Stallman didn't invent free software, but he started the movement for free software, and he invented the concept of copyleft which keeps software free (so all those distros can't spoil the free software they distribute).
Free software - which allows everyone to start their own distro - was Richard Stallman's idea, Linus just contributed to the already vast bank of free software.
(and Linux was proprietary to begin with, it was liberated in 1992 when Linus changed the license to the GNU GPL.)
Actually, Linus didn't start it all, not by a long shot. Richard Stallman started it all in 1984. Linus arrived on the scene in 1991. By that stage, Stallman had written GCC, GDB, GNU Emacs, and a number of other packages. He was written the GNU GPL, versions 1 and 2. And he had set up the Free Software Foundation and was employing 15 programmers to write the GNU operating system.
RMs does political activism. Without him research will become illegal (DMCA2), software development will become illegal (software patents), and collaborative software development would have died.
Unfortunately, computer science has been living under a central control regime for the last ~10 years (and now the central controller has been honoured with this building). In this time, innovation has been sucked out of the public to somewhere behind a lead door in Redmond. The legacy is that the most important thing happening in computer science today is politics!
I hope RMS never gives up his current line of research and work. (I condemn him to this - I'm sure he'd rather be hacking Emacs or some new GNU software for Guile or GNOME.)
GCC was possibly the most robust C compiler in the late 80's.
Of course, that's can't be *proven*, but consider this: The version of GCC that RMS wrote was good enough for the rest of the FSF staff to write GNU, and it was good enough for Torvalds use to write Linux.
The only software project he continues to work on is Emacs, but mostly his days are spent giving talks, talking to journalists, talking to lawyers about how to create freedom from the set of laws we have, etc.
P.S. RMS wrote GCC! (and GDB, and half of Make, and a dozen other GNU packages)
> who received a grant of ONE MILLION DOLLARS from the MacArthur Foundation
Wrong.
He got a grant for $250,000, and that was in 1991. He began GNU in January 1984, he wrote GCC, GDB, Make, and Emacs before being given that grant.
He founded FSF in 1985, but he has never recieved a salary of any kind from FSF. He's a volunteer.
> He's a wealthy man, tho' he goes to great lengths to hide it.
Nope. He just goes to no lengths to show it. He's not into flashy cars, clothes, etc. (He drives - but doesn't own a car).
Most of his time is spent in Europe, South America, and India. I think in 1991 he spent just 116 days in the USA, so for 249 days of that year he was paying hotel fees (or sleeping on someones couch, which he regularly does), flights, meals, etc.
The guys life is dedicated to freedom for computer users. He's been doing it long before he got any money for it, and he's not in it for the money now.
> There may come a time when geek outlaws will
> sell black-market perfect copies of everything
I prefer to imagine a time when geeks (and others) will share perfect copies of everything. This could be done via breaking the law, or by sharing perfect copies of our own replacements for the Things that people want/need: Free Things.
This Thing comes with permission to use, study & adapt to your needs, share with others, and distributed modified copies.
In the past, people probably predicted that replacing hardware with software would solve a lot of the worlds problems, because software costs zero to copy or modify. It would even every one etc. and educate us all etc. etc.
Now look at the world, paying per-computer licenses for binaries you're not permitted to modify.
Copyright and patents are being applied to software the way farmers might use copyright to prevent "Food Replicators" from solving world hunger.
Stallman was the only guy that got it all those years ago. Nanotech will need someone of his character if we're to see any actual benefit from this technology.
I agree. The ``Stallman asks the OS be prefixed "GNU/", so he must want every word to prefixed with "GNU/"'' joke bugs me. It was dumb 5 years ago, and it's dumb now. I was kinda embarassed when I saw I had been modded up. (did my modder get it or not? I'll never know)
After a bit more thinking, maybe the demand for freeware has dropped due to fear of viruses and an increase in technophobic users. The latter is inevitable and isn't meant in a bad way. The former is a problem that is solved by source code liberation - when software has assistants or gaurdians rather than owners.
