Slashdot Mirror
Richard Stallman Proclaims Don't Follow Linus Torvalds
StonyandCher writes "Here is an interview with Richard Stallman about a range of free software topics including GPLv3 and comment on the Microsoft patent issue. Stallman has a go at Linus Torvalds even suggesting that if people want to keep their freedom they better not follow Torvalds.
From the interview 'Stallman: The fact that Torvalds says "open source" instead of "free software" shows where he is coming from. I wrote the GNU GPL to defend freedom for all users of all versions of a program. I developed version 3 to do that job better and protect against new threats. Torvalds says he rejects this goal; that's probably why he doesn't appreciate GPL version 3. I respect his right to express his views, even though I think they are foolish. However, if you don't want to lose your freedom, you had better not follow him.'"
There goes RMS again, letting his jealousy of Linus goad him into damaging his cause.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
And Richard Stalman can kiss my ass. I don't blindly follow nobody and nobody tell me who not to follow.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
First Stallman!
Stallman the visionary vs Linus the engineer.
Aaaah, what a deathmatch that would be...
Instead of whining about Linus how about you get your ass moving on your own kernel replacement?
I'm sure "SlashdotMedia" will improve on all the wonders that Dice Holdings blessed us all with
So how am I going to 'lose' my software freedom by 'following' Linus? Really, is there some reason that Linus is going to all of a sudden change from GPL V2? Because from where I sit, he probably can't and that's the main reason why there is no one looking to make or fork off a GPL V3 kernel -- because it probably can't be done.
My blog
Unfortunately, a large fraction of the world seem to disavow the fact that Stallman's efforts provided Torvalds with much of the opportunity on which he was able to capitalize.
In other news, RMS has revealed that the much anticipated GPLv4 will require anyone who uses or distributes GPLv4 code to refrain from showering.
Wasn't there a /. story about how businesses are "wrongly" calling their software "open source", when it doesn't count as "open source", because even though the source is open, it doesn't grant you the Four Freedoms, and "open source" and "free" are supposed to be the same thing?
But what do I know? I've committed crimes against humanity in the past (i.e. releasing proprietary software).
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
I believe in "free" as in free-to-choose-my-own-damn-license-and-if-you-don't-like-it-go-write-your-own-damn-kernel.
Oh... but wait...
I don't think Linus gives a hoot about folks "following" him. That's Stallman's obsession, IMHO. He's the one leading a crusade...
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
Stallman blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah etc.
Not intended to be a troll or a flame, but I always turn the mental volume knob down when RMS is involved.
I ask this rhetorically because I don't feel like googling. It's always ugly when a cause eats its own. You don't normally see that outside the Democratic Party, or the Donner Party for that matter. Circular firing squad, anyone?
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
richard 2, linus 1, theo 0.
http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-07.htm
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
Nerd Fight!
only a moron cares what torvalds thinks. just look at his crappy software, that's cause enough to dismiss him as a jackass.
So, Stallman helps create GPL v3, and then when interest is mild among the big, successful, commercial open source projects, he starts slamming them? My way or the high way?
Yes, there's a difference between Free Software and Open Source Software, and both kinds will exist, whatever Stallman wishes, and OSS is more successful. That's also not what Stallman wishes, but.. wake up and smell reality. Do something constructive about it instead of this whining.
Since Torvalds doesn't position himself as a leader anyway.
As naive as I find it, Torvalds has always made a big thing about "not doing the politics", so if you're looking to him for anything other than commentary on patches and architectural discussions, you're looking in the wrong place.
And no, Stallman's not trolling, he's just being Stallman. That's why we love him. Or not, as the case may be.
Linus belongs much more closely to the "Open Source" movement [ESR] than to "Free Software" [RMS]. Although I hesitate to classify Linus in any way. He does his own thing.
Stallman's view that you can "lose your freedom" is similar to the argument that "piracy is stealing".
No matter how much I release derived software in violation of the GPL, your freedom is not reduced any more than if I hadn't. There is nothing I could do to prevent you from taking the current version of Linux and changing it to do what you want.
Is someone feeling a bit marginalized, and bit irked that Linux has overshadowed HURD?
This is simply another case in the feud stallman has against torvald.
Remember the whole 'gnu/Linux' thing a few years back? Stallman likes to pick these fights, while Linus seems to shrug and roll his eyes.
GPLv3 seems to prevent measures to block cheaters. Running GPLv3 software on a gaming platform means that the user not only gets the source and gets to replace it, but also means that the replacement must be able to appear on the gaming network exactly as unmodified software would. The user running modified software can't even be flagged as such, to warn the other users.
Outside of a narrow range of technical topics, I don't think Linus has much of a clue about anything. This includes legal matters. Think about the Linux copyrights.. instead of assigning them to a single entity, Linus let EACH of the hundreds of contributors keep their copyright. And think of the BK fiasco.
However, since I believe that going forward, LEGAL issues will be much more important than TECHNICAL issues when it comes to computer code, I prefer to listen to RMS a little more closely. The "pedantry" that RMS displays is exactly what you need in a courtroom, while the "arrogance" of Linus is exactly what you don't.
I'm free to follow anyone I want. I call that real freedom.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
All I got out of reading the article is a bunch of hyperbole that amounted to "If you're not with us, you're against us." He may or may not have very valid reasons for believing what he says, but he'd do a lot better to actually state them in the confines of the interview, or at least one aspect of them. He may not quite understand that everybody reading might not be intimately familiar with the details of GPLv3 versus GPLv2 (or other licenses), and the nature of the rhetoric isn't exactly inspiring to do more digging.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
unfortunately for Stallman a recent /. poll showed that there are very few commies left in the world.
I may care about freedom in the communist sense but others only care about open source and free as in beer.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Frankly I have preferred a BSD style license over any form of the GPL, but now doubly so.
Is millions of users not uninstalling Gnu/Linux.
"They can take away my geekdom, but they can't take away my FREEDOM!!!!"
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
"Unfortunately, a large fraction of the world seem to disavow the fact that Stallman's efforts provided Torvalds with much of the opportunity on which he was able to capitalize."
Which reminds me of Bill Gates and the opportunity of being in the right place at the right time with the right action.
Would someone please shut Stallman up? I'm sick to death of him pushing GNU/Linux? WTF? Who gives a rats ass if it does or does not have GNU in front of it? Seriously? This argument is not only childish it's pointless. He's a complete idiot and nothing he says has ever done anything more that make my teeth itch like fingernails down a chalk board. The difference between Free Software and Open Source is slightly more than the spelling. But not much. My god man, get over yourself and take your ego with you when you leave.
Bloody idiotic egomaniac. This is the exact same kind of fundamentalist zealotry that wants to destroy Christianity and anything other than what Allah wants, does anyone else see that?
Pax Vobiscum
Why does Linus hate freedom?
Apologies to Fox News...
the FSF incompetent management style has failed, after 15 years, to deliver a decent operating system. since then,
we have seen openbsd, freebsd, half a dozen decent linux distributions, and so forth, beos was created, sold, and died while we were waiting. windows 95, 98, 2000, and ME, all came and went, and we were waiting for hurd. Apple scrapped Copland, took Next's os, and created OSX, and soon will release its 5th major version, all while we waited for hurd.
RMS needs to analyze his management style, and ask himself, honestly, or get someone else to analyze it for him, why his organization, the FSF, has been unable to build a usable basic OS in the past 15 years.
Are we going to see Stallman follwers going around carring signs with "Torvalds lied, Wildebeests died."?
This kind of thing is why we need options in the open source world. The most critical FSF-controlled project is GCC, for which there is no alternative. The only promising alternative I have read about is the LLVM backend with the new C/Obj. C/C++ clang frontend in early development. The real danger of all of this infighting is that it just fragments the community (watch the flame-fest that accompanies this story) at a time when open source software is making real progress. To outsiders (IT managers, decision makers, etc.), it just gives another reason to avoid open source software. Even worse, it splits the effort (and funding) of the open source development community. I'm contradicting myself here, I know. I just don't follow RMSs philosophy. I don't think many of the businesses funding open source developers do either. But that just the unimportant opinion of one guy...
it always leaves one side out. mr. stallman's comments are usually intentionally misconstrued in order to attempt to raise the hooplah level.
meanwhile, back at the debacle we lovingly call man'kind', yOUR fearful 'leaders' continue to develop more&more cruel & unusual ways to create additional debt & disruption for most of US, while our fellow humans across the water continue to explode by yOUR hand.
infactdead corepirate nazis still WAY off track
(Score:-1, Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 01, @09:35AM (#20433195)
it's only a matter of time/space/circumstance.
previous post:
mynuts won 'off t(r)opic'???
(Score:-1, Offtopic)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 30, @10:22AM (#20411119)
eye gas you could call this 'weather'?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8004881114 [google.com] [google.com] 646406827 [google.com]
be careful, the whack(off)job in the next compartment may be a high RANKing corepirate nazi official.
previous post:
whoreabull corepirate nazi felons planning trips
(Score: mynuts won, robbIE's 'secret' censorship score)
by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 01, @12:13PM (#20072457)
in orbit perhaps? we wouldn't want to be within 500 miles of the naykid furor at this power point.
better days ahead?
as in payper liesense hypenosys stock markup FraUD felons are on their way out? what a revolutionary concept.
from previous post: many demand corepirate nazi execrable stop abusing US
we the peepoles?
how is it allowed? just like corn passing through a bird's butt eye gas.
all they (the nazi execrable) want is... everything. at what cost to US?
for many of US, the only way out is up.
don't forget, for each of the creators' innocents harmed (in any way) there is a debt that must/will be repaid by you/US as the perpetrators/minions of unprecedented evile will not be available after the big flash occurs.
'vote' with (what's left in) yOUR wallet. help bring an end to unprecedented evile's manifestation through yOUR owned felonious life0cidal glowbull warmongering execrable.
some of US should consider ourselves very fortunate to be among those scheduled to survive after the big flash/implementation of the creators' wwwildly popular planet/population rescue initiative/mandate.
it's right in the manual, 'world without end', etc....
as we all ?know?, change is inevitable, & denying/ignoring gravity, logic, morality, etc..., is only possible, on a temporary basis.
concern about the course of events that will occur should the life0cidal execrable fail to be intervened upon is in order.
'do not be dismayed' (also from the manual). however, it's ok/recommended, to not attempt to live under/accept, fauxking greed/fear/ego based pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking hypenosys.
consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?
IMHO, Open Source forms the bridge between proprietary and free software. Very few business people are ready to commit to free software (AFAIK). Linus Torvalds sits in the middle and does what he feels is right and it appears quite a large segment of the planet agrees with his take.
Richard Stallman has a point and he has proven it too, but he seems incapable of recognising that you can't change black into white in one generation, that takes time.
Linus and, for instance, Mark Shuttleworth et al are nicely paving the way, but it's taking too long for Richard and I think there's a bit of an ego thing here where Linus gets the nice interviews and press where Richard is barely mentioned.
Well, life's tough. If he could make things a little bit less fanatic and stressed it could make matters go a long way towards getting some coverage, but the press generally doesn't take very much to people that appear to be frustrated hippies with a message.
Even if they're right..
Insert
The free software movement already has many working kernels. Getting Hurd working is not the most important thing RMS could work on.
His job is to make sure that the free software movement will last - make sure people value it and protect it.
Here's a transcript of one of his talks, and there's more where that came from.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Linus gets things done. RMS appears to be an politics person. This may explain why Linux is widely popular and GNU Hurd is moribund. Rather than moaning about Linus does or doesn't say, or rather pointless quibbling over "GNU/Linux" perhaps RMS should be whipping GNU Hurd into competitive shape.
Freedom is not appreciated by owners of mainstream computer architectures and mainstream operating system. Under x86 and a few other common architectures, most stuff is already supported, such as Flash on Linux x86 or the NVidia binary drivers.
Now, have you ever tried running any of those things under less common architectures? SPARC systems with FreeBSD? Linux on Alpha?
Sure, your pretty GeForce will run great on Windows, even Linux, but you have to remember Linux is not the end-all of operating systems and x86 is not the end-all of computer architectures. The future has new and better things for us all, and that's where open formats and systems count, preserving our software and documents, making them future-proof. 15 years from now you'll still be able to run Apache on NetBSD on an IBM pSeries (yes, an unlikely software-hardware combo, but I'm making a case here). Probably 25 years from now GCC will still be the premier compiler on the large majority of architectures, and Visual Studio and Borland will be relegated to fairy tales. Who'll remember Flash? Who remembers a large amount of software written for MacOS 9, or the Commodore 64? Already there's a lot of games made for Windows 98 that won't run on Vista. Who will you be crying to when you'll want to retrieve your old data or experiment with older libraries or systems?
The beauty of Free Software becomes apparent only on those time frames. THEN Stallman's critics will see his point.
I find this GNU/Linux operating system intriguing. Where could one download it?
In essence that's the problem here: Stallman has always been on a mission to make computers and their software free and accessible, without a lot of restrictions as to what you can do with the software. Linus has just been trying to build on and improve an operating system -- he doesn't put himself out in front, but seems to recognize that people are going to ask his opinion because of his position with Linux.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
It wasn't turning up anything exciting anyway.
--- What?
what are the chances now of the kernel being released under GPLv3 after the man in charge of linux kernel is called a "fool" by a rather hairy dude
I've found that a great many of the people who criticize and dismiss RMS are often people who make extensive use of GNU tools -- I think it's worth taking a moment every now and again to consider what kind of FOSS world we'd have right now if it weren't for RMS and his mates. Yes he's an idealist, but you know -- principles are important in life, regardless of how preachy the may seem from time to time.
Wow, every time i read something about this guy I think he's more and more crazy.
"You'd better not follow Torvalds if you value your freedom" (paraphrased)
Who does this guy think he is, and what exactly does he think his role and Linus' role are? They arent spiritual leaders They aren't politicians. They might sort of be 'leaders of a movement', but it's a movement that really doesn't mean much outside of the IT community.
Someone needs a reality check.
Wait, wait, wait just a damn minute.
Now Linus is being the epytome of evil proprietary software defenders?
I mean, the Linux kernel is *STILL* released under GPL V2, or during my trip to Mars something changed, and now it has a Microsoft EULA attached?
Until last (boreal) spring, GPL V2 wasn't the best, "freest" license around, according to RMS and FSF themselves? Now that they have to push another product, all of sudden, the past version has become non free?
You should sound like an pathetic old brat, if you accuse your peers of using the same tool you touted as earthsaver only six months before, instead of blindly jumping on the ideology bandwagon you're at the helm of.
This wouldn't be a change. Linus already used and advertised BitKeeper, which was completely proprietary software.
Relicensing the Linux kernel quite possible, if they want to.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Those Microsoft turfers really hate GPL3 don't they. Now we get minor discussions portrayed as fights.
I haven't read the GPL3 but it must be good if there's so much FUD about it.
Richard has some points, but he remains a crusader, not an engineer. His ideas are good, and truth is, we wouldn't be where we are today without his ideology to assist us. Perhaps, rather than villify, or dismiss, we try and see it from his perspective, and from the viewpoint of the other side?
Me, I studied GPL v3, and for it's intended goal, it's well crafted. Is it the right choice for Linux? I don't feel so, but GPL v2 fits it fine. But, if Linus said GPL v3 tomorrow, I'd be fine with it. if he says GPL v2 forever, I'm also fine with it.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
RMS can say what he wants, but he is a very lucky in that Linus T. decided to hook up with GNU. I have no doubt that, without that, we would still be waiting for the GNU kernel, and he would have no soapbox at all.
That was the name the non-it people in the antitrust hearings have nicknamed the open source crowd with. "The Hairy Guys" they said, put forth some good arguments. "The suits" they said, have paled in comparison.
you should know what you all are, people. you are "Hairy guys" who are on the same side, against the evil software cartels. you should act like one of the "hair"s, and not fight within.
Read radical news here
Even in the quoted summary RMS is not saying "don't follow Linus" he is saying "Don't follow Linus if you want to keep your freedom" and the thing is that with a Linus that does not understand how required GPLv3 is and that is so indifferent about the MS patent deals, I am forced to say RMS is right on this one.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
In terms of software, "free software" and "open-source software" are the same (or they're two sets with 99.99% overlap).
The philosophies, however, are different.
The free software philosophy is that the freedom to help yourself and to cooperate with others as a community are freedoms everyone should have.
"Open source" was launched to rename "free software" to hide this ethical line of thinking - because it mightn't go down well with companies who want to publish a little bit of free software while still publishing most of their software as non-free software.
