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.'"
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...
You don't think we could use the BSD code if we needed to?
Check out my sysadmin blog!
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.
Torvalds' key opportunity came at a time when BSD was mired in the AT&T litigation. At the time, on x86, there was SCO, BSD, Linux. SCO had its problems, including price. AT&T held BSD at bay while Linux established a beach head.
Linux now has substantial inertia. It is the path of least resistance. But if Linux disappeared tomorrow, Solaris or BSD could fill the void. They're just not the commodity choice right now.
The history of GCC according to Wikipedia makes some interesting reading in this regard.
Although Stallman helped write the original version of GCC, which itself was copied from an existing Pascal compiler, he let development stagnate until a group of other developers got pissed off and forked it to the EGCS. It was at this point that Stallman realised that they coded something better and 'allowed' them to call it GCC.
In a similar vein, the GPL would probably never have taken off as a license if Torvalds hadn't adopted it and made it as widespread as it is now.
I'm not going to piss all over what he's done - he has put a lot of work in. But the idea that he somehow deserves equal or more credit for the development of Linux just because of his work on GCC and the GPL is, frankly, a bit silly.
"It does not do to leave a live dragon out of your calculations, if you live near him." - Tolkien
You could, but without the GPL I don't think open source would be as popular as it is. Companies are companies and by their very nature competitive not cooperative. So, without a legal framework to force them to share with others, they will avoid doing so. Why? Because some middle-manager will say "No, that's our IP now, we're not sharing it with anybody we don't have to" and he'd be right, the company has to worry about competitors and potential competitors. They have to worry about the guy who will be more selfish then them and simply take their competitive advantages and give nothing in return. The GPL is all about making sure that all companies have to share their "improvements" to open source software with the world, rather than simply taking the code and letting the improvements moulder in the darkness. This both benefits and hinders companies but, perhaps more importantly, it forces every company to play by the same rules, thus ensuring that no company looses more than it gains by sharing.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
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.
I would rather be in a world where some people disagree, than in a world where everyone agrees. Stagnation occurs when everyone thinks the same way. Either way, so what if he doesnt like GPL3? As stallman himself has said, you can just as easily STILL use GPL2. GPL3 is merely a new alternative, and while you have to convert-or-die (to gpl3) in a sense where you cannot have GPL2 and GPL3 together (I think, corrected me if I am misreading) that isn't the end-all-be-all of the GNU frontier and mentality. At least he is standing up for what he feels is right, rather than conforming to someone else just to appease people.
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.
The Hurd is slow in coming due to the extreme lack of developers.
This seems like good evidence that most developers are no more interested in specific licensing terms than Linus is.
RMS gives the impression of being on a crusade to cause all software everywhere to be free as in speech. Unfortunately for this crusade, the terms of GPL cause everything to be effectively free as in beer, which turns off a lot of people who think it should be possible to make money selling software and not just support. GPL3 is the most clear demonstration of the waning distinction between speech and beer.
Personally, I write software because it's useful for me. I release it as open source because I'm not interested in taking the time to package and market something I generally believe to be of niche interest. I release it as GPL because I'd rather not see someone else recognize a market I didn't and make tons of money off of my effort without some form of compensation (either also giving back to the community or arranging a commercial license with me). To me, the Tivo hole is a way for a hardware vendor to leverage a one-time sale of hardware into a subscription service and doesn't really reflect making money off of my effort.
I'm with Linus on this one. If most developers really do care about the details of release, then we should see that core of Hurd developers grow pretty quickly in the weeks ahead.
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.
I read that story the other day, and the biggest problem I had with it, besides that no one is quite sure if it actually happened, is that Stallman never actually asked Xerox for the driver. He tried to get it through back-channels who had signed agreements not to disclose the source of the driver. If he had just gone to Xerox, stated the problem, and said that he wanted to write a patch, it would have never been a problem.
Common Sense: 1, Stallman: 0
While Stallman would like to bully companies into throwing open their source on anything that might touch his precious GNU project, its not realistic. If you want companies to write drivers for their hardware and ensure compatability, you have to give them the option to keep their secrets secret. Otherwise you'll just scare them off and hurt yourself in the process.
My Sysadmin Blog
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/
Cite?
I thought not.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
It seems that now, Linus wishes he had gone with a more lax license.
No. Linus has stated that he's happy with GPLv2. No regret there.
