Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Nov 2010 22:24 UTC, submitted by koki
GNU, GPL, Open Source Now this is interesting. We see what is at its core a very valid concern, in practice not a problem to anyone, and, thanks to the tone of the press release, close to trolling. The Free Software Foundation Latin America is complaining about something that has been known for a while - there is some non-Free code stuck in the Linux kernel (mostly firmware). A valid issue of concern from an idealogical viewpoint, but sadly, the tone of the press release turns this valid concern into something close to trolling.
Thread beginning with comment 449453
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Valhalla
Member since:
2006-01-24

If RMS was my best friend, I would post a link to that video. Since I've never even come close to meeting the man, the video is less funny. (I love embarrassing my friends.)

Well, given that Google_Ninja's states that he really dislikes RMS this was posted as a character assassination and nothing else.

Google_ninja is right in how the FSF has appropriated Linux for it's own ideological goals that do not meet with Linus Torvald's stated goals.

If so then Linus has likewise 'appropriated' both the GPL, GCC and big chunk of linux userland for his own goals that do not meet with FSF's stated goals. What's the difference?

I personally have disagreements with alot of FSF's ideology. And while I can definately relate to the practical problems that started the whole movement (printer driver) I think that the whole 'freedom' thing is propaganda drivel and should be called for what it is, which is 'rights' covering distribution of open source code.

But looking past that I find alot of things they say that I agree with, I think the GPL is a good open source licence for cooperative development (and given it's vast popularity I'm not alone in this), I also think their fears of software patents are especially well founded, and they were quick in warning about this.

And while their views are often extreme when it concerns proprietary code (too extreme by far for me), it's not as if there's not the same extremes on the other side of the spectrum (does anyone think Ballmer suddenly thinks open source is ok?).

Now I see many things that people may disagree with Stallman on, but I don't see why someone would dislike him the way Google-Ninja does. It seems to me that often when people don't like GPL and/or FSF, but feel they lack arguments that would make sense/carry weight they will go for attacking the person. And I find that shitty and weak.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

If so then Linus has likewise 'appropriated' both the GPL, GCC and big chunk of linux userland for his own goals that do not meet with FSF's stated goals. What's the difference?


The difference is FSF (and, especially FSF-LA) are using Linux as the poster child to push their ideology.

Linus is NOT using GCC to push his ideology. He is using it to compile software, which is the intended purpose of GCC.

I, too, am a fan of free software. I am bothered by the FSF's "our way or the highway" attitude, and the extremism. However, you still haven't responded to google_ninja's original statement:

Linus has stated this many, many times. The only reason the GPL is used is to keep people playing fair, not so Free Software can take over the world. I find it funny that people so out of touch that they don't realize the project is borderline hostile towards their organization decided to make press releases pretending this isn't the case.

Maybe they could spend their time better by actually accomplishing something and getting HURD (which _is_ an ideological project) out the door, so that innocents like them won't be caught up in the non-free software scam that is linux.


Every post in response to his has been about the link of RMS eating something from his foot. None have been about his suggestion that FSF should actually finish the HURD, which is aligned with their ideology, instead of pretending Linux was born from their goals.

However, you very quickly resorted to name calling:

No, I think it's just because you are a typical douchebag who relies on ad hominem attacks because you have no real arguments.


And ignored the real argument that he did make.

Reply Parent Score: 2

Valhalla Member since:
2006-01-24


The difference is FSF (and, especially FSF-LA) are using Linux as the poster child to push their ideology.

FSF and FSFLA are totally separate organisations.


However, you still haven't responded to google_ninja's original statement:

"Linus has stated this many, many times. The only reason the GPL is used is to keep people playing fair, not so Free Software can take over the world. I find it funny that people so out of touch that they don't realize the project is borderline hostile towards their organization decided to make press releases pretending this isn't the case.
"
Of course FSF realises (though not initially) that Linus isn't using GPL for any of the ethical reasons FSF was hoping he would use it for. I haven't personally seen these press releases where they pretend this is not the case though, can you point me there (and again, FSFLA is not FSF).

Maybe they could spend their time better by actually accomplishing something and getting HURD (which _is_ an ideological project) out the door, so that innocents like them won't be caught up in the non-free software scam that is linux.

FSF obviously knows the Hurd train left ages ago. They themselves acknowledges that when Linux started to gain traction and having adopted the GPL as licence they focused efforts on GCC and userland to assist that project and left Hurd by the wayside in terms of development focus. This is nothing new, but the abandonment of the Hurd is something FSF detractors like to point at as a 'look, this is what they contribute with', which is a pure lie. Meanwhile GCC is still the compiler on which pretty much the entire open source movement and alot of the proprietary software outside of Redmond depends upon. So pretending that FSF isn't offering anything but GPL and their ethical software propaganda is just ridicoulus. GCC is most likely the most widely used compiler software in the world, GPL likewise is the most widely used open source licence, again I don't like their freedom propaganda but their impact on the open source landscape and computing in general is undeniable.


None have been about his suggestion that FSF should actually finish the HURD, which is aligned with their ideology, instead of pretending Linux was born from their goals.
[/q] [/q] [/q]
This has been discussed over and over again, no the Hurd is dead, FSF knows it and in hindsight it would probably been better for all involved if they had not pinned their hopes on Linux as the Free Software OS flagship but they did. On the other hand, by doing so Linux got a strong compiler and likewise strong userland alot faster than it would have done otherwise, particularly having a free compiler was hugely important for Linux in order to attract a large number of developers who could assist in the project.

Reply Parent Score: 3