Richard Stallman Proclaims Don't Follow Linus Torvalds 965
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.'"
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey Stallman, how's Hurd coming along? (Score:4, Insightful)
Okay. (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Re:Winning friends and influencing people... (Score:5, Insightful)
How far have you fallen? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, there's a difference between Free Software and Open Source Software, and both kinds will exist, whatever Stallman wishes, and OSS is more successful. That's also not what Stallman wishes, but.. wake up and smell reality. Do something constructive about it instead of this whining.
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.
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.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Dead on (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:RMS is condescending and elitist (Score:3, Insightful)
Anyway, what's wrong with being condescending and elitist? It's part of what makes Slashdot, Slashdot.
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.
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..
Re:Winning friends and influencing people... (Score:3, Insightful)
To be honest, I used to be a bit like him. I had the long hair that stank and never got washed, I had the complete dislike of ever getting a proper job and I thought everyone else should just do everything my way.
Thankfully I grew up into a slightly more rounded individual and realised that while I still have the same core beliefs, I cannot force other people to go along with them.
I have to convince them slowly, over time that my suggestions may have merit. This understanding extends to all things.
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.
Re:The comment reflects Stallman's inner thoughts. (Score:3, Insightful)
In essence that's the problem here: Stallman has always been on a mission to make computers and their software free and accessible, without a lot of restrictions as to what you can do with the software. Linus has just been trying to build on and improve an operating system -- he doesn't put himself out in front, but seems to recognize that people are going to ask his opinion because of his position with Linux.
It's funny (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Winning friends and influencing people... (Score:3, Insightful)
I for one I am not a follower of RMS or a follower of Linus. I don't like GPL V3 because I feel that it is predatory towards Tivo and other Consumer devices that use Linux while allowing "professional" equipment to not follow the same rules.
RMS is a very lucky man... (Score:4, Insightful)
Software's the same, the philosophies different (Score:3, Insightful)
The philosophies, however, are different.
The free software philosophy is that the freedom to help yourself and to cooperate with others as a community are freedoms everyone should have.
"Open source" was launched to rename "free software" to hide this ethical line of thinking - because it mightn't go down well with companies who want to publish a little bit of free software while still publishing most of their software as non-free software.
The the goal of the "open source" campaign is to hide the free software movement. Naturally, the goal of the free software movement is the exact opposite - they want people to support the free software movement.
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.
Re:What about gaming systems? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a frightening future. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Nothing to see here. Move along. (Score:3, Insightful)
The people who usually do listen to such will listen to it and say Amen, and those who usually don't, most likely still won't this time either. The world will keep turning in more or less exactly the same way it does now.
It's things like this that cause me to periodically realise that it genuinely has been extremely stupid of me to get as upset as I have about the FSF in the past. The GPL 3, and Stallman continuing to issue statements such as this, make me realise that it is a problem with its' own solution.
Sure, he keeps making new followers...but he continues to alienate people as well. Two steps forward and two steps back essentially mean that you stay in exactly the same place.
More than one way to skin a cat (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The comment reflects Stallman's inner thoughts. (Score:4, Insightful)
Except for the devlopers. Taking freedom from one group and giving to an other is always dangerious.
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.
Spotlighting no action (Score:4, Insightful)
The big companies rally everyone to worship Linus, and with the spotlight on, he does: nothing.
Re:Okay. (Score:3, Insightful)
GPLv3, unlike GPLv2, attempts to dictate what you're allowed to *do* with the code. Like DRM and DCMA, it puts conditions on the hardware and software combinations in which the code can be used. That is where Linus and Stallman diverge: Linus just wants to enforce that the code to be free and GPLv2 already accomplishes this quite well.
What's more, Linus does not support the idea that every developer should sign over all the rights to all their code to Richard Stallman. Stallman wants everyone to assign copyright to FSF and add "or later" to their licensing clause, thus eliminating all rights the developer has over their creation and assigning them to Stallman. If you have that much trust in any one man (and his heirs once he dies), then great. Linus doesn't, and I don't think that's "anti-freedom".
Re:Winning friends and influencing people... (Score:4, Insightful)
From what I can tell in many ways Torvalds stays with GPLv2 because it offers a compromise between openess of source code and a license that businesses can tolerate. This compromise is having open source running on otherwise closed software. GPLv3 would not permit this and therefore this would hurt the popularity of Linux, especially in th embedded arena.