Also, if you read the article, you'd have learned that that RMS doesn't try to force anyone to think his way
And yet, he continues to whine about it. Does RMS respect Linus' decision to stick with GPLv2? If he did, this would be a non-issue.
sig: sauer
You see, from a *practical* standpoint, Linus Torvalds has done more than Stallman did to accomplish Stallman's very own aims - by an order of magnitude.
What a load of bollocks. Do you even know what Stallman has developed? He didn't just start telling people to use his license. He created the GPL, GCC, glibc, gdb and gmake. Without Stallman, Linux would have been stillborn. He's spent the years since then ceaselessly campaigning for Free Software, and all you can say is that Linus created the kernel so he's done an order of magnitude more? Did it ever occur to you that if Linux hadn't existed then the GNU people might have paid a little more attention to the HURD?
From what I can tell in many ways Torvalds stays with GPLv2 because it offers a compromise between openess of source code and a license that businesses can tolerate. This compromise is having open source running on otherwise closed software. GPLv3 would not permit this[citation needed] and therefore this would hurt the popularity of Linux, especially in th embedded arena.
Yes, you can, and there is nothing the GPLv3, as a non-contract copyright license could do to stop you from doing so. You can't make copies and then distribute them with such a device, but nothing stops you from incorporating such copies that you receive from some third party into such a device.
OTOH, the GPLv3 aims to prevent such distribution (at leat for consumer products, apparently businesses have greater rights than consumers in what features they are allowed to seek in products incorporating GPL software)—which is a restriction on use—as far as is possible without becoming an EULA-style contract rather than a gratuitous license, and when it fails (as it inevitably will since it has a gaping hole) to stop that kind of distribution, the FSF is going to have to decide whether restricting the set of features available in consumer products is more important than Freedom Zero.
If you are given the source, then you can change it and run it. You may not be able to do so on the particular hardware instance you received, but then I can change the code on any particular piece of read-only media and use that media to run the modified code, either. It would be more consistent with the spirit of the GPL pre-v3 to simply require that any hardware product incorporating GPL code have an open specification licensed on GPL-like terms (the precise terms for a hardware-specification license would have to be developed, of course) that allowed re-implementation of the hardware; requiring that hardware incorporating GPL software allow that software to be replaced is analogous to requiring that GPL software in binary form only be redistributed in dynamically-linked versions, not statically-linked versions, and does no more to promote (and as much to restrict) software freedom. And, of course, doing it selectively for only certain kinds of products advances no coherent ideology whatsoever.
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.
Moderators: These are pertinent questions which need answers.
Just because someone doesn't toe the line doesn't mean they're (dumb|foolish|short-sighted). Maybe, just maybe, RMS and the FSF are the ones damaging the cause rather than those who share similar ideals but don't agree with the extremists in the movement. After all, if the FSF and RMS were the final word, there would be no need for the OSI, right?
I respect you Bruce, but you are avoiding a point you know to be true: Linus 'gave' RMS the kernel to make RMS's dreams come true, as HURD was/is getting nowhere fast. Linus has done more to advance RMS's goals than anyone else, even though it was never his intention or goal. We have all came along for the ride. RMS loves politics, and hasn't written much code lately. It is Linus' apothy for politics that led to the fast development.
And now anyone that doesn't agree with and adopt the GPL 3 be damned. It is the most closed minded nonsense I have ever seen in the 'free' software movement.
I know RMS is a huge factor in why we have so much great FOSS software, but I'm sick of hearing him badger everyone who feels slightly different about what is Open and what is Free. It is ok to have an opinion as long as you agree with RMS? No thanks, that isn't my idea of freedom, software or otherwise, and sometimes this is exactly how he comes across.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
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.)
about Stallman is that he once again proves it is a fine line between genius and insanity.
He might have been a genius as a programmer, but even that is open to debate in some people's minds.
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.
It's called hypocrisy. However, the rationalisation that Marxists generally like to use is that they're "using the system's own institutions to destroy it."
Don't get me wrong, I respect the man and agree with many of his ideas.
I respected some of his ideas, until I started finding out more about the nature of both his motivations, and the behaviour of his cultists.
Never forget that when you fight something this passionately there is a great and real danger of becoming what you are fighting.
I can remember reading that when he was younger, his political inclinations were fairly openly authoritarian. I don't believe that he really values anyone's freedom at all; what he actually wants is control over others, and tries to use the concept of freedom as bait to get other people to join his "movement," because he thinks that that is a concept that they care about.