GPLv3.

    Best of luck, Eben!

    1. Re:A brilliant guy by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Just listening to him made me want to start law school (at Columbia, of course).

      Resist the impulse!

  7. Thanks Eben by Marcion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From all us geeks out there, thanks for taking so much time out of your day job as a Professor to run the GPLv3 process.

    See you in a decade for GPLv4!!

    --
    My little Linux and tech blog
  8. Re:I wonder... by ozamosi · · Score: 1

    GP's point is probably that RMS DID break into a thousand pieces. He used to be a hacker fighting for the cause of free software, and is now seen as mostly fighting to make people refer to a free system as GNU/Linux, or to fight for (according to some) non-free licences like the GNU GPL or FDL.

    Of course, I don't know how he started out, since I wasn't there, and I don't know what he's like now, since I haven't met him.

  9. So long and thanks for all the fish by Tatisimo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Thanks to him and all the other great people who keep making sure we nerds get our software free and hackable. If I could afford it, I'd throw him a farewell party, but I guess I'll confine to a private celebration by myself. Hope it stays that way a long time, regardless of who leads GNU.

    --
    Give Kashyyyk back to the Wookies
    1. Re:So long and thanks for all the fish by PinkPanther · · Score: 4, Funny

      I guess I'll confine to a private celebration by myself. Hope it stays that way a long time

      Damn I love taking statements out of context...

      :-)

      --
      It's a simple matter of complex programming.
  10. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    why rms did'nt break into thousand pieces...maybe his true name is not Stallman but Stealman...


    "Stealman"? Did you intend to type Steelman instead by chance? Steel being the iron-nickel alloy.
  11. On Eben Moglen by Buddy_Gilapagos · · Score: 3, Informative

    Eben Moglen was the single most influential law school professor I ever had. I have never looked at the world the same since taking his classes.

  12. Thanks by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Someone said Moglen is the Thomas Jefferson of the information age, and I'm inclined to agree.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    1. Re:Thanks by mrchaotica · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What does that make RMS then, Thomas Paine?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    2. Re:Thanks by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Someone said Moglen is the Thomas Jefferson of the information age, and I'm inclined to agree.

      What does that make RMS then, Thomas Paine?

      Sounds about right, actually.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  13. Re:I wonder... by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 1

    "is now seen as mostly fighting to make people refer to a free system as GNU/Linux..."

    If he's seen that way it's inaccurate. rms is as cogent as he's ever been, and still tackles large, complicated issues.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
  14. Looking to the future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "They are counseling young projects making astonishing new free software that's going to be rocking business's world three or four years from now."

    The above quote sounds interesting. Does this mean that we have reached the point where FOSS begins to out-innovate the proprietary world rather than just playing catch-up?

    1. Re:Looking to the future by Arker · · Score: 1

      Umm, yeah, at least 10 years ago.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  15. Compatible licenses by PinkPanther · · Score: 3, Informative

    If I've got code under Apache license and code under the GPLv3, I assume those can not be merged anyway because each body of code says derivatives must be under the same license.

    Depends. If the copyright holder of one of those codes gives you permission to move their code under the other license (or if they do it themselves, say by you paying them to do so), then there is no problem.

    If you are not a copyright holder or if the body of code you want to move over is the culmination of many copyright holders, then with both Apache and GPL there is no problem you merging the codes as long as it is for your own use.

    You cannot merge the two codes and release the resultant as you have no right unless the way that you do it adheres to both licenses. Compatible licenses would allow you to merge code from two differently licensed projects without violating the terms of either.

    --
    It's a simple matter of complex programming.
  16. Re:I wonder... by brennanw · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm not sure it happened to him. I think RMS's mindset and attitudes are a result of the truly monumental task he took on when GNU got started. It takes a very radical outlook and mentality to push a project like that forward. It's made him a very effective force even today, even if it does make him (apparently) intractible on some issues and (from what I've heard) difficult to talk to. He does have a sense of humor, though. He sent me a pretty cool email the last time I had a little fun at his expense.

    --
    Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
  17. Moglen was RMS's touchstone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Moglen was RMS's touchstone with reality. Expect future irrelevance of the FSF as RMS heads off into lala land.

  18. I want to hear about... by seandiggity · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...this new effort to "reorganize time" he's embarking on. Maybe he could go back and make GPLv2 contain the same text as v3!

