Slashdot Log In
Richard Stallman Proclaims Don't Follow Linus Torvalds
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Wed Sep 12, 2007 08:16 AM
from the was-he-wearing-the-hat-at-the-time dept.
from the was-he-wearing-the-hat-at-the-time dept.
StonyandCher writes "Here is an interview with Richard Stallman about a range of free software topics including GPLv3 and comment on the Microsoft patent issue. Stallman has a go at Linus Torvalds even suggesting that if people want to keep their freedom they better not follow Torvalds.
From the interview 'Stallman: The fact that Torvalds says "open source" instead of "free software" shows where he is coming from. I wrote the GNU GPL to defend freedom for all users of all versions of a program. I developed version 3 to do that job better and protect against new threats. Torvalds says he rejects this goal; that's probably why he doesn't appreciate GPL version 3. I respect his right to express his views, even though I think they are foolish. However, if you don't want to lose your freedom, you had better not follow him.'"
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Winning friends and influencing people... (Score:4, Insightful)
-jcr
Re:Winning friends and influencing people... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Winning friends and influencing people... (Score:5, Insightful)
Torvalds wants to produce a decent, *nix-like operating system (or kernel, really), and, for the time being, views the GPL as the best license to work under in pursuit of that goal. If he felt that Linux would be better served via a proprietary, non-Free license, I expect he would advocate a move towards that position.
Stallman doesn't care about any of that, per se: he's concerned with the philosophy and ethics of software licensing, not one particular piece of code. Currently, his goal is to push GPLv3. Given Torvalds repeated lack of any interest whatsoever in the license, they are not part of the same team. They're not necessarily enemies, of course, but since Torvalds has been openly criticizing the new version of the GPL for many months now, it's in Stallman's interests to respond.
The two men don't see eye to eye, and since they're both appealing to a different goal, they're unlikely to be able to convince each other to change their positions.
Definitely different goals (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Definitely different goals (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words
The problem with the GPL3 (IMHO) is that it does exactly the same thing all the EULAs and conditional licenses of people like Microsoft employ. RMS doesn't realize he has just put his own stamp and restrictions (not so free) on software.
The GPL3 isn't about "freedom" anymore, it is about restricting use, the very thing that RMS claims he is against. The code released under GPL3 will end up not being used, and replaced by something less restrictive.
The problem with GPL3 is that it is filled with good intentions, but they haven't thought out the long term consequences to it. What good is free software if nobody wants to use it. What good is "free" software if nobody CAN use it? What good is "free" software if only the idealists and end users can put all the pieces together to make it work.
I'm not going to touch GPL3 software with a ten foot pole. Why? It is TOO restrictive. In the end, all the idealism in the world is useless if it is impractical and too cumbersome to maintain. And thus idealism dies, abandoned and alone, and completely useless.
Re:Definitely different goals (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Winning friends and influencing people... (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why I like it, that's why I take the time to teach myself about software released in this fashion, that's why I support it.
FreeBSD isn't going to deliver that to me.
Linus has made it clear that he doesn't care about the politics interfering with getting work done.
But the only reason I ever looked away from Windows in the first place was because of the politics and economics.
I'm seriously thinking that Solaris is where I should start looking. They seem to have a project more consistent with my ideals, and I have a great deal of respect for and trust in Ian Murdocks integrity. But I'd like to know of other options.
its all about hurd (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, I'm generalizing, but the thing is I did not get the impression that it was a going concern. Instead what I saw was a dying project that couldn't even keep its own mailing list clear of viagra and penis extension adverts. Needless to say I ejected within a month or two. I suspect I am not alone, there were more than a few comments from people asking if the spam on the list could be stopped. I think the problem that Stallman has is that his utopia has failed along with hurd, and he doesn't like what survived to supplant it.
Its a shame really. In my day to day work I rely totally on GCC, and I use other gnu foundation products all the time. I think they're amazing coders, but they seem unwilling to admit that the world is changing. Not everyone is filled with respect for someone who can code good C these days. Most of the time they just want to find out how you talk to each other so they can try to sell you penis related products. That and no-one in their right mind uses emacs willingly.
Re:its all about hurd (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Winning friends and influencing people... (Score:5, Insightful)
Linus never stole his thunder. Linus saw the lightning, waited on the thunder that never came. So Linus went out and made is own thunder.
Me grandpappy had a saying, "ether shit or git off the pot." That seems to apply just fine here.
Re:Damn hippies (Score:5, Interesting)
A friend of mine went on a trip to Ecador recently. The idea was to make water collection tanks for the natives out in the jungle. He's an engineering graduate student, everyone else was in sociology, and they were hippies to the man. Tons of pot. Dirty. White people with dreadlocks. You name a stereotype, they had it.
