Slashdot Mirror
Free Software Foundation Turns 25
An anonymous reader writes "On this day, 25 years ago, Richard Stallman created the Free Software Foundation. He had been the director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Lab. Tired of seeing software that he and others had written appropriated (without acknowledgment or compensation) by disreputable software companies and then told to pay for software they had written, Stallman took action, creating the foundation. The original license was written by Stallman. Stallman had subsequently written a large number of GNU tools, but the license was his most important contribution."
Thank you.
.: Max Romantschuk
...license or legal construction In the history of computing. Easily. It's not even close.
The Open Source movement owes its existence to it. Many a intellectual property lawsuit has been decided by it.
Citation, please? I think he worked there and was probably their most famous programmer. But besides that I don't think he held an executive position at that lab.
I have a hard time believing that anything RMS is even partially responsible for is anywhere near as important as GCC, from its humble beginnings as a replacement for CC on UNIX to its present juggernaut Compiler Collection.
Thanks Richard for leaving your fingerprints on all of my object files! GCC is the awesome.
Nope. The GNU tools were already being used to augment commercial Unixen and as a foundation for bootstrapping the development environments of alternate hardware platforms like video game consoles. Free Software was already making it's mark before Linux came along. Many of us were exposed to the GNU tools first and then to Linux later.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Bethany: What is Stallman like?
Rufus: He likes to listen to people talk. I remember the old days when we were sittin' around the computer lab. You know, whenever we were goin' on about unimportant shit, He'd always have a smile on his face. His only real beef with programmers is the shit that gets carried out His name. Wars. Bigotry. Mobile Operating Systems. The big one though, is the factioning of the distros. He said, "Linux got it all wrong by takin' a good idea and building a belief structure out of it."
Bethany: So you're saying that having beliefs is a bad thing?
Rufus: I just think it's better to have an idea. You can change an idea; changing a belief is trickier. People die for it, people kill for it. The whole of Free software is in jeopardy right now because of the Open Source belief system in this software as a service bullshit. RedHat and SuSE, whether they know it or not, are exploiting that belief, and if they're successful, you, me, all of this ends in a heartbeat. All over a belief.
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
GPL is cool but I think emacs was his greatest accomplishment. At least technical accomplishment.
Whoever modded this flamebait needs to have their privileges revoked. I'm not sure I agree with the parent post, but Emacs is unquestionably a substantial contribution in its own right, as is the GCC.
Flamebait is not a synonym for disagree.
.. for your vision, contributions, and (and I know I'm not alone in this one).. helping me establish a career.
I make a living building and maintaining *nix hosts, and it probably wouldn't have happened if I didn't spend my childhood and teenage years playing with free software like Slackware, Debian, gcc, screen, bash, and a million other packages. Of course, a complete thank you list would be long enough to overflow my copy/paste buffer, but as this article is about GNU:
Thank you RMS! You've inspired millions of us, and pushed humanity forward yet another step.
A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
GCC is what it is because of the license. Without the license, it would just be another compiler most likely closed or restricted in some way. That it isn't is because of the license, not because of the code.
To what do you attribute the Wright brothers plane? The internal combustion engine or the dream to fly? Without the engine there could have been a plane driven by say a rocket, but without the dream their would never have been a plane.
It can be very hard to truly comprehend just how big Stallman's contribution has been. Freedom is very hard to grasp, if you are used to it.
In another response to the story about net neutrality I linked the internet to the press and the contribution to freedom that this tech has made. But what is that contribution? The art of reproducing text quickly OR the power of the written word? The capability of human beings to pass on their thoughts to others without ever meeting them?
Just as the chattering monkey became more human by being able to write down speech, and then more free by being able reproduce it easily and even free'er(?) by being able to transmit what he had for breakfast around the globe (oh okay so it ain't all good), the GNU, FSF etc have given us a degree of freedom that once we couldn't imagine and now can't imagine being without.
The oldies MIGHT remember machines on which you paid for every single second of access. In which hardware was not owned but leased. Only the very powerful could own a computer and making it doing anything useful cost even more.
