OSNews

"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.

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?

"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.

Linus has a balanced view because he views software as software and not as a tool to ensure world freedom.

Asking for hardware vendors to open up their hardware for hacking just because they use GPL software is ridiculous.

If you still don't feel that Linus's view is more balanced then I don't know what in this world can convince you. May be you just don't want to even be convinced because you want to hack your TiVO and you are happy because GPL is trying to get you that:)

Edited 2007-09-12 07:57

You could argue that Linus caters to companies, and Stallman is based on idealogical reasons.


Linus doesn't "caters to companies" - typical FSF zealotism. Some FSF zealots have become so stupid lately that these days dare to say that people who thinks that the GPLv2 is better than the GPLv3 is "company-friendly" - like if people who use the GPLv2 would be using a anti-freesoftware license! Does the GPLv3 license makes the GPLv2 obsolete or "non-free"? Certainly not!


As you say, Linus is political: Actually, he has said the GPLv3 is crap beacause the GPLv2 is a _better_ freesoftware/opensource license. In other words, he seem to think the GPLv3 is less freesoftware/opensource friendly. I pretty much agree with him, so does many people.


What Stallman has tried to do with the GPLv3 is to regulate hardware design trough the influence of GPL software. I don't like the hardware that doesn't allows me to run modified software in that computer either. But trying to fight that hardware using a software licenses is stupid. I think I'm free to think that and I think I'm free to think that the GPLv3 is a _stupid_ license because of that and I think I'm free to suggest that everybody should ignore it and stick to the GPLv2


And we should also mention the fact that the FSF is using the "GPL v2 or later" wording of the GPLv2 to abuse from the trust that MANY people has put in the FSF and do what THEY think should be done. You could argue that when people choose to use the GPLv2 with the "GPLv2 or later" clausule they gave permission to the FSF to create new licenses, but IMO Stallman and the FSF are using that power to impose their POV.

I mean, are all the users that included that clausule of the GPLv2 happy with the GPLv3? Clearly not. For them, the FSF is dishonoring the trust they put in it. They got their software licensed under a conditions they never would license their software.




The GPLv3 should have never been released as a new version of the GPL, it should have been a completely _different_ license that people could choose to use. We would not have so many problems if the FSF had done this - people who likes the GPLv3 would use the GPLv3, people who likes the GPLv2 would use the GPLv2, people who wants to relicense their software would relicense it.

Edited 2007-09-12 11:20

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.

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.

Precisely. If people would quit creating baseless excuses (communism or whatever, MG) to bash FSF and RMS, grow up children.

1up mario!

Edited 2007-09-14 12:35

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.

"When you are dealing with Satan ( Microsoft ) you sometimes need righteous fire/language to rally the troops. "

That is the funniest thing I have ever read. Just to get this right as an anology you are comparing. Someone who is believed to be an angel who rebelled against God— and also the one who spoke through the serpent and seduced Eve into disobeying God's command. His ultimate goal is to lead people away from the love of God. to an American multinational computer technology corporation with 76,000 employees in 102 countries and global annual revenue of US $51.12 billion as of 2007.

Its a bit of a stretch, esp considering that in 1983 when GNU started Microsoft didn't even release DOS till 1986.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but DOS shipped on the first batch of IBM 5150 PC's in 1981. It was written by MS then, too. Gates had already been of the mindset that software should be a commercial product which customers pay to use.

> Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but DOS shipped on the first batch of IBM 5150 PC's in 1981. It was written by MS then, too. Gates had already been of the mindset that software should be a commercial product which customers pay to use.

GNU was never formed to oppose Microsoft. IIRC, Stallman started it because a company (which I shall not name) donated his lab a printer but later refused to give him source code to a printer driver so that Stallman could repair it himself. The company then gave source to one of his colleagues with the proviso that that colleague not share it with Stallman. Stallman realised then that something was needed to protect all users from those who could remove support at a whim.

@steampoweredlawn your absolutely right. I could backtrack and argue thats when windows was launched, but I was simply wrong.

Stallman: Don't be too proud of this "open source" movement we've started. The ability to destroy a monopoly is insignificant next to the power of the source.

