To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
This is ridiculous. Linus T has attitude problems and very big ego. How can someone say the likes Linus? That is over most peoples head.
Why would someone call OpenBSD developers "masturbating monkeys" for focusing on security? There are many other quotes from Linus, showing his attitude problems.
Just because somebody patents 'slide to unlock' and sues over it doesn't mean the world needs to stop using non-free software.
Need is a strong word. But if every end user rejected proprietary software, there wouldn't be proprietary outfits left who think patenting 'slide to unlock' is a good thing.
There is no particular incentive to patent stuff if your own licensing stipulates that patent grants are perpetual, sub-licensable, worldwide and royalty free.
Without it, Linux wouldn't exist in it's current form.
Just as an example gcc. It might not produce the best performing code. But it does produce code for a lot of architectures.
Stallman's strong beliefs haven't done shit for the world. Stallman (and his followers) wrote a lot of code and then gave it away, and THAT did a lot for the world. Linus did the same thing as Stallman, but doesn't have the same religious beliefs. In other words, if we'd have had more CODE from the FSF and less religion over the years from them, they'd probably have gotten a lot further than they are now.
Even some of the most religious fanatics have done good works, but that doesn't say anything about the validity of their religion. If a bunch of Christians (or Muslims) set up and run a homeless shelter, does that mean their god is real? "
Firstly, I say Stallman and the FSF has done more than most religions in terms of contributing positively to humanity.
Secondly, you keep using religion to describe the activities of the FSF, but an actual explanation of why it's an accurate description is conspicuously absent. Just because everyone says it is doesn't make it so.
Thirdly, the FSF does more than code. Raising awareness is very important. In case you haven't noticed in the past 20 years, lobbyists have forcibly injected politics into technological issues and you'd be fool to focus on the code while your freedom to move is being taken from you.
Fourthly, your last argument is just pathetic and irrelevant. The FSF and Stallman's activities have measurable impact as a direct result of their stated goals. Your last argument is irrelevant and is no more than an excuse to restate that you think they're religions without having to back up that argument.
What does patents have to do with software licenses? Especially since even open source projects like Android are getting sued for patent violations. That is a COMPLETELY separate issue. Just because somebody patents 'slide to unlock' and sues over it doesn't mean the world needs to stop using non-free software. "
Patents have everything to do with copyright because they are forced into the Intellectual Property umbrella which is a debatable concept, but nonetheless exists due to lobbying.
Technically, you are right, but the people seeking to take away basic freedoms aren't playing a technical game. They are playing a political game.
This is very easy to explain. Folks like Linus use the GPL for practical reasons, because he believes that is the best license for what he is doing. Stallman and his followers use the GPL for moral reasons, regardless of whether it is practical or not, because to use a non-FSF approved license would be akin to commiting sin. He's already said everyone should use free software, regardless of whether or not is is technically superior to the non-free alternatives. If that isn't religion, I don't know what is.
Technically, you are right, but the people seeking to take away basic freedoms aren't playing a technical game. They are playing a political game.
Again, you can give out the source code to something like a codec and still demand royalties for their use, so I'm not seeing how the discussion of patents is relevant to this topic. Even DRM has been used in open source software, hence the creation of the GPL v3. Every time the discussion of non-free software comes up, Freetards feel the need to bring up patents and DRM as the main reason not to use said software, even though most non-free software devs are not patent holders, and most non-free apps have no DRM at all. These things are NOT mutually exclusive. It would be like saying that since a lot of shitty, 'v0.1' alpha/beta software happens to be open source, then we should just quit using FOSS altogether to avoid these kinds of apps.
Even if you believe strongly that DRM and patents are evil and should be done away with, it doesn't help your cause to paint all non-free software devs as seal-clubbing bastards who are out to take away your freedoms, just because a select few happen to fall under this category. Most of them just want to get paid for their work, and they aren't going to make a lot of money selling support or custom versions of a $2 phone app.





Member since:
2005-11-13
Without it, Linux wouldn't exist in it's current form.
Just as an example gcc. It might not produce the best performing code. But it does produce code for a lot of architectures.
Stallman's strong beliefs haven't done shit for the world. Stallman (and his followers) wrote a lot of code and then gave it away, and THAT did a lot for the world. Linus did the same thing as Stallman, but doesn't have the same religious beliefs. In other words, if we'd have had more CODE from the FSF and less religion over the years from them, they'd probably have gotten a lot further than they are now.
Even some of the most religious fanatics have done good works, but that doesn't say anything about the validity of their religion. If a bunch of Christians (or Muslims) set up and run a homeless shelter, does that mean their god is real?
What does patents have to do with software licenses? Especially since even open source projects like Android are getting sued for patent violations. That is a COMPLETELY separate issue. Just because somebody patents 'slide to unlock' and sues over it doesn't mean the world needs to stop using non-free software.
Edited 2012-03-21 00:59 UTC