Will Stallman Kill the "Linux Revolution?" 741
frdmfghtr writes "The October 30 issue of Forbes Magazine has an article speculating that Richard Stallman's efforts to rewrite the GPL could threaten to 'tear it apart.' The article describes how the GPLv3 is expected to be incompatible with the GPLv2, causing trouble for Linux vendors such as Novell and Red Hat. The article wraps it up: 'And a big loser, eventually, could be Stallman himself. If he relents now, he likely would be branded a sellout by his hard-core followers, who might abandon him. If he stands his ground, customers and tech firms may suffer for a few years but ultimately could find a way to work around him. Either way, Stallman risks becoming irrelevant, a strange footnote in the history of computing: a radical hacker who went on a kamikaze mission against his own program and went down in flames, albeit after causing great turmoil for the people around him.'"
What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:5, Funny)
You mean, because you cannot pirate a GPL3ed work, and we need pirates to prevent global warming?
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:5, Interesting)
The consequence of Richards vision is plenty for everyone and no capacity for hoarding, depriving, controlling and trading.
You think global warming holds a candle to something like this? He's a dangerous athiest among the flock.
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:5, Informative)
No it's worse than that.. It's Forbes magazine with an article written by Dan "SCO is going to win, Linux users are terrorists etc.." Lyons.
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:4, Insightful)
From the article:
From The GNU Free Software Definition http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [gnu.org]
This is pretty much part of the foundation which has built the GPL, and continues to be part of the philosophy created by Stallman.
GNU/Linux will persist, this process is an important part of finding a definition we eventually will find a good fit. Mixing licences has always been a balancing act that Distributions and users have had to deal with since the beginning.
Articles like this are to keep the technology specualators happy that the flow of cash will continue. They get laugh and point at the silly commies bumbling around -- sit-coms for suits.
jer
Ramen (Score:3, Funny)
Arrrrrrr. (Just doing my bit to fight global warming
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:5, Interesting)
I think Linus is a good coder and project manager, but we shouldn't expect him to "show the way" in issues of principle/vision. He's an engineer, not a "freedom fighter".
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:5, Insightful)
Or do you seriously believe that Linus hasn't consulted with attorneys on this?
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:5, Informative)
I wouldn't be at all surprised. Considering how he's managed the Linux trademark, and the general lack of understanding of the GPL he's publicly displayed, I'd almost be surprised if he even knows any IP lawyers. In contrast, RMS has had Even Moglen [wikipedia.org] on board from day one.
Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear"? (Score:5, Insightful)
To take a really off topic, but simple, example; When they said; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. They knew what them meant. Would it have been so hard to add a sentence? Either By this we mean a well regulated militia is one that is under state control or The intention of this is to prevent the state from usurping the rights of individuals, so this to means all citizens of good standing can bear arms.?
Makes a big difference, and not subject to later interpretation.
Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear (Score:4, Interesting)
Ten commandments?
I'm not religious, but...
"Thou shalt not murder"
Is pretty clear to me. Although apparently it wasn't to Christianity. Then again this wasn't an issue of not being clear rather than the people this is and was addressed to, putting their fingers in their ears and singing "LA LA LA LA LA LA I can't hear you LA LA LA!!"...
Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear (Score:5, Informative)
Murder, though, is unjustified killing. It breaks one of the Ten Commandments to pick a child at random and bash his head in. It does not break one of the Ten Commandments to kill your enemy in battle.
I prefer to reading which doesn't cause G-d to be commanding His people to break the Ten Commandments, personally.
For the nitpickers:
The Hebrew word in question is 'ratzach' (which is conjugated to tirtzach in the text; Exodus XX, 13). Modern usage (according to my dictionary) clearly indicates murder as the first definition, and 'kill' as secondary. There is another verb 'harag' which can also mean 'kill', unfortunately I'm not as up on my Hebrew, so I can't say for sure whether this word is: a) used for more general killing, b) used more for killing of animals, or c) a modern invention.
Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear (Score:5, Informative)
History wasn't invented in America. Some places have been around longer, and have a longer tradition of unchanged principles. Jewish law goes back, in some matters, over 3,000 years. America is just a Johnny-come-lately in the world of legal history.
Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear (Score:4, Interesting)
The opinions of the dudes who wrote the Bill of Rights were not constant, either.
Why is this [imdb.com] dark vision so resonant?
Because the increasingly complex legal system, far from being a means to the end of regulating society, is more a means unto itself.
One wonders what a graph against time of the legal costs spent on software by all companies would be. Frightening, I'd expect.
Your wish for an immortal law doesn't fit the legal business model and, ultimately, is just not quite real.
Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear (Score:4, Informative)
I am not a lawyer, but I know enough to think twice about complaining about the specialized language of another profession. No one goes to work wanting to use obscure and hard to understand terms. Every odd usage and non intuitive phrase has a reason for existing and most of the time I would be willing to bet that it is a good reason.
Re:My point, exactly. (Score:4, Interesting)
Nothing's ever going to be perfect and eternal. Things and language are changing all the time, and there's always going to be something that somebody never thought of. You can keep adding words and sentences and specifics until your face turns blue, but the law will still have uncharted territory - maybe not today, but eventually.