Hayden: Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerer's ways, Lord Stallman. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up your stolen thunder, or given you clairvoyance enough to find Mr. Torvalds's secret Hurd box...

When Stallman starts proclaiming he was born of a virgin and will rise from the dead, you'll be correct. Otherwise it's just more of the mindless ad-hominem because you don't agree with his politics.

I doubt there is a more blatant example of biting the hand that feeds you / being generally ungrateful, than OSS fanatics using GNU/Linux.

>I doubt there is a more blatant example of biting the >hand that feeds you / being generally ungrateful, than >OSS fanatics using GNU/Linux.

I agree. This thing struck me: The fact that Torvalds says "open source" instead of "free software" shows where he is coming from. I guess it does show that Torvalds comes from a programmer's desktop, while Stallman has been a political activist for too long already.

Behind the whole FUD around GPL 3 (let's admit, we've had plenty of it), I have seen Torvalds giving credible arguments aside. I was hoping that at least on one occasion, it would have been possible for one to defend the goals and status of his project without being called a fool or a fascist.

With all the respect I have for Stallman's programming past, if he hates Linux so much for limiting his freedom, he can go use Hurd, where you can do whatever you want with your code (not that it does too much actually...).

Edit: frankly, I don't believe in Stallman just wanting to be nice and warm to the Linux people and their freedoms. There are plenty of other projects that haven't switched to GPL v3, some of them quite large and important, and I haven't seen any of this attention.

This is not an issue of whether GPL v3 is malevolent or not, or whether Stallman is right or not. It is simply a case of whether the ultimate goals of GPL v3 are compatible with a project's (i.e. Linux) goals.

And finally, there is one thing I learned about argumentation: when you are indeed trying to convince something objectively, you are criticizing the action/situation, not the person. Saying that GPL v3 is a better option for Linux rather than v2, because <arg1> <arg2> ... <arg n> is one thing. Saying that Linus is obviously someone who doesn't share the ideals of the free software community and that his actions are foolish, without even a plain example, gives Stallman little credit. Actually, it makes him look like a tv preacher.

Edited 2007-09-12 15:46

It's not exactly a religion, but he is quite the zealot. That's not always a bad thing either. His cause is a just one, but my personal opinion is that he pushes too hard sometimes. I for one don't like to be told what to do with my hardware and software, whether it's Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sony Corporation or Richard Stallman giving the orders. They can all stay out of my digital lifestyle.

That being said, the free software and open source communities wouldn't be nearly as far along as they are without him, and I am very thankful for that.

Well, you see, first I thought like you. But over the last 8 years I encountered so many problems with closed specs, closed drivers, closed formats, that I find his arguments no longer "religious".
Maybe exaggerated, maybe a bit too much "in your face", but in essence, he has a point.
If you think short-sighted, closed drivers and formats won't matter, but if you think long-time, like 50, 100, 200 years, open formats are the ONLY way to go. if you think 10 years into the future, open drivers are a really good thing.
You might get yourselves a new computer every 4 years, but what about your camera, monitor, mouse, keyboard, webcam? THEN you need open formats, drivers and protocols.

And patents are a threat to your computer usage, so designing a license as thorny towards patents as possible in fact benefits YOU over the long run.

That's what was submitted to us by an anonymous. I didn't edit it, cause I honestly don't care. I cared enough to pass it along though.

Edited 2007-09-12 04:59

Oh, so you don't give a clean shaved rat's ass if your post will generate a totally unnecessary flame-war which would contribute nothing to any kind of intelligent discussions on this site.

Awesome. I'm glad that you're doing everything you can to make this site appealing to those of us who prefer a rational, sane discussion to a silly flame war.

There are two segments that talk about intellectual property that are particularly interesting in the current times.

I think you are being unfair to Eugenia. It has never used GNU.

Nope, don't really care. But I do know that people would find interesting the article, and so I linked it. And even if did care, I would still link the specific part, because it's indeed MORE interesting than all the other boring things that RMS is talking about and we have heard a thousand times.

RMS calling for a "fork" in the GNU world is a first though, and so that's why I did not, and I will not, change the teaser to anything else. If you don't like people flaming, don't read the comments section. I only do so once a month these days too. I VERY RARELY read comments on web sites, including on osnews.

