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.'"
In other news, RMS has revealed that the much anticipated GPLv4 will require anyone who uses or distributes GPLv4 code to refrain from showering.
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.
It's amazing that RMS doesn't see this. Linus isn't at war with RMS, he just doesn't like GPL v3. Unite and conquer, not fight amongst ourselves. Sheesh.
GeneralKael -- Slacker Extraordinaire
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.
The Hurd is slow in coming due to the extreme lack of developers. There's what? 17 registered developers on Savannah? Compared to how many Linux kernel hackers out there? Despite the previous lack of motivation in developing a kernel, The Hurd has made great strides despite relatively small developer base.
My blog
The two men have very different goals, though: what, precisely, would they unite over?
Torvalds wants to produce a decent, *nix-like operating system (or kernel, really), and, for the time being, views the GPL as the best license to work under in pursuit of that goal. If he felt that Linux would be better served via a proprietary, non-Free license, I expect he would advocate a move towards that position.
Stallman doesn't care about any of that, per se: he's concerned with the philosophy and ethics of software licensing, not one particular piece of code. Currently, his goal is to push GPLv3. Given Torvalds repeated lack of any interest whatsoever in the license, they are not part of the same team. They're not necessarily enemies, of course, but since Torvalds has been openly criticizing the new version of the GPL for many months now, it's in Stallman's interests to respond.
The two men don't see eye to eye, and since they're both appealing to a different goal, they're unlikely to be able to convince each other to change their positions.
Sean Daugherty "I have walked in Eternity -- and Eternity weeps."
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'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.
Instead of whining about Linus how about you get your ass moving on your own kernel replacement?
Or perhaps, just perhaps, Stallman has more important things to worry about than yet another Unix-like kernel. Like, oh I dunno, FREEDOM, or some trifle like that.
That's part of what (clearly) annoys Stallman about Torvalds. Stallman's making this huge principled stand for freedom, and all Torvalds really cares about is his kernel.
You may not consider freedom important, but Stallman does. And despite his difficult persona, he should be applauded.
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.
"That's part of what (clearly) annoys Stallman about Torvalds. Stallman's making this huge principled stand for freedom, and all Torvalds really cares about is his kernel."
And therein lies the rub. 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. Torvalds, by using the GPL as a tool to assist and promote his pet project, also brought the GPL into much greater prominence. But it was the fact that Torvalds cares primarily about his project that alowed thsi to happen - if Linux wasn't a good and useful idea and execution to start with, it would have gone nowhere. After all, it doesn't matter how "free" a piece of software is - if it is a piece of crap, no one will use it if they have a choice.
THAT is what really galls Stallman: not that the GPL isn't Torvaldss first concern, but that Torvalds has done so much more than Stallman in promoting Free Software, and it wasn't even Torvalds' primary goal! Imagine how frustrated Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton would be if, when seeking information about poverty and rights, people went to the person running a soup kitchen instead of themselves. Please note that I don't equate Stallman and those 2 clown on a personal level, but an organizational one. He may have had the "vision", but others have done more to promote it than he ever could accomplish, and that must be galling.
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Reading Stallman's rant, I'm surprised you could find 17 warm bodies that'd put up with his bullshit let alone 17 developers. No doubt Stallman's capable, his accomplishments put that question beyond much doubt but Jeez, the arrogance of the guy undermines him, and everything he believes in, at every turn.
In the article he says he launched the GNU OS in 1984 and seven years later a kid from Finland blows right past him. What was Stallman doing during those seven years? What's he been doing in the sixteen years since?
What's Torvalds got that Stallman doesn't?
Maybe the ability to keep his damned mouth shut when he doesn't have anything worthwhile to say? Maybe the sneaking suspicion that he isn't necessarily the smartest person in every room he enters? Maybe an ability to rein in his ego to move a project along and the realization that every good idea and worthwhile insight doesn't necessarily flow from his mighty mind?
Although it's pretty late in the game, I wish Stallman would come to appreciate that talking less and doing more will garner more respect then the opposite. Certainly open source software suffers from a perception, sometimes earned, of a lack of seriousness. As a major figure in open source, Stallman's antics don't help to change that perception.
Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
Funny, I read the same article and didn't get any "with us or against us" out of it. I found it to be a clear delineation of the distinction between "free software" and "open source software", and a rationale of why Stallman is committed to "free software."
I understand that it's appealing, in a "rubbernecking the auto accident" way, to frame the discussion as a flame war between Stallman and Torvalds, but such an approach does nothing to further either man's position. Stallman is a political creature, and freedom, as he defines it, is obviously important to him. Torvalds is a practical creature, apparently uninterested in the political nature of Stallman's model, and develops accordingly. Fortunately for many of us there is an overlap that allows us to run GNU software on a Linux kernel and reap the benefits of both worlds.
"Freedom" in Stallman's world is neither easy or convenient. Committing to his approach means rejecting some software that may be useful or interesting or fun. "Freedom" in Torvalds' world is, as noted in the article, is simply a means to an end; the end being collaborative development of useful software. For now, neither could exist without the other, which makes most of the flaming I anticipate in this discussion somewhat ironic.
The lead makes it sound like RMS was ranting about Torvalds. Actually, the interviewer asked one trollish question on Torvalds' position on GPL3 (certain to generate good copy), and RMS responded just as far as answering the question required.
RMS is basically saying that Torvalds has different goals than he does, and if you share his (RMS's) goals of software freedom, you had better not let Torvalds' opinion make your mind up on GPL v3.
I don't know how you read jealousy into this, it seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Actually, the funny thing is that it seems to that RMS has mellowed over the years and Linus has become a bit more of a firebrand. I think RMS realizes that a softer pitch makes the message louder. Linus seems to have imbibed a bit of the chest thumping American corporate culture; he certainly isn't the self-deprecating young fellow we used to know.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"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 think it was Linus who lucked into success due to Stallman's efforts. Without the GPL, Linus probably would have just gone with a BSD-style licence. Linux would then have fragmented and dissipated just like BSD Unix. And having not been beat to the punch by Linux, maybe a FSF kernel would have taken the spot Linux now occupies.
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.
What rant? I've always found RMS to be completely reasonable and consistent in his lectures, speeches, essays, and other writings and communications.
Just because you don't agree with him, doesn't mean he is wrong. Also, even if he is wrong, he is not putting a gun to your head and making you follow his way. He just tries to persuade and he does it rather eloquently if you ask me.
Also, what's the deal with everyone criticizing his personal appearance? What does that have to do with anything? When did "fair looks" become the be-all end-all of everything.
I think that most people who criticize RMS, from what I can see, are a bunch of hypocrites.
Have a Nice Day,
Gerry B.
Over-the-top Response Guy! Giving "Over-the-Top Responses" since 1970.
But Jeremy Allison wasn't bound by the license! He never used Bitkeeper, was never bound by the terms of its license, and therefore wasn't violating it.
McVoy was using BK as an instrument to gain control over Open Source SCM for monetary gain, by inserting his SCM in the Linux kernel development process, with a license requiring that anyone who used it agreed not to work on SCM software of their own, in an effort to ensure that there would be no Open Source alternatives. And Linus was content to go along with this, because BK really was a superior solution technically.
Allison, who happened to work for the same employer as Linus, reverse-engineered the BK protocol _on his own time_, again, without violating the license because he had never needed to agree to it. He did this in order to write an open-source read-only client for BitKeeper, so that people could access the full kernel repository without agreeing to the BitKeeper license. McVoy hit the roof, started spamming Jeremy and Linus' employer with legal threats, tried to get Jeremy fired, and then when that didn't work (they didn't care because he was working on his own time), punished everyone by withdrawing the free BK license. Linus, being bound by the same non-compete agreement as everyone else who had used Bitkeeper to access the kernel source repository, wrote as much of git as he could (stopping short of what actually constituted a fully-functional SCM), and then let Junio Hamano do the rest.
Whatever other personality issues are in play, this is exactly the kind of problem that RMS is concerned with: Linus was prepared to let a control freak like McVoy try use the Linux kernel project as a strategic wedge to block the development of Open Source SCM software and promote his own proprietary solution, simply because it was convenient for Linus and he was friends with McVoy. Linus has a history of doing whatever is personally convenient, without regard for long-term consequences or the effect it has on others.
DNA just wants to be free...
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/
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.
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.