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 view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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: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.
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:2006-01-19
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.
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
"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.