“SCO’s contract dispute with IBM has been accompanied by a smear campaign against the whole GNU/Linux system. But SCO made an obvious mistake when it erroneously quoted me as saying that “Linux is a copy of Unix.” Many readers immediately smelled a rat–not only because I did not say that, and not only because the person who said it was talking about published ideas (which are uncopyrightable) rather than code, but because they know I would never compare Linux with Unix.” Read RMS’ editorial at ZDNet.
SCO Smear Campaign Can’t Defeat GNU Community
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
I think he made his point rather clearly: Free software will go on regardless.
It might seem like he’s just repeating the same GNU/Linux vs. Linux argument, but this is an excellent example of the problem with it. Corporations that use GNU/Linux that don’t know the difference, now think there entire system is in jeopardy and needs an audit. Reality is, if there is code in there, they’ll have to patch it.
Worst case scenario, a new kernel gets used. I’ve seen GNU distros before with BSD kernels (see Debian site), etc.
-b
I respect Stallman for always stating his ideas and opinions very clearly.
Yes he seems to be repeating the same story about GNU/Linux vs Linux all the time, but hey, he’s right about it. It is unfair for all the people who developped the usefull stuff in the os not to get credit in the name.
Please remember there is no other Linux than GNU/Linux, but there are other GNUs.
And he makes it clear the confusion can be exploited to generate FUD.
Please remember there is no other Linux than GNU/Linux, but there are other GNUs.
How technically feasible would it be to compile the Linux kernel with ICC and replace the GNU userland with a BSD one instead?
Then this really annoying argument can finally be laid to rest once and for all.
Why do people forget to put the GNU in GNU/Linux? Because GNU is not as valuable from a marketing perspective. Honestly, which sounds better/more professional/marketable in a corporate setting… Gah-New or Lin-nucks?
Well considering that it doesn’t sound like you’re trying to cough up a hairball when you pronounce it, I’d have to put my money on Linux.
And Stallman and his minions are absolutely right, Linux is just a kernel, which means we can get rid of their gimpy, embrace-extended userland and replace it with a better, no strings attached design.
I think too that Stallman made his point quite clearly, and without the hyperbole and false analogies that are always used by SCO executives these days.
SCO´s FUD campaign is based and centered on their unproved allegation that among the three million lines of code of the Linux kernel, one can find an unspecified amount (hundreds of lines of code?) which match the Unix V source **AND** that this is due to IBM engineers.
The proof, if there is any, lies in the evidence that SCO refuses to disclose publicly. So I guess we´ll have to wait for the trial and that could take a few years. In the meantime, expect SCO to continue pumping out press releases to keep the FUD going…
I don’t see anywhere in the GPL that states that if your running your own project that included GPL software that you suddenly got to add GNU/* to the project name. I mean Stallman is always wailing on about freedom, but by insiting that everyone calls it GNU/Linux isn’t he taking away our freedom of choice on what we call the system.
He’s not taking away your freedom. He’s asking people to call it that. Yes, he has not spoken at “Linux” user groups because of their naming, but that’s his freedom, isn’t it.
Think of it this way. If you took a standard corvette, and put some custom engine in it, let’s call it the SuperEngine.
What would you call it? Most people would still call it a corvette. The owner might say it’s a Modified Corvette with SuperEngine. You and Businessweek would call it just SuperEngine.
You see, GNU lets you do stuff on a computer, Linux just powers the system. If you think otherwise, show me a box with just kernel doing wordprocessing.
-b
Maybe if we’d been a little less irritated at Stallman for asking that the GNU project’s work be given proper credit, we might have had a bit more energy left over to deal with the real problems we’re now facing, don’t you think?
BTW, anyone who wants to get on Stallman’s case, rememeber this: We almost lost X, and the GNU project was all set to come through with GGI. Maybe not right away, but they would have.
What does it matter. Call the system whatever you wish. I call it Linux. I call Windows, Windows. I call Lindows crap hehehe, but thats beside the point. People are going to call it different things. Like GNU/Hurd I call it Hurd.
“Why do people forget to put the GNU in GNU/Linux? Because GNU is not as valuable from a marketing perspective.”
The name GNU/Linux is ugly and unpronouncable. “GNU” (the name) is a silly geek joke which went stale after a week. If Stallman wants to be taken seriously, he needs to come up with a sensible name.
If the point has to be made that the OS in actual use is the Linux kernel plus other stuff (which may or may not be GNU), maybe it should be called LinOS.
Or just “Red Hat”, “Mandrake”, “Lindows”, etc.
Not only does Stallman look like a sect leader, he speaks like one as well. There is the philosophy, the forbidden words, the commandments and what have you.
And then he goes on to be just ridiculous. So GNU has got nothing to do with UNIX? Doesn’t the fact that it is short for “GNU is Not UNIX” go to prove something? Like the fact that it is a clone of UNIX, and needs such a disclaimer so as not to confuse matters? Even the GNU annals say that the elders chose to clone UNIX. If he wants GNU to be properly attributed when referring to Linux, he should at least have the decency to admit that what he’s peddling is a clone of UNIX.
being irish i wouldn’t even know what a corvette looks like let alone it’s engine 😉
1) What will scox be looking to find in an AIX audit?