RMS has his goals and aspirations, and is also somewhat of extremist in his ideals, IMHO, where compromise is not in the vocabulary. For me a healthy eco-system is about balance and compromise and GPLv2 is offers much of that.
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.
Re:Winning friends and influencing people... (Score:2, Insightful)
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: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.
Stallman is not (only) concerned about the original developer, his concern is the people that buy your product. The freedoms he is talking about are about your customers being allowed to do as they want with the software they bought from you. You releasing non-free software takes away those freedoms by definition.
Note: This is the case no matter if you modified an existing GPL'ed program, or wrote your own from scratch. However, in the first case, you'd be illegally taking away their freedom to change the software, in the second case it would be fully legal, and thus he can't do anything about it. Of course RMS knows this, and isn't trying to prevent you from writing your own proprietary software, even though by the *definition* of software freedom, you are still taking away your customers' freedoms.
Re:That's a frightening future. (Score:4, Insightful)
some of the current insanities with regards to Copyright and Patent are no longer possible, you're going to need
that sort of wrangling. You need both Linus AND Richard in the current world.
Maybe at first (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Okay. (Score:3, Insightful)
GPL 3 seems to be forcing these people to be activists in goals they don't care about. So it it is to much of a hassle many will go with something else.
Freedom? Sounds like communism... (Score:2, Insightful)
However, what RMS calls freedom is questionable. Where I come from (ideologically), freedom includes a freedom of property -- the right to do with your property as you wish. Criticizing someone for how they choose to use their property, whether it be intellectual or real property, is hardly an encouragement of freedom.
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.
Re:That's a frightening future. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Winning friends and influencing people... (Score:3, Insightful)
- We must use his license
- The license restricts your rights when you modify
- No Windows allowed
It seems to me that in a truly free system (much like we have now, in fact), these are decisions we'd be able to make on our own. RMS' claims that people who don't like his license aren't truly free come off much as those who question the patriotism of anti-war citizens.
Re:SHUT UP!!! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SHUT UP!!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, sorry, don't see that. You seem as angry as a fundamentalist Christian who wants to destroy Islam and anything other than what Jesus wants. Anyone else see that?
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.
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:Hey Stallman, how's Hurd coming along? (Score:2, Insightful)
Definitely different goals (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Okay. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hey Stallman, how's Hurd coming along? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Spotlighting no action (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know those reasons, and don't expect them to be announced. But I can imagine the NVidia isn't entirely free to release code: for one thing, they might be paying royalties to others and be bound by those agreements. Or they may have tricks they think ATI/Intel doesn't know about. NVidia's managers have an obligation to safeguard shareholder's property.
For another, the GPUs are incredibly powerful computing machines that could be used for nuke simulations. The GPU mfrs may have an understanding with the US Dept of State that so long as the GPU isn't generally programmable, they escape the ITAR limits on export of computing power.
Or there may be other reasons. I don't assume pigheadedness. It has to be proven to me.
Re:Hey Stallman, how's Hurd coming along? (Score:3, Insightful)
And before anyone says anything, yes, I know most of the site is ugly and non-conforming html. We do try to fix things, just very slowly.
Re:Winning friends and influencing people... (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.
Re:Winning friends and influencing people... (Score:1, Insightful)
Woah, bingo. Wish I had mod points.
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.
Stallman's a whole lot smarter than you grasp (Score:3, Insightful)
Your argument above is like the view that not being able to upgrade one's copy of Windows is in no way a detriment... after all, the OS still does all the stuff it originally did at the time of purchase, so there's no backslide, right? Except that hardware needs evolve, software needs evolve, security needs evolve. A three-year-old unpatched version of windows IS worse than it was at the time of purchase... there's lots of new software you can't run, your ability to upgrade to new and more powerful machines is hampered, and your defenses against the latest viruses are laughable.
Similarly, Stallman doesn't want the ongoing evolution of software to leave behind the very people who got that software to its original baseline.