    --
    Geeks like to think that they can ignore politics, you can leave politics alone, but politics won't leave you alone.-rms
  19. RMS, license compatibility, toolchains by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It is true that RMS gives his whole life to his cause. I respect and admire him for doing so, and at the same time I wouldn't want to do that to my life. The load of causes upon FSF is not unusual for any organization that tries to enact social change. Look at some of the environmentalist organizations, for example. There are good parallels there, you might think of RMS as someone fighting against pollution in idea-space.

    A license is compatible with another if the terms of both licenses are not mutually exclusive. The BSD/MIT licenses, at least the later ones without the advertising restriction, are GPL compatible because they don't restrict anything that the GPL would permit.

    Having the ability to convert one license to another, or having the software available under multiple licenses, is a short-cut to compatibility with those licenses.

    We have our own tool-chain, and one that is very portable to new architectures. I think that GPL3 draft 3 would require the disclosure of some data regarding how the toolchain would interface to the hardware of a consumer device in which GPL3 software was embedded, including the instruction set, if that was not already public knowledge.

    Bruce

    --
    Bruce Perens.
    1. Re:RMS, license compatibility, toolchains by Alphager · · Score: 1

      It is true that RMS gives his whole life to his cause. I respect and admire him for doing so, and at the same time I wouldn't want to do that to my life. Haven't you done just that? Sure, you haven't practically given up most of your private life, but i would say that your years in the Debian-Project, the OSI etc. did not leave your life untouched ;-) Thank you for the great work you did and are still doing!
    2. Re:RMS, license compatibility, toolchains by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Haven't you done just that? Sure, you haven't practically given up most of your private life, but i would say that your years in the Debian-Project, the OSI etc. did not leave your life untouched ;-) Thank you for the great work you did and are still doing!

      You're welcome! My son is 7 years old now, and of course it's important to spend time with him - you can't go back and fix mistakes you made with your kid. This is the major limit on how much I travel, why I haven't ever succeeded in getting time to go to Debconf or some of the other community conferences, etc. - I've got to be there for my kid. My wife wants some of my time too. And I have a job, so that I can put a roof over their heads. This is what Richard sacrifices, that I won't.

      Bruce

      --
      Bruce Perens.
    3. Re:RMS, license compatibility, toolchains by Joey+Vegetables · · Score: 1

      You have spent your time doing things that will result in a better world for your son to grow up in. I'm sure your son knows this already, and if not, he will soon. And in all probability he will learn from you and will grow up to accomplish great things as well. I don't always agree with you 100%, but I am very appreciative and respectful toward what you have done for the cause of software freedom and therefore freedom in general. I also respect the contributions of RMS, Eben Moglen, and everyone else who has helped to give the world great Free and Open Source software.

      --

      Nonaggression works!
  20. Thank You, And Best Wishes! by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

    Eben, you have made the world a better place. Thank you for all your hard work, and I wish you the very best in all your endeavors.

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
  21. You mean .. by cheros · · Score: 2, Funny
    .. (as this is Slashdot) that he may "have his hands full"?

    No {bash} I was only kidding {OW}, it was a {UGH} joke! Stop hitting me!

    :-)

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
    1. Re:You mean .. by Tatisimo · · Score: 1

      More like taking that "celebration" as an excuse to get some beer out and party. Kinda like Christmas, but no need to waste money on others. Cheers to GNU!

      --
      Give Kashyyyk back to the Wookies
    2. Re:You mean .. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps heading out to a shooting range to squeeze one off.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  22. Re:I wonder... by Freed · · Score: 1

    You imply that RMS is no longer a hacker fighting for the cause of free software, yet you conclude that you don't know what he's like now.

    If you're not what I suspect -- just another witless troll -- could you at least explain how the president of the FSF should better advocate its mission?

  23. Eben Moglen by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

    Eben Moglen - sounds like someone with 97 HP and a mace of disruption.

  24. Videos by eMbry00s · · Score: 3, Informative

    For some very nice informative talks, and good insight into the capabilities of Mr Moglen, check out some of these videos. I especially like the google tech talk lecture.

  25. Confused by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Something doesn't sound right. He's leaving, because "draft three" is done? Does that mean that draft three will become GPLv3? Because unless it does, then the process isn't at all complete, and he's leaving for other reasons (not that those reasons have to be inherently bad), but "We've got our third draft revision of a document that we're still working on out the door, so it seems like a perfectly natural time to leave" jars my logic detector.

    1. Re:Confused by Jeremiah+Stoddard · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to his blog entry, he's hoping that either draft 3 will become GPLv3 or at least with very little modification.

  26. Re:I wonder... by ozamosi · · Score: 1

    If I did, that was not my intention. What I wanted to say was that the common image of RMS is that he is no longer a hacker fighting for the cause of free software. I personally believe that although he is a bit too fundamentalistic for my taste sometimes, I largely sympathize with him.