2) How does auditing AIX users protect scox’s IP? Especially since this IP is supposed to be in Linux.
3) What if AIX users don’t cooperate, it’s not as if scox has a court order or anything.
but no matter how much you whine and cry you can’t force people to call it GNU/Linux.
On another note, I found this little quip quite amusing
“In 1991, GNU was mostly finished, lacking only a kernel.”
If it was only a kernel then how come Hurd wasn’t done?
Once again, he shows everybody how truly bitter he really is that he can’t impose his will on everybody.
He wouldn’t know freedom if it bit him on the ass. True freedom is a BSD license or even better yet, public domain.
Language is important, do you agree? Do you agree with the reasons for having copyrights and trademarks? Do you agree that it is important for Pepsi to label their products even if their product is not a Pepsi? Then why are you so confused about Stallman’s desire for all products containing GNU software to be labeled as GNU products. GNU/Linux, for example. It clearly states not only is like GNU, it is NOT UNIX. That is something that has gotten lost somewhere in the paperwork lately and SCO is doing everything to persuade investors that anyone can attack Linux as a whole because it’s so similar to other UNIX systems. GNU is a replacement for UNIX. Linux is just the most popular kernel for the GNU system today, for obvious reasons.
I’m not asking you to call it GNU/Linux. I’m telling you if you do not understand GNU then you certainly don’t understand the nature of Linux. And any opinions you form about Linux are based on ignorance and most likely incorrect.
True freedom is freedom that is forced upon you buy a rule of law, similar to the constitution. Do you think you would be as free as you are today living in America if you didn’t have that constitution? The GPL is just another form of constitution that forces freedom upon everyone. How sad.
>> Is this man for real?
-fired off insult right off the bat
>>Not only does Stallman look like a sect leader, he speaks like one as well.
-followed by another
>>There is the philosophy, the forbidden words, the commandments and what have you.
-so philosophy and rules are now deemed bad.
>>And then he goes on to be just ridiculous. (snip)
-i see. it’s rediculous to stress the finer points, because most people are too stupid to understand, so you either have to repeat yourself a thousand times, or draw a picture for them.
I don’t really know what this stallman guy is about, but your comments are for shit. you start off by insulting, then you wade into some murky point about him being rediculous, backed up by some frothing.
hey, maybe i’m not buying what mr. stallman is got to sell, but your crap isn’t any better.
if you ever considered writing/debating for a living…don’t quit your day job.
I would like to think that I recognize what Stallman has done, much like many heavy Linux users. His work was not only a great sacrifice for a noble cause, but a consuming task. That being said, if I do not say GNU/Linux, does that mean that I don’t appreciate his work?
We tend to talk a lot about freedom here in the United States of America. If I just refer to this country as the United States (rather than the Unites States of America), does it mean that I don’t enjoy that freedom? If I say “Hey, that’s a nice 911!”, did I just disrespect the maker of the car because I didn’t say “Porche 911”?
The bottom line is that whether or not people say “GNU/Linux” is a rediculous thing to argue about! People use Linux every day, they code for it, they stand up and fight for it! What MORE do you want? Is that not compliment enough? It is out of convenience that people refer to GNU/Linux as Linux, not out of disrespect. Futher more, people DO attribute much of the work to Mr. Stallman, not just Linus.
I believe that Richard Stallman is putting his energies into a wonderfully meaningful cause. If he would concentrate more on the issues facing Linux rather than making a political issue out of the name, he would come across more the genius that he is, rather than a mad scientist, computer fanatic!
Solo mis dos pesos
-Roberto en Tajas
Stallman has almost single-handedly lead the fight against Microsoft and other neo-fascist amoral evil corporations.
Richard is a visionary who can see the long-term effects of having software that the normal person cannot afford, cannot modify, cannot use in a “fair use” fashion, etc. And that is why he fights day and night for the rights of the individual.
If the moral and ethical people win out vs. Microsoft then Stallman will be remembered as a great man. If Microsoft wins, he will go down as just another academic crackpot.
But I thought I detected a bit of Mountain View-style opportunism in here, especially in the last paragraph. I doubt this piece will change Linus’ mind about calling his OS GNU/Linux.
Linus wrote a whole OS? By himself? Where can I download it?
He couldn’t even write the Linux kernel by himself. No one could. Thus OSS, GNU, whatever. Its a cooperative effort.
yeah, its just you.
Stallman’s use of the word free really offends me. He is clearly implying that only GPL software is ‘free’. Examples:
Linux is the first free kernel.
GNU/Linux is the first free operating system.
We used to have the notion of public domain. If something is in the public domain it is owned by no one (or everyone depending on how you look at it). It’s a shame that no one supports the public domain much anymore.
“Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)”
Free Free (fr=e), a. Compar. Freer (-~er); superl.
…
1. Exempt from subjection to the will of others; not
under restraint, control, or compulsion; able to
follow one’s own impulses, desires, or inclinations;
determining one’s own course of action; not dependent;
at liberty.
The GPL contains restrictions. Code under the GPL is subject to the will of others. Namely the will that you *must* release your source code if you release a modified binary.
