RMS Views on Linux, Java, DRM and Opensource 546
An anonymous reader writes "All About Linux is running a transcript of a recent talk given by Richard Stallman at the Australian National University. Stallman discussed various issues facing GNU like the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Digital Rights Management, about why one should not install sun's java on your computer, his views on Opensource as well as why he thinks people should address Linux distribution as GNU/Linux."
Re:Will somebody please, please please... (Score:2, Informative)
"Recent"? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Will somebody please, please please... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:GNU/Linux (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Again? (Score:5, Informative)
I think that the most passionate advocates for change throughout history use this kind of repitition quite a bit. Of course, check through your RMS history, and you'll find that it works time and time again. Check out RMS v. Trolltech (about QT licensing), or RMS v. X/Open ("The Open Group" now). And when he wins, he drops it. Also, you can expect him to consistantly push those ideals that he thinks are worthy. Hell, I'd be dissapointed if he didn't.
Plus, he adapts over time, constantly targeting key issues; DMCA, which really shouldn't have diminished in relevance as much as it has in the last 6 years, and now DRM which I believe to be key obstacle to a free future. It's unfortunate that the first point in the article is the GNU name issue, which I believe to be the least important of those the article mentions. I guess it's hard when a speech is transcribed to an article. In a speech the first point is usually the most trivial (you just use it to get the crowd warmed up), whereas in an article, half the people (and about 90% of the
Re:GNU/Linux (Score:4, Informative)
(with you, you can 'get' the monty burns/simpsons joke. he's old enough to 'remember' when the phone was first invented).
You've got it backwards (Score:4, Informative)
True, RMS failed to produce a kernel, and the main reason he failed in my view is that instead of copying a proven design, he tried (and failed) to design something unprecedented. Linus succeeded because, unlike the GNU project, he copied a proven design (a monolithic Unix kernel). But Linus is not the only available source of kernels.
If Linus had never come along, RMS would be running GNU tools on top of a BSD kernel and telling everyone why it should be called GNU/BSD. The free BSD kernels were under a legal cloud until 1994, which is what gave Linux time to take off. Of course, Linus' impressive skills as a developer and architect allowed Linux to come from behind and dominate. But we would have gotten to where we are without him, because so many in both GNU-land and BSD-land were committed to the vision of an entirely free operating system.
Designing something completely new usually doesn't work. Other than Emacs, the rest of the GNU tools are re-implementations of designs from elsewhere, and so is the Linux kernel. That's not bad, by the way, as in both cases the copies are superior to the originals.
Re:What RMS does not get (Score:3, Informative)
Very true, and I think we agree. I just feel that there are a lot of people out there would be very receptive to the philosophical arguments for Free softare, and that this gets downplayed too much. For example, I believe that to someone who isn't a pretty hardcore computer user, the freedom aspect is a lot easier to explain -- and more relevant! -- than the benefits of a UNIXy architecture.
Also, as a side note, it's not like rms is *completely* unconcerned with practicalities. He wrote a lot of code to get the whole GNU ball rolling.
Re:You have to feel for the guy (Score:3, Informative)
Right. Your opinion is that he should not speak his mind and keep his opinion to himself lest he insult the most holy linus (and redhat and sun).
"No, not really. Without things like Java and advanced graphics drivers and real applications his vision is bust, because "the GNU system" can't expand and grow and take away market from Sun and Microsoft and everyone else. Or what exactly is his goal then? To just bitch about everything?"
His goal is not to take away market from Sun and MS. His goal has nothing to do with markets or products. Maybe you should read the GNU manifesto and spend some time at the FSF web site and find out what their goals are.
"The beauty is that he actually blames Sun and Linus and everyone else for the inabilities of the people who follow him to provide alternatives to these "dirty" versions of Really Useful Things That Everyone Would Really Like To Have."
Yes and monkeys regularly fly out of your butt and the moon is made out of green cheese. Why don't you provide a link to something he has said when you make an outragous statement like that. I bet he has never lied about what linus has said whereas you seem to feel perfectly content to lie about what he has said.
"I bet he's pretty fed up with Stallman's constant broadsides, but I'm pretty sure he's perfectly capable of deciding if he's going to "speak" to Stallman or not."
I am impressed by your ability to channel linus and read his mind.
Re:Yeah but... (Score:4, Informative)
> makes the GNU/Linux operating system. It's really not a bad idea, you know.
