Linked by Eugenia Loli on Wed 12th Sep 2007 04:14 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Here is an interview with Richard Stallman about a range of free software topics including GPLv3 and comment on the Microsoft patent issue. Stallman has a go at Linus Torvalds even suggesting that if people want to keep their freedom they better not follow Torvalds. From the interview: "The fact that Torvalds says "open source" instead of "free software" shows where he is coming from. I wrote the GNU GPL to defend freedom for all users of all versions of a program. I developed version 3 to do that job better and protect against new threats. Torvalds says he rejects this goal; that's probably why he doesn't appreciate GPL version 3. I respect his right to express his views, even though I think they are foolish. However, if you don't want to lose your freedom, you had better not follow him."
Order by: Score:
Crazy religion
by hadyn on Wed 12th Sep 2007 04:26 UTC
hadyn
Member since:
2006-05-14

Richard Stallman is preaching a crazy religion, he has taken it way beyond sharing code openly. I think Linus has a more balanced view on the matter.

Just my personal thoughts on the matter. I am hoping a lot of projects stick with GPL v2 rather than move forward to v3.

Reply Score: 15

RE: Crazy religion
by cyclops on Wed 12th Sep 2007 05:22 UTC in reply to "Crazy religion"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"Richard Stallman is preaching a crazy religion, he has taken it way beyond sharing code openly. I think Linus has a more balanced view on the matter.

Just my personal thoughts on the matter. I am hoping a lot of projects stick with GPL v2 rather than move forward to v3."

Which religion is he preaching. I thought the FSF was an organization. Could you point out the religious bits.

I don't see what is wrong with a developer choosing how they want their code used.

Reply Score: 17

RE[2]: Crazy religion
by flanque on Wed 12th Sep 2007 05:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Crazy religion"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

I think he's talking about it in the metaphorical sense. I tend to agree with him.

I find Linus' perspective more balanced and realistic. I find Stallman's perspective to be more idealogical. To my way of thinking, suggesting that by "following" Linus you'll loose your freedom is by and large an exaggeration muddled with hype.

Keep in mind though these two are known to periodically take swipes at each other, so is any of this really new?

Reply Score: 8

RE[3]: Crazy religion
by cyclops on Wed 12th Sep 2007 06:13 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Crazy religion"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"I find Linus' perspective more balanced and realistic. I find Stallman's perspective to be more idealogical."

Why...please justify this statement. You are mixing many things together. Both Linus and Stallman are political.

You could argue that Linus caters to companies, and Stallman is based on idealogical reasons.

If you are referring to realistic, being binary blobs. Regardless of your views. I prefer the FSF pro-active approach of removing these with projects like Gnash which benefit desktop GNU.

If by balanced you mean Stallman won't compromise with free software. I see that compromise only benefits in the *short term*, and has no benefits I see long term.

...but then you string together a stack of meaningless cliques.

Reply Score: 6

RE[4]: Crazy religion
by CrazyDude0 on Wed 12th Sep 2007 07:53 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Crazy religion"
CrazyDude0 Member since:
2005-07-10

Linus has a balanced view because he views software as software and not as a tool to ensure world freedom.

Asking for hardware vendors to open up their hardware for hacking just because they use GPL software is ridiculous.

If you still don't feel that Linus's view is more balanced then I don't know what in this world can convince you. May be you just don't want to even be convinced because you want to hack your TiVO and you are happy because GPL is trying to get you that:)

Edited 2007-09-12 07:57

Reply Score: 5

v RE[4]: Crazy religion
by CrazyDude0 on Wed 12th Sep 2007 08:11 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Crazy religion"
RE[4]: Crazy religion
by diegocg on Wed 12th Sep 2007 11:01 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Crazy religion"
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

You could argue that Linus caters to companies, and Stallman is based on idealogical reasons.


Linus doesn't "caters to companies" - typical FSF zealotism. Some FSF zealots have become so stupid lately that these days dare to say that people who thinks that the GPLv2 is better than the GPLv3 is "company-friendly" - like if people who use the GPLv2 would be using a anti-freesoftware license! Does the GPLv3 license makes the GPLv2 obsolete or "non-free"? Certainly not!


As you say, Linus is political: Actually, he has said the GPLv3 is crap beacause the GPLv2 is a _better_ freesoftware/opensource license. In other words, he seem to think the GPLv3 is less freesoftware/opensource friendly. I pretty much agree with him, so does many people.


What Stallman has tried to do with the GPLv3 is to regulate hardware design trough the influence of GPL software. I don't like the hardware that doesn't allows me to run modified software in that computer either. But trying to fight that hardware using a software licenses is stupid. I think I'm free to think that and I think I'm free to think that the GPLv3 is a _stupid_ license because of that and I think I'm free to suggest that everybody should ignore it and stick to the GPLv2


And we should also mention the fact that the FSF is using the "GPL v2 or later" wording of the GPLv2 to abuse from the trust that MANY people has put in the FSF and do what THEY think should be done. You could argue that when people choose to use the GPLv2 with the "GPLv2 or later" clausule they gave permission to the FSF to create new licenses, but IMO Stallman and the FSF are using that power to impose their POV.

I mean, are all the users that included that clausule of the GPLv2 happy with the GPLv3? Clearly not. For them, the FSF is dishonoring the trust they put in it. They got their software licensed under a conditions they never would license their software.




The GPLv3 should have never been released as a new version of the GPL, it should have been a completely _different_ license that people could choose to use. We would not have so many problems if the FSF had done this - people who likes the GPLv3 would use the GPLv3, people who likes the GPLv2 would use the GPLv2, people who wants to relicense their software would relicense it.

Edited 2007-09-12 11:20

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: Crazy religion
by pinky on Wed 12th Sep 2007 11:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Crazy religion"
pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

>And we should also mention the fact that the FSF is using the "GPL v2 or later" wording of the GPLv2 to abuse from the trust that MANY people has put in the FSF and do what THEY think should be done.

It always depends from which point you look at it. I'm 100% sure that everyone who has listened to RMS, GNU and the FSFs the last 20 years know their goals and values quite well and GPLv3 is a (the only) logical step after GPLv2 and the technical and legal changes throughout the last ~20 years.

Reply Score: 5

RE[5]: Crazy religion
by wirespot on Wed 12th Sep 2007 12:30 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Crazy religion"
wirespot Member since:
2006-06-21

Some FSF zealots have become so stupid lately that these days dare to say that people who thinks that the GPLv2 is better than the GPLv3 is "company-friendly" - like if people who use the GPLv2 would be using a anti-freesoftware license!


The whole point of v3 is to block loopholes in v2 that allow people (and companies) to make the software non-free. The whole point of both versions is to keep software free. GPLv2 has shortcomings and does not fulfill that purpose as well as it could. GPLv3 was created in order to address those shortcomings. Therefore, logically, anybody using GPLv2 because they like to keep software being free (as in freedom) should welcome v3.

If a developer would rather use v2 it means they don't mind those loopholes being used with their software. I don't know why someone would enjoy that, given they went with GPL and hopes for freedom in the first place. It's fair to say that most of the ones who would enjoy the loopholes in v2 to keep being available are various companies.

And we should also mention the fact that the FSF is using the "GPL v2 or later" wording of the GPLv2 to abuse from the trust that MANY people has put in the FSF and do what THEY think should be done.


You are completely ignorant in the matter. The FSF cannot change the licensing for any package it doesn't own copyright for. They can't make anybody switch to GPLv3. The author of the package is the only one making the decision. You are completely misunderstanding that clause in the GPL and if you'd take a minute to read the FSF FAQ you'd stop being an ignoramus.

The GPLv3 should have never been released as a new version of the GPL, it should have been a completely _different_ license that people could choose to use.


That's exactly how it is. GPLv3 is a distinct license and the choice rests with the package authors. Not FSF. FSF only made a license available and will use it for the GNU tools, because that's all they own copyright on. Everybody else can do what they please. There's no pressure to use GPLv3, unless you as an author feel that GPLv2 doesn't protect your software properly.

Edited 2007-09-12 12:32

Reply Score: 9

RE[2]: Crazy religion
by theTSF on Wed 12th Sep 2007 12:12 UTC in reply to "RE: Crazy religion"
theTSF Member since:
2005-09-27

The way he is in the organization and the way they follow his words is done like a religion. You have a set of strict rules. Failure to follow the rules results in being ostracized from the group (Much like Linus is now) a strong demand to follow the leaders goals. It is religion with all the trappings without the mysticism. Except for using God as a crutch to get their own views across they yell freedom.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Crazy religion
by gustl on Fri 14th Sep 2007 07:14 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Crazy religion"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

Sorry, but RMS never ostracized someone for not following his goals. And the goals of the FSF are as much a religion as the human rights are: NONE.

He simply states, that his goal is to have a completely free software environment, usable by everybody.
He is working towards that goal and tries to make others see that his goals are in fact their goals as well.
But he always states, that if someone wants to be unfree, there are plenty of opportunities to become so. If someone values convenience and "ease of use" more than freedom, well it's none of his business if that person jails himself into proprietary format shackles.

On the other hand, the FSF owns the copyrights of a large and crucial pile of code, and they protect it as vigorously as possibly imaginable within the law. As the law (and the practise of the law) is changing, the license has to adapt. Thats all, the programmers are invited to follow, not forced. Just because many see software in the same manner as RMS, this does not make it a religion, those are all highly intelligent people who choose their License carefully, evaluating pros and cons.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Crazy religion
by __xodam__ on Fri 14th Sep 2007 12:32 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Crazy religion"
__xodam__ Member since:
2007-04-06

Precisely. If people would quit creating baseless excuses (communism or whatever, MG) to bash FSF and RMS, grow up children.

1up mario! ;)

Edited 2007-09-14 12:35

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Crazy religion
by hadyn on Wed 12th Sep 2007 19:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Crazy religion"
hadyn Member since:
2006-05-14

There certainly is a difference in believing in something and then taking that to the extreme. He is certainly taking things to the extreme so it is basically a crazy religion with their profit out there preaching against anyone of dares have their own thoughts or different directions to take.

Most people simply don't care. All they want is a stable software environment that works. People prove that everyday when they purchase proprietary software.

"I don't see what is wrong with a developer choosing how they want their code used."

I totally agree, let the developer decide rather than trying to stuff GPL 3 down everyones throat.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Crazy religion
by Drift3r on Wed 12th Sep 2007 05:34 UTC in reply to "Crazy religion"
RE[2]: Crazy religion
by cyclops on Wed 12th Sep 2007 05:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Crazy religion"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"When you are dealing with Satan ( Microsoft ) you sometimes need righteous fire/language to rally the troops. "

That is the funniest thing I have ever read. Just to get this right as an anology you are comparing. Someone who is believed to be an angel who rebelled against God— and also the one who spoke through the serpent and seduced Eve into disobeying God's command. His ultimate goal is to lead people away from the love of God. to an American multinational computer technology corporation with 76,000 employees in 102 countries and global annual revenue of US $51.12 billion as of 2007.

Its a bit of a stretch, esp considering that in 1983 when GNU started Microsoft didn't even release DOS till 1986.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: Crazy religion
by steampoweredlawn on Wed 12th Sep 2007 05:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Crazy religion"
steampoweredlawn Member since:
2006-09-27


Its a bit of a stretch, esp considering that in 1983 when GNU started Microsoft didn't even release DOS till 1986.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but DOS shipped on the first batch of IBM 5150 PC's in 1981. It was written by MS then, too. Gates had already been of the mindset that software should be a commercial product which customers pay to use.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Crazy religion
by StaubSaugerNZ on Wed 12th Sep 2007 06:06 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Crazy religion"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

> Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but DOS shipped on the first batch of IBM 5150 PC's in 1981. It was written by MS then, too. Gates had already been of the mindset that software should be a commercial product which customers pay to use.