I have no problem with the GPL. I simply wish that Stallman and freinds would stop using the abusing the word free. In fact, I don’t really mind them calling GPL software free, but to suggest that ONLY GPL software is free is simply propaganda.
1. GNU/Linux vs Linux is an endless dispute. But don’t forget that useful Linux distro contain not only Linux kernel and GNU applications (GCC, bash, GNOME etc), but they also contain X Window (which is NOT GNU at all) and some other programs like TEX (which is NOT GNU too). So how do we call it now? GNU/X Window/TEX/Linux???
2. The real idea of RMS’s editorial is that you shouldn’t confuse Linux kernel and Linux distribution. And he is right. SCO attacks Linux kernel. If the kernel will disappear, everybody will use another kernel. FreeBSD, for example. You couldn’t call the new distro Linux distro, but does it really matter? Nearly all applications from modern Linux distros already work and are availiable in FreeBSD “distribution”.
(But I don’t want Linux kernel to dissappear)
The Linux kernel will not disappear. It is more likely to have any questionable code removed from it (which, I don’t believe that there is any).
Too much work has gone into to start over again. If there were questionable code, it could easily be removed and replaced with something that is compatible.
-R
Stallman has certainly earned his place in the computing hall of fame of all times bacause of GPL & GCC only. I believe it is especially GPL that has made OSS/free software so big thing today, not BSD, Linux in itself or anything else. So, I do respect the man a lot.
But Stallman IS also a cult leader fighting for his brave GNU world ideology (& for his many other ideological views), and like a proper cult leader, he often seems unable to accept any other opinions to be valid and good than his own ones. So no wonder that many people can’t stand him and anything related to him, and many think that his fight for free software is to some extent just a fight to promote his own big ego.
As to GNU/Linux debate:
Yes, lots of software commonly used around the Linux kernel is from the GNU project, and yes, Linus Torvalds develops the kernel only. But the whole OS around the kernel has been called Linux from the start AFAIK. Also I cannot see how the OS name that most people have used from the start discredits GNU project in any way? KDE, Gnome or XFree86 are not mentioned in the OS name either but those people never complain about it. It just seems that RMS would like to include all Linux disrtributions under the big umbrella of his GNU project too.
An OS is no worth withouth a working kernel (like we know from the GNU/Hurd project), so isn’t the kernel the most essential part of an OS? If GNU would have to be added to the OS name, I’d vote for Linux/GNU then. Or if the importance of software is a criteria, I might vote for Linux/XFree86/GNU/KDE/Gnome then so that all the major projects get enough credit in the OS name.
Like some have said, “GNU” is just difficult to pronounce too, especially as it looks more like an abbreviation (G.N.U.) than a single word “gnu”. It is easy to understand why people say just “Linux” without “Gah-New” or “G.N.U.” as a prefix.
Don’t worry about Stallman. Think about your use of the word free, or the definition in the dictionary. You’re idea of freedom means I should have the right to do anything I want, including harm another person or take a bunch of “illegal narcotics”. I don’t care what your opinions are about freedom, I just wanted to point out that Stallman’s definition is far more consistent than yours.
This is free with respect to software .. leave the religion/morality at the door
(Of course this thread is quite off-topic but that was to be expected I guess)
First of all, RMS doesn’t think that only GPL is free. He respects BSDL, etc as completely free licenses, there is no question about it and it really shows nothing but your ignorance if you try to start a big flamewar about which of them is “more” free.
Personally, I like to use the terms “protected freedom” and “unprotected freedom” meanwhile, they seem pretty clear to me. Protected freedom shouldn’t be an oxymoron to you because that’s exactly what the constitution is about. Are we less free if our freedom is protected? No. Are we more free if our freedom is protected? No. At least not necessarily. But it’s a good thing.
About the tiresome GNU/Linux discussion… Say what you want. But if you flame other people for using the term GNU/Linux, you are no better than RMS himself, maybe worse. Names in free software are obviously not always a clear thing… You can take a project and release it under your own name. Perfectly legal, perfectly right. So generally, I couldn’t care less what name you choose, as long as you know _what_ you are using. And it is important to note, that “Linux” the OS as we know it, is basically a spin-off of the GNU OS but using Linux as the kernel. GNU agreed with that but they didn’t want to make it _the_ kernel of the GNU OS so they called this particular combination the GNU/Linux OS.
Considering that neither GNU nor the people around Linus make releases of the OS (but distributions do) the naming question becomes more symbolic than everything. The term Linux sounds better, no question. And that’s certainly the reason why it “won” in the public eye. However it is also important to know about GNU and their vision, unless you don’t give a shit about the philosophy.
It should also be stressed that GNU isn’t a particular software, so all those “let’s name if after the most important piece of software included” are completely besides the point. GNU is a project, an entire OS. Not the compiler or the text editor or the kernel.
You don’t need to use or even respect this name, just like Lindows doesn’t have to name itself after all the software they use to build their system or Mandrake doesn’t have to write down anywhere that they are based on RedHat. But it’s fair to say that GNU is the base of most or all “Linux” systems in use today. If you just want to call a system “RedHat” or “Linux”, then this is perfectly fine, but you can’t argue its roots.