An example, somewhat contrived for the sake of stark illustration: suppose hardware vendors begin putting some new piece of hardware on all new motherboards such that it became impossible to purchase a motherboard without this hardware. Maybe the hardware is a video chip deemed to be the be-all end-all, or some new variety of tcpa chip through which all bus transmissions travel. Suppose it's impossible to meaningfully operate such a motherboard without involving the new hardware. And, suppose the hardware is proprietary, without free drivers or controllers. This could end in a situation where it's not possible to run Linux on the machine.
Doesn't sound all that crazy to me. Lord knows, it's not like vendors' consciences would prevent them from doing this; if for-profit organizations could charge you $10 per breath until you were dead, without getting themselves into legal trouble, many would do it in a snap. And from a technological viability standpoint I doubt the impossibility of this scenario. Just how likely or unlikely it is seems hard to guess, but at this point in time -- with our corrupt governments, unabashedly greedy corporations, and woefully uninformed populace, it seems plausible to speculate that the outcome could be determined by factors other than "what's good for the consumer". In fact, the only fly in the ointment for the corporate overlords might just end up being that there's a little technicality known as "the law" which demands corporations respect various licenses, among them the GPL.
So I don't particularly blame Stallman for targeting parts of the GPL v3 at such scenarios. In fact, rather than critizing him or calling him a zealot, I rather find myself inclined to feel thankful that someone has their thinking cap on.
I am so sick of RMS bashing! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:He already did: BitKeeper (Score:3, Insightful)
RMS *has* contributed despite what people like you say or think. I am not a hard-core follower of the FSF, but I'm not so blind that I can't see what RMS has done for software.
Re:Winning friends and influencing people... (Score:2, Insightful)
As someone who works for a small software company writing customized solutions I feel that Stallman isn't really concerned with ethics. He is rather concerned with some strange philosophy that hard work shouldn't pay. I love open source and I think it's great where it is practical, but the kind of development we do just couldn't pay if we gave our source away. So the end result is less work gets done in the real world. This seems to be the point of GPLv3. RMS somehow reminds me of Bin Laden telling America they need to forsake democracy.
Re:Okay. (Score:4, Insightful)
Now take Netgear, around the same time, they had a router that also ran Linux, WGT-634U. It had several advantages over the WRT54G, it was twice as fast (108Mbps Super G), has a USB port which supports both external drives and printers. They had the source available for download, just like Linksys, and after a few emails back-and-forth to the netgear 'open source' rep, and getting close to building a driver, I decided to buy the router since it was on sale at Fry's. My next email to netgear was along the lines of 'ok, I have the build tools, it looks like everything is compiling, but I don't see the firmware file that I can load on my router, is there another step I need to do or did I miss it'. Their response just blew me away - (paraphrasing since it was about two year) - 'We don't allow you to build the firmware image, the format is proprietary, the html control pages are copyrighted.' So even though I own the hardware, I have the source, I have (some of) the tools, - I am not able to change and use the program on the hardware I OWN. All because netgear chose to lock it, but they were still able to use Linux to make their product and they were compliant with GPL v2.
Linus does not care about this issue, Stallman does.
I think some people have finally been successful in reverse-engineering the format, load process, but this should not be required.
FROM GOOGLE:
Results 1 - 10 of about 39,400 for netgear router linux wgt634u
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,980,000 for linksys router linux wrt54g
"Free" should probably encourage "open source". (Score:3, Insightful)
I mean, look, free software is typically pretty decent, an alternative to what most people use, and pay for.
Most everyone will like the notion of actually being able to ask for (or implement themselves) a feature or bugfix for applications, games, and utilities they use every day.
The problem with GPL isn't even necessarily that it restricts proprietary software. That is freedom-limiting, yes, but, *most* of the time, someone who's going to make proprietary software already has a lot of money, and is looking to make more. Most of the time, the GPL won't actually stop them, though. They either simply ignore the license, or try to get around it (for instance, using executable wrappers to interface with libraries or programs). For the most part, anyone doing that also has "More Money Than God" and can afford an absurd number of lawyers to, at minimum, drag it out in court for years, all the while making a huge profit.
Where the GPL really steps in and has its weight, is against other, non-GPL licenses. You can simply absorb most other open source code, and say 'screw you' to the original developers (like what Torvalds said he'd do with Solaris code if it had a compatible license). In essence, all it does is prevent BSD, MIT, X11, etc licensed software from incorporating or linking to GPLed software (with the exception of LGPL, for obvious reasons) or even making use of most of it in other ways.