Today, I can own a computer far more powerful, own it completly and use countless pieces of software for free. Not saying I have to, but I can and the fact that I can already means that those who wish to control software/hardware and freedom are restricted in doing so. Good luck MS with their ActiveX and attempts to stop the internet. IE did NOT manage to make the web an MS experience. Can you imagine what MS would have been like if they had IBM mainframe style control of the IBM compatible? If there never had been a Compaq, never had been a Dr-DOS? It would have been the Apple from Hell.
Trying to explain this alternate reality would be like trying to explain the holocaust (godwin can kiss my hairy butt) in a universe were said holocaust never happened. We escape the complete control of our PC's by IBM, so how can we imagine what the world would have been like with IBM in control?
And of course Stallman didn't do it all alone. But he has been the most central figure who has stood firm for 25 years. He and everyone else who has helped create the idea of software not as an owned and controlled resource has made the world we live in today. How could countless websites have gotten started without free Apache, free Perl/PHP/Python/etc, free databases yes even free OS'es?
But isn't MS software as easily available? Yes, BUT and this is a HUGE BUT, without IBM loosing control over the PC, MS would also never have been. MS, the closed source control freak company owes it existence to "free" software/hardware. Proof? No MS on mainframes.
So yes. GCC is awesome, but it is a minor tool, the AK47 of the freedom movement. It is the fight, not the weapons that matter. The decleration of independe vs the guarilla tactics. The refusal to obey seperation laws rather then choosing a seat in a bus.
And to those who think free software is not comparable. It isn't. But lack of freedom in small areas can mean the lack of freedom is far larger areas. Wouldn't it be convenient for those who want to control freedom, if printing presses could only be bought with identification? If a website could only be setup with a real ID?
So thank you Richard Stallman. I would never have the courage to do what you did, but the world is a better place cause you did it. Not perfect, but better. Just that the rest of us must remember that if we take it all for granted, we might loose it all. DMCA, Trusted Computing etc are real treaths and they do NOT go away just because we managed to stop them once.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
GCC would not have mattered one lick without the license.
Really, it's just a C compiler. It's important, but rudimentary. Anybody with sufficient programming skills can write one for a given machine (and they do). The license was the stroke of genius. GCC only exists in its current form because of the license. Without it GCC would be just another compiler in the dustbin of history.
The real important contribution was the counter-culture he started, and that was only able to survive the extremely proprietary world of computers because of the license.
I don't even like Stallman (I think he's an asshole, frankly), but that's clearly one thing he got very right. It was a brilliant move to use the same copyright laws that were used to steal his (and his compatriates') software in order to ensure their software would be free to use by everyone forever.
In other words, open source software - GCC included - would likely not exist today without the GPL.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
Only a tiny percentage of people use Emacs.
Programers have the option of Vi, Eclipse.org, Netbeans, XCode, Notepad++, and any number of other free as in speech or beer IDEs.
Think of all the software that is available under the GPL including Linux.
Then think of all the software written using GCC.
While I do not agree with RMS's extremist dogmatic view that all software should be free, I tend to believe there is room for both models. I also really dislike his devoted followers.
But I will say this about him.
GPL was important in influenced a lot of people including myself to write and contribute free software. Emacs while I do not use it is a very powerful editor/ide/os/religion. GCC is wonderful and I use it often. And about the man himself. I wrote him an email once and he actually took the time to respond to me. I didn't agree with him but he was polite and passonate in his view point. I will say that my opinion of RMS is he is a gentalman that I respect but have an honest difference in opinion with.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Technical accomplishments pale in comparison to cultural accomplishments.
Are you really arguing that emacs is a greater accomplishment than the entire open source software movement? GPL is what made OSS possible, without license the software would have been stolen before it could get off its feet. That's exactly what prompted the GPL in the first place - Stallman and his MIT buddies were writing software that vendors were picking up, incorporating into their own products, and then forcing Stallman and his buddies to pay for in the next iteration.
Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
You'll note that the negative moderation was balanced against at least 4 other positive moderations. The moderation system was built on the assumption that some people will moderate poorly but most will moderate appropriately. So Slashdot is working as it's supposed to. You can relax now.
