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."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
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.
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.
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.