The nature of this conversation reminds me of The Law of Leaky Abstractions ( http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/LeakyAbstr
Think of it this way: Was the Windows API perfect when Windows 3.1 hit the shelves? No. They've added functions and parameters, which most likely were not needed at the time of its original creation.
Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless of whether Stallman or other's think he's leading us into the bright new future, there's all this legacy baggage out in the real world that needs to be squared properly. And that's what judges are supposed to do.
Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear (Score:5, Insightful)
They did indeed. However, word meanings and connotations change with time. Today many people think the "militia" is synonmyous with the National Guard (when in fact, the Guard has been part of the Army since 1933), and "well-regulated" means "operating under a large set of rules"; but at the time, it was clear to the authors that "militia" meant "every able-bodied man young enough to fight", and "well-regulated" meant "prepared and trained in military skills" [guncite.com].
The meaning of "arms" has also changed: at the time, it was understood to mean the sort of weapon carried by an infantryman. Heavier weapons would be refered to as "cannon"; so Amendment II doesn't mean you have a right to a howitzer on your front lawn. But people arguing against the Second Amendment today often attempt a reductio ad absurdum which includes WMDs under "arms".
(Some people evidently also seem to think that "shall not be infringed" somehow means "can be limited by the government", but that's a linguisitic drift that's harder to account for.)
Anyway, point being that what is absolutely clear and precise to one audience, can still be interpreted differently by another (especially if the two group have different motivations).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are familiar with the history, it's obvious that, at the time, it very clearly referred to an individual right to bear arms.
That's what instigated the Battles of Lexington and Concord, and hence sparked the American Revolution. The British soldiers based in Boston went to collect caches of weapons from known or suspected agitators in the countryside. The British-American colonists felt their rights were violated, and it led to open combat, a fighting retreat, and the colonists successfully besieged Boston. All because the government wanted to collect weapons from citizens.
The problem is that, when man-portable automatic weapons were developed, the Constitution was not changed. Practically everyone recognizes that, if private individuals are allowed to own fully-automatic AK47s, there will be serious problems enforcing civil order. They were made illegal some time around 1900, but no one could be bothered with amending the Constitution to make such a law possible. So ever since that time, we have been subjected to the bizarre construction of 'oh yeah, it refers to ownership by militas, not to private ownership'. This only led to still more bizarre things like the creation of the 'Michigan Militia'.
Anyway, the problem is not that the second amendment is unclear. It's that it was outdated by late 19th-century technology, and we have been suffering under legal kludges ever since. All that we need is to pass a new amendment to say "people generally have a right to own handguns and rifles, but deadlier things can be prohibited".
But considering the trouble Congress has with even considering any modification at all (liberal or conservative) to Social Security, my hopes are not high.
Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear (Score:4, Insightful)
> I mean, if it is from the original author of the clause in question, why
> would it not have standing, even if clearly different from the exacting
> legalese
Because of the requirement of legal certainty.
Say you have a license agreement (or contract). Both parties read the terms and agree to it. All is happy. Now one day the drafter of the agreement (who isn't one of the parties) comes up and says "nevermind what I wrote, I actually meant *this*!". If this was accepted, then the parties are now bound by terms that they didn't agree to.
Note that (AFAIK) in common law, the court will put some weight on the intention of the parties of the agreement or contract. But this is different from the case where the contract or agreement or license (eg. GPL) was drafted by a third party (eg. RMS). RMS's intentions are not relevant (unless, of course, the parties had RMS's personal interpretations in mind when agreeing to the terms, then maybe that would be relevant)
Anyway, the bottom line is: the law expects you to read and (argh) understand the legalese, and it doesn't expect you to find out what the drafters of the document have to say about their intentions. What you agree to is the terms expressed on the document, not the drafter's intentions. In fact, the drafter's intentions are probably even more irrelevant than the parties not involved in the drafting: (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra_preferendum [wikipedia.org] )
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
Another disclaimer: the above is a very rough approximation of the law. It is not accurate by any means.
Another disclaimer: I live in a common law jurisdiction, but the law in the US and my jurisdiction can vary.
Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear (Score:5, Insightful)
Because your "plain language" is plain to you but not to everyone else, and especailly not to an determined lawyer.
I live in Hong Kong, where your "intent" idea has sadly been put into effect. When Hong Kong was handed back by Britain to China in 1997 the laws of Hong Kong were determined by the "Basic Law", in effect a constitution, as enacted by the PRC after negotiation with the UK. However, some years later when the governement wanted to enact laws that went against the "obvious" interpretation of the Basic Law (relating to elections mostly), the rulings of Hong Kong's High Court were overridden by the government by appealing to the "intent" of the laws, by asking members of the committee that had drafted them what they had been thinking about. Thus the government is able to retrospectively change the effect of laws without even having to pass legislation.
So as much as we all hate lawyers, having judicial oversight that follows the strict letter of the law, and not its "intent", is a much more democratic system. If governments want to change laws, they can make new ones and let the legislators openly argue and vote on them.
Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear (Score:4, Funny)
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:5, Informative)
See, now that's funny. Linus is the guy who claims that a device driver isn't a derived work of the Linux kernel if it was originally developed for a different operating system and then ported to Linux. This, of course, is not based on any legal principle.. it's just his opinion, but it doesn't stop people from quoting Linus like they're referencing case law.
What's more funny is that when Linus added the "userland exception" to the Linux kernel he was absolutely clear about what he wanted.. he wanted people to be able to write proprietary apps that can run on the Linux kernel. He didn't want people to be able to write proprietary extensions to the Linux kernel. Now he's changed his mind because his "pragmatism" is telling him that graphics card manufacturers will never open source their drivers and he really wants all those pretty 3d games.
Completely wrong I'm afraid. (Score:4, Informative)
"I'm a complete non-believer in binary modules" [linuxjournal.com]
"Basically, I want people to know that when they use binary-only modules, it's THEIR problem. I want people to know that in their bones, and I want it shouted out from the rooftops. I want people to wake up in a cold sweat every once in a while if they use binary-only modules." [lwn.net]
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:4, Interesting)
I think if you actually read what he writes, you'll find that the only thing he cares about is that the sourcecode be 'free' as in speech. That's why TIVO doesn't bother him. It's a hardware issue. The sourcecode is 'free'.
There was a discussion on Groklaw a few weeks back & for him, the whole issue is tit-for-tat - we give companies code, they give us back the changes, what they do with that code is their issue. As long as the code changes come back, the community has been improved & the process continues. It doesn't matter if the company ships that code in a ROM based brick, an open flash system, or a Locked down flash box - if the code is available, you can make one yourself & impliment any changes you want.
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:5, Informative)
Well, the GPL is a distribution license, so it would only affect B if they are distributing the software.
If they don't have the key from A to distribute, they still have the option of getting the source (we are talking about GPL'd software, after all) and signing it themselves with their own key, then distributing that key with it.
In short, your example is pretty bad overall.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:4, Insightful)
So, in the situation you describe, the hardware sold by B would be essentially useless (you can't run the GNU utilities because they're GPL3, and you can't run any other utilities because they're not signed). But, if you went ahead and installed the signed GNU utility binaries, knowing that this was not permitted, then you the end user would of course be in violation of the GPL3, not A or B.
OTOH, I think it unlikely that Stallman or anyone else will spend a great deal of effort to stop that particular sort of violation. 1) It is unlikely to occur much, because B shipping hardware without software is not going to sell much. 2) It would go against his ideas of freedom, as I understand them. You've bought this hardware, you can do what you like with it. But I could be wrong in this paragraph; it is mere speculation.
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure he's against DRM, but he's more against stoping hackers
Tom
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:5, Insightful)
Trust me, without "crazies" like RMS there would be no ruler to meaure how bad the situation truely is. RMS BEGS people to follow him, but he's not the one out there passing crazy laws like the DMCA, or making 100 billion from "borrowed" code, or suing people for a few songs... those are the capitalists that know what's best for us.
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't follow. If I'm maintaining or distributing a library that is covered by GPLv2, no one is forcing me to accept a contribution that is under the GPLv3.
I've never included the "or any later version" clause in my GPL notices, but I will probably switch to GPLv3 once it is finalize
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:4, Interesting)
Example: You make application A. To work, it needs libraries Z, Y, and X. All of these are GPL v2, but library Y is 'or any later version.' Person P makes a contribution to library Y under GPLv3. Y is now GPLv3. If you wish to use the latest version of library Y, you must now license your application A under the GPLv3.
If the libraries were under the LGPL, you wouldn't have to use GPLv3 as your license, but your application still has to follow ALL of the LGPLv3 stipulations for use, because of that library, if you want to use the latest version.
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:5, Informative)
1)Having to spit out your source code
No, thats not in there. What it does say is that if the app already does that, you are not allowed to remove that (and distribute the new version). You don't have to make it do so in the first place though.
2)Can't use encryption
Sure you can. However, if you cryptographically sign your code and make hardware that only works with the signed version, you must provide your keys so that people can alter your code and use the derived version.
FSF less relevant than the projects it spawned? (Score:4, Insightful)
Adoption of free software by non-nerds does not happen because of a Stallman speech about the software industry's problems, or because of GPLv3. Rather, it's the result of something as unassuming as a web browser that is more resilient to viruses and spyware than IE, and that provides a better browsing experience. That's really all that people care about.
I am not personally a fan of Stallman's--I think he's made his share of missteps that have hindered the free software movement. But overall, the net good that he and FSF have accomplished has already outweighed the bad. We have seen the open source movement burgeon and grow well beyond the ability of any one entity to kill it, hinder it, or even significantly influence it.
Does that mean we should dismiss GPLv3 as moot? No. Even if GPLv3 is 10 or even 20 years away from widespread adoption, or is just dismissed altogether as "aspirational", at least it's still out there. Out there to be used or out there to be used as a model for public licensing agreements yet to be drafted. There is no downside.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:FSF less relevant than the projects it spawned? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have no clue as to how to work on the electric lines in my house. But I can contract out to *any* qualified person to fix them.
Similarly, if I have a problem with Firefox, I may not have the knowledge to fix it myself. But I can contract out to *any* qualified person to fix it.
