Date: August 13, 2003, 22:51:30 EDT
Topic: Free Software
In September of 1983, a computer programmer working in the Massachusetts Institute for Technology AI Lab announced a plan that was the antithesis of the proprietary software concept that had come to dominate the industry. The plan detailed the creation of a UNIX replacement that would be entirely free, not as in the cost of the product, but as in freedom. That announcement would eventually catapult its author, Richard M. Stallman, into someone known and respected around the world and, perhaps more amazingly, a person that companies such as Apple and Netscape would alter their plans because of.
Stallman is not your average advocate of a particular cause. Nearly two decades after the announcement of his GNU System, he has stayed firm on his positions and has founded and guided the Free Software Foundation into an organization capable of promoting and managing the GNU System, a set of components that form more of what is often mistakenly known simply as "Linux" than the Linux kernel itself does. That might be somewhat unusual in today's society where causes popular today quickly become forgotten in tomorrow's priorities, but there is something even more unusual about Stallman. He is always open and available to those who drop him an e-mail, and not just the media, but also the the individual user or developer. This is not because he has nothing to do -- Stallman is a busy globetrotter constantly doing whatever it takes to promote the philosophy of free software. In his characteristic form, he was kind enough to agree to an encore interview with Open for Business' Timothy R. Butler.
Timothy R. Butler: IBM announced this week that part of its countersuit against SCO is based on SCO's violation of the GPL (by distributing the GPL'ed Linux kernel while demanding licensing fees for it). What are your thoughts on this?
Richard M. Stallman: I have not thought about it very specifically because I have not seen the details of their claims. My general feeling is that I'm glad IBM has found a way to counterattack SCO.
TRB: Does the fact that, as is often pointed out, the GPL has not yet been tested in court concern you?
RMS: No wise person looks forward to a major battle, even if he expects to win it. Rather than being concerned that we have not yet tested the GPL in court, I'm encouraged by the fact that we have been successful for years in enforcing the GPL without needing to go to court. Many companies have looked at the odds and decided not to gamble on overturning the GPL. That's not the same as proof, but it is reassuring.
TRB: In an article you wrote for ZDNet about the SCO lawsuit and related matters, you said, "Linux itself is no longer essential: the GNU system became popular in conjunction with Linux, but today it also runs with two BSD kernels and the GNU kernel." Does this mean that you see Linux as unimportant to the future of GNU, or simply something that the Free Software community can live without if need be?
Stallman: "Freedom to redistribute and change software is a human right that must be protected."
RMS: The kernel Linux is still important for using the GNU system, and we should hardly abandon it without a fight. At the same time, it is good to have alternatives.
TRB: Bruce Perens has proposed the idea of incorporating a mutual defense clause into Free Software licenses. He suggests that if you attempt to sue a Free Software developer, that the litigator would have their license to use any software with the defense clause automatically terminate. Is this a good idea?
RMS: Some kind of mutual defense clause might be a good idea, but designing what it should say is a difficult problem. It needs to be strong enough to protect the community from a serious threat, but not so intimidating as to cause those who don'
What proof do they have that this guy is using "insider training information"?
This seems like complete bullshit that they can arrest him just because of his winning streak.
WTF has our legal system come to?
They can watch him like a hawk, investigate it with a fine tooth comb, but unless they have some shred of evidence, they should free him ASAP. I hope some shrewd lawyer takes up this case.
Now maybe the Bells will have some incentive to invest in technologies (read:FTTH) without the fear that some company that didn't invest a dime in this infrastructure will come along and get to use it at "cost". It BLOWS that the federal government can come in and say "Yeah, you and the stock holders paid for it, but you gotta lease out your private property/investment whether you want to or not." Truly socialism, if not communism, at its finest.
We've been stuck with crummy ADSL for over 7 years with no real increase in speed/decrease in cost since it started. This 1996 act should have been repealed a long time ago and is the worst piece of legislation I know except for the DMCA.
Re:It's CRACKER not HACKER!! Damn!!!
on
Hacker's Challenge 2
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
You got it all wrong...
A cracker is one who removes the copy protection from computer software.
A hacker is one who hacks into computer systems.
I doubt Mike would remember me, but Mike got pissed off at me back around 1995 because I insulted one of his hacker buddies (They didn't like the fact that a few of us were storing warez on the "/hack2/tmp" directories there). Mike threatened to hax0r my Netcom account.
That always stewed me for years but I finally got my revenge on him when I visited Cesar Gracie's BJJ school a couple years or so ago and rolled with him. He was tapping like an experienced congo player.
Slashdot Mirror
Great article at http://news.com.com/2100-1012_3-5083087.html dealing with the issue a little more in depth than the listed ones.