GNU actively encourages the use of GPL for libraries, even though they know what it does to other, free software. In essence, dynamic linking to a library isn't "stealing", but GNU views it as a purely derivate work. That's become particularly nasty once things like MySQL switch from LGPL to GPL, and oh, terrific, or even that Trolltech used GPL (previously without exclusions for other licenses). I doubt many people wishing to write, say, a decent looking BSD-licensed front-end (say, Qt4 frontend for MySQL) have the money to spend thousands of dollars on licenses in the 'alternative', since they don't wish to entangle their users further with GPL.
Isn't that one of the things the GPL claims to product against? The supposed Microsoftian 'Embrace and Extend' broken standards? Even the Linux Kernel has, in the past, and more recently, demonstrated its willingness to take from BSD-licensed code without giving contributing anything back, while there are plenty of more liberally licensed software that continues to make itself compatible for the platform.
Mind, licensing something, such as an application, under BSD, MIT, X11, or anything else, obviously doesn't extend 'down'. So unlike the arguments of many, having a BSD licensed program can't "infect" or diminish the rights of a GPL (or LGPL) library, that'd also be the case regardless of if it's proprietary or not. BSD programs can also cheerily run on proprietary libraries, but since the GPL tries to infect upwards, nope, not allowed. How is that encouraging open source, I have to keep asking?
Freedom isn't about *forcing* someone to do something like that, so at the least, the GPL should provide a cheery exclusion for libraries that happen to the license, to keep it from infecting upwards (which the LGPL already effectively does, but fewer and fewer people use it, and GNU says you should never normally use it for libraries), at least for other open source software with a OSI-approved and otherwise 'GPL compatible' license. That does a bit more of what the supposed intent is, encourage open source, give credit to people, give proprietary software something to think about before stealing willy nilly, while still affecting truly derived entities under the same license.
How many people *wouldn't* be enraged if the, say, standard cross-platform SSL, networking, or X11 library was actually GPL? Why, if you didn't want to use GPL, for both alternative open source or proprietary reasons, you'd be utterly screwed, because at best, you couldn't provide i
Re:Okay. (Score:2, Insightful)
If you don't agree with it, fine, but understand *why* you disagree with it before you go spouting off an opinion on the matter.
Cheers!
False dichotomy (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not about "openness of source code". It's about the freedom to run your business as you see fit, without having to bend to the will of the vendors of the software that you happen to be using. The only businesses that need to "tolerate" the GPL are ones who fancy themselves vendors of mass-market proprietary software, or ones who are doing something illegal (e.g. patent infringement, trojan horses, etc.) and want to avoid getting caught.
Compromise is not in RMS's vocabulary? Are you on crack? What do you think the LGPL, the "system libraries" clause of the GPL, and the "cover texts"/"invariant sections" of the GFDL are all about? RMS is willing to compromise tactically in order to win strategically.
Why don't you actually go read the FSF website [fsf.org], instead of basing your opinion of RMS on what others have written?
Re:Winning friends and influencing people... (Score:4, Insightful)
The GNU operating system is a much greater accomplishment then the Linux kernel in my opinion. Without it - Linux would be seen for what it is - an operating system kernel. You can swap out the kernel of your system and not notice any clear difference. For example, you can run a *BSD kernel with GNU (or the Hurd, if you're daring).
Stallman is the one who started the GNU project - to which, Linus contributed. Without his early struggle, we would not have free software as we do today. It seems that now, Linus wishes he had gone with a more lax license. His main disagreement is that he sees nothing wrong with the act of "tivoization." To generalize, he falls into the "Open Source" camp while Stallman falls into the "Free Software" camp. Both of them have made great accomplishments and no one is stealing anyone else's fame.
Also, if you read the article, you'd have learned that that RMS doesn't try to force anyone to think his way: "I respect his right to express his views, even though I think they are foolish"
Re:its all about hurd (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Okay. (Score:2, Insightful)
GPL3 does no such thing.
You can use the code however you like. You cannot distribute the code with a device that will not accept modified versions of that code to run on it. This is a restriction for distributors, in order to protect the rights of the users.