GNU was never formed to oppose Microsoft. IIRC, Stallman started it because a company (which I shall not name) donated his lab a printer but later refused to give him source code to a printer driver so that Stallman could repair it himself. The company then gave source to one of his colleagues with the proviso that that colleague not share it with Stallman. Stallman realised then that something was needed to protect all users from those who could remove support at a whim.

Reply Score: 12

RE[5]: Crazy religion
by kad77 on Wed 12th Sep 2007 06:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Crazy religion"
kad77 Member since:
2007-03-20

The company was Xerox.

http://sharealike.org/20_Berkeley_Tech_L_J_443.pdf

Why would you go out of your way to omit that?

Reply Score: 4

RE[6]: Crazy religion
by Vanders on Wed 12th Sep 2007 07:47 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Crazy religion"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

What the hell? Maybe he didn't know it was Xerox? I certainly couldn't recall the manufacturer until you mentioned it. Not everyone has perfect recall on obscure moments in computing history.

Reply Score: 4

RE[7]: Crazy religion
by MollyC on Wed 12th Sep 2007 16:09 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Crazy religion"
MollyC Member since:
2006-07-04

"What the hell? Maybe he didn't know it was Xerox? I certainly couldn't recall the manufacturer until you mentioned it. Not everyone has perfect recall on obscure moments in computing history."

------------------

Sorry for butting in, but StaubSaugerNZ said, "GNU was never formed to oppose Microsoft. IIRC, Stallman started it because a company (which I shall not name) donated his lab a printer but later refused to give him source code to a printer driver so that Stallman could repair it himself."

The wording suggests that StaubSaugerNZ knew the name of the company in question but deliberately chose not to reveal it for some reason. kad77 was merely curious as to why, that's all.

Carry on. ;)

Edited 2007-09-12 16:10

Reply Score: 0

I wonder...
by steampoweredlawn on Wed 12th Sep 2007 08:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Crazy religion"
steampoweredlawn Member since:
2006-09-27

If Mr. Stallman goes out of his way to call ordinary household objects by their true names, e.g. facial tissues instead of Kleenex, cotton-tipped sanitary swabs instead of Q-tips, etc.

I understand, and to a degree can sympathize with his cause, but he must realize that people are not deliberately throwing his philosophy in his face when they call GNU/Linux "Linux" - it's simply easier to say, and everyone knows what you're talking about, to the degree they understand or care. As much as it apparently makes his blood boil, there *are* people out there, myself included, that consider functionality paramount, with philosophical ramifications secondary. Plus, he should have picked a less awkward-sounding name than GaNoo if he wanted people to use it in their daily language. Linux just rolls off the tongue nicer than GaNooLinux. Linux may be just a kernel, but its name has become synonymous with everything that sits atop it as well.

Edited 2007-09-12 08:06

Reply Score: 4

RE: I wonder...
by lemur2 on Wed 12th Sep 2007 08:16 UTC in reply to "I wonder..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Linux may be just a kernel, but its name has become synonymous with everything that sits atop it as well.


Apparently, in a typical distribution, Linux itself (the kernel) accounts for approximately 3% of the total source code. The "GNU system" accounts for approximately 28% of the source code.

Can you name anything else where the major, obvious, largest part is ignored, and the item is commonly named after a tiny piece one tenth the size?

As much as it apparently makes his blood boil, there *are* people out there, myself included, that consider functionality paramount, with philosophical ramifications secondary.


Since you consider functionality paramount, then I take it that you call it a "GNU system" then, and ignore the word "Linux"?

Edited 2007-09-12 08:17

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: I wonder...
by steampoweredlawn on Wed 12th Sep 2007 08:40 UTC in reply to "RE: I wonder..."
steampoweredlawn Member since:
2006-09-27

You totally missed the point of my post. Either that or you're deliberately being stubborn.

Linux has become the de facto name for the sum of the parts that make up a GNU/Linux OS.

To answer your question, no. I do not call it GNU. I called it GNU/Linux for a period, but I grew tired of explaining GNU to people that in reality didn't care what I was saying anyway. Those that care enough already know what GNU is, and assume you're talking about GNU/Linux.

Peoples' brains don't function like computers. You don't typically have to explicitly say every single word to convey a meaning. To use a previous example, how often do you go to the store to buy, say, Safeway brand cotton-tipped sanitary swabs? Oh? You look for Q-tips, even if it's Safeway (or Albertsons or Winn-Dixie or Shurfine or Fred Meyer or Kroger or what have you) brand? Wouldn't you be irritated if someone corrected you every time you said Q-tips, when they obviously know exactly what you're talking about?

Linux is in a similar situation. Nearly everyone (except people like you), "know" that Linux, when used in general conversation, refers to the Kernel as well as the userland software piled atop it (or just an OS as an inclusive entity, if they don't have that deep an understanding of the topic). It's not correct, but it's simpler and (most) people know what you mean.

Had Hurd taken off, People would likely be calling the OS they run Hurd right now, not GNU/Hurd.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: I wonder...
by Almafeta on Wed 12th Sep 2007 12:55 UTC in reply to "RE: I wonder..."
Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

Apparently, in a typical distribution, Linux itself (the kernel) accounts for approximately 3% of the total source code. The "GNU system" accounts for approximately 28% of the source code.


That's largely due to the bloat of GNU as compared to Linux. GCC, itself, takes up more lines of code than all of the Linux kernel.

Comparing projects by source line counts leads to misleading statistics.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: I wonder...
by Coral Snake on Fri 14th Sep 2007 05:16 UTC in reply to "RE: I wonder..."
Coral Snake Member since:
2005-07-07

I would say that most of the source code in a distribution these days is tied up with the GUI desktop environments X-11, KDE, GNOME and perhapse a few others like Xfce, WindowMaker, Enlightment and ICeWM. Therefore does anyone think we should call it X-11/KDE/GNOME/Xfce/WindowMaker/Enlightment/IceWM/GNU/Linux!!!!?????
This is REALLY what RMS is asking for if you base the OS's name soully each project's contribution to the source code base.

Reply Score: 1

RE: I wonder...
by cyclops on Wed 12th Sep 2007 08:26 UTC in reply to "I wonder..."
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

Before you slam me with another history lesson. I pronounce GNU as "New". I won't even tell you how I pronounce Linux, but was somewhat shocked when I heard radio shows pronouncing it a different way.

I refer to "Desktop Linux" as GNU simply because that the main license all this is under. Linux is simply the wrong term. In reality GNU is the wrong term, as my "Desktop Linux" has as much to do with the X11 license; a browser under the Mozilla License and a certain Office suite from SUN. In fact I have very little interest in the kernel.

Its surprising how much Microsoft got right with both the naming and logo of their OS offering. Linux and Tux are both, poor. I prefer GNU, but think both show little respect for what has become an OS which includes things like IM and a browser and a Media Center, which is greater than both Linux or the FSF. Although I personally cannot think of *anything* that is either appropriate to todays "Linux Desktop" or a logo to suit it, or that would last 20 years like that of Windows.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: I wonder...
by BluenoseJake on Wed 12th Sep 2007 14:26 UTC in reply to "RE: I wonder..."
BluenoseJake Member since:
2005-08-11

I agree, the Windows brand is powerful because the name is easy to remember, logical and apt, and the logo is simple enough that it can evolve with the times, without too much modification.

I tend to use "Linux" myself, because even though the kernel only makes up 3% of the code, it really is the most important part, especially since the hurd is nowhere to be seen. All the other parts of the OS come from so many different sources that to refer to it by the kernel's name is consistent, if nothing else

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: I wonder...
by marafaka on Wed 12th Sep 2007 08:58 UTC in reply to "I wonder..."
marafaka Member since:
2006-01-03

I agree, people do not intentionally call it that way. But some even call all the non-MS operating systems Linux, and that is a problem. And it can be corrected by educating people like you, who will then hopefully spread the word.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Crazy religion
by cyclops on Wed 12th Sep 2007 06:17 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Crazy religion"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

@steampoweredlawn your absolutely right. I could backtrack and argue thats when windows was launched, but I was simply wrong.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Crazy religion
by steampoweredlawn on Wed 12th Sep 2007 07:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Crazy religion"
steampoweredlawn Member since:
2006-09-27

I could backtrack and argue thats when windows was launched, but I was simply wrong.


It's all gravy, but just for the record (because I'm a history nazi), Windows was launched in 1985 ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Crazy religion
by mmcgreal on Wed 12th Sep 2007 05:40 UTC in reply to "Crazy religion"
mmcgreal Member since:
2006-09-12

Stallman: Don't be too proud of this "open source" movement we've started. The ability to destroy a monopoly is insignificant next to the power of the source.

Hayden: Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways, Lord Stallman. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up your stolen thunder, or given you clairvoyance enough to find Mr. Torvalds's secret Hurd box...

Reply Score: 0

RE: Crazy religion
by JMcCarthy on Wed 12th Sep 2007 05:45 UTC in reply to "Crazy religion"
JMcCarthy Member since:
2005-08-12

When Stallman starts proclaiming he was born of a virgin and will rise from the dead, you'll be correct. Otherwise it's just more of the mindless ad-hominem because you don't agree with his politics.

I doubt there is a more blatant example of biting the hand that feeds you / being generally ungrateful, than OSS fanatics using GNU/Linux.

Reply Score: 12

RE[2]: Crazy religion
by alexandru_lz on Wed 12th Sep 2007 15:40 UTC in reply to "RE: Crazy religion"
alexandru_lz Member since:
2007-02-11

>I doubt there is a more blatant example of biting the >hand that feeds you / being generally ungrateful, than >OSS fanatics using GNU/Linux.

I agree. This thing struck me: The fact that Torvalds says "open source" instead of "free software" shows where he is coming from. I guess it does show that Torvalds comes from a programmer's desktop, while Stallman has been a political activist for too long already.

Behind the whole FUD around GPL 3 (let's admit, we've had plenty of it), I have seen Torvalds giving credible arguments aside. I was hoping that at least on one occasion, it would have been possible for one to defend the goals and status of his project without being called a fool or a fascist.

With all the respect I have for Stallman's programming past, if he hates Linux so much for limiting his freedom, he can go use Hurd, where you can do whatever you want with your code (not that it does too much actually...).

Edit: frankly, I don't believe in Stallman just wanting to be nice and warm to the Linux people and their freedoms. There are plenty of other projects that haven't switched to GPL v3, some of them quite large and important, and I haven't seen any of this attention.

This is not an issue of whether GPL v3 is malevolent or not, or whether Stallman is right or not. It is simply a case of whether the ultimate goals of GPL v3 are compatible with a project's (i.e. Linux) goals.

And finally, there is one thing I learned about argumentation: when you are indeed trying to convince something objectively, you are criticizing the action/situation, not the person. Saying that GPL v3 is a better option for Linux rather than v2, because <arg1> <arg2> ... <arg n> is one thing. Saying that Linus is obviously someone who doesn't share the ideals of the free software community and that his actions are foolish, without even a plain example, gives Stallman little credit. Actually, it makes him look like a tv preacher.

Edited 2007-09-12 15:46

Reply Score: 2

RE: Crazy religion
by Morgan on Wed 12th Sep 2007 11:39 UTC in reply to "Crazy religion"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

It's not exactly a religion, but he is quite the zealot. That's not always a bad thing either. His cause is a just one, but my personal opinion is that he pushes too hard sometimes. I for one don't like to be told what to do with my hardware and software, whether it's Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sony Corporation or Richard Stallman giving the orders. They can all stay out of my digital lifestyle.

That being said, the free software and open source communities wouldn't be nearly as far along as they are without him, and I am very thankful for that.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Crazy religion
by gustl on Thu 13th Sep 2007 14:24 UTC in reply to "Crazy religion"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

Well, you see, first I thought like you. But over the last 8 years I encountered so many problems with closed specs, closed drivers, closed formats, that I find his arguments no longer "religious".
Maybe exaggerated, maybe a bit too much "in your face", but in essence, he has a point.
If you think short-sighted, closed drivers and formats won't matter, but if you think long-time, like 50, 100, 200 years, open formats are the ONLY way to go. if you think 10 years into the future, open drivers are a really good thing.
You might get yourselves a new computer every 4 years, but what about your camera, monitor, mouse, keyboard, webcam? THEN you need open formats, drivers and protocols.