The trip fell apart because my friend had the perverted idea that he, as an engineer, should tell them how to engineer things. They wanted to decide things like structural soundness democratically. They had a poor work ethic as well: while he'd be trying to teach them how to do something, they'd start massage circles or play frisbee in the middle of the Ecuadorian jungle.
Perhaps you could add other stereotypes in there, such as "Lazy, idealistic college kids," or "sheltered American youth" but it is very tempting for me to say, given my experiences, that a sizable segment of the hippie population is too inept, anti-authority, lazy and anti-knowledge to change anything, up to and including their own underwear.
Please stop the foolish jokes and think. (Score:5, Insightful)
But, for Mr. Stallman, this was NOT one of those times. Everything Stallman said in the interview was very well considered and expressed.
Remember, Stallman is interested in the legal issues, which are sometimes very subtle. This is an important quote from the PC World Australia interview: "Stallman: Microsoft is trying to deny that their contract with Novell means what it says. This shows that our efforts in GPLv3 to make their contract backfire against Microsoft are working. I believe Novell disagrees with Microsoft about this point, and says that the deal does apply to software under GPL version 3."
With GPL3, Mr. Stallman believes that he is closing a very serious flaw in the GPL that would allow Microsoft and other companies to make trouble. In my opinion, Microsoft is a basically dishonest, adversarial company, although there may be many people who work there who are honest and cooperative. Stallman's efforts with GPL3 are designed to stop exactly the dishonesty that Microsoft is attempting.
I don't know if there is a reason not to like the GPL3 license. Unfortunately, Mr. Torvalds' reasons for not liking it were expressed in a very socially backward way, at least in the discussion I saw. However, Mr. Torvalds has often in the past shown a lack of appreciation of social issues, and GPL3 is entirely a social issue, since, if people were cooperative and weren't adversarial and even self-destructive, there would be no need for a license.
There are other players here. PC World of Australia gave the interview an inflammatory title. PC World made the "Print this story" option display only a small part of the interview, with ads at the bottom. PC World of Australia has established its position that content is just the stuff that goes between ads. It is apparent to me, at least, that PC World of Australia is not concerned about the issues, and only wanted to attract attention by causing more dissension.
Other players are Slashdot editors, who post VERY sloppy stories that often have misleading titles, and Slashdot readers, who, as in this story, often post foolish jokes, intense opinions that have not had the benefit of thought, and other lame spewings.
What exactly does Mr. Torvalds not like about the GPL3? Is there a good reason from him not to like the GPL3? I don't know. Those are the issues, and the only ones that really matter.
Frankly, someone should tell Mr. Stallman to get help with his hair and beard; his message would be much stronger if he didn't look like a poor aging drugee hippie throwback from the 60s, as he does in the photo that accompanies the PC World Australia article.
But neither Mr. Stallman nor Mr. Torvalds are my dad. I'm an adult and I recognize that good leaders are usually not good leaders in every area.
If I had to take a guess, without having anything more than the insufficient information I have now, I would guess that Mr. Stallman knows more about legal issues than Mr. Torvalds because Mr. Stallman has been thinking about software licensing intensely since before 1983, and he has hired lawyers to help him.
These are all only my opinions. What really matters are the FACTS of the GPL3 license.
Re:Winning friends and influencing people... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why? (Score:5, Funny)
Apologies to Fox News...
Re:Winning friends and influencing people... (Score:5, Insightful)
RMS is basically saying that Torvalds has different goals than he does, and if you share his (RMS's) goals of software freedom, you had better not let Torvalds' opinion make your mind up on GPL v3.
I don't know how you read jealousy into this, it seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Actually, the funny thing is that it seems to that RMS has mellowed over the years and Linus has become a bit more of a firebrand. I think RMS realizes that a softer pitch makes the message louder. Linus seems to have imbibed a bit of the chest thumping American corporate culture; he certainly isn't the self-deprecating young fellow we used to know.
Linus has been making jabs at RMS for years (Score:5, Interesting)
Ever watch Revolution OS [revolution-os.com]? At some conference (I think it was either LinuxWorld or O'Reilly) RMS was in the middle of giving a speech, and Linus started chasing his kid around the stage directly behind RMS. RMS, on the other hand, was polite, smiled, and continued his speech without even flinching.
And don't even get me started on all the times where Linus talks about himself as the "practical" one, even though he doesn't seem to care enough about practical issues like copyright law to actually bother to learn something about them (or to consult a lawyer) before blabbering to the media. (The way Linus labels legal issues as "unimportant" smells more like idealism than pragmatism to me...)