On the gripping hand, if I have a problem with $CLOSED_SOURCE_SOFTWARE, I'm screwed unless the vendor itself decides to fix it.
Re:FSF less relevant than the projects it spawned? (Score:4, Insightful)
I switched to Linux first because I wanted free-as-in-beer software, but now that I'm more educated on the subject I've stuck with it because I want to help ensure free-as-in-speach. And that education *only* came about because I started using Linux. /. is such a pro-linux site that even the MS-users (and I'm sure there's still lots 'n lots here!) know about the issues, but once you leave /. the number of people (including techies) who know about the issues (let alone agree that it's important) drops off dramatically.
Of the techies that I know, only the Linux users even *know* (doesn't matter if they agree/disagree) about the freedom issues.
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not saying that will happen. But to dismiss this article as if there was no relevance isn't helping anything. There is a real potential issue here.
As for Stallman becoming irrelevant, my personal opinion would be "thank God!" The sooner that wacko retires to Argentina or somewhere, the sooner people can start treating the open source community with a little bit of respect and dignity. And maybe they can get a spokesman who doesn't have a hissy-fit every time someone asks him to wear a namebadge at a conference.
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:4, Informative)
Well, if they all saw it as a major advantage, they'd probably check how many were willing to relicense, and how much would have to be rewritten (where they can't be reached or otherwise). They did do a poll in the kernel core though, and all but one (which was netural) of them was negative to the GPLv3, some of them strongly.
There is nothing in GPLv2 or GPLv3 that prevents a Linux distribution from containing various programs under various licenses
No, but the libraries might. Take for example Trolltech, which holds the copyright to all of Qt. If they say "GPLv3 is a disaster - we're going GPLv2 only" then suddenly you could have quite a few problems. Or if projects don't agree on whether to use the "and later" clause, maybe someone starts a GPLv3 fork and others get pissed and create a GPLv2 only fork - which are now incompatible code bases. Suddenly you're rather screwed if you have an application, but want to use one GPLv2 only library and one GPLv3 library. What's nice about the GPL is that there is in practise only one GPL (I don't see the first version anywhere) and it's all compatible.
FUD? (Score:4, Interesting)
Fear?: Fear of what? The GPL software movement is splitting. This may be annoying, but hardly anything to fear.
Uncertainty?: There is little uncertainty, the split is now almost certain.
Doubt?: Doubt of Linux's survival? Anyone paying the slightest attention should have no doubt about that.
The article is filled with what I consider to be libelous comments about RMS: I don't think he is an anarchist, anti-corporate or against the sale of software. That sort of reckless disregard for the truth has no place in such a major publication, and I think Lyons should be fired.
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:4, Funny)
Original author's consent is not required (Score:5, Interesting)
If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.
This provision gives the option of deciding whether to follow V2 or V3 to the person making a copy of V2 code, not to the author.
There is a serious ambiguity - if that person adds or changes some of the code, can that person convert the entire module to V3 or is the module now fragmented? And if the latter, how is anyone supposed to keep track of what statement of code is under what license?
Personally I have abandoned publishing code under the GPL - I now use the less restrictive, non-viral MIT/BSD style licenses.
There is another situation that few have discussed - The rules of copyright in the US are defined by statutes enacted by, and changable by, Congress.
There is a chance that Congress could amend the US copyright law to deny the right of enforcement to anyone who has made only a partial or small contribution to the totality of the work or if that contribution has been subject to several intervening layers of further contributions. (It would be a bear to define these things, but the Congress critters would be getting a lot of help from the IP and non GPL software industry.)
Insulting, inflammatory, & funny (Score:5, Insightful)
But the main point is essentially correct: Stallman is trying to aggressively expand his "freedom empire" with the GPL 3, and it could just bite him on the ass.
The article also insulting, inflammatory, and funny. Gotta love a good dustup.
Re:Insulting, inflammatory, & funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Insulting, inflammatory, & funny (Score:4, Informative)
Then why does he copyright all his stuff instead of releasing it into the public domain free of copyright?
Re:Insulting, inflammatory, & funny (Score:5, Informative)
Because, all the fashionable slashdot trolling to the contrary, he's an eminently practical man. If he released it PD he knows someone would just grab it, modify it a little, and close it off. He knows this because he learned the hard way - this was done with much of his early work.
He'd like to change copyright law, but being unable at least for the moment to do that, he came up with a way to hack copyright law to serve his purposes instead.
Re:Insulting, inflammatory, & funny (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think "expand" is the right term here. "Preserve" would be much better.
Keep in mind that when GPL-2 was created there was no such thing as DMCA and software patents were a rather exotic idea. GPL-3 is the answer to new laws and aggressive interpretations of old ones.
"Global" and "Internet" are not just empty words. Combine a potential loophole (as one can use GPL source and lock down binaries with crypto key and DMCA) and millions of people and there *will* be a few unscrupulous ones that will spoil it for everybody (example: e-mail).
So, yes, we do need GPL-3, but the issue of how to deal with existing GPL-2 software is truly a hairy one.