I have finally heard someone who makes sense. Both the “Free Software” and the proprietary software people have gone too far with their war against each other. It has long been my belief that the software patent mess that we are currently in is a direct retaliation by the proprietary software people for being “shut out” certain libraries that have been placed under the GPL rather than the less restrictive LGPL, BSD or MIT licenses, or in the public domain. In otherwords it is sort of an “If we can’t use yours than you can’t use ours” approach that is wrecking the entire computer industry and keeping it in the slump it is currently in.
I have been involved with computers since the mid 1980s when my family bought our first IBM PC and at that time most of what we would call “open source” software was in the public domain and usually written in some form of BASIC or Pascal. From what I remember the bad times for computers began in about the middle 1990s when the practices of using the GPL on libraries in the Free Software community and software patenting by proprietary companies like Amazon and M$ became particularly pronounced activities in the industry. It is because of this last observation that I believe that the all or nothing attitudes of both sides in this software war is responsible for the mess that computing is in today.
I am in the process of developing both free and proprietary projects and see nothing wring with them co- existing. In fact I believe that the public domain is the best way to put out free software because it ENDS all “intellectual property” incumberances on the original code and improvements made directly by the project mantainers, and makes it NON PATENTABLE in any form as public domain prior art, as well as non copyrightable except as a part of a larger improved proprietary project.
Furthermore it is my belief that bith “free” and proprietary software owners could serve the industry best by at least placing their DECLARED OBSOLETE source codes and and applications in the public domain, Both to preserve computer history and provide a public domain base on which new copyrightable software can be built by both truely free and proprietary projects. More public domain will free the computer and software indistries to grpw again. More of this war between proprietary and free will just lead to more litigious messes like the current SCOap opera and the ultimate death of all of our favorite business and hobby.
Yes, I call it the GNU OS, not Linux, nor HURD, nor Debian, nor BSD, but the GNU OS.
It’s not my favorite OS, but it is an OS that I appreciate. It does the job.
I have always wanted to meet RMS in person, as so many of my friends have (hi YG and Joanna!) but I’ve never had the pleasure.
We’ll see what happens, but nothing can stop me from using open source short of the police comming to my door and wanting to take me to jail. At that point I’ll just throw my computer in the garbage where it belongs.
The day that all Non-Microsoft products are illegal, my computer is going to the dump.
X/Tex/GNU/GNOME/KDE/WindowMaker Linux ???
are yo in drugs????
DO YOU REALLY THE DEFINITION OF OPERATIVE SYSTEM?
Linux is just the kernel…
the ONLY combination of:
Linux + GNU tools = Operative System GN/Linux
Tex is just some frekin’ software, just like X, or xmms, or whatever other software.
GNU/Linux is the Operative System….
GNU or Linux aren’t.
As I’ve said it long before SCO sue IBM (I still can remember Mario who used to backup SCO until now (Hi Mario). And I still have the opinion that they are greedy.
Around my place here the common practices that someone who think there are others that encroaching into his belongings first send notice about the encroachment. If the encroacher ignore the notice then legal action will be taken.
In SCO vs IBM (I would say Linux), is there any notices given to Linux maintainer by SCO? Since Linux is public project which anyone can access and contribute the source which also means unauthorised IP stain can easily make way into it. SCO should have warn the maintainer about their IP inside when they notice it. I’m very confident that Linus will make sure the stain is removed.
That is why I believed SCO already having bad intention in their mind by taking legal action on IBM, rather than making sure that their IP is protected. The real reason is money, which conclude that they are GREEDY!!!!
By the way, Richard Stallman just prefer the name should be GNU/Linux and I didn’t see him forcing anyone to use it. He might have think about the implication of the confusion long before the SCO case. I myself use both GNU/Linux when I feel like writing alot but just Linux when I’m quite lazy. However, I notice that the distribution names is getting more popularity rather than the individual component inside. Let wait and see what happened in the future.
I’m honestly not trying to start a flamewar here. I don’t hate the GPL, and I totally understand why people like it. I’m just tired of this whole “Free” software thing. Software is quite different than the constitution. The constitution grants you specific freedoms. Usually from things that are considered harmfull. For instance, freedom from oppression, and freedom of speech (yes, these are sorta the same thing, whatever).
In software land, what specific freedoms is the GPL granting? It grants the freedom to distribute and use in the given form. It does NOT grant the freedom to change the code and incorporate it into other projects. Unlike the constitution, where denying free speech can be considered harmful to you, using your code in a proprietary system does nto take anything from you. It does not hurt you. The only reason for a restrictive clause in the GPL is because the author doesn’t *want* the code to be used in certain ways.
Having completely free code, such as public domain code, does not harm anyone. It is not murdur, it does not deny any human rights, it does not deprive the author of anything.
As I said, it’s fine that people like the GPL, I just wish people would understand that the GPL is FSF freedom, just as Americans enjoy “American” freedom, which is quite different from other “free” countries. And while Stallman may not be openly against ‘more free’ licenses, it is clear that the FSF is of the opinion that only GPL based software is ‘free’. Take the Savannah project for instance. I’ve seen them reject a GPL based operating system project because ‘the operating system would support non-free software in addition to free software’.