  27. Makes you wonder... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Someone said Moglen is the Thomas Jefferson of the information age, and I'm inclined to agree.

    So does that mean Theo de Raadt is the Aaron Burr?

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  28. Re:I wonder... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > could you at least explain how the president of the FSF should better advocate its mission?

    Suffering to allow interviewers to call a system "Linux" with nothing prepended, without petulantly storming out, would be a great start.

  29. Nice summary; thanks. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    Just wanted to say thanks -- this is one of the better summaries of, and responses to the more common objections regarding, GPLv3, that I've seen.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  30. Re:BEEN ME LONG by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But there's no..

    oh, nevermind.

  31. Better headline: Eben Moglen Leaving the FSF board by Freed · · Score: 5, Informative

    The current headline sucks. As stated in TFA, Eben Moglen is only leaving the FSF board of directors. Of course, his role of general counsel to the FSF, which long preceded the director role, will continue.

  32. Re:I wonder... by Freed · · Score: 1

    OK, please point out my mistake here.

    The mission of the FSF is to promote free software to the exclusion of nonfree software. "Linux" is rarely used properly to refer to just the kernel, instead referring to an entire OS that often includes nonfree software. "GNU", OTOH, refers an entire OS of just free software, the kernel of which could be any one of several, including Linux.

    Thus we have a chasm. On the one hand, RMS is trying to advocate for having *only* free software, a position not at all suggested by "Linux". Indeed, Linus Torvalds himself has always rejected that advocacy, instead advocating an "open source" development model. On the other hand, a typical interviewer will, for several possible reasons, use only popular terms, such as "Linux" or "open source".

    So the question is, how should the chasm be bridged? After all, you realize that RMS must properly represent the FSF. In addition to a technical place, "GNU" has philosophical and historical importance -- importance that even sophisticated users are unaware of. Now this chasm could be bridged with explanations and qualifications at every turn without using the awkward "GNU/Linux" term. Could the many words work at least as well as the current "GNU/Linux" usage towards convincing people to support the FSF mission? It seems that RMS would have to work harder, and more generally this kind of effort would require more resources.

    Another way to see the "GNU/Linux" term is that it stops people from their chronic oversimplification. To resolve any confusion about "GNU/Linux", the unitiated might be more curious, perhaps enough to look up GNU, which IMHO is a very big step. How can we get people to look that term up so they may at least learn about software freedom?

    Stop me right now and tell me where I am going wrong, please. Of course, some interviews are not what they seem, but I assume you are referring to the honest variety.

    P.S. I dislike RMS's occasional rude and insensitive behavior, which would be helped with greater patience. Moreover, I disagree with some of his statements outside of the free software domain.

  33. RedHat and the 'ad clause' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The advertising clause may not look like much at first glance, but when you consider how many thousands of different copyrights might apply to a single commercial distribution

    Would this be like RedHat 5.X, their use of BSD's lp and the LACK of mentioning that at boot-up/advertising?

  34. Any relationship with the Ebens living on Serpo? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    just wondering...

  35. So here's to the true believers by Ricin · · Score: 0, Troll

    The one person (other than RMS) that's always pointed to by the more rabid GPL adherents, whenever they run out of ammo themselves, now abandon ships. He's not going to make sure (by his or RMS' super powers) that the GPL3 is going to prevail in court. What does that make you think? I think that your legal idol doesn't want to risk the cross. Now, how about you? How certain does that make you feel?

    Mod me down, I have karma burps.

  36. Re:I wonder... by tyler_larson · · Score: 1

    "is now seen as mostly fighting to make people refer to a free system as GNU/Linux..."

    If he's seen that way it's inaccurate. rms is as cogent as he's ever been, and still tackles large, complicated issues.

    Like, for example? Perhaps he just doesn't get any coverage when he's acting in a socially tolerable manner, but I really, truly haven't heard of anything important that RMS has actually accomplished in over a decade. I know that he (like so many others) has made some wholly ineffective forays against software patents, and I remember him raising a ruckus about wearing an RFID-equipped ID badge at the UN because it allowed him to be "tracked."

    I know that he makes a lot of noise, but I haven't heard of any instances where he's made a difference. Can you please list a few examples? I'm really interested to know.

    --
    "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
    RFC 1925
  37. Re:I wonder... by Raenex · · Score: 1

    Do SCO lawyers always wear dark sunglasses in court? I gotta admit, that's a pretty badass tactic!