Yep. The problem with him dealing with people directly is that he's never had any real ability himself to hide what he is. The tremendous value inherent in the mouthpiece strategy...
Hold on. I was with you until this point. A _mouthpiece_ for Stallman? I am sure this would be news to him. Can you name this person or is this just as nonsensical as the rest of your post?
>> The basis is that Microsoft gives Novell's customers a patent license which is conditional on their not exercising many of the rights that the GPL gives them. This is unacceptable.
>Which freedoms cannot be exercised? Could you expand a little more?
Any freedoms that they receive that depend on the patent protection cannot be exercised. E.g., the customer cannot _redistribute_ the software with the same degree of patent protection that they themselves were granted; on the other hand, anyone not covered by the agreement will not receive the same degree of patent protection that was granted to their distributor, if their distributor is a Novell customer. The GPL3 has been revised to prohibit such asymmetric transfers of rights.
>>Yes, Novell contributes to free software, but what good is 10x the contribution if software freedom is threatened and watered down by the sponsor of such contributors?
>Statements like this often make me cringe I'm afraid. The last time it was mentioned was when Beryl forked Compiz, and how >wonderfully that turned out. I agree software freedom is vitally important, but fighting for it when it's not under threat or when >the wrong person is seen as the enemy is far too appealing to many people it seems. Still, I'll wait on to hear what you have to >say, for sure.
It's not just the principle of it; it's a slippery slope, a dangerous precedent. Any supporter of what the GPL seeks to protect will naturally care about upholding the GPL. I am reminded of trademark enforcement. If too much time goes by while trademark abuse is unchallenged, it eventually becomes unchallengable. The immediate outrage over the patent agreement was an important message that _circumventing_ licenses is not appreciated.
Again, I can only assume that you feel that the ban in GPL3 on these kinds of deals is unnecessary, because you presumably feel that the unbalanced transfer of rights that the deals enable is compatible with free software. I beg to differ.
>This is completely baseless. I'm interesting in hearing the way in which you think this is a valid statement though.
The basis is that Microsoft gives Novell's customers a patent license which is conditional on their not exercising many of the rights that the GPL gives them. This is unacceptable.
>>So serious is this problem that it forced the GPL3 to be delayed just in order to have language to ban this practice. The publication of a licence was delayed..
>I'm sorry but this is simply emotive language that unfortunately doesn't demonstrate anything.
Do you agree that the new language in the GPL3 banning such deals is necessary for protecting the four freedoms, or not?
I assume you disagree, but if you cannot show why the language is unnecessary, then I can only conclude that you are in denial about how it is wrong to help Microsoft extort free software users and degrade freedoms; whatever you may support, it would not be free software.
Yes, Novell contributes to free software, but what good is 10x the contribution if software freedom is threatened and watered down by the sponsor of such contributors?
Hopefully the published results will provide the community with a general better understanding of the deal, so that at least if they disagree/hate it, they do it for real reasons (which seems to be rare).
Why not acknowledge a real reason then, namely, that the patent agreement "innovated" a way to turn free software into effectively nonfree software? Moreover, it tries to do this by subverting the most widespread free software license. So serious is this problem that it forced the GPL3 to be delayed just in order to have language to ban this practice. No amount of excuses from Novell or FAQs can fix this problem.
If that is not enough reason for any free software person to shun Novell, then I don't know what is.
Richard has been prophetic about this: his concerns at the Novell/Microsoft deal, and about software patents in general, were exposed as completely correct when Microsoft started its recent claims of hundreds of patent violations without naming a single patent.
The problem is that most people do not want to face the fact that the powerful forever keep trying to buy laws that undermine democracy such as the DMCA. Thus, most people are in no position to understand RMS's warnings.
How could he have done so much excellent writing (e.g., his many manuals and a book of essays) and continue to be invited to speak all over the world if he had no ability to communicate? The basis of your entire post is nonsense. Even if you had a point, it is hardly _evil_ to sincerely express your beliefs. I'd say it's the opposite.
He's got foibles like anyone else. Your idiotic claim about him and Gates just shows you are talking out of your ass.