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not defending anything. I pointed out that among all the obviously inflammatory bullshit there are issues about the GPLv3 that are valid - issues that people like Torvalds and choice kernel hackers have raised repeatedly - and that have been consistently dismissed with the usual "nothing to see here, move along" line.
Assuming the author knows anything at all about RMS and the Free Software Foundation
It's of course disingenious to say that Stallman doesn't want anyone to charge for software; at the same time the confusion about "free-as-in-whatever" (confusion for normal people, not the normal Slashbots) is all the FSF's doing. They are sleeping in the bed they made. And of course Stallman himself has not exactly told the world how it is that you're supposed to make money while giving away software if you're not RedHat or Novell. And no, I don't include PayPal donations there.
RMS, as far as I can tell, has little interest in damaging the commercial software industry
Huh? He has repeatedly attacked them for not following his mantra. Where have you been the last 20 years? To Stallman anyone who writes "non-free software" is immoral, and by definition an enemy of his ideals. Please, I'd love for you to prove me wrong. Where do people like you who like to sing his praises get off telling everyone else that they "dont get it"? It's very convenient to ignore anything that complicates your rationalization of these issues, isn't it?
"dubbing tech giants "evil" and "enemies of freedom" because they rake in sales and enforce patents and copyrights--when he argues they should be giving it all away." Again, utter nonsense
Utter nonesense? That's *exactly* what Stallman does! I'm not going to argue the relative moral value of what he does, but how can you deny that that is exactly Stallman's modus operandi?
If there are such unthinking followers, I have not met them
Really? You must be new here.
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:5, Insightful)
Richard M. Stallman is a 53-year-old anticorporate crusader who has argued for 20 years that most software should be free of charge.
RMS quote:
"I think it is ok for authors (please let's not call them "creators", they are not gods) to ask for money for copies of their works (please let's not devalue these works by calling them "content") in order to gain income (the term "compensation" falsely implies it is a matter of making up for some kind of damages)."
The guy is wakko, but you know why he's so successful? Because people make a god or demon out of him; hes neither. The guy has obviously spent some time learning the history of copyright/patent/trademark laws, and thats more than most can say.
He understands that copyright law was enacted to benifit the public, not the author. He understands that patent laws were enacted to encourage publication, and that trademark laws try and enforce a certain level of market transparency for
His ideas may come across as complicated and pedantic to people; which is the way it should be. We're talking about the systems that were put in place to encourage the advancement of science, technology, and culture here.
FTFA:
Cisco caved in to Stallman's demands rather than endure months of abuse from his noisy worldwide cult of online jihadists.
As soon as you agree with an article that demogogues by using the word "jihad", you might begin to question the source. RMS, that crazy nut, is basically pointing out that the last 500 years of laws based on intellectual property arn't based upon secrecy; they're based on encouraging publication while granting the author (and more importantly, denying the state) a relatively modest amount of control over the invention or creative work. In other words, he realizes that we've all been through this before, and its the public domain that needs protecting, not the author, because in lieu of laws that protect the public right to its own culture and technological innovation, we end up with something that very closely mirrors a feudalist system with a barrier to market that would make Adam Smith rise from the dead to slap us silly. The guy might be a little too over the edge, but anyone with a basic grasp on the history of copyright, patent, and trademark laws should immediately understand where hes coming from. This article does little else than cry wolf for some tech companies. I work for tech companies, as a programmer. They won't live or die based on licenses of available technologies. This is just a bunch of whining.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some the new additions to the GNU license are a little zealous to say the least. The GNU license has always been touted as a "distribution" license. One of the new restrictions is on code is with services. Someone who has a s
Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD! (Score:4, Informative)
But this begs a rebuttal:
the other for cooperatively universal benefit at the expense of none
Let's do this. Let's imagine for a second that a popular piece of software in the Windows world was released as free software under the GPL. Let's pick PaintShop Pro or DOOM or WinZip or TextPad or any other one. Now, explain to us how exactly the authors of those products would have made any money if they were licensed under the GPL. Specifically after some kid in Romania with loads of time in his hand decided to put up his own version for download and give it away for free. Please, enlighten me.
While you're doing that, remember that there is no difference whatsoever between Stallman calling nVidia "nVidious" because they dare keep their source code to themselves and someone from Microsoft calling the GPL "viral". Stallman doesn't like what nVidia does, but he can't do squat about it, and Microsoft doesn't like the GPL, and they can't do squat about it. So they must resort to FUD. FUD works both ways.
Oh, and I live how you spell "MicroSoft". Hilarious.
No more so than the MPL (Score:5, Funny)
There's always BSD. (Score:4, Informative)
If somebody wants to take BSD code, modify it and not release those changes, then so be it. It doesn't hurt the rest of us, as we still have FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and DragonFly BSD to use. Beyond that, such use may make somebody else better off. Thus, there's a net benefit overall. We lose nothing, yet others gain.
And I'd be very happy if Microsoft were to use more BSD code in their products. Doing so would result in a vast increase in the quality of their codebase. That, in turn, will result in fewer infected Windows systems that send terabytes of spam to my mail servers. The less spam my servers have to filter, the more money I save in bandwidth and processing costs. I may even be able to reduce the number of mail servers I have.