The the goal of the "open source" campaign is to hide the free software movement. Naturally, the goal of the free software movement is the exact opposite - they want people to support the free software movement.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
I tried to join Hurd development a couple of years ago. The mailing list was 80 - 90% spam, with the rest being more or less 'I reckon we could do this', comments.
OK, I'm generalizing, but the thing is I did not get the impression that it was a going concern. Instead what I saw was a dying project that couldn't even keep its own mailing list clear of viagra and penis extension adverts. Needless to say I ejected within a month or two. I suspect I am not alone, there were more than a few comments from people asking if the spam on the list could be stopped. I think the problem that Stallman has is that his utopia has failed along with hurd, and he doesn't like what survived to supplant it.
Its a shame really. In my day to day work I rely totally on GCC, and I use other gnu foundation products all the time. I think they're amazing coders, but they seem unwilling to admit that the world is changing. Not everyone is filled with respect for someone who can code good C these days. Most of the time they just want to find out how you talk to each other so they can try to sell you penis related products. That and no-one in their right mind uses emacs willingly.
Who's going to attempt to enforce, much less sue in court, in this scenario?
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
you crossed it.
i have problems with RMS, but equating him with al qaeda is not really
very convincing as an argument.
furthermore, without RMS there would be no GCC, the foundation of, well, a lot.
take a chill pill brother.
The day that legal issues become more important than technical issues when developing software will be a very dark day.
Stallman is issuing one of his usual periodic decrees that people whose views differ from his own should not be listened to.
The people who usually do listen to such will listen to it and say Amen, and those who usually don't, most likely still won't this time either. The world will keep turning in more or less exactly the same way it does now.
It's things like this that cause me to periodically realise that it genuinely has been extremely stupid of me to get as upset as I have about the FSF in the past. The GPL 3, and Stallman continuing to issue statements such as this, make me realise that it is a problem with its' own solution.
Sure, he keeps making new followers...but he continues to alienate people as well. Two steps forward and two steps back essentially mean that you stay in exactly the same place.
v2 is still the 2nd best licence in the world.
OpenOffice.org, Mozilla, Java, Qt, Quake, etc. all chose Stallman's licences when they were releasing their code. Not bad, IMO.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
Better than FUD, if you have a strong enemy, sew division amongst his ranks and turn his principal actors against one another. Microsoft must be chuckling with a sound like swamp gas escaping a funereal bog.
technical writing / development
RMS is a zealot. He believes that his path to the goal is the only path. Does anybody else think that's likely?
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
without a lot of restrictions
Except for the devlopers. Taking freedom from one group and giving to an other is always dangerious.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Shouldn't Stallman call his entire GNU project AT&T/GNU? I mean, he's trying to force the whole GNU/Linux thing down everyone's throat... What platform did he start his whole GNU project on? Let's say for argument sake, that the GNU Compiler and tools started on AT&T Unix. Well, technically, under Stallman's claims, he should be calling the entire project AT&T/GNU because it wouldn't have existed without that platform. I honestly think Stallman is mad because Linus actually created something of use to the world and all Stallman can do is talk, whine and get fat.
I don't agree with everything RMS says about Open Source vs. Closed Source software, but anything that makes DRM extinct is a good thing in my book, DRM has no right to exist in this universe.
If it was about freedom, it wouldn't force me to open my code just because I linked someone else's code without making any changes because it's suddenly a 'derivative work' as a whole. I should be allowed to choose what I'm going to do with my own intellectual property without signing it over to the community at large.
the GPL isn't about freedom, it's just a different set of restrictions on what you can do.
ADVENTURERS! - ANTIHERO FOR HIRE - CARDMASTER CONFLICT
And if Linus had done, maybe we'd all have that free driver by now.
...and that's exactly what the big companies will continue to shine the light there.
The big companies rally everyone to worship Linus, and with the spotlight on, he does: nothing.
Please help publicise swpat.org - the software patents wiki
This is an interview from clear back on the 2nd draft of GPLv3.
Someone is trying to fan an old fire back into life.
So RMS is saying I don't get to choose, I have to do exactly what he says or else I'm wrong? Feels like freedom is lacking a little bit in that...
he was on that mission, but as far as I can tell from recent comments by RMS, his mission has become to promote Richard Stallman and the "Only my freedom is really free enough" point of view. Unlike Linus, RMS is all about putting himself out front. His interviews and talks remind me of a four-year-old's "Look at me! Look at me! Look at me" behavior. I don't know what he's like in person, but his public persona is a self-promoting bastard.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Excellent point! Perhaps one of the most interesting posts I've read on slashdot in years, and I am not being sarcastic. I think a lot of success in life can be attributed to one's ability to see inside others' minds based on what they say and do, and your post is a great example of that.
Did it ever occur to you that if all Linux copyrights were in one place, Linux would be really easy to kill for someone with a lot of money?
And I seem to remember some software company from out in Utah being rather pedantic to the point of zealotry in some court somewhere. Could you tell us how that's working out for them?
I have no problem with "free software" as Stallman uses the term.
However, what RMS calls freedom is questionable. Where I come from (ideologically), freedom includes a freedom of property -- the right to do with your property as you wish. Criticizing someone for how they choose to use their property, whether it be intellectual or real property, is hardly an encouragement of freedom.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
Linus prefers a pragmatic approach, whereas Stallman sounds more like a religious zealot at times: "you can be redeemed in only one way, by following me! Don't follow the false prophets for you will lose your freedom!"
Oh look, he said "open source" instead of "free software". Heresy! Burn the witch! Everyone who has read the scriptures of the Free Software Faith (FSF) should know better!
That said, I really like what Stallman has done for the software world, sometimes he could use a somewhat smaller ego though, IMHO.
Every expression is true, for a given value of 'true'
StoneCypher is Full of BS
This petty criticism of RMS just goes to show that Neanderthals can learn to write code and still be knuckle-walkers. Without the GNU project founded by RMS what would computing be like today? A little respect is in order even from those who disagree with idea of favoring free software and that some evolution is possible for those whose psychological development was arrested somewhere in the early teens .
...
What a weird contradiction. Damn you RMS, for designing non-free GPL licenses?"However, if you don't want to lose your freedom, you had better not follow him."
I wonder if GPL v3 is only a "free" license until GPL v4 is released?
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
really lets be honest, stallman wants to be able to use your stuff if you want him to or not, torvalds wants you to be able to sell your stuff if you want.
i feel "free" with the penguin not the wildebeest.
Which of course means. They should both get in their giant battle robots and have at it, last bot standing wins.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
Linus started with *one* developer. the Linux kernel project grew and attracted developers. So what's the deal with Hurd? It's a science project, not a kernel for real world use. Has some cool ideas that one day might work its way into a kernel for the real world. If you don't engineer something for the real world, don't be surprised if not too many people can use it.
Exactly! RMS is a politician and 'free' software fundamentalist. We have at least two perfect licenses. BSD for almost total freedom and GPLv2 for freedom limited (and orthogonally promoted) by moralic constraints.
I don't want people like RMS pumping their politics into my software code's licenses! His crusade is purely political and belongs onto the political stage. That's why Linus' productive output surpasses Stallman's by a factor 1000. Man get a grip and produce stuff under whatever license you like. But if you don't even produce anything, but complaints, just shut up!
It's funny (or actually sad) to see people complain every day on Slashdot about Microsoft blackscreens, Sony rootkits, HDDVD/BluRay DRM, and Apple iLockedoutPhones when every single one of these issues is the freedom of the user being usurped by the company that sells it.
How can these same people now not understand what a lack of freedom is? Why are they so willing to trade their freedom, for a lifetime of complaining on Slashdot about every company, politician, or government, when the only person that is truely at fault is themselves.
Yes and it was such a subtle insight as well. I wonder how he ever picked up on it. Maybe the quote "However, if you don't want to lose your freedom, you had better not follow him (Torvalds)" could provide some clues to his deep inner thoughts.
YOU PICK THE LICENSE.
Unless you didn't write all the code, in which case you're NOT a developer. You're using the fruits of the labour of another developer. And if you think you should be allowed to ignore the license of the code of another developer, can I have your code? If you deny me, then you're a hypocrite.
The developer of their own code has all the rights they need. They use whatever license they want. A developer using someone else's code has no right to that others' code. So the FSF cannot restrict the rights of developers unless they buy/pressure laws forbidding any license other than GPL be used on software.
Hello, I'm RMS, and I deserve to be more popular than Linus Torvalds. WAYYY more popular. And I deserve more dates. WAYYYY more dates. With supermodels.
Basically, I'm jealous. He has the street cred with the young hackers that I ought to have. I personally wrote the GPL, all of its versions, using emacs. The lawyers came in just to fix my spelling. Really! I also wrote GCC. All of it. Every single version. I used a lot of pseudonyms to make it look like a collaboration, but I did it all.
I wrote ncurses. But no one thanks me for that....
I also coded all of Linux. At least I would have, if HURD would have worked just like the Linux kernel does. Did you know that HURD works on my desktop at home? If you had the same hardware I have, it would work for you too. Then we would have freedom!
Did you also know I invented free software? All of it. Even the bits labeled with a BSD license. As I said, I use a lot of pseudonyms. I had to work at not throwing up all over the keyboard when I typed the BSD license into my code. It worked almost every time.
Basically, you should all listen to me and do what I do. That's freedom. That's the way we'll make a better world. You do _want_ a better world, don't you? You shouldn't listen to Linus Torvalds. He has a big nose. And don't listen to Theo The Rat. He's obnoxious. Don't listen to Bruce Perens -- OK, nobody _is_ listening to Bruce Perens, but my overall point is listen to me. Me, me, me. So, la, fah, tee, doh! Freedom is me, and I am freedom! Let freedom reign!
I still need a girlfriend, too.
Did you know that I invented freedom?
Uh, thank you, RMS. Could you please sit down so we can continue the Egocentrics Anonymous meeting?
Following people, yeah, that's freedom you dumb shit. Remember there are smart people here, save your thoughtless crap for ZDNet.
"If you neglect the values of freedom and social solidarity, and appreciate only powerful reliable software, you are making a terrible mistake." -RMS
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
I couldn't even if I wanted to. I don't his phone number.
The histories of GNU and of Linux are open books available to anyone with internet access and a willingness to do a little reading.
The record shows that Linux had become successful on its own merits before Torvalds adopted the GPL. There can be no doubt that if Linux had not been put under the GNU license, it would still have become a technical and pragmatic alternative to proprietary operating systems and other open operating systems of that day.
Going with the GPL certainly helped speed Linux's development, and probably avoided some pitfalls. But there is no free beer: these benefits did not come without a price. Putting up with RMS is part of that price. Unfortunately.
I strongly believe in much of what RMS has to say. However I strongly disagree with his insistence on attaching ego to ownership of specific source code, and I think that he should keep his personal ego problems off the public stage.
As to the latest GNU license, it is a good effort, it is not the final effort, and it is not the goal. The goal is GratisLibreOpenSourceSoftware: GLOSS.
The next visible summit on the way to GLOSS is a reworking of law so that the principles set forth in a GNU license become a part of public society rather than the terms of a private contract, as they are now. But that summit is far up the road; getting there is going to take a long time and much effort.
Meanwhile, the GNU license is one of several convenient baskets that anyone can use to carry along their stuff on the way to that distant summit. It is a particularly well woven basket, but it is not the only way to carry your stuff, and it is certainly not the goal.
RMS is an idealist. With a beard. The "last true hacker". He has got visions and i agree with most of his ideas.
Torvalds is a somewhoat unappealing person. But he started things that actually work. He is an engineer.
We need both types, and I think its good that there is a discussion. Discussions are democratic and they show that the free software movement is alive. There is no need to pick a side. There is no overall truth. But somewhere between those two viewpoints, there are most probably some sensible positions.
Why do we still have this battle of which license is most free? The only truly free license is the WTFPL:
http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/
Instead of whining about GPLv3 how about you get your ass moving on your own GCC replacement?
Stallman's done more than just about anybody for the Free Software community. And you are criticising him for not doing yet more? Give me a break.
Bitkeeper caused a fairly significant revolution in the way the way Linus accepted new patches. It resulted in fewer patches being dropped, and made it easier for others to see the change history.
BK was dropped after multiple years of successful use when a coworker of Linus' decided to violate the licensing terms of the free version and BK enforced the terms of the license.
Because of his experience with BK, Linus couldn't handle going back to the old way of doing things. This was the driving force behind his writing git, which is the current version control system for kernel code.
Theo de Raat killed a goat with his bare hands then gorged himself in its blood, all the while with a modest smirk.
The daemon[BSD] will rise again.... Say what you will of our license and operating systems. While the Linux community is squabbling about who has the larger junk, the BSD people are busy working on getting solid products out the door.
Website Hosting
sigs are hazardous to your health
Apparently, Stallman believes that freedom means "be restricted into doing the 'right' thing, as I see it!".
Does he actually do any technical work anymore, or does he now spend all his time doing photo-ops with third world dictators, and sabatoging open source projects?
That's strange, I have never read or heard him say that. In fact, I think he encourages to listen to *all* arguments and make up your own mind. He thinks that freedom to use, study, modify and redistribute code is extremely important. He clearly states that Linus has a different point of view. How's that equal to saying people should not listen to what Linus has to say?
RMS doesn't want you to listen to him and simply say 'Amen', he wants you to listen to him and understand why freedom is important.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
He clearly states that Linus has a different point of view. How's that equal to saying people should not listen to what Linus has to say?
He said that people should not "follow" Linus. How would you define that?
RMS doesn't want you to listen to him and simply say 'Amen', he wants you to listen to him and understand why freedom is important.
Euphemism FTW.
Thank you for that insightful comment; very well said indeed. Principles are absolutely important, and idealists equally so. Like him or hate him, Stallman has stuck unwaveringly to his principles, and the software world would be a much, much poorer place for his absence.
What is sad is that RMS doesn't realize that he himself is one of the major inhibiting factors in the uptake of FOSS. Rightly or wrongly, a movement is typically defined by its most public face, and his abrasive and combative personality practically guarantees that most average folks won't give FOSS a second look, no matter how worthwhile and valuable it may be to them, merely because they're turned off by the guy. It's just human nature to resist being pushed, I guess. No one likes to be bullied and beaten over the head with principles, even if they're good for you.
WMF just noted that JCR has trolled about RMS, who disagrees with ESR and LBT on the best version of GPL to USE for OSS and maybe other FSF. Inquiring minds want to know WTF?
You can't handle the truth.
Come on, how funny would that be? Stallman vs. hmmm, I dunno, Gates? Linus? Take your pick; all humorous.
Your argument above is like the view that not being able to upgrade one's copy of Windows is in no way a detriment... after all, the OS still does all the stuff it originally did at the time of purchase, so there's no backslide, right? Except that hardware needs evolve, software needs evolve, security needs evolve. A three-year-old unpatched version of windows IS worse than it was at the time of purchase... there's lots of new software you can't run, your ability to upgrade to new and more powerful machines is hampered, and your defenses against the latest viruses are laughable.
Similarly, Stallman doesn't want the ongoing evolution of software to leave behind the very people who got that software to its original baseline.
An example, somewhat contrived for the sake of stark illustration: suppose hardware vendors begin putting some new piece of hardware on all new motherboards such that it became impossible to purchase a motherboard without this hardware. Maybe the hardware is a video chip deemed to be the be-all end-all, or some new variety of tcpa chip through which all bus transmissions travel. Suppose it's impossible to meaningfully operate such a motherboard without involving the new hardware. And, suppose the hardware is proprietary, without free drivers or controllers. This could end in a situation where it's not possible to run Linux on the machine.
Doesn't sound all that crazy to me. Lord knows, it's not like vendors' consciences would prevent them from doing this; if for-profit organizations could charge you $10 per breath until you were dead, without getting themselves into legal trouble, many would do it in a snap. And from a technological viability standpoint I doubt the impossibility of this scenario. Just how likely or unlikely it is seems hard to guess, but at this point in time -- with our corrupt governments, unabashedly greedy corporations, and woefully uninformed populace, it seems plausible to speculate that the outcome could be determined by factors other than "what's good for the consumer". In fact, the only fly in the ointment for the corporate overlords might just end up being that there's a little technicality known as "the law" which demands corporations respect various licenses, among them the GPL.
So I don't particularly blame Stallman for targeting parts of the GPL v3 at such scenarios. In fact, rather than critizing him or calling him a zealot, I rather find myself inclined to feel thankful that someone has their thinking cap on.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
OK, personal attacks aside, RMS is absolutely a character. Is he a zealot? Perhaps, but extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue. Linus is a visionless fool who does not see the danger. RMS is the man saying that there is real danger and trying to wake people to realities that confront us. The "freedom" the GPL seeks to provide is the protection from people like Microsoft who will take what open source of free software authors write, close it off, change it subtly, force it out in their monopoly platform, and basically deny the original authors the benefit of their work. Or make patent deals that exclude authors and force users, out of FUD, to pay for licenses they shouldn't need. Or take code modify it, sell it as a Tivo, and use a loophole to the original authors original intentions. RMS sees these as the real threats they are. Linus ignores them. So, bash RMS if you will, but progress is never made by "reasonable" people, "reasonable" people are the "frogs on a hotplate," they don't see the danger until it is too late.