Wow, I have no idea how I touched such a raw nerve. Joel Spolsky and Paul Graham have a decent mastery of English and essay writing and so will often be quoted. The best hackers and coders wind up alienating or confusing people when they try to make their points understood (think RMS) and so won't be quoted as often, at least in a positive light.
Do you have any idea of how much writing RMS has actually done? E.g., see his book of essays for an example of his mastery of English and essay writing. RMS will be frequently misunderstood like this as long as he is delivering an unpopular message. Moreover, the message is generally counter to the establishment. Spolsky and Graham may challenge convention but certainly not on the level that RMS _consistently_ does. The comparison in other posts that holds up Linus over RMS does not take into account that Linus simply does not indulge in controversial matters to the degree that RMS does.
RMS also can be insensitive, impatient, and unaccomodating to various norms (e.g., looks like a hippie).
Thus, RMS alienates and confuses _in spite_ of his excellent communication skills.
With Hilf talking about about how GNU/Linux does not exist, and Gutierrez and Smith spreading FUD about patent violations of free software, one might get the idea that Microsoft is having trouble competing.
So now they naturally put out their best spin on the Vista disappointment--what convenient timing.
Hilf has just taken some (not enough) lessons on spin from the other Bill, but I still have never found anyone that can beat Gates--in any industry. Take his anti-trust deposition for example--a performance to make your skin crawl!
Yes, Novell should not have signed the deal when it included "Patent Protection". Yes, Microsoft is a huge company that destroys all competition by any means necessary. Yes, the community is pissed about it.
Let's get over it already!
If the community is pissed about it, why should we get over it already? On the contrary, there has not been enough outrage about it--not until Novell backs out of the patent agreement.
How important is "the anti-copyright crowd" that the blogger writes about? It certainly has nothing to do with the FSF. Far more enlightening than the blog post is anything RMS has ever written. On copyright, read one of RMS's best writings, "Misinterpreting Copyright":
I still feel that corporations are unworthy, but I agree with you about goodness, fairness, and integrity. However, I do not understand your comment about Google, since whether corporations _choose_ to be good or bad is a moot point. They're amoral, despite however they may try to dress up their actions.
So we must be fair to Novell, but this does not imply that the speculation was unfair to them. One can try to be fair to someone by trying to consider what they have done on the whole. IMO, the bad outweighs the good, so I think the speculation about them is eminently fair.
Certainly I hope to have a sounder basis for my disagreement than FUD.
Can you point out where FUD is the basis for someone's disagreement with Novell?
Suppose you are a cop who disagrees with a hostage taker who threatens to kill ten people. Do you think FUD that will fool the bad guy into slipping up and being stopped is unfair? Your disagreement with him is quite sound in this case, and, yes, his FUD is grossly unfair; indeed, it is his FUD that ensures your disagreement here. OTOH, the basis of your disagreement here is not at all your FUD. In this case, it happens to be FUD from him.
A corporation _is_ a person, e.g., from Wikipedia:
"A corporation is an artificial legal entity (technically, a juristic person)..."
A case could be made that the speculation was unfair to Robert Love, and I guess I agree with that, after having thought about it more. However, I agree with you that the original statement--that it's unfair to all parties-- is false. Corporations are people without a conscience that do not deserve fair treatment.
Come on--the summary mentioned Allison as a precedent, could have mentioned recent previous disgruntled resigners, and qualified Love's motivation with "might."
Perhaps it is some mild FUD towards Novell. If the target of FUD is behaving badly on the whole, I cannot see how FUD towards it is unfair. Maybe you can, but I think that requires more slack towards Novell than I think it deserves.
To be more precise, I hold above these specific events the importance of the four freedoms that the GPL tries to promote. Novell treated the GPL with contempt and set a nasty precedent. They show no signs of repealing their patent agreement. Thus, I want another precedent: the speedy demise of those who gain the trust of the community only to then turn on it.
To call the speculation injustice trivializes injustice. I don't see how something so mild and predictable is unfair to Love. On the contrary, it could easily grant him a little extra (speculative, to be sure) respect from afar.
Moreover, not seeing it as unfair to Novell does not even require any particular enmity toward it. It's just another corporation, after all.