In my opinion, RMS has the physical appearance of a hippie-zealot, and Linus takes advantage of that to mislead people who don't know better. I think RMS has every right to complain.
Re:Dead on (Score:5, Insightful)
I understand that it's appealing, in a "rubbernecking the auto accident" way, to frame the discussion as a flame war between Stallman and Torvalds, but such an approach does nothing to further either man's position. Stallman is a political creature, and freedom, as he defines it, is obviously important to him. Torvalds is a practical creature, apparently uninterested in the political nature of Stallman's model, and develops accordingly. Fortunately for many of us there is an overlap that allows us to run GNU software on a Linux kernel and reap the benefits of both worlds.
"Freedom" in Stallman's world is neither easy or convenient. Committing to his approach means rejecting some software that may be useful or interesting or fun. "Freedom" in Torvalds' world is, as noted in the article, is simply a means to an end; the end being collaborative development of useful software. For now, neither could exist without the other, which makes most of the flaming I anticipate in this discussion somewhat ironic.
Hey Stallman, how's Hurd coming along? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hey Stallman, how's Hurd coming along? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Hey Stallman, how's Hurd coming along? (Score:5, Insightful)
In the article he says he launched the GNU OS in 1984 and seven years later a kid from Finland blows right past him. What was Stallman doing during those seven years? What's he been doing in the sixteen years since?
What's Torvalds got that Stallman doesn't?
Maybe the ability to keep his damned mouth shut when he doesn't have anything worthwhile to say? Maybe the sneaking suspicion that he isn't necessarily the smartest person in every room he enters? Maybe an ability to rein in his ego to move a project along and the realization that every good idea and worthwhile insight doesn't necessarily flow from his mighty mind?
Although it's pretty late in the game, I wish Stallman would come to appreciate that talking less and doing more will garner more respect then the opposite. Certainly open source software suffers from a perception, sometimes earned, of a lack of seriousness. As a major figure in open source, Stallman's antics don't help to change that perception.
Re:Hey Stallman, how's Hurd coming along? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because you don't agree with him, doesn't mean he is wrong. Also, even if he is wrong, he is not putting a gun to your head and making you follow his way. He just tries to persuade and he does it rather eloquently if you ask me.
Also, what's the deal with everyone criticizing his personal appearance? What does that have to do with anything? When did "fair looks" become the be-all end-all of everything.
I think that most people who criticize RMS, from what I can see, are a bunch of hypocrites.
Have a Nice Day,
Gerry B.
Hurd's not the most important thing (Score:5, Informative)
The free software movement already has many working kernels. Getting Hurd working is not the most important thing RMS could work on.
His job is to make sure that the free software movement will last - make sure people value it and protect it.
Here's a transcript of one of his talks [fsfeurope.org], and there's more where that came from [fsfe.org].
Re:Hey Stallman, how's Hurd coming along? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or perhaps, just perhaps, Stallman has more important things to worry about than yet another Unix-like kernel. Like, oh I dunno, FREEDOM, or some trifle like that.
That's part of what (clearly) annoys Stallman about Torvalds. Stallman's making this huge principled stand for freedom, and all Torvalds really cares about is his kernel.
You may not consider freedom important, but Stallman does. And despite his difficult persona, he should be applauded.
Re:Hey Stallman, how's Hurd coming along? (Score:5, Insightful)
And therein lies the rub. You see, from a *practical* standpoint, Linus Torvalds has done more than Stallman did to accomplish Stallman's very own aims - by an order of magnitude. Torvalds, by using the GPL as a tool to assist and promote his pet project, also brought the GPL into much greater prominence. But it was the fact that Torvalds cares primarily about his project that alowed thsi to happen - if Linux wasn't a good and useful idea and execution to start with, it would have gone nowhere. After all, it doesn't matter how "free" a piece of software is - if it is a piece of crap, no one will use it if they have a choice.
THAT is what really galls Stallman: not that the GPL isn't Torvaldss first concern, but that Torvalds has done so much more than Stallman in promoting Free Software, and it wasn't even Torvalds' primary goal! Imagine how frustrated Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton would be if, when seeking information about poverty and rights, people went to the person running a soup kitchen instead of themselves. Please note that I don't equate Stallman and those 2 clown on a personal level, but an organizational one. He may have had the "vision", but others have done more to promote it than he ever could accomplish, and that must be galling.
Re:Hey Stallman, how's Hurd coming along? (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you, but I still think that Stallman's role is hardly negligible. Despite his difficult personality, the man needs to be listened to. Usually, somewhere beneath his frothy ideologue bluster, there's a profound point or two battling to get out.