If you have hundreds of developers, you can afford to pick cumbersome development tools and languages and organize your code badly, and still eventually release (albeit with bugs). Like Linus does.
If you have a couple of developers, obviously, developing a million line C kernel is out of the question. If an alternative kernel is supposed to make it, its developers have to be smarter, use better tools, etc.
But the reason so few people do kernel development at all is because it's boring infrastructure; who cares what's in the kernel as long as it moves the bits from disk to memory and then to the network.
making propriatory and other insufficiently free licenses possible.
What's the point of copyright? An exchange of rights between the public and private individual that leads to the betterment of both. So how does this work with software.
Closed: You pay money, get product. Propriator gets to tell you what you can do and when. No recompense to the public.
Open: You pay money, get product. Propriator gets to restrict others use of binary and source. Public gets to learn new cool things computers can do from the open source code. Fair exchange.
So the closed source doesn't help the public. The only public recompense for their voluntary right to express their knowledge (and copying information sold to them is a natural right) is made when the source code (the only human expressible version of the code) is made available.
NOTE: this does NOT require that users be allowed to compile or incorporate the source into their own works (unless such actions are allowed by copyright law: e.g. testing the binary IS from the source, or unprotectable elements copied verbatim, etc). All it requires is that for every binary sold, the new owner of the copy gets the source.
RMS would be fine with that. Althouth you may not be allowed to fix the printer driver problem, if you were taken to court over it, the copyright owner would have a hell of a time showing that they were harmed by someone fixing their bugs.
So just STOP the law that makes closing the source possible. No need to make closed source ILLEGAL.
"Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 22 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"
Linux is propably the best thing ever happened to GPL v2, Stallman should be grateful for that.
The Linux kernel developers have the right to choose the licence they like. Changing the licence is going to be hard anyway, if it happens some day.
As an enduser I think Linux is what gives me most freedom. I could install some BSD on my machines, but I don't believe I would get same level of usability and I don't think RMS would suggest Windows or OS X.. solaris or hurd maybe? I don't think so.
So he must be talking to developers. don't they have the right to choose any licence that fits their needs best?
They do. So RMS is just lobbying his new licence, because he's afraid Linus has too much influence out side kernel development.
...to consider here is Stallman's choice of terminology. As many of us who've read his material will know, Stallman is a pedant who chooses his words very deliberately and carefully.
Given this, the fact that he is telling people not to "follow" Torvalds I think says some very interesting things about his possible view of human self-responsibility. It certainly isn't the type of language I'd expect to hear from a supposed self-admitted anarchist; the single main supporting pillar of a functional hypothetical anarchist society would be the complete and total self-responsibility of all individuals involved. Stallman's wording here suggests that, rather than promoting that ideal, he expects people to choose between a given number of leaders to follow; that is, individuals external to ourselves who we abdicate self-responsibility and the need to form our own ideology to, in exchange for the convenience of being able to avoid the risk and effort required to form our own beliefs, or take our own actions that we would be required to be accountable for.
That isn't anarchic, and it isn't anything that promotes an anarchic social model. It is, by contrast, extremely centralist and authoritarian.
We did that already
http://gsoc.cat-v.org/projects/kencc/
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Many years ago, my parents were entertained by a TV character called Archie Bunker. One of the more comical traits of this TV character was that of being Proudly Ignorant. Richard Stallman's comments from the TFA are either satire, or one who is tragically uninformed. A simple news paper reading of activities of the past year from such companies like Sony, and Microsoft painfully show that for all the pious reasons, the solution can go horribly wrong. It has been my personal experience that by having a solution of Open Source, that one can easily answer the question, "But what else is happening inside the program?" Conservative users would find this question chilling, when comparing it to their current software solutions.
"Before the Gods make you fall, they first give you the gift of Pride." - Ancient Greek Saying
1 - You must attribute the original owner of the code and all contributors in all future versions and renditions
2 - You must not use this code in commercial enterprise (paid for) software without consent of the original owner and other contributors
3 - If you use this software for distributed applications, you must include all source code for the version used
There, free software.
This is what I've been saying for quite a while, but people really dont want to hear it.
I mean, look, free software is typically pretty decent, an alternative to what most people use, and pay for.
Most everyone will like the notion of actually being able to ask for (or implement themselves) a feature or bugfix for applications, games, and utilities they use every day.
The problem with GPL isn't even necessarily that it restricts proprietary software. That is freedom-limiting, yes, but, *most* of the time, someone who's going to make proprietary software already has a lot of money, and is looking to make more. Most of the time, the GPL won't actually stop them, though. They either simply ignore the license, or try to get around it (for instance, using executable wrappers to interface with libraries or programs). For the most part, anyone doing that also has "More Money Than God" and can afford an absurd number of lawyers to, at minimum, drag it out in court for years, all the while making a huge profit.
Where the GPL really steps in and has its weight, is against other, non-GPL licenses. You can simply absorb most other open source code, and say 'screw you' to the original developers (like what Torvalds said he'd do with Solaris code if it had a compatible license). In essence, all it does is prevent BSD, MIT, X11, etc licensed software from incorporating or linking to GPLed software (with the exception of LGPL, for obvious reasons) or even making use of most of it in other ways.
GNU actively encourages the use of GPL for libraries, even though they know what it does to other, free software. In essence, dynamic linking to a library isn't "stealing", but GNU views it as a purely derivate work. That's become particularly nasty once things like MySQL switch from LGPL to GPL, and oh, terrific, or even that Trolltech used GPL (previously without exclusions for other licenses). I doubt many people wishing to write, say, a decent looking BSD-licensed front-end (say, Qt4 frontend for MySQL) have the money to spend thousands of dollars on licenses in the 'alternative', since they don't wish to entangle their users further with GPL.
Isn't that one of the things the GPL claims to product against? The supposed Microsoftian 'Embrace and Extend' broken standards? Even the Linux Kernel has, in the past, and more recently, demonstrated its willingness to take from BSD-licensed code without giving contributing anything back, while there are plenty of more liberally licensed software that continues to make itself compatible for the platform.
Mind, licensing something, such as an application, under BSD, MIT, X11, or anything else, obviously doesn't extend 'down'. So unlike the arguments of many, having a BSD licensed program can't "infect" or diminish the rights of a GPL (or LGPL) library, that'd also be the case regardless of if it's proprietary or not. BSD programs can also cheerily run on proprietary libraries, but since the GPL tries to infect upwards, nope, not allowed. How is that encouraging open source, I have to keep asking?
Freedom isn't about *forcing* someone to do something like that, so at the least, the GPL should provide a cheery exclusion for libraries that happen to the license, to keep it from infecting upwards (which the LGPL already effectively does, but fewer and fewer people use it, and GNU says you should never normally use it for libraries), at least for other open source software with a OSI-approved and otherwise 'GPL compatible' license. That does a bit more of what the supposed intent is, encourage open source, give credit to people, give proprietary software something to think about before stealing willy nilly, while still affecting truly derived entities under the same license.
How many people *wouldn't* be enraged if the, say, standard cross-platform SSL, networking, or X11 library was actually GPL? Why, if you didn't want to use GPL, for both alternative open source or proprietary reasons, you'd be utterly screwed, because at best, you couldn't provide i
"A Goddess rarely smiles for she is forced by others to be an island unto herself." - Zephiris
"Stallman doesn't care about any of that, per se:"
Stallman is pretty clear he doesn't care about anything else AT ALL--and if YOU do, you're stupid, doomed to slavery or both. This does not win him a vastly growing pool of allies. But, he doesn't care about that either, because those people aren't RMS clones and who would want to associate with anyone but RMS or an exact copy? Only stupid, doomed, enslaved fools, that's who.
There's a fine line between single-minded yet reasoned devotion to an idea and just being a fanatical loon. I sense lately that RMS has irrecoverably fallen over the cliffs of insanity into the latter category.
He is right. In his old age Linus is trying to steer Linux into a more commercially viable product. No matter how you spin it free software is not a profitable model and never will be. It may exert some level of power but even if you had a better product and more software than Mac or Windows they would still out market Linux. That's why Linux will not make it as a desktop OS yet it will make it as a server because desktop sales rely on marketing while server sales rely on the OS being stable and secure. Those people buying desktops need to be convinced, those buying servers likely do not require marketing to get their interest. Having money helps in a lot of other ways as far as keeping your business afloat in the long run. If a company wants to make money it's going to need to go public and once it does any wealthy person or corporation can own it.
So what's a low profit OS to do ? Wait for socialism to take over ? As I've said Linux will be a the best OS once civilization unfolds and money isn't worth anything. Linux realizes in his age that for Linux to not fade off into the world of hobbyist it has to remain competitive in the free market and in it's current state under GPL it's simply insanely easy for wealth companies to OWN GPL made technology.
So if you have any uniquely good ideas certainly don't release them to GPL or companies like MS will just steal them and plug them into their billion dollar market. MS and other companies have only begone to take advantage of the fiscal weakness of Linux in a reality they could more or less wipe out the commercial existence of Linux through aggressive purchases, slander, and well anything else money can buy. Looking at the political system behind all this I'd say that's basically everything. Look no further than Redhat to see what can happen. People never like change but for the most part that is not an admirable quality.
I think Linux is clearly out of his expertise here. Does Linux have a degree in business law? No ? Well then he is not in a position to know where Linux is off best. Ask someone with credentials in the field not some programmer. If Linus was a businessman face it, Linux would not be the unorganized pile that it is and it would be profitable.
I think many linux users are under the false impression that because linux is free it will last forever and perhaps even overcome the for profit business models. To me, free linux is just the same as all those free web services that run on the idea of eventually profiting, but after awhile investors just get tired of losing money on profitless business models or simply breaking even.
I like the modularity of Linux, but it doesn't have to be such a splintered effort and there is sure a lot of lost productivity in the lack of organization. FreeBSD is making ground with a much more closed development and likely better performance and security. I don't know their licensing structure, but it's likely also easy to corrupt with wealth because ultimately, what isn't?
I think as the linux open source grows it's actually becoming less efficient while more tightly controlled projects like FreeBSD are gaining ground. The larger a project becomes the harder it is to manage through community development and the slower development becomes no matter how many people you throw at the project. It's not like building the pyramids because code doesn't have thousands of years of longevity it has to be done fast. Linux is failing at getting completely software out the door quickly. They have a lot of 'cool' projects, but that doesn't excuse the fact that there are still major voids in the platform while one distro pushes a new package manager and another pushes 3d desktops and neither one of them bother to finish the key software needs that might actually position them to compete with Mac or MS. Most distros are still chaotic, lack built in help, lack key software, provide 3+ ways to do anything, and more or less offer no productivity advantage over Mac or MS. The key advantage is still, by far, price.
One thing that impresses me about RMS is his ability to patiently articulate answers to questions that reporters surely already know the answers to and that have been asked of him dozens, if not hundreds of times. To leave myself wide-open to the inevitable ad hominem attacks, I should say that I work for the FSF and I helped to edit his writing and publish it. But, that aside, I've read a lot of his talks, interviews, etc. It just amazes me how he is able to deal with the endless snide (and often immature) remarks, and to continue to not defer the questions.
He is very steadfast and focused and he tends to keep things simple: Call it GNU to give credit to all of the volunteers over the past 20+ years who helped make the GNU project; call it libre or free software and bring the focus on liberty; and let's make sure that users have software that carries the four freedoms in the free software definition, and stand against any legal or technical barriers that may stand in their way.
Joshua Gay
There is a great difference between 'do not follow because <argument0>, <argument1>, <argument2>' and 'do not listen to person X'.
I fail to see a euphemism here. Making people blindly follow you is religion (which you implied by using the word 'Amen'), making people look at all arguments and have them make up their own mind is completely different. RMS does what he does because he believes in freedom of the mind, he does not want people to listen to him, but to his arguments. Big difference and no euphemism at all.
Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
It's not about "openness of source code". It's about the freedom to run your business as you see fit, without having to bend to the will of the vendors of the software that you happen to be using. The only businesses that need to "tolerate" the GPL are ones who fancy themselves vendors of mass-market proprietary software, or ones who are doing something illegal (e.g. patent infringement, trojan horses, etc.) and want to avoid getting caught.
RMS has his goals and aspirations, and is also somewhat of extremist in his ideals, IMHO, where compromise is not in the vocabulary.Compromise is not in RMS's vocabulary? Are you on crack? What do you think the LGPL, the "system libraries" clause of the GPL, and the "cover texts"/"invariant sections" of the GFDL are all about? RMS is willing to compromise tactically in order to win strategically.
Why don't you actually go read the FSF website, instead of basing your opinion of RMS on what others have written?
http://outcampaign.org/
>The article is about RMS claiming that Linus doesn't love freedom (a favorite accusation of political extremists these days),
How is RMS wrong? In the sense that he uses 'freedom', it is perfectly correct.
Linus never cared about giving user 'freedom', he just wanted a license.
>My point was that Stallman has pretty draconian ideas of "freedom" lately,
You couldnt prove this if your life depended on it.
Its something you heard somewhere and are now repeating like a big boy should to show he knows something.
'Lately', RMS has been following the EXACT same principles he has for the past few decades.
Maybe you just discovered him recently are shocked that he isnt more like Steve Jobs but thats your ignorance.
> and that Linus actually seems to believe in the spirit of the GPLv2 but not the GPLv3.
Uh... no, you are wrong.
Linus DOES NOT believe in the 'spirit' of the GPLv2, he believes in its practicallity.
The spirit of GPL is clearly stated and it involves those freedoms that scare you.
Do you even understand what 'spirit' means?
Now go back to your shiny and pretty proprietary box and remember to bleat when you are getting fleeced, youre obviously are way over your head. Try Digg.
There is only another beard!
Making people blindly follow you is religion (which you implied by using the word 'Amen'), making people look at all arguments and have them make up their own mind is completely different.
He didn't say people should make up their own minds. He simply said that people shouldn't follow Linus.
"Freedom" means you can do whatever you want. "Freedom" means that I, as a softwate developer, am free to share it with the world in any way which I choose.
Stallman's problem is he doesn't agree with that; it is fact that his true desire to end the ability of a software author with the ability to release it under their own terms.
"BK was dropped after multiple years of successful use when a coworker of Linus' decided to violate the licensing terms of the free version and BK enforced the terms of the license."
Nope, BK worked but restricted all the USERS (who were also DEVELOPERS, so you BSD freaks should be on LT's back here) of BK to not work on anything that could compete. What was J Random Kernel-Hacker given in recompense for giving up their right to work on what project they wanted? Nothing. Linus Demanded they do this.
And it wasn't a coworker of LT. It was someone who wasn't part of kernel development reverse engineering the wire protocol (COMPLETELY LEGAL), cause McAvoy to throw a hissy fit, throw his pram over and storm out weeping. LT said "you're all poopy-heads for making my friend cry!". And, because His Holiness LT can NEVER be wrong, he couldn't use one of the alternatives to BK out there, so wrote Git (hey, think he made that name up to continue to pout and pound against people who DID NO WRONG? Whiney little shit, sometimes, isn't he?).
Interesting photo, Stallman looked to be stoned. So, I saved the large version of the picture and zoomed in, and his eyes appear to need a little visine so perhaps he is. Whoooa dude, listen to Torvalds and you'll loose your free-dom maaan. Then again, perhaps like Ellen Feiss of apple fame, he might have just had "sniffles and a little too much benadryl"
If you see the Buddha on the Road, kill him
Stallman might be right. Can't let Linus be an idol unto himself, and become a distraction from the true path. I suppose this means that we need to bump off Linus, and perhaps Stallman too, then go our own way(s).
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
And here's why.
Freedom is not a one way street.
Any user should not have the freedom to dictate to me, a developer, what I do or do not do with my code. If I want to release it under GPL, super. If I want to release it as a binary, that is my right too (so long as I am not using other GPL code).
I wrote it, it is my choice. Similarly, it is your choice if you want to use it or not.
This is why Linus does not back Stallman. Linus has publicly stated that his viewpoint is the same as the above - that the developer has the right to do whatever they want, it's their code. If Stallman had his way, all software would be legally copyright free and able to be copied around at whim, regardless of what the creator wants. He wants to "free software" from copyright.