Linus is a brilliant individual, which is why I cannot help but think that he is purposefully disingenuous when he frames GPL3 in the terms you described. The GPL was always about protecting the rights of the end users to take the code, inspect it, change it, and give the (hopefully) improved versions to others, if they so please. Among other things, that allows people to continue to use their software even when the vendor refuses to fix it, or when the vendor goes out of business. (One primary motivator for creating the GPL was a stupid printer driver [gnu.org] whose code had to be kept "secret".)
The confusion starts when certain users are also developers, and further, when some of those developers also want to become distributors. Now, Linus would like to "protect" the rights of these developers to "use the code however they please", meaning in this context that they should be able to distribute it with a device that only runs signed versions of the code. But this "usage" is simply distribution that takes away the rights of a much larger constituency: the many users out there, who now just lost, for any practical purpose, their original right to modify the software and run that instead of the original software (and give it to others, if they so please.)
GPL3 does not change the spirit of GPL2 one iota. On the contrary, it closes the TiVo-isation loophole that allows certain distributors to nominally comply with the GPL2, while at the same time violating its spirit with impunity: "here is the source, you just can't change it and run it. Look, but don't touch."
GPL protects the rights of users, not just of a small subset who happen to be developers&distributors. When the rights of this small subset start conflicting with those of the much larger set of regular end-users, GPL3 rightly settles it if favour of the users.
Re:Winning friends and influencing people... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I am so sick of RMS bashing! (Score:3, Insightful)
This outlines one of RMS's opinions - if I'm not using open-source software, I'm a serf, a wage-slave for the evil overlords. I'm sorry, but if running Windows or Mac OS X or QNX lets me do my job, then as far as I'm concerned, I have *more* freedom.
'Surrender their freedom'? Give me a break! RMS needs to understand that while hobbyists can spend five years working on a PDF reader that kind of mostly works a lot of the time, real people need to get real work done, and using Acrobat might be a necessity. By all means, keep working on the open-source versions, and when they're ready, I'll use them; until then, don't trash on my distro because it gives me the tools I need to get my job done.
If I used Linux exclusively in 2000 (and I did), then that would have significantly reduced what I was able to do - no Word documents, no Excel, no solid PDF creation, no decent image editing. By using a proprietary platform like Mac or Windows, my options open up dramatically, allowing me to choose from several different programs that can each do the job, as opposed to several different half-started programs, none of which are capable of all the functionality I need.
I use non-free software because that frees my time and my creativity. Using 'Free Softweare' limits me dramatically, and significantly reduces the amount and type of work I can do, and the quality of work that I can accomplish. Being able to express yourself and get the job done on time is the greatest freedom of all.
Practical. GCC and friends. (Score:-1, 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.
Not so, GPL3 assures continued freedom. Under GPL2, linux can and has been Tivoised, where you are locked out completely and have zero freedom. Future versions of Linux will not be Tivoised because individual contributors to the kernel are going to use GPL3 and a GPL2 fork will fall on it's face. More importantly, a GPL3 toolchain assures freedom without Linux.
No one's really going to throw all that work away and this fight is really just fluff. Anyone who looks into the issue soon realizes that RMS is right again. Linux will come along if and when someone really threatens his own freedom. The freedom to harm others is not liberty, it's license.
Re:I am so sick of RMS bashing! (Score:3, Insightful)
And dare I say that commercial software is driven by the quest for profits, and that quest gives commercial developers a very firm focus on competing publicly, and that is why, even to this day, proprietary software tends to be much more feature-complete, though more buggy. It's the reason why you could be more productive, overall, in 2000 on a Windows or Mac PC than you could on an open source PC. I think this point is accurate and valid, and highlights one of the problems that free and open software, by and large, have always had - not enough focus on the desktop to deliver a complete suite of software to compete with Windows and OS X, and an easy installer that encourages people to switch.
Re:Dead on (Score:3, Insightful)
Stallman is arguing a point. Torvalds really hasn't.
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.
Re:Winning friends and influencing people... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:its all about hurd (Score:3, Insightful)
But how the f*ck do you just change the font size for all the displayed fonts? 8-pixel high terminal fonts are just so CGA.
There is definitely something wrong with a word processor / operating system where the easter-eggs are easier to access and less cryptic than the screen font controls.
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.
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?
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:More ironic than funny (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Wrong. Average folks just don't trust something because is free and rather steal something you ought to pay for. (Actually, I don't know, never did a survey on this, just guessing, but hey...)