No, GNU never built an operating system. They built a lot of really useful parts but have never assembled them into an operating system. On the day they do that final part we will at last have GNU. Not GNU/Linux, GNU. The FSF could have taken the freely redistributable Linux kernel and integrated it into a finished GNU, they chose not to. Only a year or so after Linux became popular the BSD kernel emerged from it's legal dispute. The FSF could have used it to complete GNU, they chose not to do so. The FSF could have done whatever it took to get HURD to a 1.0 version and thus completed GNU, again they chose differently.
Instead dozens of independent organizations (RedHat, Slackware, Debian, SUSE, Yggdrasil, etc, most now defunct) took all of the parts (including a non-GNU libc for the first several years) and did the hard work of integrating all the various parts (including a buttload of stuff that didn't come from the FSF, like X) and made a family of related operating systems. None of these are GNU. RedHat is not GNU. Debian was under the auspices of the FSF for a couple of years but still both parties chose NOT to call it GNU instead of Debian. But had they wished to co-brand it would have been GNU/Debian, Debian GNU or GNU/Debian Linux, but calling it Debian GNU/Linux is an incorrect usage of Mr. Torvalds trademark (even if not registered as a legal trademark at the time). Merging GNU and Linux with a / implies they are related however Linux is not under the auspices of the GNU project or the FSF.
> I'll give two reasons... one, as RMS states, Linus is not especially sympathetic to
> the free software movement - this means people hearing 'Linux' never get to hear about
> free software.
Tough noogies. Linus isn't the one who chooses the names of distributions any more than RMS can. RedHat could call their product RedHat OS, or could have paid for the trademark and certification testing and called it RedHat UNIX. Or anything else they wanted to. It was THEIR choice (subject to Linus's agreement regarding his trademark rights to the term 'linux') what to name their product. Same with Debian or SUSE. Just as a guess I'd say they all include "Linux" in their name because they feel customers will associate it in a positive way, something that wouldn't be true with GNU as only the already converted know much about it.
Re:Will somebody please, please please... (Score:2, Informative)
I tend to agree, if only because the "Free software" movement is still in its infancy - there's a long road ahead. If the fight gad been won, then the naming issue would be trivial indeed.
Re:You have to feel for the guy (Score:2, Informative)
I've been to a GNU/Linux users group meeting where was gave a talk. There wasn't any "frothing". He came across as a genuine guy who gives his work away free (under the GPL) and suggests that you might do the same. He also points out why he thinks DRM, software patents, etc., are bad.
That's pretty much it. Well, that and the Saint Ignucius bit. It's probably time to drop that one, though it still gets a *few* chuckles from the crowd I suppose.
I'll tell you one last thing though -- RMS has got some high quality grey matter. When I saw him, he gave the whole talk (had to be over an hour) without any notes or anything. He seemed to stay on target the whole time (no "umm"'s either). It was like watching some lisp program recurse into subtopics and sub-subtopics, and then unwind itself to continue on whichever topic was next until the end of the talk. Pretty impressive.
Re:Is it just me ? (Score:2, Informative)
I see, I thought you were talking about the transition away from the non-free FreeQt license, when you were really talking about the transition from QPL to GPL; my bad.
The switch from FreeQt to QPL was much more important then the later switch to the GPL. I mistakenly believed that RMS's involvement, ended at this point, but I was wrong. [linuxdevices.com]
The difference with respect to X is this, RMS and others felt the QPL was causing some serious practical problems for the free software community, hence effort was expended to asking Trolltech to switch. Ironically, RMS was involved in the QPL debate to help with a practical problem, whereas suggesting a licensing change for X would be more about the general philosophy of copyleft. ( Why Copyleft? [gnu.org], What is Copyleft [gnu.org].)
Well, apparently he did talk to them [linuxtoday.com]. I have not seen any insults in any of his posts on the issue.
Re:Will somebody please, please please... (Score:3, Informative)
Not true, he has four speeches, they are: (Score:5, Informative)
There is also a page on GNU.org for audio recordings of (mostly) Richard's talks [gnu.org].
Re:GNU/Linux (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the GNU project intended to produce a complete UNIX-like OS. The kernel, however, was developed quite slowly. I suspect the main reason for this is that they chose a very ambitious design, which significantly reduced the number of people who were competent to work on it.
BSD came after GNU, iirc
The first BSD release was in 1977. The GNU project was founded in 1984. Of course, the first BSD releases were patch-sets for the official UNIX code, so they don't count as complete systems. It wasn't until 1983 (only a year before the GNU project began) that there was a release of BSD UNIX that was a full OS. Almost a decade later, GNU/Linux was released in a more-or-less useable form.