Re:There's always BSD. (Score:4, Insightful)
And yes, in a way I'm imposing it on others. I don't want anyone to use my code to sue someone for copyright infringement, ever, when all they did was tinkering. The BSD license allows this kind of litigation nonsense by allowing restrictive copyrighting of derivative works. The GPL does not, and therefore conforms to my definition of Freedom.
Re:There's always BSD. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There's always BSD. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:There's always BSD. (Score:4, Interesting)
Absolute freedom - everybody does what he wishes - is anarchy. Nothing surprising.
Have you read what you have wrote? Are you from US? Are you listening speeches of George W. Bush often? Because he uses the same pattern: to stop wars, we need to wage a war.
Restricting people for sake of freedom? How more dumber it could be.
What you are trying in fact to say, is that GPL tries to establish system of compromises which leads to sustainable software ecosystem. Rules and discipline are must for any system to be sustainable in long term. But also, both rules and discipline has to be flexible so that system can survive cataclysms.
As sign that Stallman/FSF are not capable of building such system, you can take the fact, that they have never managed to produce usable OS kernel. In other words, they have not compromised enough. End of story.
So you think GPLv3 does it right? Prohibit trucks? And prohibit debris? That's just dumb. You cannot prohibit everything.
Re:There's always BSD. (Score:5, Insightful)
BSD code is free code to be used in software.
GPL code is code to be used in free software.
I don't have a problem seeing that free has two different meanings, and that I don't need to subscribe to one particular definition. Of course, we can still have a holy war about which is "better". In fact, I liked those two lines so much I'll make it my sig.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Linux was very stable at kernel 2.0 when Allen Cox was Linus's right hand man and the distro's did not include alpha quality bleeding edge products. FreeBSD was also very stable and I loved FFBSD 4.x. It had USB support long before Linux did and a certain quality was there that was absent in most linux distributions. However RedHat 7.x and the awefull mandrake ruined Linux expectation as a stable bug free
what a difference a decade makes (Score:5, Insightful)
The Linux kernel may not switch, but that will not doom V3, nor will it doom the FSF or Stallman. There is much that has happened since V2, and the attempts to address things like DRM and patents have and will continue to shed light on the ugly underbelly of modern software licensing. This, I think, is good.
"Free software" means something different now. It's not just being able to tweak a text editing program, or encourage community development and review. It's about who will control the millions of PCs in the world. The more that Microsoft and the RIAA/MPAA continue to try to lock down the PC, turning it into nothing more than a delivery system for DRMed content, the more relevant the FSF becomes.
Re:what a difference a decade makes (Score:4, Informative)
That's not the issue. The problem is that it's becoming likely that GPLv3 will split FOSS software in two, with half the people going with GPLv2-only and the other half going with GPLv3-or-later. This means no possible exchange of code between the two pools and possibly lots of forks, especially for libraries. I hope the worst case scenario doesn't happen, but GPLv3 has potential for doing much more damage than any gain it can provide (even it you think it's good in itself). As far as I'm concerned all the (L)GPL software I write will be GPLv2-or-later, making GPLv3 useless, but mitigating the incompatibility problem.
Gee, I wonder why RMS wouldn't answer this hack (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gee, I wonder why RMS wouldn't answer this hack (Score:4, Insightful)
Footnote? (Score:5, Interesting)
And as far as any possible splinter goes, this will separate the wheat from the chaff in both directions. It may be painful, but good will come of it.
"IP" indeed made the Wrights a footnote in aviatio (Score:4, Insightful)
Given their lead, they had visions that they owned aviation through patents. They had the idea that flight was going to be bigger than anyone could imagine, but their idea was of themselves being a Microsoft rather than the aviation industry being Open Source. They made some money from it, but they didn't realize their dream of becoming personally rich beyond imagining. An engine maker called Curtis-Wright had their swan song in the form of the TurboCompound radial engine that powered the DC-7, Lockheed Constellation, P-2 Neptune (did they have one in the Skyraider?). But in the age of Boeing and Airbus, they are a historical footnote.
Not the first time: GFDL incompatible with GPL (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html [gnu.org]
which was incompatible with the GPL was a bad thing.
See for example some reasons at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentati
http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html [rr.com]
My particular interest was to use information from the GFDL-licensed Wikipedia in GPL programs. I'd go further and question the very reasons the GFDL was created in the first place -- just to make dead tree book publishers' lives easier? Where is the emphasis on freedom there?
I think it is easy for any technologist to underestimate community issues and then to see a license as a program for individual behavior instead of a constitution for a community. The GPL works. It has problems, sure, but it works well enough as a constitution for cooperation. More variants of licenses mainly just make more problems IMHO.
You should've used emacs... (Score:5, Funny)
You should've used emacs.
Is Forbes Credible? (Score:5, Informative)
I find it hard to take Frobes seriously when they start out by misrepresenting the postion of the person they are talking about (Stallman).
"Richard M. Stallman is a 53-year-old anticorporate crusader who has argued for 20 years that most software should be free of charge. He and a band of anarchist acolytes long have waged war on the commercial software industry, dubbing tech giants "evil" and "enemies of freedom" because they rake in sales and enforce patents and copyrights--when he argues they should be giving it all away."