As far as your "who will you be crying to when you'll want to retrieve your old data or experiment with older libraries or systems?" comment - the answer is NO ONE. No one forced you to use that proprietary program. It was your choice, it is your consequences. This is what freedom means. It is a two way street.
Ever watch Revolution OS? At some conference (I think it was either LinuxWorld or O'Reilly) RMS was in the middle of giving a speech, and Linus started chasing his kid around the stage directly behind RMS. RMS, on the other hand, was polite, smiled, and continued his speech without even flinching.
And don't even get me started on all the times where Linus talks about himself as the "practical" one, even though he doesn't seem to care enough about practical issues like copyright law to actually bother to learn something about them (or to consult a lawyer) before blabbering to the media. (The way Linus labels legal issues as "unimportant" smells more like idealism than pragmatism to me...)
In my opinion, RMS has the physical appearance of a hippie-zealot, and Linus takes advantage of that to mislead people who don't know better. I think RMS has every right to complain.
http://outcampaign.org/
Am I the only one who read this and thought it sounded like Stallman is running for public office?
I'm sure there's an irony in there somewhere...
http://xkcd.com/313/
What contributions have been made to tools like ls, and grep and awk by these mythical corporations that would otherwise have eaten the free software? They weren't forced to contribute because of the GPL, there's nothing to contribute, the tools do their job and are done. The BSD tools don't have restrictive licenses to force companies to release their own code, but yet they somehow still exist, are still free, and are almost always superior to the GNU alternatives.
I agree totally wtih your three paragraphs and its a shame that many people like the guy you responded too only saw the headline and most likely didnt read the article (this is Slashdot after all!!).
The headline did its job by attacting attention unfortunately it was one paragraph in a 4 page interview.
This article didnt bring anything new to the table that most of us who actually read didnt know but its a great primer for someone who wants to understand the motivation and principles.
Of course, our CNN adled minds cant handle anymore than sound bytes.
Wow... Stallman really stepped in the poop now. He just offended the FOSSie God, Teh Lunis himself. About the only one who could ever take down Teh Lunis would be SteveJob, and even then the outcome would be questionable.
Looks like Stallman, the business-hating GPLv3, the radical FOSSies, and all their dreams of dominating the software industry come crashing down in this Joe McCarthy moment.
"Let us not assassinate teh Lunis further, Stallman. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
I think Free Software is important, I share a lot of Stallman's ideals, and I use terms like "Free Software" and "GNU/Linux". I think it's important to have ethical ideals and stick to them.
What I don't like is all of this useless bickering. I'm not particularly religious, but I like inter-faith organizations, because they try to look past their differences a work together for common good. I think RMS, ESR, and LBT should stop bitching at each other and start cooperating.
I gather than GNOME and GTK are both GNU projects, and that the FSF (presumably) holds the copyrights to at least portions of them. Are the licenses for these projects going to be changed to the LGPL v3 at all? Does there exist a Lesser GPL v3, even?
Praise the prophet Stallman, blessings upon his name!
Free Hans!
GPLv3 goes beyond making sure people can use, study, modify, and redistribute code. RMS doesn't want you to listen to him and simply say 'Amen', he wants you to listen to him and understand why freedom is important. Stallman's vision of "freedom" is a dictatorship. A very rigid and eleborate set of rules, that is getting even more rigid and elaborate. And anyone who doesn't agree to Stallman's code of rules "Hates Freedom".
The only licencing scheme that is truly free is the WTFPL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTFPL
If Stallman wanted freedom in any real sense, he would advocate the WTFPL!
Freedom is not free. There are always limits, one should not have the freedom to steal. The freedom to harm. The freedom to enslave.
The GPL is used to ensure that the code the original authors make available to users REMAINS available to users.
If you are a software developer that doesn't like the GPL because it forces you to make your additions public, then, sorry, screw you, write your own software from scratch. You have no right to benefit on an altered social contract of those who made their work available.
GPL3 is an *improvement* of this ideal.
So many people are coming into the free software environment and are frustrated that they can't take the intellectual property of others (copyright in this case), to those people I say GOOD! The code ain't yours! Someone else wrote it!!!
A friend of mine went on a trip to Ecador recently. The idea was to make water collection tanks for the natives out in the jungle. He's an engineering graduate student, everyone else was in sociology, and they were hippies to the man. Tons of pot. Dirty. White people with dreadlocks. You name a stereotype, they had it.
The trip fell apart because my friend had the perverted idea that he, as an engineer, should tell them how to engineer things. They wanted to decide things like structural soundness democratically. They had a poor work ethic as well: while he'd be trying to teach them how to do something, they'd start massage circles or play frisbee in the middle of the Ecuadorian jungle.
Perhaps you could add other stereotypes in there, such as "Lazy, idealistic college kids," or "sheltered American youth" but it is very tempting for me to say, given my experiences, that a sizable segment of the hippie population is too inept, anti-authority, lazy and anti-knowledge to change anything, up to and including their own underwear.
since, as a developer (whose work this is) that doesn't like the GPL, you didn't use the GPL. So you have the freedom you seek for your work.
Now, if it isn't all your work, make sure you agree to all the licenses necessary, even if they restrict you (like, say, Bit Keeper requiring that you no longer work on a CVS of any kind).
But to the basic point of yours: why the feck should I let you tell me what I can do with my property? If you don't like what I want to do with what I bought DON'T SELL IT TO ME. It's not like I've got a gun to your head and my wallet out in front of you.
Linus doesn't care because he isn't a user. He's a developer. So the unique proposition of the GPL (an enabler of the end user) is lost on him. He's also comfortable well off because companies who don't like to share like him for his views which aren't a danger to them. This doesn't make Linus right. Neither does it make Linus agree that you have the right and RMS disagrees. BOTH agree you have the right under copyright law to release a binary. I'm (at the moment) allowed not to buy it, though patents may stop this and TPC may stop me being able to remain in a modern society whilst remaining free. That, however, isn't something the FSF are looking to create.
"Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 28 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"
but sometimes the argument is whether a particular thing is actually "property".
For instance a large crowd of people believe that record companies don't have any property at stake when they (the large crowd of people) make and distribute copies of another's musical work.
(The views expressed above are not necessarily the same as the views of the poster, but are posted to explore a point)
Actually the freedoms RMS chooses to champion are not yours (A developer trying to make a living writing code) but others (users of free programs and people who write code to share).
Is it really the case that if you only link a library without changing it you must use GPL? You can't use GCC to write proprietary programs? (linking to the glibc contained in gcc) Is that new under GPL3?
I respect Richard's opinions, but I think he lives in a fantasy world.
Richard has been at it for a lot of years, many more than Linus. He's been in the forefront of promoting Free Software for a long time, however... I might point out - being a little cynical - that prior to Linus' efforts, most people using computers and faced with this interview, would have simply said, "Richard Who?" Given all those years of relative nothing, I have to believe that Linus has something going, regardless of RMS comments.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
I already do not follow Linus Torvalds in his political ideas, and I choose to listen to RMS instead. I do, however, listen to Linus Torvalds with great respect whenever he expresses technical opinions, although I still regard microkernels better than monolithic kernels. Both Torvalds and RMS are very successful, but in two very different areas: Torvalds is a programmer, while RMS is an activist. Both, of course, have a good grasp of both technology and politics, but each one has specialised on one of these two areas. Whether you prefer rms or Linus's political views is, however, a personal matter that only you can decide. I believe RMS's views and activism are much needed in our society today and for this reason I support him, as I am a Contributor Member of the FSF, supporting them with US$ 500 per year. I believe more people should listen to rms and FSF, but always with a critical mind. RMS explains very well the differences between free software and open source, and why we ought to support freedom, in his online essays and his book. Perhaps you should give them a read. Whatever you support, however, you must always keep in mind that it is important for the free software and open source community to be united against the common enemy of closed-source software.
I'm not sure about this particular issue, maybe Stallman is right.
But, usually, Torvalds is well spoken, and sensible. Whereas Stallman often seems to border on being a nut-case.
What is even sadder, is that there wasn't really any "engineering" involved, just a little common sense.
http://lwn.net/Articles/132938/
Tridge telnetted into the BK port and typed "help," getting back
help
? - print this help
abort - abort resolve
check - check repository
clone - clone the current repository
help - print this help
httpget - http get command
[...]
*wow*
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
If he wants a "GNU/Linux" then the FSF can put out a "GNU/Linux" distro.
Just want to make the precision that the FSF requires GNU software (and only GNU software) to be signed to THEM (not Stallman) so that they can pursue, with a strong legal status (owner of copyright), violations of the GPL. The FSF unvariably returns a free-for-all license to the developer and, as such, the original developer can do whatever they want with their software, including making it proprietary or a proprietary branch thereoff.
NO SIG
Yeah, right. Stallman gives an interview, somebody summarizes one response he gives to sound sensationalistic. This isn't news. News would be if somebody posted a good summary of what rms said. Really surprising news would be if somebody posted a good summary of something rms said and at least half the posters on /. based what they said on what actually happened, but I'm not sure my heart could take that.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It isn't going to crush you because it's all the work of one guy (you) right? So it never sees you, never talks to you, never interacts with you.
It cannot crush you.
Unless you can't compete with a GPL alternative.
"Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment.
It's been 42 minutes since you last successfully posted a comment"
For some strange reason in the caffeine-deprived early hours of the morning, reading the summary made me thing:
"They may take our code, but they will never take... our FREEDOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!"
On a slightly more flamebait note, hearing RMS and his ilk rant on and on about protecting people's "freedoms" while they continue to make use of the inherently un-free institution of copyright protection (upon which the GPL rests) is really starting to remind me of the perverted sense of "freedom" that socialists use to describe their desired form of government. Yes, an authoritarian state that tries to look out for everyone's welfare is better than an authoritarian state that just caters to the aristocracy; but as it's still authoritarian, calling it "free" is just deceitful, regardless of how nice it might be. Likewise, using copyright to ensure that code is widely distributed and easily available is better than using copyright to keep it locked up and secret, but it's still not free.
If you truly want you code to be free, release it to the public domain.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
everyone knows hippies dont wear underwear...
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
It really is easy to pick out the socialist assholes...there are a few more in this thread. :p
Hell, my friend, to you and to all the newbs claiming that stallman's work is not as huge as linus's: practically all your userland is stallman's, FSF or GNU software. Whats the kernel with a damned cp command, whats unix/linux without tar, where would we be without a free gzip, how on earth would we compile linux without gcc, how would the earth turn and the tide move, without emacs (or vi, depending on who you ask).
No, my friend, its not "whats the last stallman wrote". Wrong question because its easyly rebated: "whats the last linus wrote?" and he, himself will answer that he doesnt code much this days, he merely integrates contributed code.
Both of them make it possible for me to write this on my gnu/linux (im not a name zealot, but in this context the emphasys on GNU is important) box and im eternally gratefull to them both (I make a living doing what I love: promoting free software).
The fact that linus's objectives are different from stallman's is not news, its not even "bad" or "contrary" to the promotion of FOSS, its only natural that paint a line because they represent two different functions in the FOSS community. Linus mantains a kernel, Stallman is dedicated to look at the way the market is going and to deffend Free Software from any kind of risk the market may pose to it.
Linus needs no followers, he needs kernel devs. Stallman, on the other hand, represents an idelogy and is talking to free software developers: do not hold off your software at GPL2, move all the way to three if you still trust my instincts.
I, for one, trust his instincts. He has seldom been wrong when decoding the market's messages with regards to "where its gonna move" and thus, support his stance: if we still want freedom by the end of the decade, we need to make sure the market doesnt gobble up the FOSS ecosystem without giving anything back. We shouldnt make it easy for software, music or movie companies to enforce a bussiness model that the internet made obsolete. You, me, everyone will end up paying for shit we really dont need.
Do you want to be the true OWNER of your boxes, and decide what you can and cannot play there? Support GPL3. If you dont, youre paving the way to Novell and Microsoft shit where they want to monetize the linux market with shit we have never ever needed, so that you have the fucking privilege to ONLY play microsoft provided content in ONE linux distro.
That sucks, its dividing the market and making FOSS an underdog to microsoft. We are close to winning, but we wont if we start being slackish and we let companies impose fucked up bussiness models that do not combine well with the freedoms to use, distribute and modify software.
NO SIG
Moderator on crack alert! Put down the crack pipe and step slowly away from the keyboard. Keep your hands in sight, please.
What we need is a license called the "Open Freedom License" which has all the features of the GPLv2, plus one additional provision: you may not use this code in a package licensed under more restrictive terms, such as the GPLv3
The hippies provided a fan base to some good musicians, but other than that, weren't really the force of activism people would have you imagine. Take a look at the Free Speech Movement and the Freedom Riders for example -- pretty clean-cut types.
Nowadays, while there's still a good deal of slackers with a veneer of idealism that you could call hippies, the term "hippy" is usually just a convenient foil for reactionary numbskulls who can't even update their arguments to the current decade. It sounds to me like whatever organization sponsored your friend's trip in Ecquador wasn't terribly well-run. Reputable organizations usually screen out the inexperienced and inept before they even step on a plane.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
Right, to hell with the philosophies and who codes more, let's make this /. discussion one that we can all understand.
Who is getting more, Torvalds or Stallman? Let the amount of action that these luminaries get be the deciding factor!
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
From what I read on the GPLv3 faq the point is to say vendors can't lock their devices in a way that prevents people from modfying them... However from GPLv2 source code must be made avaliable regardless of weather GPLv2 or v3 is used.
I honestly don't understand why Stallman feels he has a right to be telling vendors WTF they can or can not do with their own hardware. You get freedom as long as you promote our ideals.. I don't understand how anyone who truely loves freedom can subscribe to this and not be a hypocrite.
In many situations hardware is *sold at a loss* and only recovered by software or subscription services. By saying no tivo a whole host of vendors who have always contributed positivly to the kernel go away... who exactly gains when this happens?
From a practical POV vendors will still lock down their hardware regardless of what OS they use. They have to remain profitable. What you should be asking yourself is if its easier to hack an open system that uses a kernel everyone knows *AND* has the source code to per GPLv2...*or* is it easier to hack a closed propretary system where no source code is avaliable?
I'm getting sick and tired of seeing duplication of efforts due to incompatible code licensing of *open* projects. The open source community really needs to swallow their pride and work togeather for everyones benefit even those commercial vendors because they contribute a signifcant amount of code and by helping them you help to reduce overall technology costs world-wide across the board.
One last point I want to make is on comments others have made here that the GNU/GPL software application suite dwarfs the linux kernel. This is true for general purpose PCs but is absultely not true for embedded/Tivo systems which is what GPLv3 is targetting.
Without the kernel linux kernel behind it GPLv3 seems kind of hallow.
If you need to hire a lawyer to understand your freedom nowadays, as you do with GPLv3, then the word has been co-opted to support an agenda.
Some time ago, I had a discussion with David Werner (author of "Where There Is No Doctor"). He confessed to making a few of the same mistakes early on. He learned from his mistake and now tries to leverage local knowledge as much as possible.
Basically, human arrogance is a very destructive trait. It is easy to believe that one knows what is best for everyone, when in reality, such ideas usually are wrong.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Stallman has a very peculiar, and in my view distorted, definition of "free". Real freedom means I can do anything I want with the code, including make money, add DRM, make some code proprietary, etc. As an example, the Apache license grants real freedom to all parties. What GPL does is enforce a code of behavior and social and economic policy that Stallman prefers. The GPL doesn't define freedom, it restricts your freedom. Suppose you start with 1000 lines of GPL code and build something new and add 100,000 lines of your won. You are working for the original author and you have no freedom or choice about it, independent of your contribution.
One Flamebait Troll Machine to rule them all.
You complain about "RMS bashing" and then call Torvalds a "visionless fool" in the same breath?
I think every developer can decide for themselves what license to use and they always keep the power to license it under other terms if they want. It's very up front what it requires of you if you start putting GPL code in your product.
Almost every time, it's the end users that get caught by proprietary software, either because it's some annoying bug they won't fix, support that isn't helpful or too expensive, deliberatly pushing out features into new versions, planned obsolesence or end-of-lifing, or maybe it just was a great product for you that got left on the wayside and discontinued. In every case, you're at a dead end and there's no way out.
Developers have the easiest choice in the world, if they want to change this. Simply pretend that the GPL and all GPL code doesn't exist, and use an alternative license. It's the users that are shit out of luck if there's no free software, because then they have no alternatives at all. Saying that developers are "forced to" release under the GPL is nothing short of saying that access to GPL code is such a compelling offer, they just had to take it.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Ahh, so looks are meaningless? That must mean Apple is clueless for spending so much money on design.