The mission of the FSF is to promote free software to the exclusion of nonfree software. "Linux" is rarely used properly to refer to just the kernel, instead referring to an entire OS that often includes nonfree software. "GNU", OTOH, refers an entire OS of just free software, the kernel of which could be any one of several, including Linux.
Thus we have a chasm. On the one hand, RMS is trying to advocate for having *only* free software, a position not at all suggested by "Linux". Indeed, Linus Torvalds himself has always rejected that advocacy, instead advocating an "open source" development model. On the other hand, a typical interviewer will, for several possible reasons, use only popular terms, such as "Linux" or "open source".
So the question is, how should the chasm be bridged? After all, you realize that RMS must properly represent the FSF. In addition to a technical place, "GNU" has philosophical and historical importance -- importance that even sophisticated users are unaware of. Now this chasm could be bridged with explanations and qualifications at every turn without using the awkward "GNU/Linux" term. Could the many words work at least as well as the current "GNU/Linux" usage towards convincing people to support the FSF mission? It seems that RMS would have to work harder, and more generally this kind of effort would require more resources.
Another way to see the "GNU/Linux" term is that it stops people from their chronic oversimplification. To resolve any confusion about "GNU/Linux", the unitiated might be more curious, perhaps enough to look up GNU, which IMHO is a very big step. How can we get people to look that term up so they may at least learn about software freedom?
Stop me right now and tell me where I am going wrong, please. Of course, some interviews are not what they seem, but I assume you are referring to the honest variety.
P.S. I dislike RMS's occasional rude and insensitive behavior, which would be helped with greater patience. Moreover, I disagree with some of his statements outside of the free software domain.
The current headline sucks. As stated in TFA, Eben Moglen is only leaving the FSF board of directors. Of course, his role of general counsel to the FSF, which long preceded the director role, will continue.
You imply that RMS is no longer a hacker fighting for the cause of free software, yet you conclude that you don't know what he's like now.
If you're not what I suspect -- just another witless troll -- could you at least explain how the president of the FSF should better advocate its mission?
Slashdot Mirror
Hold on. I was with you until this point. A _mouthpiece_ for Stallman? I am sure this would be news to him. Can you name this person or is this just as nonsensical as the rest of your post?
Anyone who has not seen the following link on what Novell's partner Microsoft inspires should see:
http://www.inlumineconsulting.com:8080/website/ms
Of course, there's an entire system of astroturfing, shilling, and even some trolling generated by the enormous vested interest in nonfree software.
>> The basis is that Microsoft gives Novell's customers a patent license which is conditional on their not exercising many of the rights that the GPL gives them. This is unacceptable.
>Which freedoms cannot be exercised? Could you expand a little more?
Any freedoms that they receive that depend on the patent protection cannot be exercised. E.g., the customer cannot _redistribute_ the software with the same degree of patent protection that they themselves were granted; on the other hand, anyone not covered by the agreement will not receive the same degree of patent protection that was granted to their distributor, if their distributor is a Novell customer. The GPL3 has been revised to prohibit such asymmetric transfers of rights.
>>Yes, Novell contributes to free software, but what good is 10x the contribution if software freedom is threatened and watered down by the sponsor of such contributors?
>Statements like this often make me cringe I'm afraid. The last time it was mentioned was when Beryl forked Compiz, and how >wonderfully that turned out. I agree software freedom is vitally important, but fighting for it when it's not under threat or when >the wrong person is seen as the enemy is far too appealing to many people it seems. Still, I'll wait on to hear what you have to >say, for sure.
It's not just the principle of it; it's a slippery slope, a dangerous precedent. Any supporter of what the GPL seeks to protect will naturally care about upholding the GPL. I am reminded of trademark enforcement. If too much time goes by while trademark abuse is unchallenged, it eventually becomes unchallengable. The immediate outrage over the patent agreement was an important message that _circumventing_ licenses is not appreciated.
Again, I can only assume that you feel that the ban in GPL3 on these kinds of deals is unnecessary, because you presumably feel that the unbalanced transfer of rights that the deals enable is compatible with free software. I beg to differ.
>This is completely baseless. I'm interesting in hearing the way in which you think this is a valid statement though.