And Stallman's stances on, say DRM and SWPat are absolutely unimpeachable. I'm not sure if Torvalds even has a recognizable stance on these issues.
Re:Hey Stallman, how's Hurd coming along? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hey Stallman, how's Hurd coming along? (Score:5, Insightful)
I read things differently.
If the Linux kernel had never been done, we'd still have GNU. It'd just be with a different kernel is all. Maybe a FreeBSD kernel, or Hurd, or Minix, or something else built from scratch, just as Linux was.
The only reason it doesn't matter how "free" a piece of software is, is that the principles of proprietary software are fundamentally unenforceable. You can use proprietary software all you like, any way you like, as far as your own morals will permit. Owners' ability to dictate terms is extremely limited. Some have campaigned vigorously to tell you what your morals ought to be regarding software, and some of us have at times been brainwashed by this. But if you don't agree with some provision, they often can't stop you from violating it. If they actually could enforce their extreme capitalist/monopolist "one owner per idea, and for every idea an owner" regime, you'd be singing a different tune, perhaps literally as well as figuratively.
Why do you think Stallman is jealous or galled? I'm guessing he's still amazed, pleased, and stunned his movement has had such success. I also suspect he'd rather have never become a celebrity, but that really wasn't an option. Someone had to speak out. No, he's not worried about Linux "stealing his thunder" per se, he's worried that people will take the results (GNU/Linux) of the freedoms he's been promoting, and dismiss and discard the freedoms that made those results possible, if they even hear of it at all! That's why he's so on about saying "GNU/Linux" instead of "Linux", it's not about him, it's about the freedoms, and making people aware of those freedoms. I don't know that trying to ram this "GNU/Linux" term down everyone's throats is the best way to publicize the freedoms, but he's not doing it to showboat. Isn't his example of putting in years of work on software that you can use and view and change just as you please enough evidence that this is not about him, it's about freedom?
Okay. (Score:4, Insightful)
He already did: BitKeeper (Score:5, Informative)
This wouldn't be a change. Linus already used and advertised BitKeeper, which was completely proprietary software.
Relicensing the Linux kernel quite possible [fsfe.org], if they want to.
Re:Okay. (Score:5, Insightful)
Remember BitKeeper?
Frankly, it's only the GPL and his lieutenants that's keeping Torvalds honest. There's no suggestion that he chose the GPLv2 for any reason other than sheer practicality, unless you know otherwise.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
I thought open source *was* free software (Score:5, Insightful)
But what do I know? I've committed crimes against humanity in the past (i.e. releasing proprietary software).
The comment reflects Stallman's inner thoughts... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uncontroversial... (Score:4, Insightful)
As naive as I find it, Torvalds has always made a big thing about "not doing the politics", so if you're looking to him for anything other than commentary on patches and architectural discussions, you're looking in the wrong place.
And no, Stallman's not trolling, he's just being Stallman. That's why we love him. Or not, as the case may be.
No surprise (Score:5, Informative)
Linus belongs much more closely to the "Open Source" movement [ESR] than to "Free Software" [RMS]. Although I hesitate to classify Linus in any way. He does his own thing.
Making software non-free and stealing (Score:4, Insightful)
No matter how much I release derived software in violation of the GPL, your freedom is not reduced any more than if I hadn't. There is nothing I could do to prevent you from taking the current version of Linux and changing it to do what you want.
What about gaming systems? (Score:4, Interesting)
No shit... (Score:5, Insightful)
However, since I believe that going forward, LEGAL issues will be much more important than TECHNICAL issues when it comes to computer code, I prefer to listen to RMS a little more closely. The "pedantry" that RMS displays is exactly what you need in a courtroom, while the "arrogance" of Linus is exactly what you don't.
Slashdoters Just Don't Get It (Score:5, Insightful)
How can these same people now not understand what a lack of freedom is? Why are they so willing to trade their freedom, for a lifetime of complaining on Slashdot about every company, politician, or government, when the only person that is truely at fault is themselves.
Re:BK was not a fiasco (Score:5, Interesting)
McVoy was using BK as an instrument to gain control over Open Source SCM for monetary gain, by inserting his SCM in the Linux kernel development process, with a license requiring that anyone who used it agreed not to work on SCM software of their own, in an effort to ensure that there would be no Open Source alternatives. And Linus was content to go along with this, because BK really was a superior solution technically.