In the real world, people discriminate and judge based on a whole package. And that package STARTS with appearance. If you were to take a stroll down a poorly lit street and saw an a grown man in gangster paraphernalia, vs one in a suit, wouldn't one make you a bit more nervous than the other? While this does not mean you can reach conclusions, which shows wisdom, you would be wrong to completely dismiss any thoughts to appearance.
For a self proclaimed evangelist that RMS is, his initial presentation to any group is going to be his appearance. The same goes for any salesman, politician, TV personality, disciple, etc etc... If you wish to be mainstream, you should dress to the mainstream. If you want to be a fringe loony, dress the part. Either way, your appearance will play an important roll into how you're accepted or not accepted as it shapes initial opinions of you. You can whine and complain about this all you like, but as they say in the financial world, "Don't fight the tape!".
You ignore this at your own peril.
A note on my use of the word "force" there. Yes, the GPL is not truly force in a proper sense, as though Stallman was holding a gun to someone's head and saying "release the code or die!" But GPL'd software copyright holders *are* witholding a license to do something that should not require a license in the first place, which seems to me to be a kind of force, or at least the condoning of the use of force.
Imagine a hypothetical police state where a license is required to walk outdoors, and you were for some reason in a position to grant such licenses, but you were only willing to grant them on the stipulation that the walker pick up your dry cleaning while she's out. Say it's an Islamic state where women are not allowed outdoor without permission from their husbands, and you're the husband. Now, you're not really FORCING her to pick up your dry cleaning, as you're not forcing her to walk outdoors; however, the state is forcibly restricting her from doing something she ought to be permitted to do, namely walk outdoors, and you're condoning that use of force (dare I say participating in it even) when you could put a stop to it, unless she does something you want her to, namely pick up your dry cleaning.
So-called "free" licenses like the GPL are perfectly analogous to this. The state is forcing people not to do something that by all rights they ought to be permitted to do: share information freely. But the copyright holder of a piece of information is in a position to stop that use of force by licensing people to use "their" information. The GPL says "oh by all means share this information freely... so long as you also share that information." The copyright holder is not FORCING you per se to share that other information; they're just relying on the existence of state force to put them into a bargaining position, whereby they will stop the use of force you would otherwise face for your actions, so long as you do something that they want you to.
I don't know about you, but I don't consider that sort of situation "free" in any way.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The hell? Not only is that irrelevant, it's also blatantly wrong. If you try to build a GNU/Linux system without Stallman's code you'll have just as much trouble as if you tried to do it without Linus's code - and the number of lines of involved code actually written by each is probably pretty similar.
-- The act of censorship is always worse than whatever is being censored. Always.
thanks, dave
You must advocate the GNU project by including the GNU Manifesto in every copy of the EMACS documentation.
;-)
Do some research on the reason behind invariant sections in the GFDL
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
GPL3=Communism
Communism=Lack of freedom
still be successful.
Why?
Because the *BSD projects have been largely hampered by two problems: the first is a lack of charismatic leadership able to bring people on board, and the second is that most of them were (unfortunately) released before the market was ready. Additionally, FreeBSD has tended to focus on quality control to the extent of preventing code contributions from would-be contributors (this is not a bad thing in itself but it does hurt the size of the developer community). While I used to think that the GPL is why Linux won out, I now look at projects like Apache and PostgreSQL and suggest that a license with more Freedom actually does not doom a product. In fact, it can force competitors to rethink their role as competition.
What has made Linux successful are really a few choices Linus made early on:
1) This was a hobby. Get lots of contributions and spread the fun. This won't be big and professional, so..... (Linux grew up fast)
2) Remaining neutral between commercial interests.
How, there would be differences. Maybe AIX would now have a lot of Linux code in it if it were BSDL. With the rapid pace fo development, maybe this would help IBM make the change sooner. Same with other UNIXes.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
And you all wonder why Linux #1, Linux #2, BSD #1, BSD #2... ad infinitum are where they are in the hearts and minds of the ordinary computer user. They know about Windows. They know about Macs. They have no idea or could care less about all of your inane squabbling. Until then you'll all continue to be very smug and self-serving and infantile geeks and no more!
Linus wants to make software that is Free.
Stallman wants to make other people make software that is Free, and thinks that the best way to do that is to monkey around with licensing conditions.
But I think what Linus (and others like him) do is at least as important to Free Software as what Stallman does at this point. While people (myself included) will debate endlessly on Slashdot and other forums about the effects of minute details of the latest GPL version, differences between different FLOSS licenses, etc., the fact is that there are successful and durable free software products under every licensing arrangment that can be counted as free (including public domain). What seems to matter most is whether the software is of high quality, fills a need, and excites potential developers: if you have that, with any free terms, you'll get more people involved, whether your product is public domain, BSD, GPLv2, GPLv3, or whatever other license.
After reading the entire article, it seems the interview took place well before GPLv3 was released in its final form, since it's well known that Linus tempered his objections to the second draft of GPLv3 once he saw the final version. He may not move the kernel to v3 anytime soon, but he's said - and I almost quote - "GPLv3 is a good license, I just don't think it's good for me." It looks like the interview was published now simply to cash in on all the negative press about MS' OOXML standardization efforts going down in a ball of flame.
"A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
having read the article, I find Stallman to a) speak clearly about the issues b) make sense
question to you linuxers out there
without Stallman's GNU project, how would your linux work?
what have YOU done to help stop the cancer from redmond?
I think you mean 'distributors'.
RMS says: "However, if you don't want to lose your freedom, you had better not follow him."
RMS means: "Thou shall have no other gods before me."
RMS is less and less relevant everyday. No doubt GPL3 will be picked up by his fanboys, but outside of them, it will be looked on as the time when RMS jumped the shark.
The linux kernel's first license was further away from BSD than the GPL, and it was Linus's invention.
Without the GPL, no commercial use of the Linux kernel was possible.
GPL was then used because it was *more* *permissible*. Shocking isn't?
I believe that the GPL3 is bad, because it is a ugly hack to an ugly law. The right thing would be to invalidate software patents. However RMS is a hacker...
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
Sometime in the early 1980's, Stallman forecast what the world would be like today with astonishing accuracy. He didn't like what he saw, and decided to do something about it. He devoted his life to it entirely, something that Linus doesn't do. And Linus would be nowhere without him, Linus wouldn't even have had the tools to get started.
Unfortunately, while Linus is a really good engineer, he hates politics. This isn't a bad thing, I'm sure that Richard would rather spend his life making code too, but Richard sees where his duty is. Duty isn't pleasant. Since Linus won't spend the time he should on policy rather than programming, he should really leave it to other folks on the kernel team and stop talking about it, because almost every time he opens his mouth about licensing he hasn't given it enough consideration and says something that ultimately damages us.
You may have noticed that I'm an "Open Source" evangelist. I understand Richard's position and am the first to admit that we're all standing on his shoulders. When I talk about "Open Source", I'm promoting the same thing as Richard, just from another angle that is tailored to win over business people rather than programmers. It would be nice if Linus would help with that rather than get in the way.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Both Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds are very important leaders. They both show a lack of social skills at times.
But, for Mr. Stallman, this was NOT one of those times. Everything Stallman said in the interview was very well considered and expressed.
Remember, Stallman is interested in the legal issues, which are sometimes very subtle. This is an important quote from the PC World Australia interview: "Stallman: Microsoft is trying to deny that their contract with Novell means what it says. This shows that our efforts in GPLv3 to make their contract backfire against Microsoft are working. I believe Novell disagrees with Microsoft about this point, and says that the deal does apply to software under GPL version 3."
With GPL3, Mr. Stallman believes that he is closing a very serious flaw in the GPL that would allow Microsoft and other companies to make trouble. In my opinion, Microsoft is a basically dishonest, adversarial company, although there may be many people who work there who are honest and cooperative. Stallman's efforts with GPL3 are designed to stop exactly the dishonesty that Microsoft is attempting.
I don't know if there is a reason not to like the GPL3 license. Unfortunately, Mr. Torvalds' reasons for not liking it were expressed in a very socially backward way, at least in the discussion I saw. However, Mr. Torvalds has often in the past shown a lack of appreciation of social issues, and GPL3 is entirely a social issue, since, if people were cooperative and weren't adversarial and even self-destructive, there would be no need for a license.
There are other players here. PC World of Australia gave the interview an inflammatory title. PC World made the "Print this story" option display only a small part of the interview, with ads at the bottom. PC World of Australia has established its position that content is just the stuff that goes between ads. It is apparent to me, at least, that PC World of Australia is not concerned about the issues, and only wanted to attract attention by causing more dissension.
Other players are Slashdot editors, who post VERY sloppy stories that often have misleading titles, and Slashdot readers, who, as in this story, often post foolish jokes, intense opinions that have not had the benefit of thought, and other lame spewings.
What exactly does Mr. Torvalds not like about the GPL3? Is there a good reason from him not to like the GPL3? I don't know. Those are the issues, and the only ones that really matter.
Frankly, someone should tell Mr. Stallman to get help with his hair and beard; his message would be much stronger if he didn't look like a poor aging drugee hippie throwback from the 60s, as he does in the photo that accompanies the PC World Australia article.
But neither Mr. Stallman nor Mr. Torvalds are my dad. I'm an adult and I recognize that good leaders are usually not good leaders in every area.
If I had to take a guess, without having anything more than the insufficient information I have now, I would guess that Mr. Stallman knows more about legal issues than Mr. Torvalds because Mr. Stallman has been thinking about software licensing intensely since before 1983, and he has hired lawyers to help him.
These are all only my opinions. What really matters are the FACTS of the GPL3 license.
Well the problem goes down to efficency. Many software developers want to write open source software and they don't want to really pick and choose licenses and they really don't want to make their own. But the point and ultimate goal of the FSF movement (and RMS in particular with starters like If you Disagree with me then you are a corprate shill) is to move all software to an RMS Approved software Licence. To go GNU is great we should all use it. Pressure companies like Sun to Open Source Java. Bitch and moan to companies who make open source projects that use non GNU tools (Bitkeeper with Linux, Java Useage in OpenOffice). FSF goal is to try to convert every one to follow their plan of what freedom is... Pressuring Sun to Open Source Java then going If you don't like GNU then don't use it, is hipacrical. You are just just working to make GNU look like a saint where it isn't. GNU Goal is to get everyone to follow these rules. If everyone followes these rules then Developers loose out.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Linus still doesn't accept Richard's stance on tivio-ization (Richard is against locking up Free code with DRM, and IMO Richard has a good point). Linus has recently slammed Richard's stance on this with much hostility. Richard's response was much more measured, and IMO more than a fair reposte.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
individual contributors to the kernel are going to use GPL3
This is news to me: do you have some evidence to support that?
Something about RMS's stance rubs me the same way that Bush administration politics does:
- The "you're either with us or against us" attitude.
- The desire to impose his morals and politics on others "for their own good" -- whether they want it or not.
- The doublespeak used to twist and redefine concepts like "freedom".
I certainly appreciate some of the stuff that RMS is trying to accomplish, but I wish he'd go about it in a different way. Or is that not possible?
Slashdot: come for the pedantry, stay for the condescension.
Except it is never taken. The developer writes the code, the developer chooses what license to use for his code. You don't have a right to use someone else's code except under his choice of license. If you don't like GPL, don't use it. That's how copyright has always worked.
..... nothing. Obviously many people want to determine what runs on their computer. The GPL invites developers to use the code so long as they extend the same invitation to others re their modifications.
Which, incidentally, is why it makes a lot of sense to protect the user from what the developer can do to him. It was always a very asymmetrical relationship: the choice was between proprietary with all its crap or
Linus doesn't like the GPL v3 because it restricts third party developers from making products that may contain DRM to work with Linux. Without the option to do so, most developers will stay away from Linux and move to other platforms where they can be somewhat sure their product safety. Right or wrong, this is what Linus sees as a problem with v3. GPL v3 would prevent any DRM from being used in Linux and it would hamper additional development rather than help it. This also puts a twist on the preception of freedom as well. Which is more free? The ability to choose DRM or no DRM; Or... no option at all for developers but more for end users?
What it really comes down to is that some people believe in the "Field of Dreams" theory of engineering, and others believe in its opposite.
Both are probably necessary as ideas for progress their friction creates, but one is obviously(?) utopian.
Except for the devlopers. Taking freedom from one group and giving to an other is always dangerious.
Actually, it's not even that. The confusion stems from Stallman's misuse and subtle redefinition of the word "free". A better word to use instead is "unencumbered". Software that is (relatively) unencumbered by legal or license restrictions.
The GPLv3 is the most encumbered of all Open Source licenses. Deliberately. Stallman believes in encumbered software, he just differs from proprietary companies on whom the encumberances should be placed and what form they should take. He and his advocates do want software to be controlled, they just want it to be controlled in a different manner. Calling this control "freedom" is incorrect.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
It's all Clintons fault. All the pot and frisbee bongs and dreadlocks. It all started w/Whitewater. Dirty, dirty white people. RMS fits right in to the vast hippie conspiracy. We need to be more like Singapore. Mandatory haircuts. No beards allowed (that will show those islamofascists and catholic nuns). Everybody needs to be more like us right thinking americans. More uniformity. Less hippies. Am I right? I'm only thinking w/half my brain tied behind my back on talent on loan from Gawd!
Next, these messages....
To quote Stallman: "0. To run the program as you wish. 1. To study the source code and change it so the program does what you wish. 2. To redistribute exact copies when you wish, either giving them away or selling them. 3. To distribute copies of your modified versions when you wish."
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;211669437;pp;2
It sounds like Stallman is describing a variant of a BSD license since in (2) and (3) he says that you can distribute copies of your modified versions "when you wish". Ok, this statement is in direct contradiction to any GPL license that I've ever read! They require the distribution of your modified versions without choice, it's a requirement that you distribute the source with the binary. Thus Mr. Stallman is caught in a blatant distortion bordering on an outright lie and misrepresentation. At least it's disingenuous on his part.
The GNU-GPL license is communistic in political philosophy. It is anti-capitalistic and anti-freedom in intent and spirit. When you contribute or use software under a GPL license you are joining a communistic collective which has rather draconian rules. You must, if you modify the software and distirbute it, contribute your changes to the collective without any choice in the matter. This is designed to favor users over developers which reveals another distortion by the Supreme Leader of the GPL Commune when he claims that he "appreciates both the huge user base and its large developer base".
Any analysis of the GPL license terms that is honest will show that the license favors end users over developers since the license robs developers of the choice, the freedom of choice, to freely choose to modify the software and publish only the binary! The GPL clearly robs freedom from developers, and thus GPL software isn't "free software" it's "the illusion of freedom with chains attached". Welcome to the soviet inspired GPL-GNU-Collective, what was yours is now ours.
Here is the quote:
"What's more important to you, GNU's huge user base or its large developer base? Stallman: I appreciate them both, but neither is what matters most. We didn't develop GNU just to make it a technical triumph, or just to have a success. Our goal was to win freedom, for ourselves and for you."
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;211669437;pp;2
Now, many GPL-Cult members will attempt, vainly, to point out that they are not communists or that they are not members of a mind controlling cult or that the GPL isn't about politics and how dare one compare GPL with Communism. Well, Stallman himself says "Free software is a political movement". Since your politburo leader himself acknowledges that this he is leading a political movement it's valid to ask what kind of political movement is it? Since it requires end users and developers to conform to draconian anti-freedom rules such as being forced, yes forced, to ship modified source code with modified binaries freedom is lost. For this reason alone Stallman's much vaunted "GPL" isn't "free software" it's really "what is yours is ours now and forever"; and rather than "free software" it's "Collective-Software".
Yes, before you start screaming about it, I do intend the negative pejorative meanings of "collective", "commune", "communistic", "cult", "soviet", etc...
I support freedom of choice for all, end users and developers. Developers must have the right to take a "free" piece of software and modify it and distribute it as they "freely" see fit. If they want to distribute it without source then that should be their right. Any software license that prevents this freedom isn't a "free software" license, it's a blocking freedom license. The GPL is the worst of them all in this regards since it legally and politically mandates a "communistic" point of view where the property is collective and the collective imposes it's will, in this case w
How could you not know that they'd be using a katana and nunchucks? Sheesh! Read more XKCD, man!
The link shows RMS with his katana, BTW.
Your comment reflects your inner thoughts more than Stallman's, and reveals a lack of reading comprehension ability.
You imply that the article states or implies that Stallman believes that Torvalds wants people to "follow" him, and that this says something about Stallman.
The article says no such thing. It says only that Stallman believes users should not follow Torvalds if they value their freedom. He doesn't say anything at all about Torvald's beliefs regarding people following him.