Re:Is Forbes Credible? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not splitting hairs. The GPL is quite specific:
"...have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish),..."
and
"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."
The GPL distinguishes between licensing and distribution. You may not charge for the right to copy the program ("...to be licensed as a whole at no charge..."). You may charge for the act of distributing the program (see above).
The GPL does not dictate that you must give someone a copy of a program. You are free to say no when someone asks for a copy of a program without paying money.
If you choose to sell a copy of a program to someone you may distribute it as a source or binary.
If you distribute it as source take the money, give them the source code and that is the end of the transaction. There is no limit to the money you can legally charge as the GPL does not come into play until the transaction is complete.
If you distribute it as binary take the money, give them the binary. Again there is no limit to the money you can legally charge under the GPL for distributing the copy. In the case of distributing the binary you must also offer to provide the source at a minimum cost of distribution. This is fair as you have already made your profit on the distribution of the binary. It's worth noting that the offer to distribute source for minimal cost only comes into play once you have distributed a binary. Distribute source initially and you can charge what you want for it.
The low cost of GPLd software is a consequence of unfettered competion, not the GPL. Something to warm the heart of every capitalist.
Re:Is Forbes Credible? (Score:5, Insightful)
Business people might believe Forbes, but it doesn't follow that the article is credible. The magazine as a whole might be credible, but individual articles can still be incredible. A wise business person would take each article on its own merits (or lack thereof).
"is laughable at best and hippocritical at worse"
Please show me evidence to back this claim. You might think so, but that opinion is probably based on misunderstanding and reading too many Forbes articles.
"...since what individual would pay for something he can get for free?"
Some altruistic individuals might. Most wouldn't. The point you are missing though is that most free software is not zero cost to the majority of people. There is the cost of knowing where to get it from, what is the best of the multitude of options, knowing how to set it up, the cost of making sure it is available when required and so on. These are all things that cost time and money and that people are prepared to pay for. There is a business in selling Free software.
Simple economics dictates that you can make a reasonable profit out of free software. If you can't make a profit either your expectations are not reasonable or someone is undercutting your costs so you need to become more efficient. The model of "write a program, sit on your bum and profit selling copies" is dead. The Internet has made distribution so efficient that you will instantly be undercut. The problem isn't the GPL. It's people flogging a business model that is a dead horse.
There are plenty of people making money off free software. It's just that it tends to be thousands of small companies rather than a few multinationals.
No wonder, it's a Dan Lyons article (Score:5, Informative)
Problems.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Stallman doesn't believe in compromising his ideals. His life's work is Free Software.
We can call him a weirdo, mad, an ass, but without his conviction we would all be locked into proprietary products. Unlike some things that happened because the world was ready for it (cell phones, computers), I don't believe that Free Software would exist if not for Stallman. That is, without him, I don't think another person would have dedicated his/her life to the cause.
Corporations don't compromise. Look at Microsoft's business tactics that were either outright illegal or bordering on the illegal. If they had their way we would not be allowed to write our own software, not be allowed to trade software with the original authors, not be allowed to listen to our own music. And this nightmare world is happening.
Sure, there has to be regulations, but not those imposed by corporations. Look at the radio broadcast spectrum, the automobile industry, etc.. for parallels.
So here is Richard Stallman. He's probably closer to the end of his years than to the beginning. His life's work is almost happening but Linux, for good or bad, is not at all what he envisioned. He's trying to fix it while he can. If I were in his position, I'd probably do the same thing (if only to be an ornery bastard).
Stallman is not compromising, but neither is Microsoft.
Unreasonable? (Score:5, Insightful)
Business FUD not linux FUD (Score:4, Informative)
though the real point of GPL v# seems to be is to keep free software from
restricting users (at the expense of shady business lock-in practices).
Lots of FUD about how this will hurt the (business) economy, etc. A
lot of the gist sounds like a push to privitize the previous work of
the community.
Also a bunch of exploitave tabloid-style character attacks on Stallman.
Seems Daniel uses this simliar muck raking style with other platforms:
http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/22/vista-microsoft-
Some people have written about the author:
http://www.thejemreport.com/mambo/content/view/17
equally pisses off eveyone he reports about.
I've heard this song before (Score:3, Interesting)
When I read stuff like that, I recall a lot of the same things were said about Stallman and the GPL back when it was coming out. The GPL would drive companies away from open-source software, it was said, because the terms were too radical. Well, businesses didn't like the terms, it was true. But the main thing about the GPL businesses didn't like, the fact that it prevented them from taking GPL'd code and exploiting it for their own profit without letting others do the same, attracted developers in droves. And the result was software that was just too attractive for businesses to just ignore.
I'll go out on a limb and predict that GPLv3 will follow the same path that GPLv2 and GPLv1 did. And it won't include dying.
Lyons Again (Score:3, Informative)
The author of the piece, Daniel Lyons, has a history [groklaw.net] of not exactly being friendly to Free Software and open source.
Ironically... (Score:3, Insightful)
This author is completely ignorant of the issues surrounding Open Source/Free Software. He just realized all his favorite Fortune 500 companies were investing in a "socialist" operating system and let the FUD fly to make himself feel better.