And patents are a threat to your computer usage, so designing a license as thorny towards patents as possible in fact benefits YOU over the long run.

Reply Score: 2

Least interesting
by Soulbender on Wed 12th Sep 2007 04:32 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

Of all the things he talks about in that interview you had to pick the least interesting and most flamewar inciting one for the headline. Good job.

Edited 2007-09-12 04:33

Reply Score: 51

RE: Least interesting
by Eugenia on Wed 12th Sep 2007 04:59 UTC in reply to "Least interesting"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

That's what was submitted to us by an anonymous. I didn't edit it, cause I honestly don't care. I cared enough to pass it along though.

Edited 2007-09-12 04:59

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Least interesting
by Snifflez on Wed 12th Sep 2007 05:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Least interesting"
Snifflez Member since:
2005-11-15

Oh, so you don't give a clean shaved rat's ass if your post will generate a totally unnecessary flame-war which would contribute nothing to any kind of intelligent discussions on this site.

Awesome. I'm glad that you're doing everything you can to make this site appealing to those of us who prefer a rational, sane discussion to a silly flame war.

Reply Score: 26

RE[3]: Least interesting
by cyclops on Wed 12th Sep 2007 05:15 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Least interesting"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

There are two segments that talk about intellectual property that are particularly interesting in the current times.

I think you are being unfair to Eugenia. It has never used GNU.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Least interesting
by Eugenia on Wed 12th Sep 2007 05:20 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Least interesting"
Eugenia Member since:
2005-06-28

Nope, don't really care. But I do know that people would find interesting the article, and so I linked it. And even if did care, I would still link the specific part, because it's indeed MORE interesting than all the other boring things that RMS is talking about and we have heard a thousand times.

RMS calling for a "fork" in the GNU world is a first though, and so that's why I did not, and I will not, change the teaser to anything else. If you don't like people flaming, don't read the comments section. I only do so once a month these days too. I VERY RARELY read comments on web sites, including on osnews.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Least interesting
by Jon Dough on Wed 12th Sep 2007 12:47 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Least interesting"
Jon Dough Member since:
2005-11-30

Eugenia writes, "I VERY RARELY read comments on web sites, including on osnews."

Really? While I like the OSNews articles, I find the comments to be the most interesting part.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Least interesting
by abraxas on Wed 12th Sep 2007 22:23 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Least interesting"
abraxas Member since:
2005-07-07

Nope, don't really care. But I do know that people would find interesting the article, and so I linked it. And even if did care, I would still link the specific part, because it's indeed MORE interesting than all the other boring things that RMS is talking about and we have heard a thousand times.

You call yourself and editor? That's pretty shameful. You basically admitted that you don't give a damn about what people think of OSNews, and you really seem not to care about the community on OSNews that makes it what it is.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Least interesting
by remaincrunchy on Wed 12th Sep 2007 05:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Least interesting"
remaincrunchy Member since:
2007-06-20

Snifflez,

You seem extremely upset for someone seeking a "rational, sane discussion"...

I think there are interesting points made by RMS here. Do I go haywire because he is the profit of GNU? Not really. But I certainly don't feel any worse off having read the article.

Hang out! Sometimes it pays to be the only sane ones in the room eh?

cheers!

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Least interesting
by Ben Jao Ming on Wed 12th Sep 2007 10:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Least interesting"
Ben Jao Ming Member since:
2005-07-26

Oh!! Merciful! You pushed an OK-button even though you didn't care. That's incredible! Thanks!

Okay.. honestly.. You don't care about the contents of a story on the site? Are you insane? Or maybe I'm insane to be reading a news site where the people who publish stories don't care about them.

Next story coming up on OSNews:

"Some stupid giraffe urinates on the hat of a stunned zoo visitor who was also stupid and that's why Bill Gates is the best businessman ever and he loves running Linux, but also sometimes go out for tea with random birds, because his gay lover, Linus Torvalds, no longer satisfies him"

Comments:

"Wtf is this!?" x 100

Eugenia: "That's what was submitted to us by an anonymous. I didn't edit it, cause I honestly don't care. I cared enough to pass it along though. "

Reply Score: 6

RE[2]: Least interesting
by Soulbender on Wed 12th Sep 2007 11:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Least interesting"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

That's what was submitted to us by an anonymous. I didn't edit it, cause I honestly don't care. I cared enough to pass it along though.


"I dont care". Best answer ever. Seriosly though, this answer does explain a lot about OSnews and what gets posted as news items.

Reply Score: 2

GPL is no good
by Lengsel on Wed 12th Sep 2007 04:37 UTC
Lengsel
Member since:
2006-04-19

I got to say no. I'm against Stallman, and I'm against the GPL. The license smells too much of socialism. True software freedom is the ISC license or the OpenBSD derivative of it.

Reply Score: 2

RE: GPL is no good
by Spellcheck on Wed 12th Sep 2007 05:54 UTC in reply to "GPL is no good"
Spellcheck Member since:
2007-01-20

I understand what you're saying, but it just doesn't apply.

A much more accurate, and less inflammatory, description would be the difference between free code and free people. You can pervert that to political ideologies in interesting ways as well, but it's a more solid starting point.

Reply Score: 2

RE: GPL is no good
by rmtatum on Wed 12th Sep 2007 06:33 UTC in reply to "GPL is no good"
rmtatum Member since:
2005-07-09

The GPL is in no wise socialistic. Socialism involves government coercion. The GPL is a license to which users voluntarily agree to. No coercion, no socialism.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: GPL is no good
by postmodern on Wed 12th Sep 2007 07:16 UTC in reply to "RE: GPL is no good"
postmodern Member since:
2006-01-27

Socialism doesn't involve government coercion, your thinking of Communism.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: GPL is no good
by rajj on Wed 12th Sep 2007 07:21 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: GPL is no good"
rajj Member since:
2005-07-06

Bzzzt. Communism is an economic model. Socialism is a governing model.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: GPL is no good
by postmodern on Wed 12th Sep 2007 07:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: GPL is no good"
postmodern Member since:
2006-01-27

Paraphrasing Wikipedia, socialism is listed as a socio-economic model where wealth and property distribution is managed by the 'community'. You can have direct socialism such as workers'-councils or indirect socialism exercised by the state.

Communism is more considered to be a subset of Socialism, but with more specific goals such as creating a classless/state-less society with common-ownership of production.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: GPL is no good
by rajj on Wed 12th Sep 2007 07:36 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: GPL is no good"
rajj Member since:
2005-07-06

Yeah, I realized after I posted that I had probably lulled myself into a false dichotomy. Either way, communism is a socio-economic (or lack there of) model.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: GPL is no good
by polyex on Thu 13th Sep 2007 04:43 UTC in reply to "RE: GPL is no good"
polyex Member since:
2007-07-11

Your correct. But Stallman saying that an individuals freedom is some how tied to following his idealogies for how programmers should work and be compensated (I guess only through speaking engagements, right Stallman?) is at a minimum confrontational. Your talking about how some people feed there families, and then laying a guilt trip on them for not reducing that work to having no monetary value. You just dont take it seriously becuase the guy has issues, but trust me, his in your face attitude, crazy use of semantics and telling you your doomed for listening to Torvalds feels at a minimum an attempted act of coercion. Torvalds wants to get paid for some work and does some work for free. Stallman gets paid most of the time for a job few relative to the population are needed to do and then begrudges everyone else for not doing there own full time jobs work, ones that he has deemed should be free, for free.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: GPL is no good
by __xodam__ on Wed 12th Sep 2007 13:38 UTC in reply to "GPL is no good"
So we're losing our freedom....
by polaris20 on Wed 12th Sep 2007 04:40 UTC
polaris20
Member since:
2005-07-06

Running proprietary nVidia drivers in Linux? *yawn* Give me a break. If it works, it works. Free/open source is great and all, but I am really not willing to get all fanatical about it.

While others are concerned about fighting the good fight, I am worried more about what just works, and is stable enough to allow me to leave at 5pm everyday.

Reply Score: 11

Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"Free/open source is great and all, but I am really not willing to get all fanatical about it. "

Because anyone who stands firmly behind their opinions and doesn't compromise their own integrity is a fanatic. Right.

Reply Score: 36

Robocoastie Member since:
2005-09-15

come on he's just using creative speech. Don't be so literal Soulbender.

Reply Score: 2

wibbit Member since:
2006-03-22

"Free/open source is great and all, but I am really not willing to get all fanatical about it. "

Because anyone who stands firmly behind their opinions and doesn't compromise their own integrity is a fanatic. Right.


I'm curious to know, how many of your 20 votes is from...

a) People that saw your comment as sarcasm, and believe you actually think that is not the case.
b) Didn't realise you were being sarcastic, and voted you up as they think you said it IS the case.

:)

Reply Score: 1

Karitku Member since:
2006-01-12

I believe you just pointed true religious fanatism. And Stallman's interview just strongers the point that we are talking about fanatism here by calling all that don't agree with him a fool.

Reply Score: 2

polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

Because anyone who stands firmly behind their opinions and doesn't compromise their own integrity is a fanatic. Right.

Read my post again. I said "I am not willing to get all fanatical about it", meaning me. "Fanatical" is in reference to Stallman, and yes I think he takes it too far.

Compromise integrity? Stands firmly behind their opinions? Did I accidently stumble upon a political forum by accident?

My point is that I, meaning me myself and I, use computers to get a job done, to meet a need, and ultimately facilitate the business model that allows my company to make money.

The OS's are just tools to help meet the need. I don't have the time nor the desire to get into the politics of it, regardless of how much I enjoy using the OS.

I hope you can understand my point of view and my opinion.

Reply Score: 1

RE: So we're losing our freedom....
by cyclops on Wed 12th Sep 2007 05:38 UTC in reply to "So we're losing our freedom...."
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"Running proprietary nVidia drivers in Linux? *yawn* Give me a break. If it works, it works. Free/open source is great and all, but I am really not willing to get all fanatical about it."

Whether you believe in in open source as a development model or free software as a political choice. The bottom line binary blobs are poor for many reasons. And due to people like Richard Stallman and others.

I use the term "bad" becuase those drivers that "Just work" form Nvidia contained a rather nasty Security Vulnerability, that was known for *over* a year unheard of in the kernel.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/17/nvidia_linux_graphics_bug/

Reply Score: 12

asdx24 Member since:
2007-05-17

nvidia drivers do work most of the time but they are propietary, which is not free, which is bad for the health of end users most of the time

Edited 2007-09-12 06:33

Reply Score: 2

marafaka Member since:
2006-01-03

You mean with potential backdoors and other sweets? And why the hell do you work till 5pm? Ah, it must be one of those free countries ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: So we're losing our freedom....
by Morgan on Wed 12th Sep 2007 11:34 UTC in reply to "So we're losing our freedom...."
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

You've hit on a point that has always been in the back of my mind. Stallman considers it almost a crime to run any proprietary software whatsoever. It's my understanding that if a non-free solution is the only way to do something, he just won't do whatever it is.

Now, I'm very much a fan of the free software community and way of doing things, but at the same time, I didn't buy this gaming laptop just to type emails and browse the web. I like a lot of the free/open source games for Linux and to be able to play many of them, I have to use ATI's fglrx driver. According to Stallman, I am now an enemy of the free software movement, or at the very least I am no longer a supporter in his eyes. Sorry pal, but I didn't spend that extra few hundred dollars for a laptop with a 3D chipset just to be told what to do with my system. That's the thing that really gets me; Stallman says his ultimate goal is the freedom to do what we want with our hardware and software, but if I choose more functionality for my hardware I am somehow limiting everyone else's freedoms.

