OSNews

No, I think he's pissed that his project comprises about 50% of most "Linux" systems, and yet the most associated project comprises about 2%

Edited 2008-02-26 23:43 UTC

sadly those 2% is what enables people to use the others...

also, the linux kernel may never have happened if the hurd had been usable in 91 or so...

This allegation is made a lot, but I really don't think this is it. If anything, I think Stallman is really about the ideology of GNU and his definition of free software, and what he doesn't like is that ideological element, which he sees as being foundational and essential to the success of Linux, being divorced from it.

For him, "GNU/Linux" is as much a philosophical, moral, or ideological triumph as it is a technical one, and I think his insistence on these things is acknowledging the free software ethic, the communitarian principle, that was important to creating all of this.

You can agree or disagree with the copyleft concept, and god knows, vast armies of people align on both sides every time it comes up, but I think it's unfair to say that this is about ego. I see no evidence of this. I see a man on a kind of crusade for an idea, not a man on a crusade for himself.

In my personal opinion only, I think all the truth about what's important is encoded conspicuously in the story of Linux -

One faction creates a body of software riding on the energy and zeal of a moral concept, but can't quite finish the thing - can't quite tie it all together.

Another faction creates a body of software they want to be technically excellent, using many of the tools developed by the first.

A beautiful balance, IMHO. I have long imagined that if Richard Stallman could somehow make a deal with God, whereby from now on Linux would always be referred to as GNU/Linux at the price of Stallman's name being removed from history, he'd make it.

I continue to feel that some people are occasionally unfair to him. An eccentric and uncompromising man, indeed, but one driven by principles he has stood by consistently, as far as I can tell.

Whether or not the GPL is good for the future of software development is a separate issue from the man's motivations. Out of irritation with the viral nature of the GPL, certain individuals have attempted to criticize his character, and I think this is unfair and unwarranted.

As to the question of whether the GPL has limited the adoption of Linux, that is still open to debate, but I also have to say that I doubt Linux would have come as far as it has without it. I know that I have personally had a difficult time getting GNU software into my company for reasons specifically related to the license. It is not without its costs, at any rate. The question is whether the costs are worth it.

But I respect Richard Stallman and bristle a bit at some of the personal attacks he receives.

as any person, he is complicated. i guess he is just one odf those that wear his complexities on the outside rather then the inside.

and in a age of constant compromises, a uncompromising man can sadly be seen as a agitator...