Re:Hey Stallman, how's Hurd coming along? (Score:3, Insightful)
If BSD's legal status weren't questionable in the early 90's, nobody would've used that buggy hobby kernel from Finland, we'd all be using the tried & true BSD operating environment
Re:The comment reflects Stallman's inner thoughts. (Score:3, Insightful)
Stallman wants to make other people make software that is Free, and thinks that the best way to do that is to monkey around with licensing conditions.
But I think what Linus (and others like him) do is at least as important to Free Software as what Stallman does at this point. While people (myself included) will debate endlessly on Slashdot and other forums about the effects of minute details of the latest GPL version, differences between different FLOSS licenses, etc., the fact is that there are successful and durable free software products under every licensing arrangment that can be counted as free (including public domain). What seems to matter most is whether the software is of high quality, fills a need, and excites potential developers: if you have that, with any free terms, you'll get more people involved, whether your product is public domain, BSD, GPLv2, GPLv3, or whatever other license.
Go smear someone else. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometime in the early 1980's, Stallman forecast what the world would be like today with astonishing accuracy. He didn't like what he saw, and decided to do something about it. He devoted his life to it entirely, something that Linus doesn't do. And Linus would be nowhere without him, Linus wouldn't even have had the tools to get started.
Unfortunately, while Linus is a really good engineer, he hates politics. This isn't a bad thing, I'm sure that Richard would rather spend his life making code too, but Richard sees where his duty is. Duty isn't pleasant. Since Linus won't spend the time he should on policy rather than programming, he should really leave it to other folks on the kernel team and stop talking about it, because almost every time he opens his mouth about licensing he hasn't given it enough consideration and says something that ultimately damages us.
You may have noticed that I'm an "Open Source" evangelist. I understand Richard's position and am the first to admit that we're all standing on his shoulders. When I talk about "Open Source", I'm promoting the same thing as Richard, just from another angle that is tailored to win over business people rather than programmers. It would be nice if Linus would help with that rather than get in the way.
Bruce
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:3, Insightful)
Not sure myself. I think a greater proportion of Linus worshipping sheeple got mod points today.
Probably because the poster took pains to post it in a very insulting manner. I don't have a problem with question itself.
GPL3 is good *and* bad (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, maybe that's not as farfetched as it sounds - but more likely, those locked down computers would be Windows-only boxes. Even so, why not make a narrower clause that prevents locking down the kernel in a *general-purpose* computer. What Tivo does is build a special-purpose *appliance* that happens to be a computer. The fact that they run it on Linux is a good thing. The fact that they don't let you buy one of their subsidized boxes and not pay for the service that subsidizes it may not be ideal, but does nothing to inhibit the success of the Linux software they use. That's where Linux gets it better than RMS. He's willing to give up control of how his code is used, and appreciates that if he didn't do that, the software would have withered on the vine. If Tivo is a freeloader (and I'm not saying they are), Linus doesn't care - it doesn't hurt him or Linux.
It's Linux vs Hurd, and it's pretty obvious that Linux wins - unless you're typing your posts from a Hurd box.
Re:More ironic than funny (Score:3, Insightful)
You're absolutely correct in stating that average folks are leery of FOSS because it is in fact free. They're so used to paying exorbitant sums for software that they're automatically suspicious of anything claiming the same or greater functionality for zero retail cost: there must be something wrong with it. And I agree with you: it certainly is a major factor in the slow adoption of FOSS.
However, you're wrong if you think that it's the only factor, as your post suggests. You'll note in my original post that I said that RMS's personality, or should I say, perceived personality, was "one of the major inhibiting factors". There are others, including the fact that enemies of FOSS can spread FUD about it by holding RMS up as some sort of "communist". Which is why I cited him as one of the stumbling blocks to the adoption of FOSS, not because he's a danger to the public at large or any such crap, but because those with a vested interest in seeing FOSS fail can use him as a convenient bugbear to stir opposition to it. The very existence of the meme that he's some species of unwashed hippie is evidence of how low they will stoop.
For my part, I friggin' admire the guy. History will deem him to be one of the true giants of software, and I'm saying this as someone who has never used anything but a Macintosh. I'm fully aware of the part he played in much of the stuff that underpins OS X, and I thank him for it, and for reminding us that there are ideals for which we should always strive, no matter how we're viewed by the public. Humanity will always need such idealists.