Sorry folks, but I just don't buy it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: So we're losing our freedom....
by jessta on Wed 12th Sep 2007 15:33 UTC in reply to "So we're losing our freedom...."
jessta Member since:
2005-08-17

I am worried more about what just works

I like freedom in my software for that exact reason.
Free software gives you(or someone else with the same problem) the chance to make the software 'just work' in exactly the way you want it to.
Most commerical software will never 'just work' for me because my needs are different from the majority of users.

Proprietary nVidia drivers for linux are all well and good, but what about *BSD, Open Solaris, Haiku, ReactOS, plan9 etc. Getting proper hardware specifications from nVidia means that the community can develop working drivers for all different kinds of Free software operating systems.

Reply Score: 3

Neat
by Kishe on Wed 12th Sep 2007 04:44 UTC
Kishe
Member since:
2006-02-16

So Richard is saying it's Linus's fault that majority of developers have seen that GPL2 works for their goals just fine and hasnt bothered to use GPLv3?

GNU world has always had two cliques, Open Source people and Free Software people...Richard just desided to attack whole Open Source clique.

Reply Score: 3

v Stallman's menthal health...
by BlackTiger on Wed 12th Sep 2007 04:45 UTC
RE: Stallman's menthal health...
by Chicken Blood on Wed 12th Sep 2007 05:03 UTC in reply to "Stallman's menthal health..."
Chicken Blood Member since:
2005-12-21

Hey is that you Moullineuf? Did you change your name?

Reply Score: 2

Spellcheck Member since:
2007-01-20

I chuckled. See, this is the type of thing Eugenia is missing by not reading the comments!

Reply Score: 1

Interesting read...
by pcummins on Wed 12th Sep 2007 05:06 UTC
pcummins
Member since:
2005-07-10

The article lucidly details a few queries from Richard. Most people get confused over the GNU/Linux vs Linux moniker and why Richard's fighting hard to get the recognition the GNU project deserves.

The other issue is that Open Source != Free Software (Open Source can be Free Software, but most likely it's a subset of it depending on which license you use - hence Richard pushing GPLv3 to ensure the freedom of software according to the GNU requirements).

Another issue is the mixing of free/non-free software (ie, in GNU/Linux distros). Personally I think it's acceptable for users to make their own decisions whether that installing that binary-only driver is all OK, but I give respect to the efforts given to have a 100% free distribution.

Reply Score: 12

RE: Interesting read...
by pinky on Wed 12th Sep 2007 10:46 UTC in reply to "Interesting read..."
pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

>The other issue is that Open Source != Free Software (Open Source can be Free Software, but most likely it's a subset of it depending on which license you use...

No most likely Open Source and Free Software is (technically) the same. 99% of all Open Source license are also Free Software licenses and vice versa.

There is a huge different if you compare the ideas behind it but technically they are (almost) the same.

>Personally I think it's acceptable for users to make their own decisions whether that installing that binary-only driver is all OK, but I give respect to the efforts given to have a 100% free distribution.

Basically i agree with you. The problem arises where the user can't make their own decision because has has no choice.

Reply Score: 2

First thing...
by Anonumous on Wed 12th Sep 2007 05:49 UTC
Anonumous
Member since:
2007-06-13

... that went through my mind... Torvalds doesn't care about followers, it's all about the code. ;)

Reply Score: 3

interesting views
by raver31 on Wed 12th Sep 2007 05:53 UTC
raver31
Member since:
2005-07-06

I used to think Stallman was a deluded loon, now I have a new-found respect for the guy.

He sticks by his beliefs, not like these users of free systems, that will accept closed source, just because it is less hassle for them to get things done, that is slowly taking away your own rights, but you cannot see it.

Unfortunately, I have to use Nvidias closed source binary at the minute, because, frankly, the open source VESA driver, is shit for Enemy Territory. I could of course use the VESA driver to run the computer for everything else, but why should I ? I like games, so, until AMD release their ATI driver as open source, I am stuck on Nvidia ;)

I cannot understand people who fail to understand the difference between FREE and FREEDOM.

Reply Score: 17

RE: interesting views
by StaubSaugerNZ on Wed 12th Sep 2007 06:01 UTC in reply to "interesting views"
StaubSaugerNZ Member since:
2007-07-13

> I cannot understand people who fail to understand the difference between FREE and FREEDOM.

That's because in English we commonly overload the word 'free' to describe different things. If you switch language for a bit you get: FREE => gratis, FREEDOM => libre.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: interesting views
by Johann Chua on Wed 12th Sep 2007 10:23 UTC in reply to "RE: interesting views"
Johann Chua Member since:
2005-07-22

But I speak a language (Tagalog) where libre (free as in available, not freedom) can also mean gratis (free as in beer), so the whole libre/gratis distinction is sorta muddled.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: interesting views
by dylansmrjones on Wed 12th Sep 2007 10:33 UTC in reply to "RE: interesting views"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well in Danish, fri (free) only has one meaning. Free as in Freedom (frihed). Fri (free) means it comes with no bindings/commitments. Only in one situation does "fri" mean "gratis", and that is in "fri bar" (free bar). Apart from that "fri" is about freedom.

English is a weird language ;)

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: interesting views
by Jon Dough on Wed 12th Sep 2007 13:04 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: interesting views"
Jon Dough Member since:
2005-11-30

English is a weird language

Yes it is. I've heard it said that English is the most difficult language for a non-English speaker to learn.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: interesting views
by dagw on Wed 12th Sep 2007 16:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: interesting views"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

All languages are weird with strange quirks which bewilder foreigners trying to learn the language.

Yet no other language comes close to English when counting the number of people from all background who've learnt it as a second or third language, so it can't be that hard. At least for people with a European language background, I'd say both Chinese and Arabic would be a lot harder to learn.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: interesting views
by sappyvcv on Wed 12th Sep 2007 12:28 UTC in reply to "interesting views"
sappyvcv Member since:
2005-07-06

not like these users of free systems, that will accept closed source,

Unfortunately, I have to use Nvidias closed source binary

Well that's quite interesting. You are calling yourself out?

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: interesting views
by raver31 on Wed 12th Sep 2007 15:57 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: interesting views"
raver31 Member since:
2005-07-06

Yes, yes I am ;)

Reply Score: 2

Hurd?
by phox on Wed 12th Sep 2007 05:53 UTC
phox
Member since:
2007-06-22

So where the alternative he's suggesting to use? I mean if he's just up to tearing a fork outta Linux, that'd be bad for open software innovation, as it would take twice as much people to maintain two Linux kernels at once. Besides I would consider it stealing.

FSF is not known for their innovation and speed, .GNU can't compete with the more open minded Mono, Hurd is still not really useful, although it was started years before Linux. It's projects like Linux, OpenOffice and Mozilla that's driving the innovative edge on opensource.

If FSF cannot stand that the most popular opensource kernel was made by a person with a more relaxed attitude towards corporations, they better finish the Hurd kernel and put together a useful distro around it, if they want such statements to be taken seriously.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Hurd?
by pinky on Wed 12th Sep 2007 11:00 UTC in reply to "Hurd?"
pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

>FSF is not known for their innovation and speed, .GNU can't compete with the more open minded Mono, Hurd is still not really useful, although it was started years before Linux. It's projects like Linux, OpenOffice and Mozilla that's driving the innovative edge on opensource.

I have to disagree.

GNU has a great innovation speed where the focus on. As they started the GNU-OS it become really fast usefull and a lot of the software was already used long before Linux and it was know for it quality.
The Hurd is a bad example. The Hurd was developed with high priority for not more than 2-3 years and development was slow because of some design decisions which lead in theory to a great kernel but i practice was hard to develop and debug. Since that time Hurd as no priority and is just a toy for people who like to play with new kernel concepts.

Other areas were you can see the great innovation speed of GNU today are GNU Classpath which was almost done as Sun get cold feet and made their Java Free. Or look at Gnash i would say in at the latest of one year we will have a fairly complete free Flash.

But today we have so much projects and individuals developing great Free Software that GNU doesn;t have to develop everything by their own. They are happy that they don't have to care about a Browser, Kernel, Office-Suite,... because all of this exists today. GNU can focus on things which are really missing and important (like free Java in the past and now free Flash) and on the political side of Free Software to make sure Free Software can exists now and in the future.

Reply Score: 9

GPL is for the people
by StaubSaugerNZ on Wed 12th Sep 2007 05:56 UTC
StaubSaugerNZ
Member since:
2007-07-13

In my opnion GNU/Linux may or may not be technically superior to the BSDs, but it is the fact that Linux is under the GPL that has resulted its wider adoption. Why is this? It is simply that the GPL ensures that if you contribute to the project that your contribution can never be taken from you in subsequent releases of the software (as sometimes happens when companies take BSD code, extend it, and close the result, eg. Microsoft). No contributor wants their efforts taken from them. That is a differentiating reason why so many coders (and companies these days) bother to contribute to the GNU/Linux system. And it is this reason that makes GPL of benefit.

People who see themselves as 'pragmatic', such as Linus, fail to see this. As a result, things such as the BitKeeper fiasco have occurred (sure Linus took time out to code a solution, but how wasteful was that when there were 'free/libre' alternatives that he could have used if he had followed the advise of others).

Lengsel: 'The license smells too much of socialism.'. Are you from the US? There it seems extremely common to confuse socialism (which is good) with the evils of communism (which is bad). All thanks to rabid Senator Joe McCarthy. You know in plenty of places in the world governments look after their people based on humanist and socialist ideals. I'm afraid the US goverment appears to outsiders to promote the interests of big business ahead the interests of its own cizitens. Sure the GPL smells of socialism, but that's because it is trying to protect contributors and users (real humans) from those that would unfairly profit from the work of others (such as the abstract entity called a 'business'). However, I must add that it is a common misconception that GPL is anti-business. Not so!. The GPL does not prevent selling of GPL software for profit. I have personally heard Stallman say that he survived selling tapes of Emacs for a while. You know, it is possible for socialist protections to co-exist with a mostly unregulated market (note that a true 'free' market exists nowhere).

Edited 2007-09-12 05:57

Reply Score: 22

RE: GPL is for the people
by Tuishimi on Wed 12th Sep 2007 07:00 UTC in reply to "GPL is for the people"
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

Off- topic but hey, pure communism is actually a good thing, just as pure democracy is. The governments of the old USSR and China that most people refer to as "Communist" are very much NOT communism but a form of socialism.

Actually, every form of government or ruling ideology has its strengths and weaknesses.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: GPL is for the people
by Lengsel on Wed 12th Sep 2007 07:01 UTC in reply to "GPL is for the people"
RE[2]: GPL is for the people
by niemau on Wed 12th Sep 2007 20:34 UTC in reply to "RE: GPL is for the people"
niemau Member since:
2007-06-28

(maybe this isn't the best forum for this; but, hey... it's a reply.)

socialism is against God and is against individuality? i would say that socialism is unconcerned with God and individuality. and that's how it *should* be. government is a utility and should have no place in a persons theology or personality.

truthfully, modern capitalism is the political ideology against God and individuality. we're living in an era where profit is all that matters. to hell with the people. people are just *consumers*, being herded, studied, and categorized. all to find better ways to inundate with more and more advertisement. when that doesn't work, lawsuits! when that doesn't work, invest in rediculous bubble-markets for a quick buck. dot-coms, housing, etc. even authors have begun accepting money for product placement! if that isn't capitalism run amok, i don't know what is.

the name 'capitalism' itself is against God and individuality. money should *not* be more important than people. how godly is it that there are millions of people around the planet with no medical care or access to clean water when there are multi-billionaires doing little to help? i don't care how much they fluff themselves up by becoming 'philanthropists'. they all could do more.

disclaimer: i'm not advocating any political stance. but don't fool yourself into believing that jesus, the prophet, buddha, or whatever deity-of-the-month you worship, would come close to endorsing modern capitalism. capitalism *should* be about individuals having the right to be fairly compensated for hard work. it shouldn't be about padding the pockets of CEOs.

just remember, every dime you make is a dime somebody else doesn't. that isn't an attempt at a guilt-trip. it's reality. nobody needs billions.

anyway, to bring this full-circle and more on-topic-ish... the scary part about all of the above is that nobody really cares. and it extends to technology. i'm constantly hearing and reading about people who continue to run windows and use proprietarty software because they simply refuse to be inconvenienced. they realize that they're being taken advantage of as a 'consumer'. unfortunately, instant gratification wins.

and this is people that openly say they think open source is better and more morally sound. i understand (and enjoy) wonderful trivialities like 3D gaming. but frankly, my principles are more important. i'm willing to forgo playing a game that ultimately doesn't matter to feel like i made the right choice.