But whatever. The public domain doesn’t enjoy the popularity it once had. And realistically no one will stop referring to the GPL as ‘the’ free code license. I’m sure the GPL will continue to appeal to people for many years. “I’ll give you some free code so long as if you improve it, I want your code in return.” The I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine idea is very popular for obvious reasons.
wonderfull article..im sick of the fud. the noise and the posturing I do adore my slackware GNU/linux system but its not stopping me from installing FreeBSD on another box tomorrow.. GNU and OSS will never die. it will endure to make computing pervasive, and available to the world who would otherwise NOT be able to afford it due to the high(userous) costs of proprietary (intrusive and abusive) operating systems. really.. i love youguys….Group hug??
“Software is quite different than the constitution. The constitution grants you specific freedoms. Usually from things that are considered harmfull. For instance, freedom from oppression, and freedom of speech (yes, these are sorta the same thing, whatever).”
It is not that much different. You have to understand that the GPL protects the freedom (state of beeing free) of the software, not the freedom of humans in the first place. Thus it acts very similar to the constitution but on a completely different level of course. And “beeing free” with regards to software means that you can read the source, modify and redistribute it. Including making money from it.
There is absolutely _nothing_ that is not allowed other than taking away some of those freedoms of the code, or derivated code. You can’t use parts of GPL code in non-free code because then you could easily turn an entire free project into non-free software and the license would be a joke.
“In software land, what specific freedoms is the GPL granting? It grants the freedom to distribute and use in the given form. It does NOT grant the freedom to change the code and incorporate it into other projects.”
Like the constitution does NOT grant the freedom to take away any of the granted freedoms from another human (like enslaving him). It’s the same principal, really.
“Unlike the constitution, where denying free speech can be considered harmful to you, using your code in a proprietary system does nto take anything from you.”
No, but from the software. See above.
“Having completely free code, such as public domain code, does not harm anyone. It is not murdur, it does not deny any human rights, it does not deprive the author of anything.”
Nobody is saying that public domain code is bad. It is GOOD for everyone. It is like charity. Protected free software (GPL) is no charity. It’s business. When PD is the little brother of proprietory software, GPL is its opposite twin brother.
“As I said, it’s fine that people like the GPL, I just wish people would understand that the GPL is FSF freedom, just as Americans enjoy “American” freedom, which is quite different from other “free” countries.”
I don’t think so. Protecting freedom means, that you can’t take away any freedom from any individual. I assume that this concept is well understood all over the world (at least here in Germany).
“And while Stallman may not be openly against ‘more free’ licenses, it is clear that the FSF is of the opinion that only GPL based software is ‘free’.”
They clearly state BSD and similar licenses as “free software” licenses, even those which aren’t compatible with the GPL.[1] How can they have the opinion that only GPL based software is free? This statement is simply not true!
“And realistically no one will stop referring to the GPL as ‘the’ free code license.”
This is probably because the GPL works and is the clear counterpart to proprietory (non-free) software. None of the sides can take from each other, both can take from public domain. Like someone said, it’s indeed a kind of war which might not be beneficial to computing in general. But we can’t assume that protected propriatory software will go away when protected free software goes away, so we can either stand up and fight back or accept our fate.
😉
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicens…
I was not saying that either protected proprietary software or protected free software should be done away with
in my previous post. The gist of what I was trying to say is that there should be an unprotected middle ground between the two that both can grow on for the sake of the INDUSTRY. If the computer industry dies because of the entrenched attitude of both sides in this thing there will be NO MORE money or open source fame to be made from it.
In fact I think that even some in the Free Software Foundation can see this otherwise why would they have made the LGPL license which is less restrictive on proprietary use than the regular GPL. (And even exempted the GNU C++ standard C++ library from the regular GPL under certain circumstances. This exemption covers using this particular library with GNU C++ as i currenly hav read in its header files.)I however the public domain is a better route for unprotected software than a gutted GPL like the LGPL or token licenses like BSD and MIT because it frees the software from government registration, patentability (the patent office thends to look more at public domain than protected free software when looking for prior art.) and copyright on the full library, application or source code involved.
What else could linux be except a copy of unix forced on to an x86 box?
If open source software is banned than I would like a refund on all of my computer science textbooks. And I would also like a refund for my education.
Let’s see… A blob of 0 and 1s glued together?
I can’t see the slave traders (Microsoft and SCO) going door to door and business to business confiscating computers. Maybe in the USA but that’s about it. I think that the people have the power here, if everyone just joins in and uses open source, than nobody can do anything about it.
How long can slavery last for? I think that slavery is doomed to fail, that’s why Microsoft is going to fall apart eventually. The world has been through this before. Giving to much power to one organization is wrong, the power should be decentralized. Microsoft is going to do some horrible things in the future, it has to.
Why don’t you want the whole software industry to collapse? I think all forms of business should collapse and revolutionize until finally the workers take over the company and run it the right way.
I think that is what this is all about. Management doesn’t know what its talking about. Microsoft marketting doesn’t know anything about computing. And free software is here to prove that to you.
Now I realize its hard to believe that a corporations who’s primary objective is to make money could ever possibly be wrong or even lie to you. I’m not saying any corporation you know has ever done this to you, but how would you know? But at least we all know those devious hackers put all sorts spyware in their “free” OS. I bet its less secure and has more bugs, too. And they give ti to you to try to turn you into a communist. I’ve seen it happen.