They are two very different things, and if you can't see the difference, you should refrain from commenting on writings that are beyond your comprehension level.
Well, people might call Richard "utopian" but his practical effect on the world has been so huge (look at all of that software and where it is) that it's really difficult to make the "utopian" label stand.
Bruce Perens.
> What's more, Linus does not support the idea that every developer should sign over all the rights to all their code to Richard Stallman. Stallman wants everyone to assign copyright to FSF
Only when you contribute to FSF projects, and only so they have the rights necessary to protect the copyrights and relicense the software, if need be (e.g. make something LGPL instead of GPL if it would better protect freedom).
> and add "or later" to their licensing clause, thus eliminating all rights the developer has over their creation and assigning them to Stallman.
As said many times during the GPLv3's creation, you can use the "or later" clause (which is your ONLY way of updating the license without lots of trouble for works with many copyright holders) and designate conditions under which you'll accept the new version. E.G. "GPLv2 or later versions approved by _whoever_" and then have whoever you want decide if the new versions are acceptable or not. For the Linux kernel, that could say "GPLv2 or later versions publicly approved by Linus" and we'd still be under GPLv2 only (unless he decided to approve of v3) but he'd also have the option of going to some hypothetical v4 if it provided some benefits.
> If you have that much trust in any one man (and his heirs once he dies), then great. Linus doesn't, and I don't think that's "anti-freedom".
Err, you're talking out your ass, sorry. Where on earth did you get this information? It's completely WRONG. The FSF's copyrights would never go to Stallman's heirs when he dies, they'd remain owned by the FSF. If you're going to complain, shouldn't you at least understand what you're complaining about?
Oh, right. I'm on Slashdot. Duh.
What's the issue here? Both ideologues and pragmatists are utterly essential. Implementation without strong ideals can fail just as badly as ideals without implementation. There wouldn't be a Linux without Linus. There wouldn't be a Linux without Stallman. That's really all there is to it.
Why do I get the feeling that most of the people who oppose GPLv3 are infact in the same league as pirates? Linus may indeed be unconcerned about legal issues and is happy with GPLv2. But most people who are trying to portray RMS as some lunatic are folks who probably have never contributed a single line of code. If you are developer, what do you have to lose by releasing it in v3 instead of v2? Are you not thinking about 'stealing' someone's non-GPLv3 code and using it in proprietary software? Come on, admit it. Honesty won't kill you. Believe me, using someone's code is not immoral as long as that developer doesn't object. If he/she does, then what you just did was piracy!
It works the other way too you know. I know some people who are hardworking, obedient, pro-knowledge but can only see the beauty in selling off anything that has value and dumping things that have less value. Sooner or later, personal values become the objects of this sort of trade. Values that were once held with childish, stubborn, single-mindedness would be disposed off with a a clinical single-mindedness to optimize and profit.
It is not my place to say that one sort of person is better than another, but moderates seem to be both sane and safe to be with in the long run.
He's obsolete. Ignore him.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Given that Stallman is adamant about terminology, I find it odd that he makes such a big issue about Free Software versus Open Source while promoting a license with so many restrictions.
Restrictions are the opposite of free software. Somedays I really think he forget where he came from.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
He's probably right that the GPL3 closes a dangerous loophole, but that's not what Linus objects to. It's the anti-Tivoization clause Linux objects to, and that has nothing to do with this loophole... unless you think that the computer industry is going to produce Linux desktop computers that cannot be run without a Tivo-like lock in the kernel - and that people will actually buy those computers.
Well, maybe that's not as farfetched as it sounds - but more likely, those locked down computers would be Windows-only boxes. Even so, why not make a narrower clause that prevents locking down the kernel in a *general-purpose* computer. What Tivo does is build a special-purpose *appliance* that happens to be a computer. The fact that they run it on Linux is a good thing. The fact that they don't let you buy one of their subsidized boxes and not pay for the service that subsidizes it may not be ideal, but does nothing to inhibit the success of the Linux software they use. That's where Linux gets it better than RMS. He's willing to give up control of how his code is used, and appreciates that if he didn't do that, the software would have withered on the vine. If Tivo is a freeloader (and I'm not saying they are), Linus doesn't care - it doesn't hurt him or Linux.
It's Linux vs Hurd, and it's pretty obvious that Linux wins - unless you're typing your posts from a Hurd box.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
But that's just it- you are, indeed, sometimes forced to use the GPL, when you use a library licensed under it (rather than the LGPL). You might not have modified that library, but if you linked against it, by the GPL, your own code must itself be released under the GPL.
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Well, people might call Richard "utopian" but his practical effect on the world has been so huge (look at all of that software and where it is) that it's really difficult to make the "utopian" label stand.
I wonder if this is true. I'm not convinced one way or another, but just a thought...
You cannot lump together all of the work of one man. I don't think anyone doubts the impact that RMS has had on the software world, but how much of it is from Direct Action (creating code, managing coders) and how much is it from Talking (license advocacy, polemics)? I can't help but see a parallel between the more libertarian/anarchist socialist groups and their Leninist ideological competitors. It could be said, quite easily, that the IWW, a group which traditionally Acts rather than Talks has done more to improve the working conditions of your average person than the various Leninist groups which prefer to just Talk?
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
Quote: "The fact that they don't let you buy one of their subsidized boxes and not pay for the service that subsidizes it may not be ideal, but does nothing to inhibit the success of the Linux software they use."
Slashdot needs a sensible, thoughtful discussion of these issues.
Tivo is doing something very abusive, but most people don't see the abuse. They are selling hardware locked to their service for less than the amount that they are willing to accept (but probably much more than it costs them, I'm guessing).
If the GPL allows that, the license becomes wide open to extreme abuse. Suppose a company begins advertising Linux desktop computers locked to their internet provider service, and heavily discounted. Many, many people will buy them, not really understanding the negatives: If they find their service is terrible, they cannot switch to another ISP without paying a huge penalty that is hidden in the fine print of their contract.
I know that people accept that extreme abuse as normal business behavior with cell phones. However, it is abuse. The abusive companies know they can trick the average person, who doesn't know how to defend himself or herself from the extraordinary hostility and negativity that is now common in U.S. society.
Even the U.S. government has made it legal to unlock cell phones. The GPL3 license tries to prevent the locking of other equipment, if it has a GPL3 license.
The Tivo issue is just a test. If Tivo is allowed to be abusive, many, many other habitually abusive companies will follow Tivo's abusiveness. For example, Microsoft could use GPL code in a proprietary computer, and not give the source because they charge $1 per month, and are therefore allowed a Tivo exception.
But it shouldn't be me who is writing about these issues. I wish Richard Stallman were more eloquent. I wish Mr. Stallman realized he needs an editor. I have sometimes earned my living as a professional writer, and I always demand to have editor.
were so bad that folks forked off gcc left and right, and finally gathered under the EGCS umbrella project that had one thing in common, they blocked Stallmans commit access to the code base, and finally the FSF saw the light that smart people avoided Stallman for a reason and subsequently abandoned the old GCC project and surrendered control to the EGCS folks. Some of the folks doing EGCS at the time actually commented that Stallman smelled so bad that they refused to be in the same room with him, and on one occasion, Stallman was eating his own dandruff causing two other developpers to leave the room only to puke once outside the door. Fortunately Stallman has been relegated to lecturing to third world goat farmers and the tech world is all the better for it.
The only comparable close-to-contemporary thinker I can compare RMS to, as far as his huge impact is concerned, would be Keynes.
Bruce Perens.
Give someone a louville slugger to bash the side of your skull really hard. Lather, rinse, repeat.
people don't realise that rabid fans support Stallman financially and he doesn't actually have to earn a living, and so he's entirely out of touch with what it takes for regular folks to pay the rent. Its no coincidence that gpl 3 comes out now that RMS hasn't produced code in years, he needs something out there with his name on it, and since he routinely gets outcoded nowadays by the linux kernel community and even kids in their parent's basements, the only thing that he has left is to be seen assaulting the commercial world who actually gets all of us regular folks paid.
Remember, RMS has no idea at all about even simple economics and what it takes to run a business or feed a family, he only survives because frustrated underachieving IT losers donate money to hear his pipedream of utopia that has no place in the real world anymore.
Moderators: These are pertinent questions which need answers.
The Fifth Freedom is the freedom to publish the source code or NOT as one decides when one modifies a program and distributes the binary. This is the most important Freedom of them all overriding any of the first four freedoms.
As a background the "four freedoms of free software"; using, studying, copying, and distributing modifications of the code."
GPL prevents the user freedom in "distributing modifications of the code" and thus the GPL isn't Free-Software, it's Community-Software. True Free Software is software where the authors and developers have full freedom to choose how, what and when or if they distribute their changes to a program.
THE GPL DOES NOT QUALIFY AS FREE SOFTWARE: THE GPL IS COMMUNE OR COMMUNITY SOFTWARE.
Linus seems to prefer the freedom to choose rather than the freedom to enslave oneself to the collective. Unfortunately Linus choose the GPLv2 for his kernel. Well, one can't be perfect can one?
The GPLv3 take the GPL-Commune-Collective further into Soviet style communism with more agressive totalitarian and agressive rules that limit what people can do with the so called free software under the GPL label.
Stallman is simply upping the political propaganda for his followers to get all worked up.
When the full horror of the GPL falls upon authors who use it and force it upon unsuspecting users the truth will be known.
Down with GPL, up with Truely Free Software. Stop the double speak Stallman, you know that GPL isn't about freedom it's about assimilation. All GPL-Cult members bow down to your Borg-GPL-Overlord-Stallman.
hear! hear! Excellent comment with a point that is right on target.
The hidden agenda is the assimilation of the work of many thousands of people into a collective commune with communistic style propaganda, ideology and double speak (where free software does not mean being free to choose not distribute source for changes you make when you distribute the binary).
Here is an addition to my comment above:
Read Richard Stallman's excellent article: Why Upgrade to GPLv3?
He says, "The ban on tivoization applies to any product whose use by consumers, even occasionally, is to be expected. GPLv3 tolerates tivoization only for products that are almost exclusively meant for businesses and organizations. (The latest draft of GPLv3 states this criterion explicitly.)"
The paragraph before that says, "GPLv3 ensures you are free to remove the [DRM] handcuffs. It doesn't forbid DRM, or any kind of feature. It places no limits on the substantive functionality you can add to a program, or remove from it. Rather, it makes sure that you are just as free to remove nasty features as the distributor of your copy was to add them. Tivoization is the way they deny you that freedom; to protect your freedom, GPLv3 forbids tivoization."
The thinking and writing in Mr. Stallman's article is of excellent quality, in my opinion. The mistake he is making is not providing enough examples of abuses possible under GPL2, to show why GPL3 is necessary. We know that he has made a mistake in not providing those examples, because people are posting nonsense comments to this Slashdot story.
Mr. Stallman also makes the mistake of assuming that all readers understand the meaning of "Tivoization", a new word recently invented.
I think Linus Torvalds is a wonderful leader. But sometimes Mr. Torvalds does not think carefully enough about the social implications of what he says. Mr. Torvalds is not perfect, but he is the best we have at what he does well; he is a truly beneficial leader.
My best understanding, which may be very imperfect, is that Mr. Torvalds does not understand the potential for abuse in the GPL2 license. Why? Maybe partly because Mr. Stallman didn't explain it well enough.
The only thing that allowing Tivoization would provide is that companies could sell products for less than they expect to make, and trick buyers into paying more later, as happens with 2 year cell phone contracts when cell phone service prices are dropping fast.
Note that the invented word "Tivoization" is an abuse of trademark. Mr. Stallman is suffering from his adoption of that abuse, because people like their Tivos and, without thinking or investigating, they assume that the GPL3 license would take their Tivos away.
Mr. Stallman should read the comments on this Slashdot story carefully to take the true measure of what even technically knowledgeable people know and don't know, and how little they are willing to investigate before they think they understand. His articles should be written for the audience he has, not the audience he wishes he had. After more than 24 years of thinking about this, Mr. Stallman makes the mistake of not realizing how advanced he is in his thinking, and makes the mistake of not realizing most people are not as advanced.
(Copyright 2007, as are all my comments, and everyone else's also. I don't want someone using what I have said here without my permission.)
That's an important point you make. You just miss the essential difference between how the Linux kernel copyright scheme works and how the FSF circumvents their very own license.
By not oversigning all contributions to a SINGLE copyright holder, the combined Linux kernel is ETERNALLY ENSURED to be placed under the GNU GPL. No single author can revoke or change the license.
The FSF on the other hand requires people to DONATE THEIR CODE to the FSF. Not under the terms of the GNU GPL only, but just plainly oversign it (as public domain). There is nothing besides noble claims to stop the FSF from rereleasing all their code under proprietary terms. And this is exactly how MySQL and BerkelyDB or Qt work, for example. Code donations don't ensure open source code.
Intron, you posted your comment while I was editing mine, below.
MythTV has not taken away Tivo users because MythTV has been available only to those with a lot of technical knowledge and a lot of time to spend.
I don't agree that the cell phone service provider's methods of selling low and making money on monthly charges is something that Linus and others who might use the GPL3 license should help them do. I think it is an abuse that happens because people are very busy and don't read the legal contracts carefully, and don't have any other choices anyway, since all cell phone providers use tricky business behavior.
PC World of Australia gave the interview an inflammatory title. PC World made the "Print this story" option display only a small part of the interview, with ads at the bottom.
Yea, I noticed that. Usually when I read an article I look for a print link, and most of the tyme if the article is broken down into more than one webpage, the print link leads to the whole thing on one page. But the link for this one only prints out the one page out of four the interview takes. Then, while the interview only takes one page for the printout, the ads at the bottom add a second page.
Frankly, someone should tell Mr. Stallman to get help with his hair and beard; his message would be much stronger if he didn't look like a poor aging drugee hippie throwback from the 60s, as he does in the photo that accompanies the PC World Australia article.
This I disagree with, it shouldn't matter so much how someone appears, what important is whether they are capable. Then again, like RMS I've got a full head, and face, of hair. Short hair as a standard for men is relatively new. Ever hear of the Whig party? They were called that because they wore whigs. I'd rather have real hair than a wig. As for those with long hair and being drug users, not all are. Though in the neighborhood I grew in many people did use drugs, I was one of them that didn't most of the tyme. I did, as my best friend back then said, only smoke once in a Blue Moon. I'd occasionally spark a debate about that, we'd be at a party passing a joint around and when it came to me I'd just pass it along. Those who didn't know me would think I was some narco or undercover cop.
FalconShould there be a Law?
My best understanding, which may be very imperfect, is that Mr. Torvalds does not understand the potential for abuse in the GPL2 license. Why? Maybe partly because Mr. Stallman didn't explain it well enough.
The only thing that allowing Tivoization would provide is that companies could sell products for less than they expect to make, and trick buyers into paying more later, as happens with 2 year cell phone contracts when cell phone service prices are dropping fast.
I seem to recall reading Linus didn't care if someone Tivoizes Linux, that he's perfectly fine with what Tivo did. All that matters is that it, Linux, is being used.
Mr. Stallman should read the comments on this Slashdot story carefully to take the true measure of what even technically knowledgeable people know and don't know, and how little they are willing to investigate before they think they understand. His articles should be written for the audience he has, not the audience he wishes he had. After more than 24 years of thinking about this, Mr. Stallman makes the mistake of not realizing how advanced he is in his thinking, and makes the mistake of not realizing most people are not as advanced.
However this wasn't an article RMS wrote, it was an interview someone else eventually typed up. He could have set conditions, but then he'd be no better than all of those politicians who set all of their conditions.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I use to have the same beliefs as Stallman as well (except that I'm a Christian and shampoo my hair). But then I realized that sometimes its easier to be pragmatic. After all, why should I only use Open Office when Microsoft Office is a clearly better product?
Ah, but is MS Office really better? I haven't used it since 97. I used WordPerfect more than I have Office. I've used OO some but now I have NeoOffice. Personally I believe MS Office is much, much worse. And unless I find myself in a position where I have to use any MS product, Office, Windows, whatever, I will not use it. Because of MS crapware and spyware MS has forced me to switch from Windows to both Linux and Mac.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Now, having said my objections, nearly all the code I have released is under the GPL. Any further projects I undertake will probably be BSDL, however.
Now, I have a number of objections with the GPL3 (IANAL), including the fact that it is incompatible with the Apache License, the BSDL (or at least many variants, etc). The basic reason is this: Section 7 requires that you allow the code to be relicensed under the GPL. However, non-exclusive licenses generally do not carry with them an implied sublicensing right, hence licenses such as X.org's do *not* allow one to sublicense the code under the GPL3. For this reason, many or most BSDL variants appear to be incompatible with the license. This is not hte case with the GPL2, however.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
No, he doesn't. Twitter's idea of "evidence" is citing his own previous Slashdot posts.