Allison, who happened to work for the same employer as Linus, reverse-engineered the BK protocol _on his own time_, again, without violating the license because he had never needed to agree to it. He did this in order to write an open-source read-only client for BitKeeper, so that people could access the full kernel repository without agreeing to the BitKeeper license. McVoy hit the roof, started spamming Jeremy and Linus' employer with legal threats, tried to get Jeremy fired, and then when that didn't work (they didn't care because he was working on his own time), punished everyone by withdrawing the free BK license. Linus, being bound by the same non-compete agreement as everyone else who had used Bitkeeper to access the kernel source repository, wrote as much of git as he could (stopping short of what actually constituted a fully-functional SCM), and then let Junio Hamano do the rest.
Whatever other personality issues are in play, this is exactly the kind of problem that RMS is concerned with: Linus was prepared to let a control freak like McVoy try use the Linux kernel project as a strategic wedge to block the development of Open Source SCM software and promote his own proprietary solution, simply because it was convenient for Linus and he was friends with McVoy. Linus has a history of doing whatever is personally convenient, without regard for long-term consequences or the effect it has on others.
So what next? (Score:5, Funny)
I think Richard isn't getting it .. (Score:5, Insightful)
Richard Stallman has a point and he has proven it too, but he seems incapable of recognising that you can't change black into white in one generation, that takes time.
Linus and, for instance, Mark Shuttleworth et al are nicely paving the way, but it's taking too long for Richard and I think there's a bit of an ego thing here where Linus gets the nice interviews and press where Richard is barely mentioned.
Well, life's tough. If he could make things a little bit less fanatic and stressed it could make matters go a long way towards getting some coverage, but the press generally doesn't take very much to people that appear to be frustrated hippies with a message.
Even if they're right..
Freedom is unappreciated... (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom is not appreciated by owners of mainstream computer architectures and mainstream operating system. Under x86 and a few other common architectures, most stuff is already supported, such as Flash on Linux x86 or the NVidia binary drivers.
Now, have you ever tried running any of those things under less common architectures? SPARC systems with FreeBSD? Linux on Alpha?
Sure, your pretty GeForce will run great on Windows, even Linux, but you have to remember Linux is not the end-all of operating systems and x86 is not the end-all of computer architectures. The future has new and better things for us all, and that's where open formats and systems count, preserving our software and documents, making them future-proof. 15 years from now you'll still be able to run Apache on NetBSD on an IBM pSeries (yes, an unlikely software-hardware combo, but I'm making a case here). Probably 25 years from now GCC will still be the premier compiler on the large majority of architectures, and Visual Studio and Borland will be relegated to fairy tales. Who'll remember Flash? Who remembers a large amount of software written for MacOS 9, or the Commodore 64? Already there's a lot of games made for Windows 98 that won't run on Vista. Who will you be crying to when you'll want to retrieve your old data or experiment with older libraries or systems?
The beauty of Free Software becomes apparent only on those time frames. THEN Stallman's critics will see his point.
It's funny (Score:5, Insightful)
More ironic than funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you for that insightful comment; very well said indeed. Principles are absolutely important, and idealists equally so. Like him or hate him, Stallman has stuck unwaveringly to his principles, and the software world would be a much, much poorer place for his absence.
What is sad is that RMS doesn't realize that he himself is one of the major inhibiting factors in the uptake of FOSS. Rightly or wrongly, a movement is typically defined by its most public face, and his abrasive and combative personality practically guarantees that most average folks won't give FOSS a second look, no matter how worthwhile and valuable it may be to them, merely because they're turned off by the guy. It's just human nature to resist being pushed, I guess. No one likes to be bullied and beaten over the head with principles, even if they're good for you.
GPL versions (Score:5, Insightful)
Now Linus is being the epytome of evil proprietary software defenders?
I mean, the Linux kernel is *STILL* released under GPL V2, or during my trip to Mars something changed, and now it has a Microsoft EULA attached?
Until last (boreal) spring, GPL V2 wasn't the best, "freest" license around, according to RMS and FSF themselves? Now that they have to push another product, all of sudden, the past version has become non free?
You should sound like an pathetic old brat, if you accuse your peers of using the same tool you touted as earthsaver only six months before, instead of blindly jumping on the ideology bandwagon you're at the helm of.
I am so sick of RMS bashing! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Stallman the visionary.... (Score:5, Funny)
Aaaah, what a deathmatch that would be...
Boring, I think: Stallman drones on for three hours about a world of fluffy bunnies, giving Torvalds time to build a 30 foot tall mecha which stomps his adversary into paste in about half a second.
Re:SHUT UP!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RMS is condescending and elitist (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing, if you want people to agree with you and because RMS looks and acts like a radical from 1967, many contemporary businessmen aren't interested in agreeing with him.
What makes Slashdot, Slashdot is different than what makes business, business. People looking to make a buck (who RMS isn't the least bit interested in) aren't interested in ideologies that make it more difficult for them to do so.