Don’t read the GPL, its communist propoganda. It’ll change the way you think about property. Its so wrong. It should be illegal.
If Micorosoft wants to refund me for my education and the time I wasted, also refund me for my textbooks, than I’ll back off. I’ll stop using computers entirely and won’t be a problem.
We don’t give a f@#&* about your education, which, being canadian, you got for pennies-a-day anyway. (I know I did…)
Please contribute to this discussion and stop posting nonsense. If you can’t do that please abstain.
You sound just like the President of the United States. Sorry but I don’t support ‘the devil’. When you try to make all Non-Microsoft products illegal, it won’t work in France, that’s for sure. So what are you going to do?
“”So what are you going to do? “”
Declare GPL software is a WMD and invade :>.
Ok. I take back anything I said about the FSF not liking non-GPL licenses. I suppose I was coloured by some rabbid FSF supporters who had that opinion.
I understand the rational behind the GPL. I just don’t feel that having derived works being made non-free really takes anything away from the original project. Usually, real contributors will support the license choice of the author anyways.
Much of my distast for the whole ‘free’ thing comes from the fact that I prefer to release much of my own code into the public domain. For me, GPL based projects are really not free. Every time I hear the whole “free” software rant with respect to the GPL, I just think “Wait, how can it be free if I always have to avoid it for my projects.”
That’s not to say I haven’t contributed to GPL based projects. I even released a complete project of mine as GPL since an employer preferred it. I’m by no means an anti-GPL guy. But I’m also not anti-proprietary, which is probably the root of my dislike of much of the FSF retoric.
At any rate. I do understand why people like the GPL. Forgive my mini-rant on the use of ‘free’. It just ended getting to me a little too much.
P.S. I’m not American either, I was just using the american constitution as an example since I figure most people are familiar with it.
I don’t understand how any American laws are going to stop Linux users in other countries, it seems that Americans are going to be mostly torturing other Americans. You have the SCO trying to steal money from IBM in order to support Microsoft. Well at the same time all kinds of Linux converts are happening in other countries. These people reject Microsoft. The Americans won’t be able to sell them a thing.
Iggy, I fully concur with your comments. What is scary, is that so many of his “followers” absorb his ejaculations hook line and sinker.
“To copy Unix source code would not be ethically wrong. . .”
. . . To a thief. Any competant defense against SCO would keep this nutbar as far away from the witness stand as possible. That one comment alone would sink their case as assuredly as Capt. Smith’s “hard a-starboard.”
Just so that he was not misunderstood he stupidly, I can call it nothing else, continued with
“despite our basic premise that to prohibit copying of software is
morally wrong.”
Unfortunately, the vast vast majority of modern civilization disagrees. As does most national and international law (which is why the US case matters so much Mr. Annonymous@shawcable).
“‘Another SCO tool of obfuscation is the term “intellectual property.'” This fashionable but foolish
term carries an evident bias: that the right way to treat works, ideas, and names is as a kind of
property.”
This is so rich! Definately the ramblings of an agendizer and “cultist.” No wonder the Chinese like Linux (sorry, Gnu/Linux)! :o)
While it is frightening, and even more so that he actually has followers (!) as evidenced in some of the replies on this forum, they are very much in the minority, and never will affect much. I doubt even if most (Gnu/)Linux users go anywhere near so far, or hold such blatantly extreme ideals.
One more quote.
“In the hands of a propagandist”
Pot-Kettle-Black. But most cultist/ideologues are indeed hypocrites, and Stallman has proved himself no different.
—
Regards,
Michael
There is no doubt in my mind that the SCO will win the court case. The same justices who supported Microsoft and Bush are going to make the decision. I don’t see how it is going to help Americans though. How are they going to sell Microsoft products to people that have accepted Open Source Linux? I have already dropped Microsoft, and I’m never going to buy their products, and I’m ready to drop Intel like a rock as soon as any other country provides an alternative. It’s obvious that the majority of the effects of repression are going to be felt in the United States. I think that the whole computer industry is going to fall out of the Americans hands, because they are so bent on supporting repressive laws and Microsoft.
As far as I can see, any country, even Russia, could take over the computer industry because America is way to repressive and dictorial.
The issue of software pirating is obviously just a front. The SCO claim is nonsense. If there is code in Linux that is copied, than it will be replaced. Let’s see the damn code! It’s nonsense, it’s a front.
The reason why I am bashing the Americans is because they deserve it, and if they continue to hold the computer industry hostage, than someone other country is going to take over the industry.
How many people GPL their software b/c of RMS as opposed to it’s the trendy/cool/chic ubergeek thing to do? I’d wager to bet many people just GPL their code without fully reading/understanding it, following logic similar to the “How do I know she’s a witch” scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail:
1.)The Linux kernel is GPL.
2.)The Linux kernel is cool.
3.)GPL software is cool.
4.)I want my software to be cool.
5.)I want my software to be GPL.
6.)My software is GPL so now it’s as cool as the Linux kernel.
I think Linus has more to do with the success of the FSF than RMS does. Would any of us even know what GNU was if it wasn’t distributed with a Linux kernel?