Well, I gotta disagree. If someone has sound reasons for doing [thing x], then why does it need to be a secret?
One of the real problems of our modern world is that, in the public sphere, everything is a secret unless stated otherwise.
I think we should flip that around and say that, in the public sphere (governments and publicly traded companies, for starters...) NOTHING is a secret unless you can come up with a good reason why it should be secret.
I'm sick to death of public figures taking the "trust me, just take my word for it" attitude.
The plural form of "anecdote" is "anecdotes", not "evidence".
Developer A releases software under GPL. Developer B modifies software. Developer C can use developer B's modifications.
Developer X releases software under BSD license. Developer Y modifies software under a proprietary license. Developer Z can not use developer Y's modifications.
Developer Y was able to do something with developer X's code that B was not able to do with A's code. In a sense, Y has a freedom that B does not have. However, because of the freedom B lost, developer C has the freedom to use and benefit from B's work. Developer Z does not have that freedom.
I agree that freedoms have been taken from one group and given to another, but I hope my example shows that the line isn't between users and developers. In reality, it's between someone (B or Y) who modifies free software, and the rest of the world that may or may not have the freedom to benefit from said modifications.
I'd say the GPL takes a freedom away from one group and grants an important freedom to the rest of the world (a much larger group).
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
So what I am asserting is that the only things people have an ethical right to exclude others from control of are actual, physical things; that only physical things can legitimately be property, and any claim to "own" something that is not a physical thing is a legal or social fiction, and nobody has any genuine ethical obligations to respect their supposed claim rights to their intangible "property". For example, I assert that if someone comes up with a dance routine, they cannot legitimately "own" that dance as an abstract pattern of movements, in the sense that they have no real ethical right to use (or direct the use of) force to control who may or may not move their body in such a fashion. That dancer owns his own body; other dancers own their bodies and may direct their motion as they see fit provided they don't do so in a fashion that acts upon another person or their property in a way that that other person dislikes (i.e. "the right to swing my fist ends at your face").
That same exact line of reasoning applied to more traditional forms of "intellectual property" lead to their abandonment as well. I own my own mouth and lungs, I can sing any song I want. If I own a microphone and a CD burner, I can record whatever I want with them, and give or sell the recordings to whoever I damn well please. If I own a photocopier and a book I can use those two things to make more books with the same exact words in them, and give them away or sell them to whoever I damn well please. Same thing with videos and cameras. Or plug the output from the player straight into the recorder and make even better copies. Or do it all in a computer and make perfect copies, and transmit them over the internet to anyone who requests them, for free. It's all my own property, who are you to tell me what I can or cannot do with it, so long as I'm not hurting you or your property? Oh, you claim to "own" the abstract pattern of 1s and 0s that are encoded in my datastreams, and that means you can tell me what I can or can't do with my stuff, who I can or cannot give or say certain things to? Hah.
In short, the notion of intellectual property explicitly contradicts the notion of physical property; and I think it's pretty clear the physical property is the more elementary of the two, so intellectual property has to go.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
How can you be forced to use a library as a developer?
As a developer you make a choice to use the library because you have no desire to reimplement things that the library does. It has little difference from using code from an existing project, with the caveat that the compartmentalization is enforced.
http://www.donarmstrong.com
Why GPL bar the various code into linux? Why linux doesn't get more driver? why linux does not have ZFS?
Why companies were multi-lincense codes?
Because GPL is trouble!
Free the source code, free the industral.
Thanks. That makes me laugh. I certainly made my point that I need an editor.
I almost hate to admit this (as I don't want to appear to be an RMS fanboy), but I feel the same way. The more I realize the costs of "pragmatism" and compromise, the more I realize why Richard is fighting. I do disagree with some of Mr. Stallman's ways of expressing his ideas, and I don't like how he sometimes comes across as a sleazy pitch-man when he's trying to get people to join his cause. (The former is in regards to some of his tantrums, like when he spoke of KDE application authors needing to "ask forgiveness" for coopting code from Gnome projects, instead of merely putting their houses in order and complying with the appropriate license; the latter I mention because I really dislike people who only view others in terms of what they can do to further a pet agenda.) But you know what? The ideas that he's fighting for are worth fighting for.
Not that I'm about to start calling it GNU/Linux anytime soon, just because that's inconvenient in casual discourse, but I do appreciate everything the GNU/FSF folks have done for us in providing the majority of the code to create a fully functioning OS. Now, if only Hurd were more usable! (Let's pray Hurd is finished before Vernor Vinge's prediction from Rainbows End comes true and Hurd is made illegal.)
Your entire argument reads like nothing more than a justification of the prejudice you hold against a group of people I doubt you've had very much interaction with, ever.
Seriously: I have a friend who told me... Can you say bias? Can you say anecdotal?
Sure, if that's the way you define hippie, then this is a truism. Not a very interesting observation, though. And to stay on the overall topic, it doesn't seem to apply to Richard Stallman.
I find that people come to agree with Stallman's position when they consider what is going on, what he and the free software movement are fighting for, and how Linus Torvalds' positions on matters of legal and ethical issues leaves much to be desired (the Bitkeeper fiasco, Torvalds' reaction to Tridgell's work on a free software program to work with Bitkeeper repos being examples that come immediately to mind).
Digital Citizen
And the "preachy" comments come from the proprietary software supporters too, but their words are so often confused for that-which-is-beyond-question that they aren't likely to raise the kinds of responses one reads here to anything RMS says. After all, they don't lead with all the limitations of their software licensing or its effect on users.
Digital Citizen
Windows Vista is a nasty DRM infected failure
All the DRM and spyware included in Windows is why I switched. For the past 10 years I've used Windows almost exclusively however because of all the crap MS has started to include in software from Activation to WGA/WPA I've switched. I've got a PC with Linux preinstalled which I'll setup as a server and I'm typing this on a Macbook Pro.
FalconShould there be a Law?
A friend of mine went on a trip to Ecador recently. The idea was to make water collection tanks for the natives out in the jungle. He's an engineering graduate student, everyone else was in sociology, and they were hippies to the man. Tons of pot. Dirty. White people with dreadlocks. You name a stereotype, they had it.
Whoever set up the program did a bad job, if your friend wants to try again have him checkout Transitions Abroad . It has the resources to find good programs.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"... I'm not sure why everyone erects this invisible barrier between the software and the hardware."
That is exactly the issue, apparently. (I wish Richard Stallman was commenting about this, instead of me.)
If "Tivoization" is allowed, anyone can just burn their proprietary code into hardware, and avoid the effect of GPL2. It's still procedures that are run by a processor, but now it is stored inside a programmable gate array, or some other hardware.
Not that the word "Tivoization" is a misuse of trademark.
about Stallman is that he once again proves it is a fine line between genius and insanity.
I never understood how he can rail against corporations so much when he works and gets a paycheck from a university that is essentially funded by the very same corporations that he claims to despise.
Don't get me wrong, I respect the man and agree with many of his ideas. I have been following his career since before he founded the GNU foundation (late 70s) and have even supported him on most things (free software is very important), but I also disagree with him on many of his stances also. I do have to admit that he has become less tolerant than he used to be and seems to be imposing so many rules (rules stifle freedom rather than promote it) to define what free software is.
Never forget that when you fight something this passionately there is a great and real danger of becoming what you are fighting.
Supply and demand does not change at all because of any version of GPL!
This is patently false, the GPL makes sure anyone anywhere can take GPLed software and distribute it, therefore it does have a direct affect on supply.
Alternatives to a lot of software, which was not available to the general public has been made available by way of FOSS. This has only devaluated software which was inferior to the FOSS alternatives. Example: For all the great features of Gimp, Photoshop is still very successful, and to my knowledge the price tag hasn't gone down because of Gimp.
Yea, as much as I'd love GIMP if it had the capabilities of Photoshop, it doesn't come close for pro photographers. Film Gimp, aka CinePaint is a lot better on that score, and I may try it out. But first I plan on trying out Inkscape. I hope it works, I don't want to layout $800 for PS CS3.
FalconShould there be a Law?
if you decided that you wanted to take someone else's GPL'd software and wanted to make a living off of that (I'd call you a free loader). The GPL does protect against that
No, the GPL does not prevent this, what the GPL does is it allows anyone else to take it and do the same thing. The GPL simply requires all distributors to also make the source code available. Your freeloader can take GPLed software and sale it, but then the person they sold to could do the same.
FalconShould there be a Law?
From my point of view, I have to follow Stallman. GPL3 was written to keep the patent threat down (and nothing else). Linus tries (has tried many times) to state that "a lack of technical computer skills pushes to use GPL3, whereas uber uber computer users (like himself) only choose GPL2, and somehow their mental inability or whatever is the problem (nice putdown to thousands). Sorry, but Torvalds in this regard is an idiot. AN IDIOT! People can make decisions very well. Having knowledge, no matter how superior, perceived or otherwise, in one area, does not in any way provide knowledge in another area. In one instance we are talking about computer system software. In another area, we are talking out licenses and law. Being the worlds best plumber, does not give you license to do heart surgery. Being a really outstanding systems level programmer, doesn't make you a lawyer. It doesn't. People chose GPL3 because they don't want patent threats. An average Linux distribution has about 10,000 applications. The linux kernel is 1 (although an extremely important one). Microsoft can't distribute a distribution if there is only 1 GPLv3 application. Torvalds can pick GPLv2. Nearly everyone else picked GPLv3. He can whine if he likes, but people are picking what they think is best. Stallman is not offering an opinion, he is leading a very large charge. Torvalds is quite alone in his opinion.
If you to prevent people from doing whatever they want with their own code, you are restricting their freedom. Linus standing up for his stuff is is very much standing up for freedom.
FalconShould there be a Law?
We'll be running something else, and that something will probably be protected from abuse by a GNU license. Torvalds is an important, and not only, contributer to the license's esteem (something that he has always recognized very matter of factly). In the long run the real benefit for us will be from GNU.
Making too big a deal out of a particular piece of software that happens to be very useful these days (due to various historically-specific technical and market-related reasons) will seem petty. The real battle front for our rights to use humanity's inventions is GNU. You may not agree that we should have these rights, but you must agree that this is what the battle is about.
.....Why I should give a damn what RMS thinks/says/does?
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
Xbox, Xbox360, PS2, PS3, N64, WII...
...is why the terrorists hate us.
"Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
Linus has shown that he will take pig headed decisions in the name of pragmatism or that he just does not care and buries his head in the sand when it comes to some serious issues.
What got Linux and the rest of the FOSS to the point where they are (worldwide acceptance as a legitimate, useful way to produce software) are the foundations put in place by Stallman. Linux stood in Stallman shoulders, not the other way around.
Stallman is not jealous (jealous about what exactly?) but weary of a self proclaimed apathetic pragmatist.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Gandhi was a Hindu fundamentalist.
Mandela was a communist.
So now pray tell us, why does the issue of Stallman's appearance keeps making the rounds around here?
I listen to the message, I don't disqualify a message if I don't like the messenger.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
MS is an unethical company. As shown recently they are prepared to bribe people to impose their "standards" or to brandish their patent portfolio without substantiating their claims (putting aside the many times they have broken the law).
MS Office formats are not open, you are putting access to your own data at risk by this (I have met people that went the closed way and had paid with big bucks for the privilege to access their own data again).
MS Office is too expensive compared to OpenOffice or StarOffice (Sun's version of OpenOffice).
To be "pragmatic" is always easier, you don't need to state the obvious. I use only OpenOffice at home and certainly has caused me some problems but it hasn't killed me. I am sure that many people and companies could do likewise, but "pragmatism" (which I would describe more as laziness and apathy) get the best of most people, people that use the word "pragmatism" when asked to rationalize what is from an objective point of view a bad choice in general terms.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Ill chime in on this issue from a philosophical standpoint. It seems like what is happening is people are falling into two camps. People that believe in the power of capitalism (our current economical system), and people that value the ability to provide solutions to problems and benefit from that solution or improving on it, without restrictions.
It breaks down even farther than that. People that believe in ownership and people that dont. Its starting to become apparent that if you identify with the idea of owning something (for the purpose of limiting everyone around you), you have let the idea of ownership cut you of from the collective good. Whenever you making something important enough to claim as 'mine and not and yours' you are missing out on the bigger picture of life. Everything that we create in this universe was built on from the ideas of others. You can't claim anything as yours because of this reason. To do so is to restrict the flow of life to yourself in such away as for everyone that values the freedom to build on the ideas of others (and profit as a byproduct of that ideal) from dealing with you entirely. Sure there are going to be people that sacrifice this ideal to gain an advantage in their own life at the expense of their own freedom (they might not need that freedom) The problem is that they do not represent the entire collective as they dont understand what they are giving up, which is long term good that open source provides to us as a social paradigm. A way to take away the power of centralized control and replace it with distributed empowerment through out the social collective.
The people that understand this goal are the ones that are going to save this society from ourselves as I dont think anyone with a capitalist mindset is going to understand the impact this is causing completely. They have been trained at birth to believe that whats mine is mine and whats yours is yours is the best approach, we have to start teaching people that this ideal (taken to its extreme) is causing a great deal of stagnation and misalignment to the common good.
The GPL3 takes the power away from organizations that focus on centralized power and gives it to the common man, a much more balanced approach to empowering people to live completely free.
Guilt by association.
The critical tool of the scoundrel.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Please show us where in the GPL (any version mind you) use of GPLed software is restricted.
You can use GPLed software to your heart contents and have to give explanation to absolutely nobody.
Go on, probe me wrong.
What GPL restricts is how you *distribute* the software that is GPLed. In simple terms it tries to get rid of freeloaders.
The GPL3 is an attempt to exclude a particularly nasty kind of freeloader: the ones that want to use the software they did not make by means of hardware restrictions and patent restrictions.
Those people will not use GPL3 software. Well, good riddance. Knowing that even Solaris may be GPL3 should give anybody confidence that the people being unloaded from the FOSS movement are the freeloaders, not the people genuinely contributing with great projects.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Please tell us who do you have in mind? Which poor sods will be impeded to distribute GPL3 software?
That will tell us if we should be happy or worried.
I think you are talking based in fundamental ignorance of the issues at hand.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And he is empowering users everywhere by asking them to write stuff and share and improve it amongst themselves.
This would have not been necessary if software companies did not introduce artificial restrictions to the source code they produced. Very often software companies actually cripple instead of enhancing a product in order to create differentiation. Why this should pay (a most unethical practice IMHO) is beyond me.
You are completely work about "hard work should not pay". The FSF is pretty clear about wanting people to make money with FOSS, but it is up to the businesses to find a profitable business model, but it should be one that is not based in denying the user the freedom to control his own IT infrastructure.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
But they don't pretend they can carge for anything you do with them afterwards.
Or if you want to improve on those blueprints you can hire somebody else to do so.
Look, keep bringing analogies from the real world, ti just makes the point that software "manufacturers" are completely out of whack with reality due to how unbalanced Copyright law is in favor of the person creating something.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Really. So exactly freedom to do what you need?
The GPL gives you complete freedom to use software you did not write. No restriction. Pretty much zilch.
The GPL puts some restrictions in how you distribute software you did not write. Well, doh, so does any other kind of licensing scheme.
The GPL puts restrictions in how you distribute binaries that were mostly written by other people. And here, nobody forces you to use GPLed software. If you feel coerced by not been granted a free lunch, don't use GPLed software. Stallman is not pointing a gun at your head to force to use you GPLed software in your pet project.
In other words, coercive freedom my ass.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You are willfully oversimplifying a complex issue.
One important point: the license restricts "your rights" (now show me, where in copyright law you are allowed to become a leech?) in the understanding that you are taking advantage of other people's work. You agree to waive your rights in the benefit of others because others have agreed to do so in your benefit.
Now tell us, in which way is that wrong?
And if you don't like it, then you can write everything yourself and forbid anybody else to copy it, the GPL does not stop you in any way to do that if so you wish, and there are even people foolish enough to release software in license where you can leech, so what is stopping you using that instead (hint: leeches are not social creatures).
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I don't recall saying that I do not agree philisophically with what RMS is saying (caveat: I agree to a *degree*, not 100%), but I work a lot with people (you know, those warm fleshy things) and there's a lot truth in the saying that you don't catch many flies with vinager.
:-).
I'd almost suggest that RMS gets himself a PR agent or gets some coaching. Part of what makes Linus so interview friendly is that he doesn't try to be bigger than himself, and he doesn't exhibit fanatic tendencies. I don't know either personally (unlike Mark Shuttleworth, for instance) but statements in RMS interviews always seem to be only seconds away from foaming at the mouth and wildly waving arms.