Don't allow the Tivo abuse, and it is abuse. (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot needs a sensible, thoughtful discussion of these issues.
Tivo is doing something very abusive, but most people don't see the abuse. They are selling hardware locked to their service for less than the amount that they are willing to accept (but probably much more than it costs them, I'm guessing).
If the GPL allows that, the license becomes wide open to extreme abuse. Suppose a company begins advertising Linux desktop computers locked to their internet provider service, and heavily discounted. Many, many people will buy them, not really understanding the negatives: If they find their service is terrible, they cannot switch to another ISP without paying a huge penalty that is hidden in the fine print of their contract.
I know that people accept that extreme abuse as normal business behavior with cell phones. However, it is abuse. The abusive companies know they can trick the average person, who doesn't know how to defend himself or herself from the extraordinary hostility and negativity that is now common in U.S. society.
Even the U.S. government has made it legal to unlock cell phones. The GPL3 license tries to prevent the locking of other equipment, if it has a GPL3 license.
The Tivo issue is just a test. If Tivo is allowed to be abusive, many, many other habitually abusive companies will follow Tivo's abusiveness. For example, Microsoft could use GPL code in a proprietary computer, and not give the source because they charge $1 per month, and are therefore allowed a Tivo exception.
But it shouldn't be me who is writing about these issues. I wish Richard Stallman were more eloquent. I wish Mr. Stallman realized he needs an editor. I have sometimes earned my living as a professional writer, and I always demand to have editor.
Re:Appearances (Score:2, Insightful)
Possibly, this isn't fair, but it is real.
Re:Don't allow the Tivo abuse, and it is abuse. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is almost exactly the way that the cell phone market works. Cell phone service providers buy phones in volume and sell them locked to their service as part of the contract. If you had to pay the full price for your cell phone, then not as many people would have cell phones today.
However, the real issue is: should a software license control what you can do with the hardware? Tivo provides the source for all of their changes. Nothing prevents you from designing your own DVR and using Tivo's code on hardware that is not locked. Nobody has done this, and MythTV hasn't wiped out Tivo, because the model of selling the hardware at low cost and making money on service is desireable. People want cell phones with a service contract. People want to lease cars rather than pay the full price up front. People want a low cost game console that only plays high-priced games. The market shows this.
See Stallman's article: Why Upgrade to GPLv3? (Score:4, Insightful)
Read Richard Stallman's excellent article: Why Upgrade to GPLv3? [gnu.org]
He says, "The ban on tivoization applies to any product whose use by consumers, even occasionally, is to be expected. GPLv3 tolerates tivoization only for products that are almost exclusively meant for businesses and organizations. (The latest draft of GPLv3 states this criterion explicitly.)"
The paragraph before that says, "GPLv3 ensures you are free to remove the [DRM] handcuffs. It doesn't forbid DRM, or any kind of feature. It places no limits on the substantive functionality you can add to a program, or remove from it. Rather, it makes sure that you are just as free to remove nasty features as the distributor of your copy was to add them. Tivoization is the way they deny you that freedom; to protect your freedom, GPLv3 forbids tivoization."
The thinking and writing in Mr. Stallman's article is of excellent quality, in my opinion. The mistake he is making is not providing enough examples of abuses possible under GPL2, to show why GPL3 is necessary. We know that he has made a mistake in not providing those examples, because people are posting nonsense comments to this Slashdot story.
Mr. Stallman also makes the mistake of assuming that all readers understand the meaning of "Tivoization", a new word recently invented.
I think Linus Torvalds is a wonderful leader. But sometimes Mr. Torvalds does not think carefully enough about the social implications of what he says. Mr. Torvalds is not perfect, but he is the best we have at what he does well; he is a truly beneficial leader.
My best understanding, which may be very imperfect, is that Mr. Torvalds does not understand the potential for abuse in the GPL2 license. Why? Maybe partly because Mr. Stallman didn't explain it well enough.
The only thing that allowing Tivoization would provide is that companies could sell products for less than they expect to make, and trick buyers into paying more later, as happens with 2 year cell phone contracts when cell phone service prices are dropping fast.