Edited 2007-09-12 20:54

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: GPL is for the people
by pepa on Thu 13th Sep 2007 05:38 UTC in reply to "RE: GPL is for the people"
pepa Member since:
2005-07-08

I don't understand that if you're following Jesus how you can be opposed to Stallman's 4 software freedoms.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: GPL is for the people
by Hiev on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: GPL is for the people"
Hiev Member since:
2005-09-27

Well, in the first place, Jesus wasn't sponsored by IBM.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: GPL is for the people
by encia on Fri 14th Sep 2007 13:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: GPL is for the people"
encia Member since:
2005-11-16

Mattew 20:8 So when evening had come, the lord of the vineyard said to his steward, Call the laborers and pay them their wage, beginning from the last to the first.

Note "Call the laborers and pay them their wage".

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: GPL is for the people
by encia on Fri 14th Sep 2007 13:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: GPL is for the people"
encia Member since:
2005-11-16

Rev 22:12 "Behold, I (refers Jesus) come quickly; and my reward is with me, to render to each man according as his work is."

Note the "works" and "reward".

Reply Score: 1

RE: GPL is for the people
by Soulbender on Wed 12th Sep 2007 08:49 UTC in reply to "GPL is for the people"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"but it is the fact that Linux is under the GPL that has resulted its wider adoption."

lets just not go there again.

Reply Score: 2

RE: GPL is for the people
by Coral Snake on Fri 14th Sep 2007 04:56 UTC in reply to "GPL is for the people"
Coral Snake Member since:
2005-07-07

ANY ideology based on restricting or outright denying INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS is bad and inherantly anti-freedom despite how pro-freedom its rhetoric may sound. This applies to all anti-individual ideologies including Socialism, Communism (Actually a form of Socialism based on the distruction of the corporation by the state through violent revolution), Fascism (Actually a form of Socialism based on the merger of the state and the corporation to form a Socialist ruling superstate) and Theocratic religionism as practiced by Islamics, some Roman Catholics (particularly the Jesuit Order) and ultra fundamentalist Protestents.

As for licenses like the GPL and other F/OSS licenses I see them as only a NECESSARY band-aid on the our Disney, Time Werner, Sony, RIIA, MPPA and Microsoft corrupted copyright and patent systems until they can be reformed into the timely expiration and public domain oriented system the American founders intended.

Now to get back on topic. I don't think Richard Stallman's ideology is the way to fight the corrupt copyright and patent system. This is because it is simply the pot calling the kettle black or one group of Solcialists (Comminist oriented) Represented by the Free Software Foundation attacking the policies of another group Socialists (Fascists) represented by the highly government tied Microsoft. Also both the Free Software Foundation and Microsoft have a vested interest in KEEPING THE COPYRIGHT AND PATENT SYSTEM CORRUPT AND and issuing PERMANENT rather than TEMPORARY monopolies. (The FSF to keep the GPL a permanently enforcable license and Microsoft to keep their EULA license and its "Product Activation" enforcement software permanently enforcable.) More proof thet the SOCIALISTS Richard Stallman (commie) and Bill Gates/Steve Ballmer (fascist) really have more in common then they might want to show the public.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: GPL is for the people
by __xodam__ on Fri 14th Sep 2007 12:13 UTC in reply to "RE: GPL is for the people"
__xodam__ Member since:
2007-04-06

ANY ideology based on restricting or outright denying INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS is bad and inherantly anti-freedom despite how pro-freedom its rhetoric may sound. This applies to all anti-individual ideologies including Socialism, Communism (Actually a form of Socialism based on the distruction of the corporation by the state through violent revolution), Fascism (Actually a form of Socialism based on the merger of the state and the corporation to form a Socialist ruling superstate) and Theocratic religionism as practiced by Islamics, some Roman Catholics (particularly the Jesuit Order) and ultra fundamentalist Protestents.


Yeaah, lets summarize, socialism preaches equality between humans.

Imperialism does the opposite.

Me, I'm not a socialist exactly, but I do believe the humans deserve at least economic equality.

You, yes you, how about you, just answer yes or no plus reason, do u support imperialism, do you believe the world's (earth's, may the aliens save the rest from us) resources justifically belong to a minority ? yes or no ?

No further comments.

Edited 2007-09-14 12:19

Reply Score: 1

v Stallman oh well
by CrazyDude0 on Wed 12th Sep 2007 06:05 UTC
v Stallman the whacko
by CrazyDude0 on Wed 12th Sep 2007 06:09 UTC
I love Richard Stallman
by asdx24 on Wed 12th Sep 2007 06:24 UTC
asdx24
Member since:
2007-05-17

I love Richard Stallman and I see him like a father, he did and does a lot for the world and for the people and that is truly beautiful.

Long life to GNU/Linux!

Reply Score: 5

Richard Stallman is commy or what ?
by Kochise on Wed 12th Sep 2007 06:33 UTC
Kochise
Member since:
2006-03-03

"However, if you don't want to lose your freedom, you had better not follow him."
In other words : If you want to be free, be NOT free to follow him ! Is he going to become big headed or what ? He's working to put things really wrong just for the sake of getting free software. As a coder, he should know that coding is pretty hard, requires knowledge, and yes, some capitalist persons decided to make pay for their work and make a living of it. That's ok you may say ? But not him ! Everything coded beforehand that's been released for free make your own 10000+ lines of code to be released for free ! Pretty logic ! And obviously he refuse anything else closer to a public domain license such MIT, zLIB... to be sure the licensing process still gets viral :/

Reply Score: 0

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

"In other words : If you want to be free, be NOT free to follow him "

No. You are free to follow Linus Torvalds, just be aware that your software freedoms will probably go away if you do that.

No-cost software is not something which is advocated by Stallman, it is merely a probably by-product of software which respects the users freedoms.

Reply Score: 4

Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

"users freedoms" OK, but then what about coders rewards ? With no coder, no software, then no user... I find the whole affaire too much user-centered, where's the coder interrest ?

Reply Score: 0

Cool down lads....
by capricorn_tm on Wed 12th Sep 2007 06:45 UTC
capricorn_tm
Member since:
2005-12-31

Not going radical means take a step back before trolling.

Richard Stallman has invested his life on an idea. It is his view of the world and has not to be yours.

What Stallman fails to understand sometimes is that agreeing only in part is the base of freedom, because agreeing on general principle without discussion ends quickly on a dictature ( "It is a war on terror and if you're not with us, you're with them" sounds familiar? ;) ) .

Example to me are the Excel Macros. Okay, I use Open office and all, but let's suppose that I do work with very complex macroes at work and need to bring them home, what can I do?

I cut it short, everyone will see where I'm headed. The problem though has to be flipped over, meaning that if we all give up and do not support open sourced projects they are never going to become the free equivalent of the closed program.

I know that not everyone can code. I cannot either, but I could translate the text in another language, and if you cannot even do that, then PAY.

Open source does not live on air. IBM is not giving pats on the back, they are PAYING for open sourced programs.

So, next time you go to your favourite site take notice of the DONATE button. Programmers need love as anyone else, okay ? ;)

Reply Score: 1

v Kinda off topic
by steverez1 on Wed 12th Sep 2007 06:50 UTC
Hmm. Bah.
by WereCatf on Wed 12th Sep 2007 06:56 UTC
WereCatf
Member since:
2006-02-15

I find Linus rather reasonable and more practical so I'd rather choose him.

Reply Score: 2

Freedom of software or Freedom of people?
by Marcellus on Wed 12th Sep 2007 07:01 UTC
Marcellus
Member since:
2005-08-26

RMS seems to use these two interchangably, but isn't GPL about "Freedom of software"? Which is quite different from "Freedom of people", yet he's warning people that they are losing their freedom, not the software's freedom.

It would be easier to understand what he's trying to say if he could decide to stick to one of the two, as they are not fully compatible with each other.

Reply Score: 8

sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

I would have to disagree.

The GPL is definitely about "Freedom of people." It is intended to preserve the freedom of people to use their software the way they want to.

When you use the GPLv2 for your software you, as a developer, are promising your users that you will not in the future take away their ability to use the software they obtain from you.

When you use the GPLv3 for your softare you are doing *exactly the same thing*, but you are providing even more guarantees because you, as a developer, are further restricted in the ways you can screw your users in the future.

These developer restrictions are what the BSD people don't like; it makes the license "less free" in their opinion. However, less freedom for the developer to screw end-users is not bad. GPL fans prefer to not screw the users.

If you as a user use the GPLv2 instead of GPLv3, you are operating with a lesser set of freedoms. If you as a developer use the GPLv2 instead of GPLv3 you are guaranteeing fewer freedoms to your end users.

Stallman and Torvalds disagree very slightly. Torvalds sees the GPL as a means to protect the developers from having their code absconded with. Therefore he does not like restrictions on how the code can be used (for example) on hardware, because he wants to see other developers able to use that code regardless. But if the GPLv2 code is used on hardware in a way which prevents the user from modifying it the end-user of the *hardware* has lost the freedom to use the software as he likes. This is not a concern to Torvalds, but it is a concern to Stallman. With GPLv3 the developer loses the freedom to use the software on the hardware in a restricted manner. That does not concern Stallman ("if you don't like it, write it all yourself") but it does concern Torvalds.

Reply Score: 3

Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

When you use the GPLv2 for your software you, as a developer, are banking on your users developing something that you will be able to take as your own, without having to pay them (thanks to the copyleft clauses).

When you use the GPLv2 for your software you, as a developer, are banking on your users developing something that you will be able to take as your own, without having to pay them (thanks to the copyleft clauses), but with a license that's even more wordy and even less compatible with real-world needs.


Fixed your typos.

Reply Score: 0

taschenorakel
Member since:
2005-07-06

An foreword: Linus is an absolutly brilliant engineer - a genius of our time, but also genius do mistakes - and in the case of Linus also admit to do so[1] - absolutly great gesture. Well, but his license choice for sparse is a code demonstration for jailing great code by poor license choices.

An example for the harm Linus' "open is good enough" attitude can cause is sparse. Rob, Jürg and me wanted to use this absolutly exciting code for finally implementing GObject introspection and more fancy stuff[2] - until we realized that the stupid license that Linus' in rage about gcc's horrible? design has choosen to take a license explictly incompatible with the GPL[3]. His choice, I can even understand him. Unfortunatly he choose one of the worst open source licenses available: The Open Software License[4]. Yes, it guarantees the code stays open, but legally working on code with that license is impossible:

"9) [...] If You distribute copies of the Original Work or a Derivative Work, You must make a reasonable effort under the circumstances to obtain the express and volitional assent of recipients to the terms of this License."

So sending patches to a mailing list, hosting a code repository with patches, hosting tarballs of git: That all is illegal unless you built in some click-thru mechanism for accepting the OSL.

"10) Mutual Termination for Patent Action. This License shall terminate automatically and You may no longer exercise any of the rights granted to You by this License if You file a lawsuit in any court alleging that any OSI Certified open source software that is licensed under any license containing this "Mutual Termination for Patent Action" clause infringes any patent claims that are essential to use that software."

You rely on software A wich is under OSL license. Another party releases software B under OSL. For some reason you sue that other party for violating your rights and suddenly use your right to use A.

The Debian folks also are not sure, if the OSL allows distribution of pre-built packages of OSL licensed code, as the license doesn't explicitly allows distribution of binary packages.

