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."
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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
I don't think that Stallman is suggesting that one isn't free to choose one's license within the scope provided by law. That doesn't mean he or anybody else has to approve though.
Anyway, what's wrong with being condescending and elitist? It's part of what makes Slashdot, Slashdot.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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!
Calm down, it is only ones and zeroes. The older I get, the more I agree with RMS. The purpose of the GPL is to ensure a level playing field where everybody share their code contributions and it does that marvelously well. You also seem to forget that it is Richard and his friends who created the GNU utilities and the C compiler that we all depend upon. GCC is arguably the most complex program ever created by mankind and make sthe Linux kernel pale into insignificance.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Nope, sorry, don't see that. You seem as angry as a fundamentalist Christian who wants to destroy Islam and anything other than what Jesus wants. Anyone else see that?
Anyway, what's wrong with being condescending and elitist? It's part of what makes Slashdot, Slashdot.
Nothing, if you want people to agree with you and because RMS looks and acts like a radical from 1967, many contemporary businessmen aren't interested in agreeing with him.
What makes Slashdot, Slashdot is different than what makes business, business. People looking to make a buck (who RMS isn't the least bit interested in) aren't interested in ideologies that make it more difficult for them to do so.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
And it's a good thing that Linus had a good, defensible license to back up how he releases his software. Otherwise *Linus* might be mired in defending Free Software, if he were so inclined to care about such a notion.
RMS *has* contributed despite what people like you say or think. I am not a hard-core follower of the FSF, but I'm not so blind that I can't see what RMS has done for 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
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/
WTF is wrong with emacs?
Emacs has many features. Towers of hanoi for instance is quite fun.
But how the f*ck do you just change the font size for all the displayed fonts? 8-pixel high terminal fonts are just so CGA.
There is definitely something wrong with a word processor / operating system where the easter-eggs are easier to access and less cryptic than the screen font controls.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
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.
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.
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...
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.
The appearance of a person is much more complicated than the cover of a book. It reveals many aspects of personality, indicating things like slovenliness, disdain for the opinions of others, and a total lack of understanding of how other people think in extreme cases like sir Stallman.
Possibly, this isn't fair, but it is real.
Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
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.)
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.