The BSDs would exist without the GPL. Of course, getting to use GCC helps. Of all the things that RMS is responsible for, GCC is the only one I really use in any meaningful way. I think the majority of GPL software that I use isn't actually GNU or sponsored by the FSF, it just happens to be GPL. But the majority of my platform isn't GPL:
- FreeBSD is BSD licensed
- Apache is Apache (basically BSD) licensed
- PostreSQL uses a modified BSD-style license
- Perl is dual licensed with either the Artistic License or the GPL, depending on which you want to accept
- BIND is BSD licensed
I'm not particularly reliant on any GPL-based software other than GCC. That is the crux of my argument. Don't confuse "open source" with "free software" with the GPL.
I guess you are probably right but I still think he doesn't get the cred he deserves as a genius programmer. Before the GPL he was single handedly reverse engineering all of Symbolics stuff as a way to screw them for taking code from MIT's mac project and close sourcing it. That code was written by teams of very good hackers. That + emacs + gcc == incredible code writing. Some of the best MIT Hackers still say they we impressed by how much code he was churning out during that time.
Yeah but without it, I think GNU would have struggled in the 90s. Unix was dying, Linux injected some life.
It is difficult to know what would happen without the GPL but what the parent says does have some merit: the counter culture was very important and it is possible that all those projects are so successful because of this "counter culture". In this sense the Free Software foundation and GPL are Stallman's greatest contribution.
He may or may not be an asshole, but it is his attitude what made this possible. Without the attitude nothing would have happend.
New things are always on the horizon
Actually I'd argue that it isn't the license so much as the man himself. Love him or hate him (I too think he's gone a little too far overboard and gets worse as he ages) his license would be worth exactly jack squat if it weren't for the man's ability to promote himself and the GPL. after all what good would have been the GPL if only he had used it?
A good example IMHO is the way he'll choose some boring normal proprietary software press conference, which nearly any reporter assigned to is figuring is gonna be as boring and dull as watching paint dry, and at just the right moment holds up one of his little hippy signs with a catchy slogan. If you think about it it is fucking brilliant, as every reporter is gonna lock onto him like a heat seeking missile because he is the only possible controversy in an otherwise boring as hell press release, thus ensuring he and his message gets front row coverage. That is a seriously brilliant piece of promotion right there, which costs him exactly nothing but really gets his point across.
So I'd say the whole argument of Emacs VS GPL VS GCC would be moot if the man hadn't gotten the word out, and with a non profit copyleft style organization promotion has to be not only damned cheap but damned effective too, and love him or hate him RMS is damned smart when it comes for getting himself and the GPL promoted. And I'd say one could safely argue it was that gift that allowed him to create a FOSS empire from nothing but an idea. So here is to you Stallman, we may not agree on hardly anything, but I give credit where credit is due and you've earned yours. Happy Bday FSF.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I don't even like Stallman (I think he's an asshole, frankly), but that's clearly one thing he got very right. ... open source software - GCC included - would likely not exist today without the GPL.
If you start such a movement and doing so frustrate self-interested grabbers of all kinds, you are naturally going to be the target of abuse and personal attacks on such a scale that you may have, or you may need to already have, a thick skin to merely survive.
But your post does underline the significance of the accomplishment, so I concur.
as a way to screw them for taking code
Perhaps that was a motive. But if it is, should it be characterized that way? You might as well say that people who don't buy movies are "screwing" movie producers. Even if they never watch movies-- never pirate them, go to theaters, or even see them while visiting friends. Or that the police are "screwing" criminals whenever they make an arrest. If anyone writes useful software and gives it away, some business "opportunity" is "lost". That's crazy thinking, based on a fundamentally unsound business model.
The truer characterization is that an underhanded rent-seeking scheme was foiled, or punished. The scheme may have been legal, but it sure wasn't ethical. I have no sympathy whatever for the perps. It only takes one effort for any capable programmer to make another alternative. Business people will have to get over that eventually. Neither monopolization of ideas, or of copies, can be a viable long term business. We want business conducted fairly and honestly. Limits will always be probed, and scoundrels will still try to pull off evil schemes, and even win praise and admiration when they are successful particularly if they've hoodwinked everyone into thinking they're honest. But we ought to make it as difficult as possible, for the sake of society, and sure don't need to be letting rent seeking schemes work, and even backing them with enforcement activities, or pushing public perceptions with name calling like "piracy" and that "screwing" word you used. I call it Justice.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
What has the Free (as in Freedom) Software Foundation got to do with the State owning the means of production on behalf of the workers, authoritarian government and the elimination of dissent?
Stick Men