The basis is that Microsoft gives Novell's customers a patent license which is conditional on their not exercising many of the rights that the GPL gives them. This is unacceptable.
>>So serious is this problem that it forced the GPL3 to be delayed just in order to have language to ban this practice. The publication of a licence was delayed..
>I'm sorry but this is simply emotive language that unfortunately doesn't demonstrate anything.
Do you agree that the new language in the GPL3 banning such deals is necessary for protecting the four freedoms, or not?
I assume you disagree, but if you cannot show why the language is unnecessary, then I can only conclude that you are in denial about how it is wrong to help Microsoft extort free software users and degrade freedoms; whatever you may support, it would not be free software.
Yes, Novell contributes to free software, but what good is 10x the contribution if software freedom is threatened and watered down by the sponsor of such contributors?
Why not acknowledge a real reason then, namely, that the patent agreement "innovated" a way to turn free software into effectively nonfree software? Moreover, it tries to do this by subverting the most widespread free software license. So serious is this problem that it forced the GPL3 to be delayed just in order to have language to ban this practice. No amount of excuses from Novell or FAQs can fix this problem.
If that is not enough reason for any free software person to shun Novell, then I don't know what is.
The problem is that most people do not want to face the fact that the powerful forever keep trying to buy laws that undermine democracy such as the DMCA. Thus, most people are in no position to understand RMS's warnings.
How could he have done so much excellent writing (e.g., his many manuals and a book of essays) and continue to be invited to speak all over the world if he had no ability to communicate? The basis of your entire post is nonsense. Even if you had a point, it is hardly _evil_ to sincerely express your beliefs. I'd say it's the opposite.
He's got foibles like anyone else. Your idiotic claim about him and Gates just shows you are talking out of your ass.
Do you have any idea of how much writing RMS has actually done? E.g., see his book of essays for an example of his mastery of English and essay writing. RMS will be frequently misunderstood like this as long as he is delivering an unpopular message. Moreover, the message is generally counter to the establishment. Spolsky and Graham may challenge convention but certainly not on the level that RMS _consistently_ does. The comparison in other posts that holds up Linus over RMS does not take into account that Linus simply does not indulge in controversial matters to the degree that RMS does.
RMS also can be insensitive, impatient, and unaccomodating to various norms (e.g., looks like a hippie).
Thus, RMS alienates and confuses _in spite_ of his excellent communication skills.
With Hilf talking about about how GNU/Linux does not exist, and Gutierrez and Smith spreading FUD about patent violations of free software, one might get the idea that Microsoft is having trouble competing.
So now they naturally put out their best spin on the Vista disappointment--what convenient timing.
...partisans in the past couple of days on zdnet, cnet, and various other blogs sympathetic to MSFT is:
:)
Adopting GPLv3 will be suicide for the FOSS community.
Take heed.
Hilf has just taken some (not enough) lessons on spin from the other Bill, but I still have never found anyone that can beat Gates--in any industry. Take his anti-trust deposition for example--a performance to make your skin crawl!
More terminological abuse from Slashdot editors:
"Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux" (when not referring specifically to the Linux kernel)
"piracy" instead of "copyright infringement"
I am sure we could dig up more.
If the community is pissed about it, why should we get over it already? On the contrary, there has not been enough outrage about it--not until Novell backs out of the patent agreement.
How important is "the anti-copyright crowd" that the blogger writes about? It certainly has nothing to do with the FSF. Far more enlightening than the blog post is anything RMS has ever written. On copyright, read one of RMS's best writings, "Misinterpreting Copyright":
y right.html , or
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/misinterpreting-cop
as found in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fsfs/rms-essays.pdf , or
as printed in his book _Free Software, Free Society_
I still feel that corporations are unworthy, but I agree with you about goodness, fairness, and integrity. However, I do not understand your comment about Google, since whether corporations _choose_ to be good or bad is a moot point. They're amoral, despite however they may try to dress up their actions.
So we must be fair to Novell, but this does not imply that the speculation was unfair to them. One can try to be fair to someone by trying to consider what they have done on the whole. IMO, the bad outweighs the good, so I think the speculation about them is eminently fair.