When I need software? in kinda this order: $ grep keyword/var/lib/apt/lists/*
(that's for Debian, but I'm sure there are similar package lists with descriptions on the other distros)
The problem with the new BIOS is that it controls your system software - actions must be validated. To make this work, unfree software will be required. This means that you mightn't be able to install GNU/Linux on DRM-PCs, or if you can, you'll have to run unfree software on your system to validate your actions.
The idea of Trusted Computing is that the content owners can trust your computer to do what they say. Code Is Law - except when the code is free. On Mac hardware, you can run a free code OS - so buying a Mac (and replacing the OS with GNU/Linux or *BSD) instead of a DRM-PC is a great idea.
Please do buy only hardware which lets you choose your OS.
This situation sucks because the only way we can fight it is by being Good Consumers - but since non-MS users are in a minority, the value of our informed consumerism is limited.
GNU/Linux is proof that if freedom only requires hard work, people will work for freedom - now the proprietary world realises that freedom must be made either illegal or obsolete.
Slashdot Mirror
See Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FSF_Award_for_the_Adv ancement_of_Free_Software
One of the planned changes for v3 is to make official versions available for other languages.
Oh My God! They didn't have the guts to fly the helicopter themselves so they paid some local children to fly it instead!!
This is a new low for the international avaition community.
Stallman didn't invent free software, but he started the movement for free software, and he invented the concept of copyleft which keeps software free (so all those distros can't spoil the free software they distribute).
Linus' idea? What are you talking about?
Free software - which allows everyone to start their own distro - was Richard Stallman's idea, Linus just contributed to the already vast bank of free software.
(and Linux was proprietary to begin with, it was liberated in 1992 when Linus changed the license to the GNU GPL.)
Here's the history of GNU
Actually, Linus didn't start it all, not by a long shot. Richard Stallman started it all in 1984. Linus arrived on the scene in 1991. By that stage, Stallman had written GCC, GDB, GNU Emacs, and a number of other packages. He was written the GNU GPL, versions 1 and 2. And he had set up the Free Software Foundation and was employing 15 programmers to write the GNU operating system.
If it makes you feel any better, FSF don't pay RMS and never have - he's a volunteer.
You hope FSF has good lawyers? huh? Will Eben Moglen, Larry Lessig, and Dan Ravicher do?
RMS does not do any "computer science" research.
RMs does political activism. Without him research will become illegal (DMCA2), software development will become illegal (software patents), and collaborative software development would have died.
Unfortunately, computer science has been living under a central control regime for the last ~10 years (and now the central controller has been honoured with this building). In this time, innovation has been sucked out of the public to somewhere behind a lead door in Redmond. The legacy is that the most important thing happening in computer science today is politics!
I hope RMS never gives up his current line of research and work. (I condemn him to this - I'm sure he'd rather be hacking Emacs or some new GNU software for Guile or GNOME.)
GCC was possibly the most robust C compiler in the late 80's.
Of course, that's can't be *proven*, but consider this: The version of GCC that RMS wrote was good enough for the rest of the FSF staff to write GNU, and it was good enough for Torvalds use to write Linux.
He doesn't work on the Hurd, he answers email.
The only software project he continues to work on is Emacs, but mostly his days are spent giving talks, talking to journalists, talking to lawyers about how to create freedom from the set of laws we have, etc.
P.S. RMS wrote GCC! (and GDB, and half of Make, and a dozen other GNU packages)
It looks like they've also cloned Excels license and distribution terms.
Gnumeric and OpenOffice.org Calc will do me just fine.
> If its linux, just call it linux
That's like me saying "Since it's GNU/Linux, just call it GNU/Linux".
I'm right, but do most people listen?
No, don't say the "GNU/", it's bad for business. Well, now even the "Linux" bit is bad for business.
You're looking for morphix - modular knoppix.