Nottingham Edward Us District Judge
1929 Stout St DENVER, CO 80294
303-844-5018
This is his WORK number. Anyone have his home number???With friends like that, who needs enemies?
GNU Questions: RMS on SCO, Distributions, DRM
Date: August 13, 2003, 22:51:30 EDT Topic: Free Software
In September of 1983, a computer programmer working in the Massachusetts Institute for Technology AI Lab announced a plan that was the antithesis of the proprietary software concept that had come to dominate the industry. The plan detailed the creation of a UNIX replacement that would be entirely free, not as in the cost of the product, but as in freedom. That announcement would eventually catapult its author, Richard M. Stallman, into someone known and respected around the world and, perhaps more amazingly, a person that companies such as Apple and Netscape would alter their plans because of.
Stallman is not your average advocate of a particular cause. Nearly two decades after the announcement of his GNU System, he has stayed firm on his positions and has founded and guided the Free Software Foundation into an organization capable of promoting and managing the GNU System, a set of components that form more of what is often mistakenly known simply as "Linux" than the Linux kernel itself does. That might be somewhat unusual in today's society where causes popular today quickly become forgotten in tomorrow's priorities, but there is something even more unusual about Stallman. He is always open and available to those who drop him an e-mail, and not just the media, but also the the individual user or developer. This is not because he has nothing to do -- Stallman is a busy globetrotter constantly doing whatever it takes to promote the philosophy of free software. In his characteristic form, he was kind enough to agree to an encore interview with Open for Business' Timothy R. Butler.
Timothy R. Butler: IBM announced this week that part of its countersuit against SCO is based on SCO's violation of the GPL (by distributing the GPL'ed Linux kernel while demanding licensing fees for it). What are your thoughts on this?
Richard M. Stallman: I have not thought about it very specifically because I have not seen the details of their claims. My general feeling is that I'm glad IBM has found a way to counterattack SCO.
TRB: Does the fact that, as is often pointed out, the GPL has not yet been tested in court concern you?
RMS: No wise person looks forward to a major battle, even if he expects to win it. Rather than being concerned that we have not yet tested the GPL in court, I'm encouraged by the fact that we have been successful for years in enforcing the GPL without needing to go to court. Many companies have looked at the odds and decided not to gamble on overturning the GPL. That's not the same as proof, but it is reassuring.
TRB: In an article you wrote for ZDNet about the SCO lawsuit and related matters, you said, "Linux itself is no longer essential: the GNU system became popular in conjunction with Linux, but today it also runs with two BSD kernels and the GNU kernel." Does this mean that you see Linux as unimportant to the future of GNU, or simply something that the Free Software community can live without if need be?
Stallman: "Freedom to redistribute and change software is a human right that must be protected." RMS: The kernel Linux is still important for using the GNU system, and we should hardly abandon it without a fight. At the same time, it is good to have alternatives.
TRB: Bruce Perens has proposed the idea of incorporating a mutual defense clause into Free Software licenses. He suggests that if you attempt to sue a Free Software developer, that the litigator would have their license to use any software with the defense clause automatically terminate. Is this a good idea?
RMS: Some kind of mutual defense clause might be a good idea, but designing what it should say is a difficult problem. It needs to be strong enough to protect the community from a serious threat, but not so intimidating as to cause those who don'
Props to the FPer!
What proof do they have that this guy is using "insider training information"?
This seems like complete bullshit that they can arrest him just because of his winning streak.
WTF has our legal system come to?
They can watch him like a hawk, investigate it with a fine tooth comb, but unless they have some shred of evidence, they should free him ASAP. I hope some shrewd lawyer takes up this case.
This is just great with me.
Now maybe the Bells will have some incentive to invest in technologies (read: FTTH) without the fear that some company that didn't invest a dime in this infrastructure will come along and get to use it at "cost". It BLOWS that the federal government can come in and say "Yeah, you and the stock holders paid for it, but you gotta lease out your private property/investment whether you want to or not." Truly socialism, if not communism, at its finest.
We've been stuck with crummy ADSL for over 7 years with no real increase in speed/decrease in cost since it started. This 1996 act should have been repealed a long time ago and is the worst piece of legislation I know except for the DMCA.
You got it all wrong... A cracker is one who removes the copy protection from computer software. A hacker is one who hacks into computer systems.
I doubt Mike would remember me, but Mike got pissed off at me back around 1995 because I insulted one of his hacker buddies (They didn't like the fact that a few of us were storing warez on the "/hack2/tmp" directories there). Mike threatened to hax0r my Netcom account.
That always stewed me for years but I finally got my revenge on him when I visited Cesar Gracie's BJJ school a couple years or so ago and rolled with him. He was tapping like an experienced congo player.
What comes around goes around Mike.