[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-sparse&m=118920352231655&w=2
[2] http://blog.floopily.org/2007/09/10/gobject-introspection/
[3] http://git.kernel.org/?p=devel/sparse/sparse.git;a=blob;f=FAQ;h=168...
[4]
http://git.kernel.org/?p=devel/sparse/sparse.git;a=blob;f=LICENSE;h...

Reply Score: 2

Almafeta Member since:
2007-02-22

An example for the harm Linus' "open is good enough" attitude can cause is sparse. Rob, Jürg and me wanted to use this absolutly exciting code for finally implementing GObject introspection and more fancy stuff[2] - until we realized that the stupid license that Linus' in rage about gcc's horrible? design has choosen to take a license explictly incompatible with the GPL[3]. His choice, I can even understand him. Unfortunatly he choose one of the worst open source licenses available: The Open Software License[4].


I see you curiously used the phrase 'victim' here.

You saw code you wanted. The license prevented your ripping it off. So, you had to actually write something yourself.

I completely fail to see how their protecting themselves from the sort of person who would steal code like that makes you a 'victim.'

Reply Score: 1

taschenorakel Member since:
2005-07-06

Almefeta: I absolutlely do not see how you come to the conclusion we want to steal code. We sent patches and intented to use that modified sparse - until we realized that we violated the license by submitting patches. Also Debian for instance will not put sparse into its main repositories unless the license changes. Very bad basis for a tool intended to provide core services: introspection information for GObject libraries.

As sparse itself is brilliant code, I am absolutly sure that this stupid license is the reason for the lack of sparse adoption in IT world. So when brilliant code is not used, it is quite obvious that this code is a victim of license idiocity.

Reply Score: 1

v Stallman is a commie a$$hole
by CrazyDude0 on Wed 12th Sep 2007 07:50 UTC
RMS is right
by djangoxl on Wed 12th Sep 2007 08:10 UTC
djangoxl
Member since:
2006-03-10

I'm very positive that RMS has a noble goal: freedom for all users and that Linus is very pragmatic...

However, as a free software user I'm very thankful I'm able to use pieces of software of people who developed it and allow me to use it how I want.

And for me itś a MUST that businesses that don't support this don't benefit from it either!!!

Reply Score: 2

Take the pill
by mmu_man on Wed 12th Sep 2007 08:40 UTC
mmu_man
Member since:
2006-09-30

either you take the blue pill, and all is well, even Microsoft switches to GPLv3,
or you take the red pill and you come to see the truth, it's all just software anyway. ;)

Reply Score: 3

The problem..
by kaiwai on Wed 12th Sep 2007 09:41 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem I have with the current Linux licence is this; although Linus might let some things 'slide' such as binary only drivers - technically, it is in violation of the GPL licence; its just the fact that Linus has allowed it to happen doesn't make it allowable in the licence. The problem as far as I see, it is at the 'mercy' of the current holder. As a company, I'd feel alot safer if the Linux kernel was licenced under LGPL, then atleast there would be a level of legal assurance rather than it being on the basis of one individuals allowing something to slide.

As for GPL and calling Stallman a fanatic; name calling won't get you anywhere. People who call Stallman a fanatic are the same people who claim that the US was attacked because 'they hate out freedoms' - ignoring the philosophical arguments behind the attackers motives. There are sound philosophical ground for Stallmans stance - I don't necessarily agree with everything he says but it is hard to fault him on his position given how willing many have been bitten by proprietary and underhanded business tactics.

Reply Score: 7

RE: The problem..
by elsewhere on Wed 12th Sep 2007 16:51 UTC in reply to "The problem.."
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

The problem I have with the current Linux licence is this; although Linus might let some things 'slide' such as binary only drivers - technically, it is in violation of the GPL licence; its just the fact that Linus has allowed it to happen doesn't make it allowable in the licence. The problem as far as I see, it is at the 'mercy' of the current holder. As a company, I'd feel alot safer if the Linux kernel was licenced under LGPL, then atleast there would be a level of legal assurance rather than it being on the basis of one individuals allowing something to slide.


Linus doesn't really let the issue slide because he considers it ok. He has argued that the issue is with the determination of a derivative work, which is the key measure for enforcement of the GPL. The argument comes up particularly with regards to the nvidia driver, which is a universal driver for Win/*nix and simply uses a wrapper between the kernel and the binary driver. The wrapper is compliant, but Linus doesn't feel that it could be argued that the driver is a derivative work of linux since it wasn't designed to run specifically on linux.

If we were looking at a binary driver written specifically for linux and linked directly with kernel code, then his viewpoint is different. In fact he's even argued that one of the advantages for the constantly changing API's is that by not having a clearly designed and documented interface, any binary driver linking the kernel would by design have to be derivative. I don't personally buy that argument, but there you have it.

There is legal precedent in the US that suggests linking code doesn't necessarily constitute infringement of copyright, nor can an application interface be protected by copyright or license agreements, so if it ever came to legal action then I suspect any determinations would most likely boil down to whether a driver linking to the kernel constitutes a derivative or a collective work, and I doubt that an arbitrary license agreement could enforce that alone.

And as for the futility of binary drivers, he seems to share the devs POV that they run counter to the philosophy of kernel development, he simply leaves the choice to the users rather than deciding for them.

I do agree LGPL status would make things easier, but at the same time the kernel licensing does not require GPL-compatibility for userspace, so GPL licensing simply provides an obstacle, by design, to the proliferation of closed binary drivers. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, they're choosing not to encourage their development.

Just my 2c...

Reply Score: 3

typical
by netpython on Wed 12th Sep 2007 10:27 UTC
netpython
Member since:
2005-07-06

articles like this one are linked with lightning speed. But news about IBM joining the OpenOffice project isn't.

OSS software appliances are being released constantly and yet you hardly hear anyone complain about the freedom of using them. I think GPL2 has served us well untill now and probably will in the forseeable future.
The rest is food for thought for the purists and i hope it´s not taken again out of context.

Edited 2007-09-12 10:31

Reply Score: 4

Free vs. Open
by da_Chicken on Wed 12th Sep 2007 11:27 UTC
da_Chicken
Member since:
2006-01-01

To some extent, I find this "Free vs. Open" debate a bit silly and I can't fully agree with either side of the debate. Both parties are discussing the benefits of FOSS, emphasizing some benefits while dismissing others. The "Free" side says that freedom (the control of end users over their own computers) is the most important benefit of FOSS and that all the other benefits, like efficient development model and the "free as beer" aspect, don't really matter. The "Open" side says that efficient development model is all that matters and other benefits, like "freedom" (the control of end users over their own computers) and the "no-cost" aspect don't really matter.

Well, both parties seem to happily ignore that the "you can't beat the price" aspect is quite essential for the popularity of FOSS. When you install a *BSD or GNU/Linux system, you can get lots of high quality programs (Xorg, KDE, GNOME, Firefox, Thunderbird, OpenOffice...) without paying anything. Would FOSS be as popular if you had to buy each of these programs that you can now get free of charge?

Efficient development model is, of course, also important because it produces all these high quality programs that have lots of features and they work very reliably. People wouldn't like to use an operating system that comes with crappy programs that crash all the time and don't have the advanced features that commercial programs have.

That end users can have control over their own computers is also a very important aspect that attracts many people to use FOSS. Proprietary software denies from end users the rights to modify programs and to share them with their friends. Proprietary software can come bundled with spyware and other malware, and it can have built-in backdoors and other security risks that users are not allowed to remove or fix. Richard M. Stallman is doing a good job in making people realize how important the control over your own computer is and his GPL has established a legal and pragmatic foundation for FOSS development.

I think we can appreciate the importance of both the "Free" and the "Open" sides of this debate without fully agreeing with either party. I know I can. :-)

Reply Score: 4

RE: Free vs. Open
by pinky on Wed 12th Sep 2007 11:43 UTC in reply to "Free vs. Open"
pinky Member since:
2005-07-15

>The "Free" side says that freedom (the control of end users over their own computers) is the most important benefit of FOSS and that all the other benefits, like efficient development model [..] don't really matter.

It is a practical reason why it doesn't matter. The reason is that neither the Free Software Definition nor the Open Source Definition stipulate a development model. They just look at the license and decide. So neither the Free Software Camp nor the Open Source Camp can ever say "it is not open source because you developed it by your own".

It is something complete different one is a licensing scheme and the other is a development strategy and the licensing scheme Free Software/Open Source works quite well with all development models.

>Would FOSS be as popular if you had to buy each of these programs that you can now get free of charge?

Yes, because of the nature of Free Software a high price would hurt nobody. For details: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html

Reply Score: 2

Impasse
by moleskine on Wed 12th Sep 2007 11:42 UTC
moleskine
Member since:
2005-11-05

Arguments about whether Richard Stallman or Linus Torvalds hold the better opinion aren't capable of resolution because both men represent completely different philosophical traditions.

Linus T's position seem to be that of classic liberalism. You propose a system with the fewest restrictions and the widest notions of tolerance. You don't attempt to better human nature but leave people to get on with their lives.

Richard S's position seems to be more utopian. You propose that human nature can indeed be improved if only people are freed from their chains - both those imposed by others (such as capitalist enterprises) and from the chains of "false conscousness". You therefore propose to enact such laws as are necessary to bring this desirable end to fruition.

Unfortunately there is a nasty sting in the tail of a utopian position. As a system, it cannot possibly work without rather drastic authoritarian measures since you would need actively to prevent anyone from owning anything in circumstances where such ownership might impede others from doing what they wanted.

The liberal position isn't all good news either. It sees human nature as fallible and fallen, meaning that shitty things will still be done by shitty people. All you can try to do is limit their activities and the fall out.

So which one? You decide. As for me, well the Jacobins didn't turn out to be very nice guys, or even very competent ones.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Impasse
by sorpigal on Wed 12th Sep 2007 15:11 UTC in reply to "Impasse"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

The utopian position isn't a close analogy in this case. The only authoritarian aspect when it comes to Free software is the GPL license itself and of course the copyright law on which it rests. Since everything else is voluntary there is no problem.

In a theoretical future where 99% of source code is GPL'd it would function as a coercive force requiring new developments to be GPL'd. At that point I would strongly back a BSD license, as strongly as I now back GPL, as the next logical step.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Impasse
by moleskine on Wed 12th Sep 2007 18:44 UTC in reply to "RE: Impasse"
moleskine Member since:
2005-11-05

sorpigal wrote: The utopian position isn't a close analogy in this case. The only authoritarian aspect when it comes to Free software is the GPL license itself and of course the copyright law on which it rests. Since everything else is voluntary there is no problem.

Quite the reverse. If you look at what RMS and LT have said over the past few years, I think my suggestion stands up extremely well. I'm not talking about the GPL or a specific statement but about where the two are coming from, the beliefs that underpin their ideas, the way they look at the world. And if you think that authoritarianism isn't involved, then look at that first, original draft of GPL3 (especially the preamble).

Reply Score: 2

Dead horse!
by Kishe on Wed 12th Sep 2007 12:17 UTC
Kishe
Member since:
2006-02-16

Linus doesnt swap the kernel to GPLv3 because he sees GPLv2 fits the purposes of HIS project well enough...it's not about catering to the companies, its all about "Why fix something that isn't broken" His projects fares fine, it's spreading rapidly, he is getting his "tit for tat" and the kernel keeps improving...all is well...why change?

RMS has started this unimaginable smear campaign against Linus because Linus rather cares about the health and balance of his own projects than FSF's newfound free world ideology.

I don't understand RMS...instead of caring about software he seems to rather care about reinstating hippie movement over the world.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Dead horse!
by sorpigal on Wed 12th Sep 2007 15:13 UTC in reply to "Dead horse!"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

This is not a smear campaign. RMS merely states that Linus' position, and the GPLv2 itself, will not protect your freedoms as well as the GPLv3 will. If you care about freedom more than anything else you will not take up Linus' philosophy. This is not untruthful in any way.

Linus is entitled to his opinion and to his license. You are entitled to adopt his views. But please, don't bash RMS for pointing out that the so-called "pgramatic" view Linus expresses is not going to guarantee your freedoms the way the GPLv3 will.

