I only needed to read the first paragraph of that article or so to realise those people have no idea what they are talking about.
Points for this argument:
1. Linux isn't an operating system, it is an operating system kernel.
2. As far as I know there is no such thing as the "Linux movement".
3. Richard "RMS" Stallman doesn't argue that software should be free of charge, but free for peoples freedoms, hence the term "free as in free speech not free as in beer".
4. They make ridiculous accusations that the Free Software Foundation attacks commercial software, when there is nothing wrong with commercial software, it is proprietary software that is targeted, as is made completely clear here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and I quote "Free software does not mean non-commercial. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.".
5. From what I have read, the Linux kernel will be released under GPLv2 with no change in license.
Without reading the entire article, it seems this was just a pathetically bigoted, insulting and upsetting attack on RMS, a man who has dedicated his life to helping computer users retain their freedom. So no change to Linux will affect anything regarding the license.
Slashdot Mirror
I only needed to read the first paragraph of that article or so to realise those people have no idea what they are talking about. Points for this argument: 1. Linux isn't an operating system, it is an operating system kernel. 2. As far as I know there is no such thing as the "Linux movement". 3. Richard "RMS" Stallman doesn't argue that software should be free of charge, but free for peoples freedoms, hence the term "free as in free speech not free as in beer". 4. They make ridiculous accusations that the Free Software Foundation attacks commercial software, when there is nothing wrong with commercial software, it is proprietary software that is targeted, as is made completely clear here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and I quote "Free software does not mean non-commercial. A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.". 5. From what I have read, the Linux kernel will be released under GPLv2 with no change in license. Without reading the entire article, it seems this was just a pathetically bigoted, insulting and upsetting attack on RMS, a man who has dedicated his life to helping computer users retain their freedom. So no change to Linux will affect anything regarding the license.