Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 19th Oct 2001 19:58 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source "...Some weeks ago we got a mail from Richard Stallman asking that we stop all mentions of non-free software in the GNOME summaries. The background for the request was that we had mentioned the beta of Star Office some time back. I argued that the purpose of the GNOME summaries was to promote GNOME and while our focus of course is free software I felt that it was natural to mention the availability of non-free software where the existence of such software where a clear advantage for GNOME. RMS replied telling us that he disagreed with my argument and saying that we are legitimatizing the use of non-free software by mentioning it..." This is part of the email that Christian Schaller sent to the Gnome Foundation mailing list asking the Gnome users for their opinion on how to proceed on the matter. So far, the replies are taking Christian's side and some mentioned that Richard Stallman's opinions are, simply put, extreme in this case.
Order by: Score:
Moron
by Sean on Fri 19th Oct 2001 20:02 UTC

RMS is a moron. Simple as that. I've seen him on TV, online, in print, etc. and pretty much everytime I end up walking away and thinking "this guy is a moron". It just happened again.

Moron? Nahhh ... Egotistical loose cannon? Sure.
by Dave on Fri 19th Oct 2001 20:31 UTC

Quick, somebody check and make sure that his feet are actually touching the ground, and that he's not hovering a couple of inches above, instead! Sheesh. Who does this guy think he is? Does he truly believe that by clapping his metaphorical hands over his metaphorical ears and chanting "La! La! La! There Is Only Free Software!" long and loudly enough, that it'll come true? How is what he's trying to do any less reprhensible and reactionary than anything that Microsoft, Apple, Sun or IBM have pulled recently or in the past? "RMS" needs to take a stress-tab, step away from the keyboard, go outside in the sunshine once in a while, and realize that there's a heckuva lot more to life than being a digital Don Quixote.

RMS views are are always extreme
by sean_r on Fri 19th Oct 2001 20:52 UTC

Almost everyone is tired of this guy and his endless rhetoric. If Linus had chosen any other license most of us would never had heard of RMS and been better for it. As time goes on he is getting on the nerves of more and more GPL coders with his endless rants from things as small as "Its GNU/Linux, not Linux" and "Don't mention non-free software" to hostile take over attempts of GPL projects. Doesn't anyone else find it ironic that he uses the word "freedom" and "free" to describe his license and ideology and he is continually trying to restrict/bully/control many GPL coders and projects? Or did RMS change the meaning of "freedom" ond "free" again to mean that all GPL coders are only free to do what he says?

Religious fanaticism
by Aardappel on Fri 19th Oct 2001 22:49 UTC

Trying to shield your followers from alternative viewpoints, where have I seen that before...

BSD? :)
by Icarii on Fri 19th Oct 2001 23:11 UTC

Heh - maybe Linus should change the license model of the Linux kernel just to give RMS something to really whine about...

RMS
by Lovechild on Sat 20th Oct 2001 01:20 UTC

I agree with RMS, the goal of the GNU Foundation is to create completely free OS. Why the GNOME team didn't mention the GTK+ port of OpenOffice.org instead baffles me.. RMS is brilliant, an like most genius' he is easily misunderstood.

RMS
by UCSDBoy on Sat 20th Oct 2001 02:26 UTC

The problem with RMS is he used to have character, and in the past decade or so he's become a character. I can't dog him too hard 'cause I think he really made a great contribution to the computing community with GNU software - particularly the GCC. Since Open Source got big, however, he's become a celebrity and is given credit for software that's been modified, ported, and maintained by other people. Everyone knows RMS wrote GCC, not as many people know the guys at GNUPro did many of the ports and mods to it. HURD's been around longer than Linux and I've yet to see him make great strides in it... He's like Maddog - a guy who did some cool things now nothing but hot air.

LOL
by Lennart on Sat 20th Oct 2001 09:16 UTC

"RMS replied telling us that he disagreed with my argument and saying that we are legitimatizing the use of non-free software by mentioning it" This is the second good laugh I had this day. The first was this: http://www.citypaper.net/articles/101801/news.godfrey.shtml I'd say both United Airlines and Richard Stallman lacks all sense.

by David Bruce on Sat 20th Oct 2001 09:41 UTC

"we are legitimatizing the use of non-free software" What planet does Stallman live on? Only RMS and his most hardcore acolytes think there is anything "illegitimate" about using non-free software. Am I doing something nefarious when I walk into my office and turn on the Windows PC my employer has placed on my desk?

by Don Cox on Sat 20th Oct 2001 14:19 UTC

>Am I >doing something nefarious when I walk into my office and turn on the >Windows PC my employer has placed on my desk? Definitely. ;-)

Stallman is against free software.
by Rudiger on Sat 20th Oct 2001 14:19 UTC

Any software with a license or restrictions is not free, they all place restrictions on what a person may use them for. Stallman's "free software" isn't free, it's "anti-commercial" software. Stallman is actually against free software because free software doesn't have any restrictions or GNU type licenses at all, he clearly says all non-"anti-commerical" software is illegitimate.