Mod TFA as Flamebait or Troll (Score:4, Insightful)
M. Stallman is a 53-year-old anticorporate crusader who has argued for 20 years that most software should be free of charge.
and realized that the author of TFA has no fucking clue what he's talking about. Stallman and the FSF are fine with people
charging money for software... The author clearly does not grok the difference between "free as in beer" and "free as in speech."
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Say what you want about Stallman... (Score:4, Informative)
but calling him "a strange footnote in the history of computing" is just idiotic.
Anyone who polarizes people to such a large degree, has generated so much passion, and has served as the point man of the free software movement deserves to be regarded as a towering figure in the history of computing. Whether GPL 3 succeeds or fails, Stallman has already left his mark. Again, it doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with him; he's no footnote.
Balderdash... (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact is, however, that v3 clarifies many things that have been concerns in v2, since v2 is somewhat old and doesn't adequately address such issues as patents and DRM.
Also, Linus and crew are making a huge deal about making lots and lots of noise when Eben Moglen has asked them to PLEASE be a part of the process instead of simply complaining.
GJC
A little knowledge... (Score:5, Insightful)
An interesting article, but it shows a remarkable lack of knowledge, both on the part of the author and on the part of some of the people that he quoted. He seems to think that if you distribute software under the GPL, that it gives Stallman control of said software, or that it gives Stallman a right to sue people who (mis)use the software. That simply isn't true. The copyright owner (i.e. the person(s) or company that actually wrote the software) controlls it, and is responsible for suing those who infringe on the GPL.
If said companies broke the terms of the GPL, then they're in the wrong, aren't they? I mean, hey, if I broke the terms of the license for, say, MS Windows and Microsoft found out about it, they'd be all over me like stink on you-know-what. But when the big corporations are called on *their* (alleged) copyright violations, suddenly it's Stallman that's in the wrong.
And then there's the fact that it goes on paragraph-after-paragraph describing Stallman in the most unflattering terms. I mean, hey, Stallman is no saint, and he is a bit bizarre, but what does that have to do with the GPL? What does hair in soup have to do with copyright law? What does bad singing have to do with finance? Forbes *is* a finance magazine and not a celebrity trash rag, right?
Ah, I see. Daniel Lyons said bad things about Richard Stallman, so Stallman snubbed Lyons, so Lyons is in a snit. Grow up, guys.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't see anyone that's claimed getting software that isn't packaged for the distro being easy. In fact, I don't think installing the software is all that difficult on either. Doing an upgrade of every application on the other hand... show me Windows do that, no instead I got 50 "auto-update" apps that all want to punch my firewall and make management annoying. And inst
Re:No, linux will kill itself (Score:5, Insightful)
Windows
1.) Insert CD. Setup automatically begins.
And the fact remains that a lot of Linux packages require more manual configuration than their Windows counterparts.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Isn't RMS irrelevant already? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now that we already have those pieces of software, some folks are ready to call him irrelevant again... but he isn't. He's looking out for those of us who value free software for more than just the fact that it costs $0 and anyone can contribute. I don't want to live in a world where companies like TiVo (although I love their DVRs) can use technological loopholes to build on the community's work while denying their end-users the ability to build on and tinker with the products they paid for. The open-source nature of Linux doesn't count for jack if your computer will only allow you to boot the signed copy of Linux that came preinstalled, and/or signed Linux upgrade CDs that you buy in a box at the store, does it?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure it does - you can get the source
Re:Isn't RMS irrelevant already? (Score:5, Insightful)
His philosophy is more than just providing source code. It extends to the idea that you should be able to make whatever changes you want to the software that you use, without being limited legally (by licenses) or technologically (by measures like TiVo's kernel signature checking), and providing source code is a consequence of that. The GPLv3 uses legal measures to ensure that end-users aren't impaired by technological measures which were unforseen at the time the GPLv2 was written.
RMS isn't enforcing anything on anyone. If a software developer wants to release his code under the GPLv3, that's the developer's choice, not Stallman's. If you want to release your software under the BSD license, that's your choice too.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Argh, sorry. It just pisses me off. I'd love to use a complete GNU syste
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Stallman is treated like a joke because he is not a good debater. He is committed to his ideals, and I tend to agree with most of what he says, but he does not present his arguments well. Take the recent issue with nVidia blobs. I read an interview with Richard M. Stallman and Theo De Raadt. Both RMS and TdR were arguing the same point of view (
Re:Stallman: intellectual lightweight? (Score:4, Insightful)
As far as him "resolving the conflicts between concerned entities", I will assume you mean making the GPL more palatable towards interests who believe the draft GPL v3 is too restrictive. If its too restrictive for your ends, then don't use it. It is not like Stallman is revoking the ability to use GPL v2 in any newer projects. Now, if you're worried about factionalization and adoption issues, that is your problem not RMS's. It is not his job nor his wish to create a license that most people will use without objection. It is his job to make sure the four freedoms are protected at all costs. I will now leave you with the 2nd half of that Goldwater quote: "Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
I, for one, welcome Stallman's extremism in the defense of my liberty and his unwillingness to compromise his ideals in pursuit of justice.