Eugenia writes, "I VERY RARELY read comments on web sites, including on osnews."

Really? While I like the OSNews articles, I find the comments to be the most interesting part.

Nope, don't really care. But I do know that people would find interesting the article, and so I linked it. And even if did care, I would still link the specific part, because it's indeed MORE interesting than all the other boring things that RMS is talking about and we have heard a thousand times.

You call yourself and editor? That's pretty shameful. You basically admitted that you don't give a damn about what people think of OSNews, and you really seem not to care about the community on OSNews that makes it what it is.

Snifflez,

You seem extremely upset for someone seeking a "rational, sane discussion"...

I think there are interesting points made by RMS here. Do I go haywire because he is the profit of GNU? Not really. But I certainly don't feel any worse off having read the article.

Hang out! Sometimes it pays to be the only sane ones in the room eh?

cheers!

Oh!! Merciful! You pushed an OK-button even though you didn't care. That's incredible! Thanks!

Okay.. honestly.. You don't care about the contents of a story on the site? Are you insane? Or maybe I'm insane to be reading a news site where the people who publish stories don't care about them.

Next story coming up on OSNews:

"Some stupid giraffe urinates on the hat of a stunned zoo visitor who was also stupid and that's why Bill Gates is the best businessman ever and he loves running Linux, but also sometimes go out for tea with random birds, because his gay lover, Linus Torvalds, no longer satisfies him"

Comments:

"Wtf is this!?" x 100

Eugenia: "That's what was submitted to us by an anonymous. I didn't edit it, cause I honestly don't care. I cared enough to pass it along though. "

"I dont care". Best answer ever. Seriosly though, this answer does explain a lot about OSnews and what gets posted as news items.

I understand what you're saying, but it just doesn't apply.

A much more accurate, and less inflammatory, description would be the difference between free code and free people. You can pervert that to political ideologies in interesting ways as well, but it's a more solid starting point.

The GPL is in no wise socialistic. Socialism involves government coercion. The GPL is a license to which users voluntarily agree to. No coercion, no socialism.

Socialism doesn't involve government coercion, your thinking of Communism.

Bzzzt. Communism is an economic model. Socialism is a governing model.

Paraphrasing Wikipedia, socialism is listed as a socio-economic model where wealth and property distribution is managed by the 'community'. You can have direct socialism such as workers'-councils or indirect socialism exercised by the state.

Communism is more considered to be a subset of Socialism, but with more specific goals such as creating a classless/state-less society with common-ownership of production.

Your correct. But Stallman saying that an individuals freedom is some how tied to following his idealogies for how programmers should work and be compensated (I guess only through speaking engagements, right Stallman?) is at a minimum confrontational. Your talking about how some people feed there families, and then laying a guilt trip on them for not reducing that work to having no monetary value. You just dont take it seriously becuase the guy has issues, but trust me, his in your face attitude, crazy use of semantics and telling you your doomed for listening to Torvalds feels at a minimum an attempted act of coercion. Torvalds wants to get paid for some work and does some work for free. Stallman gets paid most of the time for a job few relative to the population are needed to do and then begrudges everyone else for not doing there own full time jobs work, ones that he has deemed should be free, for free.

"Free/open source is great and all, but I am really not willing to get all fanatical about it. "

Because anyone who stands firmly behind their opinions and doesn't compromise their own integrity is a fanatic. Right.

come on he's just using creative speech. Don't be so literal Soulbender.

"Free/open source is great and all, but I am really not willing to get all fanatical about it. "

Because anyone who stands firmly behind their opinions and doesn't compromise their own integrity is a fanatic. Right.

I'm curious to know, how many of your 20 votes is from...

a) People that saw your comment as sarcasm, and believe you actually think that is not the case.
b) Didn't realise you were being sarcastic, and voted you up as they think you said it IS the case.

:)

I believe you just pointed true religious fanatism. And Stallman's interview just strongers the point that we are talking about fanatism here by calling all that don't agree with him a fool.

Because anyone who stands firmly behind their opinions and doesn't compromise their own integrity is a fanatic. Right.

Read my post again. I said "I am not willing to get all fanatical about it", meaning me. "Fanatical" is in reference to Stallman, and yes I think he takes it too far.