Reply Score: 3

important quote
by DavidM on Wed 12th Sep 2007 12:23 UTC
DavidM
Member since:
2006-06-29

For those who say Eugenia picked the most evocative quote, I disagree.

If RMS wants you to 'follow him' instead of Linus then it *IS* important to know why he does the things he does.

RMS is fine with any license as long as it discourages selling of software. If you disagree with this, then you need to read through his manifesto documents on fsf.org.

I guess the rest of us cannot just live on a trust fund and tell everyone else where we can make our cash.

PS. Stallman is a socialist whether he knows it or not. The only defining characteristic is shared property and labor is the only commodity. Worked through to its logical conclusions, you *cannot* have true freedom without private property.

Reply Score: 3

RE: important quote
by sorpigal on Wed 12th Sep 2007 15:20 UTC in reply to "important quote"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

RMS may be a socialist himself--I say may be, but it's true that he is--but the GPL is not socialist, it merely is inspired from socialist ideals.

RMS does not want to discourage selling software. The monetary price of software is not a concern of his and is mostly not mentioned, except where it is explicitly allowed.

The reality is that the price of GPL software will approach zero as more people purchase it. This is due to the nature of the freedom GPL provides, and not to any engineered socialist agenda of Stallman.

Reply Score: 1

The Whining Guy
by ideasman42 on Wed 12th Sep 2007 13:04 UTC
ideasman42
Member since:
2007-07-20

I have to say I really do respect RMS for going out on a limb all those years back and starting up the movement as well as writing some of the important code like GCC and emacs.

But he is not they guy to be talking to the masses, his tone is whiny and he always goes on about the GNU/linux issue when nobody but FSF really care (and Im sure many in the FSF dont care either).

(in general) A rock band gets known for their from front man, (even if the drummer writes all the songs), Its like this with "Linux" - just be happy its doing well and stop worrying about who gets what % of credit in the name.

sometimes I work on projects and don't get credit - I just take it on the chin and keep on trying to do good work. sometimes you get credit, sometimes you dont. but people don't like a sore looser even IF they are correct.

When I listen to his talks I don't feel inspired or positive. His gist seems to be - "Ages back software was great, then it went bad but we managed to start GNU, now its better but some people still dont agree with us so its not all that great..."

This leaves me feeling he's an irritating idealist that has stopped being a positive visionary, or perhaps he never was and should go back to writing code which he is obviously very good at.

Its such a pity his not using his position to help encourage groth in the FSF community by givime more up beat talks etc, or that he still does talks at all- Im sure the FSF can get others to spread their word in a way that is less down-beat.

Edited 2007-09-12 13:08

Reply Score: 1

RE: The Whining Guy
by Kishe on Wed 12th Sep 2007 13:48 UTC in reply to "The Whining Guy"
Kishe Member since:
2006-02-16

Right on, Ideasman42!

I wish FSF would pick less zealous speaker who wouldn't try to rip the community in to cliques over peoples personal preferences.

Kernel stays GPLv2, linux keeps growing, code keeps flowing, life is good...now let us keep moving on, thank you!

Reply Score: 0

Agree with Linus..
by tspears on Wed 12th Sep 2007 14:08 UTC
tspears
Member since:
2006-05-22

Torvalds at least realizes that open source can be the peaceful coexistence of free and commercial software. Stallman just comes off as an whiny, pretentious, idealistic dolt.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Agree with Linus..
by __xodam__ on Wed 12th Sep 2007 14:23 UTC in reply to "Agree with Linus.."
__xodam__ Member since:
2007-04-06

Just what in hell is this ? cant the man have his own opinions, did he force you to adopt some license or something ? did he insult u ? why do you insult him ?

Reply Score: 1

Stallman
by siki_miki on Wed 12th Sep 2007 14:31 UTC
siki_miki
Member since:
2006-01-17

The guy is crazy. Linus doesn't run a sect, he just runs a software project with a license which he felt was suited for it long time ago. 15 years later Stallman suddenly wants to force everyone to a different (incompatible) license just because he doesn't like some kind of software use that is permitted with older license (opinion not shared by Linus).

Stallman AFAIK didn't write a part of kernel (or at least not significant part). Those who wrote the kernel should decide, and IMO they don't need Stallman to tell them what to do.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Stallman
by sorpigal on Wed 12th Sep 2007 15:34 UTC in reply to "Stallman"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

Linus is the advocate of a certain idealogical position with which many people agree. This makes him a leader who is followed. Fifteen years ago he chose a license which respects peoples freedoms, a license developed by Stallman. People began to use Linux partly because of the freedoms the license granted.

In the present day Stallman is updating his license to account for deficiencies in the previous incarnation. The license remains idealogically centered but uses different language and has in some cases different restrictions.

Stallman would like everyone to use the new license, as he wanted everyone to use the previous license. He is not interested in forcing anyone to use the old license nor is he interested in forcing anyone to use the new license. He never went around begging for companies to GPL their software, he undertook to have replacement code written from scratch.

Since Linus' project has many users who adopted it because of the freedoms Stallman's license gave them, it is perfectly reasonable for Stallman to speak to the users of the kernel and warn them that the GPLv2 has exploitable flaws which are causing the user's freedoms to be restricted. His warning includes a note that although Linus uses the GPLv2 this does not mean that his opinions represent the ideaology of the FSF.

Do not be fooled, he is saying, in to thinking that your freedoms will be protected by doing things Linus' way. This is a perfectly reasonable warning.

Reply Score: 4

Savior
by dmrio on Wed 12th Sep 2007 14:41 UTC
dmrio
Member since:
2005-08-26

Stallman is trying to act like Jesus Christ. He believe that can save the world, but ordinary users don't care about his ideas. People just want their work done, no matter they're using a free license or a paid one.
By the way, Jesus won the death. Will Stallman win the capitalism?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Savior
by __xodam__ on Wed 12th Sep 2007 14:48 UTC in reply to "Savior"
__xodam__ Member since:
2007-04-06

No he's not, his expressing his own opinions.

Oh no, jesus didnt defeat death more then you and I will someday. And ppl call Stallman religious ?

Reply Score: 1

I have To Ask....
by Pelly on Wed 12th Sep 2007 15:02 UTC
Pelly
Member since:
2005-07-07

I have to ask the following:

Would Richard Stallman receive the lamb-basting he usually receives if he appeared more professional...?

To be perfectly blunt, quite a bit (not everything, but a lot) of what he has to say makes good, sound sense. A lot of people seem to feel that way UNTIL they see a photo of what he looks like.

After seeing a photo of Stallman, my brother-in-law stated, "He looks like the guy the Beatles went to for spritual enlightenment back in the 1960s. Or homeless."

In my opinion, if Stallman wishes to be taken seriously, he should look & act like he wants to be taken seriously.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I have To Ask....
by Luminair on Wed 12th Sep 2007 15:05 UTC in reply to "I have To Ask...."
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

I think you are wrong

Edited 2007-09-12 15:05 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: I have To Ask....
by __xodam__ on Wed 12th Sep 2007 15:23 UTC in reply to "I have To Ask...."
__xodam__ Member since:
2007-04-06

You are saying he needs to give up his freedom in order to be taken serious (to make his voice heard) ?
Dont you think he's more serious than those who judge him based on his looks ?

Edited 2007-09-12 15:32

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: I have To Ask....
by Pelly on Wed 12th Sep 2007 17:16 UTC in reply to "RE: I have To Ask...."
Pelly Member since:
2005-07-07

You are saying he needs to give up his freedom in order to be taken serious (to make his voice heard) ?
Dont you think he's more serious than those who judge him based on his looks ?


I'm not saying he needs to give up his personal freedom at all. Nor do I think this is an unimportant issue.

I asked the question that I did because I wondered how many people have felt free to attack Stallman based on his personal appearance vs. what he's been doing with the FSF.

Let's face the unpleasant truth. When people want to make a good, lasting impression regarding job interviews or anything in the public eye, they look at making the best FIRST impression.

That first and most lasting impression is usually visual. People are judged on how they dress, what they wear, how they stand, how neat their hair is, the color of it, etc.

While it is a shallow human failing, appearances do matter to many regarding their choice to take someone's message seriously.

That's why I threw the question out there.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: I have To Ask....
by __xodam__ on Thu 13th Sep 2007 00:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I have To Ask...."
__xodam__ Member since:
2007-04-06

I asked the question that I did because I wondered how many people have felt free to attack Stallman based on his personal appearance vs. what he's been doing with the FSF.

Let's face the unpleasant truth. When people want to make a good, lasting impression regarding job interviews or anything in the public eye, they look at making the best FIRST impression.


I understand what you're saying, but I dont agree, it does not justify attacks nor insults from trolls and wackos.

Oh, set your threshold to -5 just in case.. (poster->Vote() is broken design).

Edited 2007-09-13 00:54

Reply Score: 1

RE: I have To Ask....
by polaris20 on Wed 12th Sep 2007 18:09 UTC in reply to "I have To Ask...."
polaris20 Member since:
2005-07-06

I am not a Stallman fan by any means, but I have to really disagree with you here.

To be taken seriously, he has to change his personal style, his image? This is really what is so wrong with the world.....judging people by what they look like, where they're from, gender, race, etc.

So if you had short hair and no beard (or very trimmed one) he would be more credible?

Reply Score: 2

RE: I have To Ask....
by WereCatf on Wed 12th Sep 2007 18:17 UTC in reply to "I have To Ask...."
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

After seeing a photo of Stallman, my brother-in-law stated, "He looks like the guy the Beatles went to for spritual enlightenment back in the 1960s. Or homeless.

Hihi *giggle* Well, to some people he might look like that ;) I think he has kind eyes and a good skin, but sure, he could trim his beard and hair a bit. He'd be quite handsome, I think ;)

Reply Score: 1

GPL best thing since sliced bread
by daddio on Wed 12th Sep 2007 15:11 UTC
daddio
Member since:
2007-07-14

I remember the first time I encountered and read the GPL.
My first instict was why not just public domain? In my naievete I never realized that unscrupulous individuals or companies can take public domain materials, bundle them together, and the copyright it as a collective work without telling anyone that the contents are public domain.
So my response to the GPL?
Brilliant! I thought. A way to give back. A way to ensure that you work can be enjoyed and improved and not heisted by those who would keep for themselves the benefits work done by others.

Stallman IS over the top. I wrinkle my nose at some of his antics. But he is the top salesman and evangelist for the best philosophical development in the recent history of software.

And this include V3. I for one think that licensing restrictions placed on what you can do with hardware by the vendor are probably illegal, since you BOUGHT it. If this is true, some of the restrictions of GPL V3 might also be invalidated, but the two would cancel each other out. Companies don't want their illegal EULA's to go to court, so I don't think GPLv3 will be challenged.

My two cents.

Reply Score: 2

Ideolology good, fighting bad
by theosib on Wed 12th Sep 2007 15:34 UTC
theosib
Member since:
2006-03-02

I like Stallman's ideology with regard to software freedom, and as such, I often say "Free Software." What I don't like is the fact that they keep sniping at each other all the time. We have some differences, and we don't have to agree with each other, but we'll all achieve our goals much faster if we just COOPERATE.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Ideolology good, fighting bad
by trenchsol on Wed 12th Sep 2007 21:24 UTC in reply to "Ideolology good, fighting bad"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

What goals ? Do they have the same goals ? Stallman is a leftist who wants to rearrange the society to fit his own ideas, not asking anyone if they agree or not. Software is just the way to influence people, because it plays important role.

Torvalds has nothing to do with it.

Reply Score: 1

__xodam__ Member since:
2007-04-06

Now most comments from right wingers have transformed this topic into any random youtube one. Congratulations, no moderation whatsoever, instead there's this poster->Vote() public method for right wingers to happily misuse as much as they desire, genius.

Reply Score: 1

Personal attaks
by Soulbender on Wed 12th Sep 2007 16:12 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

Jesus, what's with the personal atacks people? Can't you argue the pros and cons of Stallmans views without stoooping to calling him crazy, sect leader or jesus christ?
Way to go people, you're just showing that you're nothing but hypocrits.