He doesn’t even make useful contributions anymore…I’m sorry but screaming it’s GNU/Linux and it’ll only be a matter of time before we can drop the Linux kernel, blah blah blah…does not count as a useful contribution. He doesn’t even write code anymore!!!
Oh and to the people who have “great respect for him because he sticks to his guns” so did Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Atilla the Hun…this in and of itself is not enough to garner respect for someone. Besides, is it really sticking to your guns or simply being unmoving and inflexible?
Just a couple of thoughts.
I just hope this crap end soon.
Stallman’s use of the word free really offends me. He is clearly implying that only GPL software is ‘free’. Examples:
I understand what you are saying, but you have to remember that true freedom must be governed by rules and consequences for breaking those rule. Even in an idealistic world, where men were not prone to harm each other and stoop to all manner of devious plots to raise their position above that of those around them, there would be rules. In such a world the rules would be lived intrinsically instead of enforced extrinsically as they are in the real world.
The GPL contains restrictions. Code under the GPL is subject to the will of others. Namely the will that you *must* release your source code if you release a modified binary.
Yes, the GPL does contain restrictions. However, this is not a bad thing and actually goes a long way to maintaining the freedom that you are saying it is not in harmony with.
I think by stepping outside of the software realm for a moment, you can conjure up tangible examples that prove the intentions and effectiveness of the GPL and how it indeed does promote freedom.
Let’s say that you are a great philanthropist and donate large amounts of food to the homeless shelters in your town. You have given the food freely to your fellow human beings with the intent to feed them.
Now suppose that the volunteer group who manages several of the shelters opens a corner grocery store and begin selling all the food that you have so generously donated for the homeless. Would that be right? What would be the effects upon your freedom as an individual to donate something for the good of humanity? What would be the effects upon all those who you wanted to help?
Now let’s look at software again. If you write a program that you think will benefit people, and you want to make it available to everyone in the world to use, free of charge, you could do one of several things. Making it available to the public domain would be a good choice, but there are no protections there against somebody taking your code and selling it for a profit. Should somebody do that, your rights and freedom to donate your hard work have been trampled on, and the “customer” has been cheated. With the GPL, your intents and rights are protected.
If you don’t care what is done with your code, then you may choose a different license to deploy it under. However, if your intent is to give something for free, the GPL is one of the best licenses to protect your generous intents. It ensures your code will forever be free.
I’ll try not to let it happen again.
However, if your intent is to give something for free, the GPL is one of the best licenses to protect your generous intents. It ensures your code will forever be free.
And, ummm, how is this different from the even-more-generous BSD license? My generous intents are still protected, my code gets even further use because it’s no longer restricted, and my code will forever be free. One of the biggest problems with using the term “free” is that it really isn’t free it imposes significant restrictions that prevent me from using your so-called “free” software in my software projects…causing additional reinventing of the wheel. The GPL is for those who either hate corporations or want to make a political statement, the BSD license is for people who want to make generous no-strings-attached-except-for-covering-your-own-ass contributions to the community.
The problem is : if you’ve worked on a program for let’s say 200 hours and EvilCOrporation Inc. takes that code and commercialises it, you’ve just donated to that corporation the market value of that work.
This might not be a big deal to you, but some people would have serious problems with SCO or Microsoft for example profiting directly from their work (without supporting the communty that created it in the first place.)
The problem is : if you’ve worked on a program for let’s say 200 hours and EvilCOrporation Inc. takes that code and commercialises it, you’ve just donated to that corporation the market value of that work.
This might not be a big deal to you, but some people would have serious problems with SCO or Microsoft for example profiting directly from their work (without supporting the communty that created it in the first place.)
I understand this, however, many people equate GPL with open source which is very wrong, several people just automatically GPL their software without considering the consequences and the lock-in that it creates. In this sense, it is just as proprietary as many commercial licenses. I especially dislike GPLed libraries, there is NO call for that…at least LGPL them.
I couldn’t agree more, but there’s just no stopping stupidity and ignorance.
Choosing a license should be a part of the education of every programmer, however when I learned to program it wasn’t even mentioned once. Not in the programming courses nor in the law course.
“Linux is just the kernel.”
Says who? RMS and the GNU project. But probably much more users and developers have always meant the whole OS too when they say “Linux”, not just the kernel. Linux is just the name that has been used of the whole OS from the very start.
When Torvalds started to develop Linux, he was developing a whole new OS, not just a kernel to GNU OS. Some GNU software was noticed to be useful in the Linux project, just like KDE, Gnome, XFree86 etc. have produced lots of useful software to be used with the Linux kernel. And vice versa, the GNU project has found the Linux kernel and lots of other OSS non-GNU software to be useful to them.
Anyway, also I would like to respect RMS & the GNU project for their great contribution, and thus also I like to sometimes use the odd sounding term GNU/Linux when I write about the OS… (but rarely ever when talking about it as the name GNU/Linux is just long and cumbersome).
However, RMS and the GNU project have their very strong ideological goals that I and many others can’t completely share with them. RMS and the GNU project are against even using any sorts of proprietary softaware. People should not forget that they make such goals an essential part of the GNU project!