When will we learn?
by gmlongo on Sat 20th Oct 2001 15:19 UTC

RMS is an idiot. I'm not sure why news articles keep getting posted about him. Rudiger is correct in his estimation of Stallman. I'm not sure what RMS' definition of free is, but GNU type licenses do not exactly qualify. -G

RMS ideas are contradictory
by sean_r on Sat 20th Oct 2001 19:05 UTC

GNU is not free, no matter how RMS tries to twists the words around and talk about freedom. Public Domain software is the only truly free software in that it has no strings attached. When you use the GPL, you are in a way giving your rights to that release to the RMS and the FSF, and they will use it as a weapon in their fight against commercial software if it suites their needs. Personally, I use the BSD license. I dont care who uses my code, and if it ends up in an M$ product maybe all M$ users will benefit a little in addition to everyone else who uses my code. Why does it matter? We have all benefited from commercial software(well, maybe not M$ software), it is not like the major developments in the past 50 years of computing have all happened outside the commercial realm. Who besides universities pays researchers? Where do Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson and others get their paychecks? Who is dumping billions into developing new software/hardware? The position of RMS is laughable, he needs commercial hardware, money and ideas but he hates commercialism and proprietary property and vows he will never use them, yet he uses hardware, languages and other software that were either developed by or have their roots in commercial labs/companies. Without the very things that RMS is against, the FSF could not exists as it does today. Don't get me wrong, I like open source software and think that some commercial companies (M$) do more harm than good, but this in no way validates RMS extreme ideas.

RMS
by Daniel Switkin on Sat 20th Oct 2001 21:56 UTC

You know, I thought about crafting an intelligent, logical response to this story, in which I'd point out how commercial software on GNOME still advances the GNOME platform, and free software by extension, and how even the most extreme free software proponent should admit that commercial software is legitimate, if not desirable, but I've changed my mind. What an asshole.

by Roy on Sun 21st Oct 2001 08:43 UTC

RMS has become such a tosspot. I think the GPL is great. It's an excelent license if you want to release code to the general public for free. I have used it myself. But the important part of that statement is "if you want to release code". There is some excelent commercial software out there, and just because you have to pay for doesn't mean it is evil. I understand if people want some returns for their hard work. Not every programmer can live on the charity of big companies like IBM, we need to be paid, and if that means you have to make people pay for your software, so be it. Who does he think he is? What gives him the right to tell people what they should do with their code? Where in the GPL does it say he can tell us what name we have to give our software? Where does it say that he can tell us how to market our software?

After all the bitching the GNOME developers did about Qt...
by mario on Sun 21st Oct 2001 16:10 UTC

Heck, the GNOME guys were spitting all over the net on the KDE for using a not-completely-free toolkit, Qt (which, btw, is not GPL-ed, IIRC), they deserve at least a jab from RMS. If I were KDE, I would take the opportunity to blast them and then to laugh privately.

stick to the issue
by mario on Sun 21st Oct 2001 16:17 UTC

Incidently, everyone in this thread deals with RMS, forgetting to deal with the issue at hand, instead. guys, you should start thinking in terms of person vs. deeds. It would make your life easier and you would generally be perceived as a better person, if you could separate the person from what that person does.

by Roy on Tue 23rd Oct 2001 00:41 UTC

A person is defined by their actions. So if their actions are poor that is going to reflect poorly on them as a person. The reverse is also true. If the person has a bad attitude then their actions will also be bad. It isn't person vs deeds, it is person defines deeds. If you realise this it will make your life a lot easier, and make you a lot less a target of manipulation.

by Roy on Tue 23rd Oct 2001 00:43 UTC

Incidently, there is a BIG difference between using a "not-completely free" toolkit as the base of your whole system, and mearly mentioning commercial software that will work on your system.