Compromise integrity? Stands firmly behind their opinions? Did I accidently stumble upon a political forum by accident?

My point is that I, meaning me myself and I, use computers to get a job done, to meet a need, and ultimately facilitate the business model that allows my company to make money.

The OS's are just tools to help meet the need. I don't have the time nor the desire to get into the politics of it, regardless of how much I enjoy using the OS.

I hope you can understand my point of view and my opinion.

"Running proprietary nVidia drivers in Linux? *yawn* Give me a break. If it works, it works. Free/open source is great and all, but I am really not willing to get all fanatical about it."

Whether you believe in in open source as a development model or free software as a political choice. The bottom line binary blobs are poor for many reasons. And due to people like Richard Stallman and others.

I use the term "bad" becuase those drivers that "Just work" form Nvidia contained a rather nasty Security Vulnerability, that was known for *over* a year unheard of in the kernel.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/17/nvidia_linux_graphics_bug/

nvidia drivers do work most of the time but they are propietary, which is not free, which is bad for the health of end users most of the time

Edited 2007-09-12 06:33

You mean with potential backdoors and other sweets? And why the hell do you work till 5pm? Ah, it must be one of those free countries

You've hit on a point that has always been in the back of my mind. Stallman considers it almost a crime to run any proprietary software whatsoever. It's my understanding that if a non-free solution is the only way to do something, he just won't do whatever it is.

Now, I'm very much a fan of the free software community and way of doing things, but at the same time, I didn't buy this gaming laptop just to type emails and browse the web. I like a lot of the free/open source games for Linux and to be able to play many of them, I have to use ATI's fglrx driver. According to Stallman, I am now an enemy of the free software movement, or at the very least I am no longer a supporter in his eyes. Sorry pal, but I didn't spend that extra few hundred dollars for a laptop with a 3D chipset just to be told what to do with my system. That's the thing that really gets me; Stallman says his ultimate goal is the freedom to do what we want with our hardware and software, but if I choose more functionality for my hardware I am somehow limiting everyone else's freedoms.

Sorry folks, but I just don't buy it.

I like freedom in my software for that exact reason.
Free software gives you(or someone else with the same problem) the chance to make the software 'just work' in exactly the way you want it to.
Most commerical software will never 'just work' for me because my needs are different from the majority of users.

Proprietary nVidia drivers for linux are all well and good, but what about *BSD, Open Solaris, Haiku, ReactOS, plan9 etc. Getting proper hardware specifications from nVidia means that the community can develop working drivers for all different kinds of Free software operating systems.

Hey is that you Moullineuf? Did you change your name?

I chuckled. See, this is the type of thing Eugenia is missing by not reading the comments!

>The other issue is that Open Source != Free Software (Open Source can be Free Software, but most likely it's a subset of it depending on which license you use...

No most likely Open Source and Free Software is (technically) the same. 99% of all Open Source license are also Free Software licenses and vice versa.

There is a huge different if you compare the ideas behind it but technically they are (almost) the same.

>Personally I think it's acceptable for users to make their own decisions whether that installing that binary-only driver is all OK, but I give respect to the efforts given to have a 100% free distribution.

Basically i agree with you. The problem arises where the user can't make their own decision because has has no choice.

> I cannot understand people who fail to understand the difference between FREE and FREEDOM.

That's because in English we commonly overload the word 'free' to describe different things. If you switch language for a bit you get: FREE => gratis, FREEDOM => libre.

But I speak a language (Tagalog) where libre (free as in available, not freedom) can also mean gratis (free as in beer), so the whole libre/gratis distinction is sorta muddled.

Well in Danish, fri (free) only has one meaning. Free as in Freedom (frihed). Fri (free) means it comes with no bindings/commitments. Only in one situation does "fri" mean "gratis", and that is in "fri bar" (free bar). Apart from that "fri" is about freedom.

English is a weird language

English is a weird language

Yes it is. I've heard it said that English is the most difficult language for a non-English speaker to learn.

All languages are weird with strange quirks which bewilder foreigners trying to learn the language.

Yet no other language comes close to English when counting the number of people from all background who've learnt it as a second or third language, so it can't be that hard. At least for people with a European language background, I'd say both Chinese and Arabic would be a lot harder to learn.