Note that the invented word "Tivoization" is an abuse of trademark. Mr. Stallman is suffering from his adoption of that abuse, because people like their Tivos and, without thinking or investigating, they assume that the GPL3 license would take their Tivos away.
Mr. Stallman should read the comments on this Slashdot story carefully to take the true measure of what even technically knowledgeable people know and don't know, and how little they are willing to investigate before they think they understand. His articles should be written for the audience he has, not the audience he wishes he had. After more than 24 years of thinking about this, Mr. Stallman makes the mistake of not realizing how advanced he is in his thinking, and makes the mistake of not realizing most people are not as advanced.
(Copyright 2007, as are all my comments, and everyone else's also. I don't want someone using what I have said here without my permission.)
Re:Winning friends and influencing people... (Score:3, Insightful)
Software is not the same, because the vendor usually restricts access to the blueprints (source code) without which are (for most practical purposes) necessary for the customer to modify the software.
If the user wants software modified then they can ask, and or pay, the developer to modify it. In a small niche market if software is released open source then the business may not be able to pay it's employees because anyone could take the hard work of others without paying. Oh and you mention blueprints, architects charge for their blueprints why shouldn't software developers? Architects like programmer put in a lot of tyme and effort into creating those blueprints, they don't magically appear.
FalconRe:I am so sick of RMS bashing! (Score:3, Insightful)
I would point out that the most successful open-source endeavours have large companies behind them, and of those that don't, they are often run by a single unified leadership. I would point out MySQL (MySQL AB), Apache (the Apache Foundation), Firefox (Mozilla Corporation), KDE (Trolltech, via QT), WebKit (Apple, Inc), MediaWiki (the WikiMedia Foundation), OpenOffice (Sun Microsystems), and so on. For a more interesting example, look at Mono, a project to re-implement Microsoft's
For that matter, with few exceptions, the major Linux distributions are corporately-sponsored; most notable are RedHat, a corporation that dumps a ton of money into open-source, and SuSE, now owned by Novell, a company which is obviously starting to see the benefit. You may notice that in your precious open-source world, a lot of the innovation, power, and impetus comes not from the community, but from the corporations that people are paying millions of dollars to.
This is all well and good, but look at that list and take a look at what's missing: a good groupware suite, a good image editor, a good video editor, a good audio editor, a decent office suite (I'm sorry, OpenOffice doesn't compare), and so on. Are we to expect all of our needs to be met by open-source? Am I to assume that if no sufficient open-source alternative exists, then I should simply not do the task I had intended to do? Or should I wait, and tell my clients 'I'm sorry, but no one has written a free version of this application yet, so you'll have to wait ten years for someone to do so - unless you pay me a few million dollars up front so I can fund an open-source alternative, in which case it might only take five years.'
Now, there are some alternatives, like the GIMP, a project famous among the open-source community for completely ignoring its users needs, refusing patches, and generally being a bunch of dicks to anyone who suggests change. Their solution to everything seems to be 'If you don't like it, fix it yourself', which is a common theme lately, though not as common as it once was. You see, not everyone has the programming skill to implement the changes they want (and in the case of the GIMP, even if they did, the patch would be refused for some reason or another). Of those who can't, that being the vast majority, very few are willing to fund a programmer to do the work that needs doing. If my choices are to pay someone a few thousand dollars (minimum) for a few weeks' work to implement a feature in the GIMP, or to pay $600 for a copy of Photoshop that has hundreds of features and capabilities that I just can't get from the GIMP.
You say the only reason that Linux exists is because of freedom - no, the only reason Linux exists is because of curiosity and experimentation. The reason Linux became popular is because people could adapt it to their needs. If this were possible without it being open-source (and theoretically, it is), then the same thing might well have happened. In reality, the only reason society has advanced to the point is has is because of two things - capitalism and war - and those two things are the source of the vast majority of our current level of technological advancement. Consider the long list of revolutionary products or services in the last few years even, and then ask yourself which of them are open-source, and which are not?
The iPod has changed t
Re:Please stop the foolish jokes and think. (Score:2, Insightful)
Churchill was a drunk. (Score:4, Insightful)
Mandela was a communist.
So now pray tell us, why does the issue of Stallman's appearance keeps making the rounds around here?
I listen to the message, I don't disqualify a message if I don't like the messenger.