I think that is a crying shame for someone who has basically coded the tools with which Linus Torvalds built the kernel, and most of the apps on top. RMSs vision deserves to be heard more widely, but unless he learns to manage that message so people will actually listen he'll remain the equivalent of a guy in the middle of a shopping street who preaches through a megaphone. Loud message, but nobody listens.
All IMHO, of course
Insert
No, no, to make it a Slashdot discusson you should guess who suffers more Repetitive Stain Injury. And no, that 'r' was omitted deliberately :-).
..
It's all in hand. Er, let me rephrase that
Insert
That is a reflection of you, not of the thing you are trying to describe or criticize.
I call it well founded conviction, insight.
You talk about software like if it was a niche thing that nobody but the nerds should care about.
Society in developed countries just simply could not exist on its present form without computers and the software that makes them usable.
How that software is accessed, used, modified and shared is one of the most important questions this century in the technical, political and sociological terms, it involves issues of governance, transparency, accountability. All this is mightily important and people should be grateful that there are people out there thinking about these issues and offering solutions that benefit the little man on the street.
You consider comparisons with civil right movements silly because you are simply ignorant of the issues at hand. Now than more and more decisions are taken using software (profiling to find criminal suspects, tax burden calculations, voting, personal surveillance) the only guarantee we have that these tools are fair and sound is if we, the public, can conduct independent audits to ensure this. How can this be done if the software is not open in some form? Why should the tax payer reinvent the wheel if these tools could be developed using open models like the GPL?
You ignore software licensing and accessibility issues at your own peril, they will be used as little trojan horses by authoritarian types to undermine civil liberties and freedom, people like you just make the task of those people much easier.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
You can write commercial software that is GPLed, your family does not need to starve.
You will not use the same business model based in frustrating and coercing your clients in using your software, and certainly would be open to competition from others, but at least you would be on a level playing field (your competitors, if they find your software useful, would have to release any changes they made to it).
So you would compete based on quality of your services and not in bullshitting your users.
What is wrong with that?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
When did the FSF send their hitmen to force you to release under the GPL any software you wrote?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And not cching?
Since you aren't forced to use the GPL license, you can consider yourself right and not use the GPL. But don't tell anyone else they cannot.
If you are so monumentally stupid as to want to write your own license, you can go ahead and do it.
The FSF offers a ready made solution that has been trialed and tested for many years now with good results.
Reinventing the wheel is one of the biggest sins of a bad engineer or technician, this applies to licensing as well as far as I am concerned.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The developers have no birth right to freeloading.
If they are using some other people's software then they must abide by the terms of it. Period.
Developers that feel aggravated by this can write their own software to solve a given problem, they are perfectly free to reinvent the wheel as many times as they see fit.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Release everything you write as closed source if you want.
Nobody is forcing you to do anything, but any software released as closed source should be described as less useful for the end user.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
"Linus has never supported the idea that the freedoms to help yourself and to cooperate with others are valuable."
Why do you lie?!
He wrote less than six months after the first published version (http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/Historic/old-versions/RELNOTES-0.12):
"RELEASE NOTES FOR LINUX v0.12
This is file mostly contains info on changed features of Linux, and
using old versions as a help-reference might be a good idea.
COPYRIGHT
The Linux copyright will change: I've had a couple of requests to make
it compatible with the GNU copyleft, removing the "you may not
distribute it for money" condition. I agree. I propose that the
copyright be changed so that it confirms to GNU - pending approval of
the persons who have helped write code. I assume this is going to be no
problem for anybody: If you have grievances ("I wrote that code assuming
the copyright would stay the same") mail me. Otherwise The GNU copyleft
takes effect as of the first of February. If you do not know the gist
of the GNU copyright - read it."
That is proof alone that he supports "the idea that the freedoms to help yourself and to cooperate with others are valuable".
"I seem to recall reading Linus didn't care if someone Tivoizes Linux, that he's perfectly fine with what Tivo did. All that matters is that it, Linux, is being used."
That's not really the issue, however. The issue is whether there is a logical reason to reject the GPL3. It has to be a discussion based on logic, since Mr. Torvalds does not own or control all the code that goes into the Linux kernel.
Just out of curiousity, who was he working for on this trip? (Or what organization sent the group there, that might be a better question.)
"I think Mr. Torvalds may just understand the issue more than you give him credit."
Certainly I think Mr. Torvalds understands more than I. However, Mr. Torvalds does not control the situation, logic does. If he wants to be powerful in this case, Mr. Torvalds must convince the contributors of the code he uses. He should make the logical argument, not me, and I have found no evidence that he has done that. If you have information that I don't have, please educate me.
"... RMS's insults..." I was not aware that Mr. Stallman was insulting. Could you provide a source?
The issue appears to be this: If the Tivo exception is allowed, anyone can move their proprietary code into "hardware", where it is executed like any code. If there is a Tivo exception, the GPL2 license becomes largely meaningless, apparently.
But I shouldn't be me making these arguments, because I admittedly don't know much. Mr. Stallman should be making these arguments. The only reason I am commenting extensively on this Slashdot story is because I felt bad that the initial comments were so ignorant and foolish.
"... ignorant condescending..." The intent is to be entirely respectful.
"Eh? Why is the burden upon Torvalds here? There's a new GPL, but why should he care?"
The burden is on Mr. Torvalds to be a leader in the case of the Linux kernel. That is a HUGE burden, obviously. To be a leader, he needs to convince those he leads with logic. Nothing else will function.
The issue appears to be: Does what Tivo did cause a loophole in the GPL? If it does, how should the loophole be closed?
See also the CNet article: Torvalds 'pretty pleased' about new GPL 3 draft.
But neither Mr. Stallman nor Mr. Torvalds seem to have discussed the underlying issue: Can a company move part of its code into hardware and thereby escape control of the GPL? The statements referenced in the Wikipedia article about "Tivoization" seem inadequate.
I'd recommend trying LightZone instead, it's a commercial app, specialized for photographers (much like Adobe's Lightroom)
I bookmarked and will check it out but I don't really want or need right now a workflow and management app, I could of gotten Aperture when I got my Macbook Pro if I wanted something like that. What I am looking for and want right now a full graphics editor. For management I want to create my own system, from accounting to websites with a shopping cart, piecing together difference open source software. I want to make something that would easily allow a photographer to create an online portfolio and sale photos. I'd use it myself but I also want the option of being able to sell it to other photographers.
Inkscape is a vector drawing software, kinda like Adobe's Illustrator
Yea, I know. It's for SVG editing but still I want to check it out for photography..
if you're interested in that area I'd also suggest checking out Xara Xtreme which is another, Free vector software for Linux and IMHO, even better than Inkscape.
I've seen it before, however there isn't an OS X version. It says they're looking for help in porting it to Macs. They do have one for Linux, and I have a Linux PC, however it will be mainly used as a server while for photography and development I'll be using mostly my Macbook Pro.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Copyright law is in favor of the person creating something.
Yea that's right, copyrights are there to encourage people to create something. You take copyrights away and you take a reason to create somwthing away.
FalconShould there be a Law?
It sucks (believe me - as a scrawny, glasses-wearing white kid growing up in rural Hawaii, I know all about how bad being judged on appearances can be), but it is what it is. Human nature being the way it is, it will probably always be that way to some extent.
Oh, I agree. There are some, too many, who only go by someone's looks and not on merit. In a way that was one of the hardest things to deal with when I went into the army. In high school I had shoulder length hair and went into the army afterwards. When it came to cutting my hair, to get it over with I told the barber to cut it all off. He said he couldn't so I told him to cut as much off as he could. Thereafter about once a month I was told I had to go to the barber shop. I had the say problem with a beard. Thing is is I can understand the beard, a gas mask won't make a seal if there's a beard, but I don't understand the hair length except for everyone being uniform, which I had trouble with.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You seem to take the position:
1) That there is objective right and wrong,
2) That, as a matter of objective right, absolute, unqualified control of physical entities as property is a right,
3) The existence of intellectual property rights, by limiting the absolute, unqualified control of physical property that holders of rights in physical property have, violates the rights established in #2, and therefore must, therefore, fail given 2.
#1 I'll grant, for now.
#2, OTOH, I just can't accept as a statement of moral truth, or even coherent. While certainly some degree of proprietary interest in tangible property is desirable, I would see its value as instrumental, not fundamental, and its scope as limited. But whatever moral right there is to tangible property cannot be absolute if it exists in more than one person (with respect to different physical objects) since physical objects can be used in ways which interfere with other's rights of control, and thus the existence of such an absolute right over one object in one person contradicts the existence of a similarly absolute right over another object in another person, and thus physical property contradicts itself in exactly the same way you claim that intellectual property contradicts physical property.
Of course, if you revise your conception of physical property to be coherent by acknowledging that it need not be absolute, and that constraints can morally exist on what a property holder may do with his property, then you no longer have the problem of intellectual property contradicting physical property.
Yes, thanks for clarifying falconwolf, I knew as soon as I hit submit that I'd messed something up :-P
No problem, I realize I probably mess up more than many others, but I try not to and when I do I try to correct it.
Falcon
I'm jealous of people with faith, it makes live easier having faith.Should there be a Law?
I don't think you can; for one thing, the Free Software movement is hardly even "close to unique" among social movements in making real products on the scale it does. Its also debatable how many products are made by the movement versus how many are made by people who merely accede to (or exploit) the terms offered by the movement, rather than having any ideological affiliation with it, but then that's equally true of other social movements (like, say, the workplace democracy/labor cooperative movement, which also engages in industry on a substantial scale.)
Excluding, quite visibly, Linus Torvalds, and quite likely a very large number of others that are doing the "actual production" of Free Software.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Perhaps I'm just use to it. But I do like having my grammar somewhat checked. It isn't perfect, but it's helpful. I'm open to an alternative. I guess my point really is not what word processor is better, but what is the best tool for the job. Most of the time it is an open source product, but on some rare occasions, it is a closed source product.
I agree, I like Open Source but sometimes a closed source proprietary app is better, such as Photoshop. OS is getting better and there are OS apps that can do about as well for some things as PS does but I don't know any that come close to PS in everything that PS does. To use OS one need to use different OS programs for all of what PS does. I don't think MS Office fits here though, most people can get by with using OO.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The GPLv3 still allows this, as long as the person burning the GPL-covered code into hardware and the person incorporating that bit of hardware into a device which is, as a whole, locked down aren't the same person.
And no GPL-like license could stop that, since all it relies on rights outside the control of the copyright holder under the doctrine of first sale: you'd have to have something like a sales contract that had to be accepted as a condition of receiving the software rather than an optional gratuitous copyright license to do that, and that would tend to be at odds with other values the FSF espouses.
Off the top of my head, and without expressing any particular judgements as to the moral worth of any of the involved movements, a few obvious examples would include the workplace democracy/labor cooperative movement (which was mentioned in the post you were responding to as such an example), the organic foods movement, various communist and socialist movements worldwide, many religious movements (mostly, in many cases, producing services and other intangible but real products, but then software isn't exactly heavy industry, either), etc.
2) That, as a matter of objective right, absolute, unqualified control of physical entities as property is a right
I'm not quite claiming this, though I will agree that my notion of property rights is very strong, but not absolute or unqualified. The limits, the qualifications, which I accept are precisely the ones that circumvent your claim that such a strong notion of private property rights contradicts itself: that whole "my right to swing my fist ends at your face" thing. Your 'absolute' control over your property extends only to the point that it affects other peoples' property. It is actually this exact limitation which makes private property, private property; the ability to exclude others from control. If everyone were to have merely the liberty right (that is to say, permission) to control their property however they saw fit, including affecting others' so-called property, then no one would have any claim rights to private property at all, for a claim right of one person just consists in others' obligations toward that person, and a prohibition is an obligation of a negation (an obligation to not do something), and permission is the negation of prohibition; so if everyone were permitted to do or not do anything, no one would be prohibited from doing or not doing anything, and equivalently no one would be obligated to do or not do anything, and no one would have any claim rights, i.e. no one would have any valid complaint that anyone was e.g. violating their private property.
So that is definitely not what I am claiming. I am claiming that people have permission to do whatever they want except things that they are forbidden from doing (that part's a simple tautology); that the only thing people are (ethically) forbidden from doing is acting upon another's property against the will of the property owner (counting the property owner's body as his own property, of course); and that the only things that can be property are actual, physical things, not intangible ideas, concepts, patterns, etc, which I hold do not actually "exist" in a proper ontological sense. As a logical consequence of this, people are forbidden from preventing me from dancing how I like, singing how I like, writing, drawing, or painting as I like, or directing my computer to to produce patterns of data on CDs and DVDs as I like, because those acts involve only my own property and others are not permitted to act upon that property against my will. As a consequence of THAT, enforcement of copyright law is ethically prohibited (though some damn piece of paper in Washington can say whatever it wants to), and so licenses hold no ethical weight, because they merely permit me to do, under certain conditions, things that I am already permitted to do under much broader conditions.
As a very tangental aside, you may think that this notion of private property makes me some kind of crazy extremist libertarian, but there are a lot of interesting logical consequences I've pulled out of this which run counter to the usual libertarian agenda. (In fact, most libertarians I've met seem to favor the notion of intellectual property rights, so I guess this is another one to add to the list).
1) If we generalize our premise "only things that exist (i.e. physical things) are property" to "ALL and only things that exist are property", then as private property is exclusive control of something, everything which is not private property, rather than being "unowned" as some would have it (being in a state such that no one has any claims rights to it, and thus anything goes), is public property, that is, something over which everyone has non-exclusive (i.e. inclusive) control. This allows for the validity of environmental control laws in terms other than "your smog is damaging my skyscraper" or "your toxic waste is corroding my yacht". People without such private property nevertheless have a claim to the public property that is the air and water, and thus have valid complaints directly about h
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
That said, the organic foods movement might have significant parallels. I'll think about it.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
That's certainly not true, in many cases, of the religious movements, where the particular goods and services produced are often (though not always exclusively) those central to the ideological mission of the movement, rather than merely instrumental to the economic life of the movement. OTOH, even granting that that's a valid difference, that's not the respect in which Free Software was originally held out as "almost unique". I'll agree that the Free Software movement (along with the organic foods movement) is at least distinct (though, still, I think far from unique) in being a movememt that is about a particular kind of product where the major form of activism is directly producing and/or consuming the product (there are plenty of other movements that produce goods and services, and plenty of other movements that are about goods and services, but not so many that combine both.)
The alternative fuels movement has some features of this (lots of ideological grassroots industry), though a lot more public policy activism than the Free Software movement. On the service side, the microcredit movement could be viewed as an example of this.
Right to privacy?
"The burden is on Mr. Torvalds" ... "The issue appears to be" ... "a loophole in the GPL"
See, you've went and done it again. Whether there's a loophole in the GPL or not is of no concern to Linus, unless it offends his sensibilities with regards to Linux. The GPL isn't his personal cause to sit around wondering if there are flaws in and how to go about mending them. That's what RMS is for. And might I add, I'd give Linus a pat on the back for not wanting to be another RMS.
+5 Insightful, really!
"I can list quite a few things wrong with the GPLv3 that wasn't wrong in the GPLv2. I can list scenarios where the GPLv3 doesn't protect any more then the GPLv2 and is actually harmful. Is that the idea of a good license?"
... if you actually thought that Tivo wasn't giving the source out."
But, you didn't do that.
"I don't know
You missed the point. The point is that it would be easy to hide some proprietary code in "hardware" which is actually code manufactured into silicon, and use that to avoid the protection of GPL2 or GPL3, apparently.
Yes, I had visited TiVo's web site page which offers the code it is willing to share. It is the code that it wasn't willing to share that is the issue.
and I agree with the opinion. I do believe Linus will eventually see that despite its flaws GPL3 and the inevitable GPLXR9 are necessary in a 1984 doublespeak world where "Office Open eXtensible Markup Language Standard" means "the proprietary and patented non-extensible nonstandard format for storing Microsoft Office documents that even Microsoft can't fully implement."
The future is open. Or free. Or whichever symbol in our set the mindshare dweebs haven't corrupted yet. Fight as they might they can't beat it because it has no arm to twist, no heart to strike - it is powerful as the wind and as difficult to control.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
...and then so, no one is forced to do anything. Why would RMS, or anyone else, bellyache, when you are not forced to use Linux, or some other software you don't agree with? Why whine about it, why not just go write an ideologically correct clone?
Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
What do you think HURD is? (Or at least, meant to be)?
You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that RMS does not write code which conforms to his ideology. He does so, in addition to trying to convince others to write code.
http://www.donarmstrong.com