> who received a grant of ONE MILLION DOLLARS from the MacArthur Foundation
Wrong.
He got a grant for $250,000, and that was in 1991. He began GNU in January 1984, he wrote GCC, GDB, Make, and Emacs before being given that grant.
He founded FSF in 1985, but he has never recieved a salary of any kind from FSF. He's a volunteer.
> He's a wealthy man, tho' he goes to great lengths to hide it.
Nope. He just goes to no lengths to show it. He's not into flashy cars, clothes, etc. (He drives - but doesn't own a car).
Most of his time is spent in Europe, South America, and India. I think in 1991 he spent just 116 days in the USA, so for 249 days of that year he was paying hotel fees (or sleeping on someones couch, which he regularly does), flights, meals, etc.
The guys life is dedicated to freedom for computer users. He's been doing it long before he got any money for it, and he's not in it for the money now.
> There may come a time when geek outlaws will
> sell black-market perfect copies of everything
I prefer to imagine a time when geeks (and others) will share perfect copies of everything. This could be done via breaking the law, or by sharing perfect copies of our own replacements for the Things that people want/need: Free Things.
This Thing comes with permission to use, study & adapt to your needs, share with others, and distributed modified copies.
In the past, people probably predicted that replacing hardware with software would solve a lot of the worlds problems, because software costs zero to copy or modify. It would even every one etc. and educate us all etc. etc.
Now look at the world, paying per-computer licenses for binaries you're not permitted to modify.
Copyright and patents are being applied to software the way farmers might use copyright to prevent "Food Replicators" from solving world hunger.
Stallman was the only guy that got it all those years ago. Nanotech will need someone of his character if we're to see any actual benefit from this technology.
I agree. The ``Stallman asks the OS be prefixed "GNU/", so he must want every word to prefixed with "GNU/"'' joke bugs me. It was dumb 5 years ago, and it's dumb now. I was kinda embarassed when I saw I had been modded up. (did my modder get it or not? I'll never know)
GNU/Oh, GNU/we're GNU/discussing GNU/the GNU/"GNU/Linux" GNU/name. GNU/It GNU/must GNU/be GNU/time GNU/for GNU/someone GNU/to GNU/make GNU/this GNU/joke.
Ireland eh?
The montly IFSO is tonight if you're in/near Dublin.
After a bit more thinking, maybe the demand for freeware has dropped due to fear of viruses and an increase in technophobic users. The latter is inevitable and isn't meant in a bad way. The former is a problem that is solved by source code liberation - when software has assistants or gaurdians rather than owners.
/var/lib/apt/lists/*
When I need software? in kinda this order:
$ grep keyword
(that's for Debian, but I'm sure there are similar package lists with descriptions on the other distros)
If that doesn't work, I try the free software directory, and then freshmeat.
I guess most hobbists have moved to GNU/* and *BSD.
When making free-as-in-cost, they may as well be doing free-as-in-freedom. And working with other developers that share code is nice.
Remember that Microsoft won an Open Source Product Excellence award at LinuxWorld NY 2003.
> How is apple the solution?
The problem with the new BIOS is that it controls your system software - actions must be validated. To make this work, unfree software will be required. This means that you mightn't be able to install GNU/Linux on DRM-PCs, or if you can, you'll have to run unfree software on your system to validate your actions.
The idea of Trusted Computing is that the content owners can trust your computer to do what they say. Code Is Law - except when the code is free. On Mac hardware, you can run a free code OS - so buying a Mac (and replacing the OS with GNU/Linux or *BSD) instead of a DRM-PC is a great idea.
Please do buy only hardware which lets you choose your OS.
This situation sucks because the only way we can fight it is by being Good Consumers - but since non-MS users are in a minority, the value of our informed consumerism is limited.
GNU/Linux is proof that if freedom only requires hard work, people will work for freedom - now the proprietary world realises that freedom must be made either illegal or obsolete.