Can you point out where FUD is the basis for someone's disagreement with Novell?
Suppose you are a cop who disagrees with a hostage taker who threatens to kill ten people. Do you think FUD that will fool the bad guy into slipping up and being stopped is unfair? Your disagreement with him is quite sound in this case, and, yes, his FUD is grossly unfair; indeed, it is his FUD that ensures your disagreement here. OTOH, the basis of your disagreement here is not at all your FUD. In this case, it happens to be FUD from him.
A corporation _is_ a person, e.g., from Wikipedia:
"A corporation is an artificial legal entity (technically, a juristic person)..."
A case could be made that the speculation was unfair to Robert Love, and I guess I agree with that, after having thought about it more. However, I agree with you that the original statement--that it's unfair to all parties-- is false. Corporations are people without a conscience that do not deserve fair treatment.
Come on--the summary mentioned Allison as a precedent, could have mentioned recent previous disgruntled resigners, and qualified Love's motivation with "might."
Perhaps it is some mild FUD towards Novell. If the target of FUD is behaving badly on the whole, I cannot see how FUD towards it is unfair. Maybe you can, but I think that requires more slack towards Novell than I think it deserves.
To be more precise, I hold above these specific events the importance of the four freedoms that the GPL tries to promote. Novell treated the GPL with contempt and set a nasty precedent. They show no signs of repealing their patent agreement. Thus, I want another precedent: the speedy demise of those who gain the trust of the community only to then turn on it.
To call the speculation injustice trivializes injustice. I don't see how something so mild and predictable is unfair to Love. On the contrary, it could easily grant him a little extra (speculative, to be sure) respect from afar.
Moreover, not seeing it as unfair to Novell does not even require any particular enmity toward it. It's just another corporation, after all.
It's a shame to say it, but also thank you for leaving Novell--they didn't deserve you.
I agree with you up until you start talking about what is fair. IMO, the deal was much less fair than this token mild speculation.
OK, please point out my mistake here.
The mission of the FSF is to promote free software to the exclusion of nonfree software. "Linux" is rarely used properly to refer to just the kernel, instead referring to an entire OS that often includes nonfree software. "GNU", OTOH, refers an entire OS of just free software, the kernel of which could be any one of several, including Linux.
Thus we have a chasm. On the one hand, RMS is trying to advocate for having *only* free software, a position not at all suggested by "Linux". Indeed, Linus Torvalds himself has always rejected that advocacy, instead advocating an "open source" development model. On the other hand, a typical interviewer will, for several possible reasons, use only popular terms, such as "Linux" or "open source".
So the question is, how should the chasm be bridged? After all, you realize that RMS must properly represent the FSF. In addition to a technical place, "GNU" has philosophical and historical importance -- importance that even sophisticated users are unaware of. Now this chasm could be bridged with explanations and qualifications at every turn without using the awkward "GNU/Linux" term. Could the many words work at least as well as the current "GNU/Linux" usage towards convincing people to support the FSF mission? It seems that RMS would have to work harder, and more generally this kind of effort would require more resources.
Another way to see the "GNU/Linux" term is that it stops people from their chronic oversimplification. To resolve any confusion about "GNU/Linux", the unitiated might be more curious, perhaps enough to look up GNU, which IMHO is a very big step. How can we get people to look that term up so they may at least learn about software freedom?
Stop me right now and tell me where I am going wrong, please. Of course, some interviews are not what they seem, but I assume you are referring to the honest variety.
P.S. I dislike RMS's occasional rude and insensitive behavior, which would be helped with greater patience. Moreover, I disagree with some of his statements outside of the free software domain.
The current headline sucks. As stated in TFA, Eben Moglen is only leaving the FSF board of directors. Of course, his role of general counsel to the FSF, which long preceded the director role, will continue.
Huh? You mean that X.org is not directly affiliated with the FSF. However, X.org certainly produces free software and thus is connected to it.
You imply that RMS is no longer a hacker fighting for the cause of free software, yet you conclude that you don't know what he's like now.
If you're not what I suspect -- just another witless troll -- could you at least explain how the president of the FSF should better advocate its mission?
...destroy. Destruction of evidence, rights, the digital commons, a free market, etc.