The OS field as a whole can hardly ever share the strong political views of the GNU project. So how could, for example, commercial Linux distributors ever use the term GNU in their product name? Many Linux developers, companies etc. never want to tie their work closely with some utopistic free software philosophy hostile against all sorts of proprietary software.
RMS and the GNU project, with their black and white and strongly ideological and political views and goals, have themselves distanced lots of people from the GNU project.
The GPL is for those who either hate corporations or want to make a political statement
Or perhaps it is simply for intelligent people who understand the law and disagree with how things are currently being done by those with “authority”.
In the case of libraries I would GPL them too. Because I taught myself to program. Nobody offered to teach me any of this stuff for free. In fact my schools discouraged it because they could not maintain control. If you don’t like my software then please don’t use it and please don’t bitch about it being available to so many people who agree with me. Go write your own.
I think it is good that you think the GNU project is anti-proprietary and anti-commercial software. Its an ignorant opinion, but what can you expect these days? The more people we distance from the GNU project the more free software will be available for the rest of us.
It doesn’t really matter what you think. Ha!
Let those (Linux) distributions call their OS GNU/Linux that do identify themselves with the GNU project and its ideals, and/or see their OS as a branch of the thing called GNU OS and GNU software as by far the most essential part of the OS. We have, for example, a great OS called Debian GNU/Linux. It is just fine and ok.
But those Linux distributions that do not see themselves as a branch of a GNU OS, or that are not strongly anti-proprietary, and may even use much proprietary software themselves, or do not see GNU software as by far the most essential part of the OS, have no reason to rename their Linux distribution to be GNU/Linux instead. They can still call their OS’s just Linux.
Some distribution makers even drop the word Linux from their distro name. That doesn’t seem to much bother Linus, for example. And why should it? He seems to have lots of more important things to do and think.
I understand this, however, many people equate GPL with open source which is very wrong
Sure. Education might help, flames won’t.
several people just automatically GPL their software without considering the consequences and the lock-in that it creates.
You are underrestimating the intelligence of usual developers. Besides, this goes both ways. I witnessed quite a lot of times that a developer got outraged because someone dared to take his BSD licensed code, improve it for commercial or GPL usage and didn’t give anything back.
It occurs to me that those people didn’t really consider the consequences of their licensing decision either or just went for the BSD license because it was “cool” to be against Hippie Stallman.
But most serious developers actually have a clue what they are doing and what they want.
I especially dislike GPLed libraries, there is NO call for that…at least LGPL them.
Uhm… In case of general purpose libraries, most people would agree with you (including me and RMS), but there are cases where you want a library to be GPL. Imagine someone writes a kickass image effects library because he wants to support the Free Software world with something useful. Of course he expects free applications to be written using this library, applications which HIMSELF and other users are able to use and improve freely. Now imagine he releases this library as LGPL and the only application to use it would be Adobe PhotoShop. Completely closed and with this hefty price tag, not even available for free operating systems. Unavailable to the user who did the work in the first place and unavailable to the Free Software community.
There is no reason why proprietory software vendors should NOT be forced to reinvent the wheel, unless they “pay” for it by giving back their derived work as free software to the community. They either play by the rules of Free Software (software should be free like knowledge) or by their own rules (software is intellectual property to be protected, thus they don’t have access to the IP of the Free Software world). They can’t have both and I won’t shed a tear for them.
I am really starting to think that Huper Proprietary cmpanies and Hyper Free Software Communities are right about each other. They ARE Communists and Fascists fighting the eastern front of World War II all over agian. This is a wheel that we never really needed to re invent!!! Personally I blame the PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COLLEGES and UNIVERSITIES for both of these nutball philosophies that have destroyed true capitalism and the public domain and are in the process of destroying computing altogether. Both the Hyper Proprietary fascist, single seat licensing, software patent, till the Second Coming copyright philosophy and the Hyper Free Software communist, GPL only philosophy are brands of SOCIALISM and not actual true 19th century capitalism which was based on competition and an expanding public domain. (That is of course until the first “Illuminati” robber barrons got their hands on the congress and started building the fascist form of “capitalism” that we have now.:-).)
We have these philosophies largely because the public schools and a university system filled with “Illluminati” professors and teachers have BRAINWASHED their students away from true 19th century competitive capitalism based on an expanding public domain to either Fascisim (Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, Darl McBride, Scott McNeeley) or Communism
(Richard Stallamn, Erric Raymond). The end of computing except for government and other “Illuminati” eletists will be the end result of the adaption of both these failed philosophies by BRAINWASHING. End the War!!! Support the Public Domain!!!
And, ummm, how is this different from the even-more-generous BSD license?
Come on. Your a bright one (based on many of your posts). You already know this.
If I BSD my program, then MS, Sun, SCO, IBM, anybody can snap up my code and profit from it. If anyone is going to profit from my code it should be me right? However, if I decide to generously donate my code to the good of society, then nobody should profit from it unless I want them to.
The GPL protects my rights and intents. The BSD license does not in this case. If I think the BSD license better serves my intents, then I will chose that one. Personally, I have never run into a case where I felt the need to chose BSD over GPL.
I understand your argument about libraries though. However, I do not write libraries for public consumption. If I did, I probably wouldn’t chose the GPL in that case.