Reply Score: 4

Quote from post on another forum.
by Kishe on Wed 12th Sep 2007 16:17 UTC
Kishe
Member since:
2006-02-16

From what I can tell in many ways Torvalds stays with GPLv2 because it offers a compromise between openess of source code and a license that businesses can tolerate. This compromise is having open source running on otherwise closed software. GPLv3 would not permit this and therefore this would hurt the popularity of Linux, especially in th embedded arena.

RMS has his goals and aspirations, and is also somewhat of extremist in his ideals, IMHO, where compromise is not in the vocabulary. For me a healthy eco-system is about balance and compromise and GPLv2 is offers much of that.


------------------

This describes my stance on this well.

Using GPLv3 to try to bend businesses towards your political agenda is the likeness of fighting windmills.

Edited 2007-09-12 16:20

Reply Score: 2

...
by Hiev on Wed 12th Sep 2007 17:25 UTC
Hiev
Member since:
2005-09-27

Although I don't follow RMS or GPL (Am more confortable with LGPL), I must say that the interview is much more than just "Don't follow him", it is a petty because it is a good interview, but the title miss the point.

Reply Score: 3

always the same
by trenchsol on Wed 12th Sep 2007 17:32 UTC
trenchsol
Member since:
2006-12-07

Stallman has been preaching for years, the same thing over and over again, trying to make impression that it is some universal truth. That leaves me no choice but to do the same.

So, Stallman is the enemy of the developers who wish to be payed handsomely for their work. That makes him my enemy, too. He preaches freedom for the users at expense of the developers.

I have strong intention to sell my work to different customers over and over again, as many times as possible, and not only once. For that reason I reject everything Stallman says.

Reply Score: 2

software freedom
by graigsmith on Wed 12th Sep 2007 17:46 UTC
graigsmith
Member since:
2006-04-05

what he says makes a lot of sense. Personally i want software freedom. And really i think it can be achieved with either the gpl2 or the gpl3 license. really the gpl3 just makes it harder for Microsoft to mess with Linux. and even if Linux the kernel, doesn't use gpl3. gpl3 can still be quite effective.

Reply Score: 3

v waa waa waa
by dhardison on Wed 12th Sep 2007 20:07 UTC
Users vs Developers
by sjf4 on Wed 12th Sep 2007 22:29 UTC
sjf4
Member since:
2007-09-12

He uses the word "users" when he actually means "developers." Most end-users lack the time and desire to acquire the technical proficiency to use this freedom of which he speaks. The reality of the situation is that free software does little to increase the freedom of the end-user.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Users vs Developers
by cyclops on Wed 12th Sep 2007 22:57 UTC in reply to "Users vs Developers"
cyclops Member since:
2006-03-12

"He uses the word "users" when he actually means "developers." Most end-users lack the time and desire to acquire the technical proficiency to use this freedom of which he speaks. The reality of the situation is that free software does little to increase the freedom of the end-user."

freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Some of these are of greater interest to Developers, but many pertain to users...Also remember that Developers are more users than they are developers.

Also any user can *pay* for changes, support thats been at the heart of the license all along, and users often do as individuals, on mass, or as a company. I'm sure you can think of examples for all those things.

The fact that those changes if distributed can benefit everyone is the advantage of GPL.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Users vs Developers
by polyex on Thu 13th Sep 2007 04:27 UTC in reply to "RE: Users vs Developers"
polyex Member since:
2007-07-11

How is copying and distributing someone elses work a freedom? I understand the idea of the freedom to change and improve on something you purchase (not a fan of licesning restrictions), but the idea that change and improve and copying and distributing being somehow associated to one another is sneaky. I think I should have the right to make video copies of any of Stallmans paid speaking engagments. I think I have the right to alter them and then redistribute them to everyone for free. Oh wait, Stallman makes money that way - cant do that! Its nice Stallman has other ways to make money to eat and has free time to write GPL software, but what about the rest of the planet of developers who cant the same gig as him. What a jerk.

Reply Score: 0

RE[2]: Users vs Developers
by sjf4 on Thu 13th Sep 2007 05:43 UTC in reply to "RE: Users vs Developers"
sjf4 Member since:
2007-09-12

The boon is significantly higher for the free software developer over the free software user. The free software developer's knowledge of and work on a code base is no longer legally tied to a company. A Word developer's understanding of the that code base is only useful while he's employed at Microsoft. He can't use that knowledge to contract himself to outside entities, nor can he use his knowledge of the Word code base as an asset in seeking other employment. If you compare that to say, a Samba developer employed at a company like IBM, the advantages of free software to the developer become apparent. You can have all the benefits of employment at a major corporation, but none of the drawbacks of that company owning your work.

"Also remember that Developers are more users than they are developers." I agree, modern software is very complex and only someone who regularly works with a code base will likely be able to add new features or fix bugs in a reasonable amount of time. It's unlikely the end-user could afford to get a developer unfamiliar with the code to implement a new feature or fix a bug. Let's say you do go that route though, but the people who maintain the base project won't accept your changes. What then? You're going to pay someone to maintain your own fork or just go on using the software with no new fixes or features? I could go on and on about the logistical nightmare of an individual user trying to get a change, but I think I've made my point. The control is still in someone else's hands, just like in closed source.

There may be small benefits to the end-user, but the free software movement is more about setting developers free than it is users.

Edited 2007-09-13 05:54

Reply Score: 0

Idealist
by polyex on Thu 13th Sep 2007 04:16 UTC
polyex
Member since:
2007-07-11

I like his ideas about free software for those who want to participate in it. Heck, I have helped develop some GPL things myself. But its also nice for Stallman to live in a world where he is either paid by a university (I know, he claims not much, he says he lives like a student) or other groups for speaking engagements, teaching etc and then code in free time,acting as if others should some how figure out a way to do the same. But some people want to make a living coding not advocating that all programming work should be done without pay just because Stallman is able to do so. The quality of some GPL software is OK, but does benefit from the fact no one can seriously ask for a money back guarantee. Stallman is an ivory tower idealist, after all he is not demanding that the exchange of information in a seminar should be free, because HE does gets paid for that. He is a smart guy, but is so tied up in word semantics that some how make him feel smarter that he ends up turning people off. Accepting that not everyone thinks like you, speaks like you and uses the same semantics as you is a good way to prevent the world from thinking your a self-righteous jerk. GPL's concepts of free software was not a new one when Stallman started advocating it. He acts as if he invented it and wants nothing more than to confuse the world into thinking that "his" ideals and Linux are one in the same. This is simply because Linux is successful, and he wants to ride it coattails to prove a dumb point that it could not exist without him and the GPL. There are other idealists who work in University, research etc. who make free software (Alan Kay comes to mind with Squeak and the wonderful work he does for children) and want to change the world but do so by knowing that it is an idea that has to be sold not just because they say so. The difference I see with Stallman is that he simply an idealist because he can afford to be, and his ultimate goal is not to reach the finish line but to a successful a career talking about it, something which he has discovered and exploited.

Reply Score: 1

We Need Both
by llanitedave on Thu 13th Sep 2007 05:25 UTC
llanitedave
Member since:
2005-07-24

I tend to vacillate between "following" Stallman and "following" Torvalds when they each talk about their underlying philosophies. They both make some good sense. And between the two of them, a healthy ecosystem is indeed developing.

I agree with Torvalds that proprietary software is not necessarily "evil", and that Open-Source leads to superior technical achievement.

I agree with Stallman that the Freedom to learn and grow is a fundamental individual right, and that as long as we're forced to use proprietary software, that right is stifled. Society does suffer when its progress is slowed, and freedom leads to greater progress.

So neither argument should be disregarded. Freedom allows us to pursue the growth that is our right, and pursuing this growth leads to both technical and social progress.

While I don't think prorietary software is inherently evil, I think the type of coercion that forces you to use proprietary software is indeed evil. I see nothing wrong with using a closed-source application if it helps you accomplish your tasks. If it's the best tool for the job, then you should have the freedom to choose it.

However, I also see nothing wrong, and everything right, with working to replace that closed-source application with a Free equivalent -- not by violating copyright law, but by using the Freedoms to independently define, refine, cooperate, learn, and implement the functionality that is needed.

Proprietary software should not be prohibited or impeded from being available, but it should not have a special consideration to prohibit or impede Free software, either.

Linus is right -- we should use the best tool for the job, and Free Software is potentially, if not in all cases the number is growing, the best tool.

RMS is right -- Free software is vital to allowing us to achieve our potential as both humans and as workers.

They're both wrong, too: Stallman in his single-minded devotion to Free-software ONLY, and Linus in his lack of appreciation for what freedom means apart from the technical side.

Fortunately, as long as certain proprietary companies don't use the law to shut down Freedom, I think we have a healthy ecosystem building here: Free software is competing quite successfully in "commodity" areas, such as OS, Office Suites, media players, and browsers, while proprietary software can still maintain a successful niche in specialized areas of narrow but important applicability.

There is room for both.

Reply Score: 2

re
by Oliver on Thu 13th Sep 2007 13:06 UTC
Oliver
Member since:
2006-07-15

It's that easy, don't follow RMS. Without him you will have real freedom, use it wise.

Reply Score: 2

Defining "Freedom"
by Thomas Anderson on Thu 13th Sep 2007 16:16 UTC
Thomas Anderson
Member since:
2007-09-13

I find it interesting that while Stallman dislikes the term "intellectual property," because it confuses copyright, patents, etc., he's perfectly happy to use a vague, undefined, emotion-laden word like "freedom."

Stallman's whole position rests on using the word "freedom" in the broadest and most inflammatory way. When he says "freedom," he's referring to a specific set of rights related to the technical field of software engineering -- but he wants you to think he's talking about freedom in the broad sense of political rights and democracy.

It's only by playing on that ambiguity that he can create such strong feelings about a legal issue. If the discussion were confined to "this license allows users to do X, and that license allows users to do Y," it wouldn't possibly generate as much passion.

By avoiding specifics, and using this vague, emotional word, Stallman wants to subliminally persuade you that "non-free" software licenses will ultimately result in the loss of political freedom and personal liberty. I don't think he's using this language consciously and maliciously; I think he's honestly reporting a confusion that exists in his own mind.

Reply Score: 2

Defining "Freedom"
by Thomas Anderson on Thu 13th Sep 2007 16:17 UTC
Thomas Anderson
Member since:
2007-09-13

I find it interesting that while Stallman dislikes the term "intellectual property," because it confuses copyright, patents, etc., he's perfectly happy to use a vague, undefined, emotion-laden word like "freedom."

Stallman's whole position rests on using the word "freedom" in the broadest and most inflammatory way. When he says "freedom," he's referring to a specific set of rights related to the technical field of software engineering -- but he wants you to think he's talking about freedom in the broad sense of political rights and democracy.

It's only by playing on that ambiguity that he can create such strong feelings about a legal issue. If the discussion were confined to "this license allows users to do X, and that license allows users to do Y," it wouldn't possibly generate as much passion.

By avoiding specifics, and using this vague, emotional word, Stallman wants to subliminally persuade you that "non-free" software licenses will ultimately result in the loss of political freedom and personal liberty. I don't think he's using this language consciously and maliciously; I think he's honestly reporting a confusion that exists in his own mind.

Reply Score: 2

Stallman's interesting
by sisk on Thu 13th Sep 2007 16:23 UTC
sisk
Member since:
2006-10-10

Reading/listening to Stallman is always interesting, to say the least. He has a tendancy to come off as a sort of free software prophet/zealot and seems fanatical even if you happen to agree with what he's saying (which I do more often than not). I think it's the beard.

This whole OSS vs FS thing is ridiculous. True, they're not always the same thing, but lets face it, there's a ton of overlap between the two. Basically all free software has open source and most open source software is also free. They may be differing philosophies, but they are extremely compatable with each other.

Edited 2007-09-13 16:24

Reply Score: 1