RMS Accused Of Attempting Glibc Hostile Takeover 887
Bram Stolk sent a bit in thats been floating around lately where Ulrich Drepper, glibc maintainer announces the new version, and sidetracks to discuss an an RMS takeover attempt and how he feels about it. He raises several good points and I tend to agree with him. The FSF has done, and continues to do so much good, but more and more tension continues to grow between the extreme free speech faction and the more moderate folks. People have asked my opinion, and I'll just leave it by saying I don't prefix "Linux" with those 3 little letters and a slash even tho I've been asked.
Thought Police (Score:2, Insightful)
Those three little letters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thought Police (Score:3, Insightful)
Stallman.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite the fact the cause has some degree of validity, the extremes which he takes it to regularly stomps on people's toes, and is generally antisocial.
I had the (mis?)fortune to meet him during one of his visits to Canberra, Australia - which, over lunch, he proceded to argue that our local Linux Users Group (CLUG) should rename itself to the Canberra GNU/Linux Users Group. This did not go down well.
Even though there are some fairly valid reasons as to why, its still fairly egotistical of him - did he ask for a consensus of all the developers releasing "GNU Software"? Does his own technical work make up a large slice of the GNU works used by linux? [No, Emacs does not count as a large slice, despite its footprint.
Just consider RMS as what he really is, a politican.
Re:wait a moment (Score:2, Insightful)
ie: I filter out what I feel is crap, and similarly, I work on what *I* want to. If you submit me a good patch, it'll go in, and you'll be in my credits file/changelog, but at the end of the day, its still my project.
When you're working on stuff in your free time, this is the way of the game. Its not just a job, its personal.
Re:Thought Police (Score:5, Insightful)
What is part of the operating system?
- kernel
- libraries necessary to run C programs
- the most basic interface possible
What is not part of the operating system?
- GUI
- web browser
- office suite
- your mom
Okay... so, you should call linux "GNU/Linux", because GNU tools are a larger percentage of the Operating System itself than even the Linux kernel.
You should not call windows "Windows98/Acrobat Reader" because Acrobat Reader in no way qualifies as a "part of the Operating System".
Re:Thought Police (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thought Police (Score:4, Insightful)
I personally say "Linux," probably because I'm afraid of looking silly. It is true, though, that there's more GNU code on your machine than Linux (i.e. kernel) code, and it's just as necessary to get your bash prompt to come up. Some people say it's "more necessary" (since GNU has a kinda-sorta-almost-working kernel, but AFAIK gcc and glibc have no existing Free replacements), but that just starts flamewars.
Re:wait a moment yourself (Score:1, Insightful)
You have obviously not followed how decisions are taken in successful open source projects.
To make things work, you need one or a few people who take the final decisions. Democracy is simply *not* the way to develop quality software.
Re:Thought Police (Score:2, Insightful)
Linus did not name it after himself. He originally released it as Freax, but the FTP site admin didn't like that, and changed it to Linux. The name stuck.
(That's how I heard it, anyway)
No, but he did try to name one that was not his after his pet project that other people based on his, and other people's work. No matter how much was borrowed from GNU (and borrowing is encouraged), it simply is not his project to name. If RMS wanted the GNU project's contributions to be acknowledged in the name, he should have required it in the license. Otherwise, I'm going to continue calling it the reasonably catchy 'Linux', rather than the awkward 'GNU/Linux'.
Re:Thought Police (Score:5, Insightful)
I use some Gnu tools and many more non-gnu-licensed tools with my linux kernels. I'm not gonna say Gnu/Apache/Perl/BSD/etc/Linux, and neither should anyone else. Yeah, the system would be less useful without gnu tools, it'd also not be what it is without all the other pieces of software on it.
The point isn't that the GNU tools are a major part of a standard Linux distribution.
In the early 1990s, the GNU project had everything you needed for a baseline operating system. Compiler, assembler, linker, C library, shell. Everything except a kernel. Linus took those tools and added the final piece, the kernel. Linus didn't need X-Windows or Perl. Apache didn't exist. Linus needed a compiler, a linker, an assembler, a C library, and a shell. He used the GNU project's tools. Linux is built upon a foundation of GNU tools.
That's why the Stallman can claim the GNU project has a valid claim to share the Linux title. Why bother? Politics. Stallman is pushing a political and ethical agenda. Free Software or nothing. Part of his job is to spread the word, and getting the GNU name used is a great way to do it. Every user who says "What's the GNU thing in front of Linux?" is an opportunity to spread the word.
That said, I'm not sure I agree that it should be called GNU/Linux. It seems a bit pushy to me. But don't make the mistake that he wants it called GNU/Linux just because the GNU tools are part of the typical package. He wants it added to help spread the Free Software word. His claim is that the GNU tools where the foundation.
Incredible Irony... (Score:2, Insightful)
When Mr. Drepper writes
He ignores the significant phrase at your option
I doubt any of us really know the full details of the spat, but it is bad form to rip out a blast like this in the release notes. Further, it looks like the hostile takeover is by Drepper... not the original creator of the code.
Louis
So all this is about (Score:5, Insightful)
an *alternative* to what the GNU project considers
it's 'main' thrust, Hurd? And this fellow didn't
manage to win over enough support within the
glibc project to stop a wording change?
Admittedly, RMS's obsession with this wordplay
seems to me to be unwise (it'd be better if he'd
focus on keeping the movement ideologically pure
rather than focusing on diction), but this fellow
doesn't strike me as being any more wise.
Posturing and replies to it are a waste of time --
where there are no actual effects on the way
things are run, it's better to just ignore such
things and spend that time coding, fighting
intellectual property, and other worthwhile causes.
Re:Thought Police (Score:3, Insightful)
It's written GNU/Linux, and pronounced "Linux". Or, "Linux, with a silent GNU/".
Not that I advocate it one way or the other, just offering a way out of your dilemma.
GNUisance (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Thought Police (Score:2, Insightful)
Credit is given to GNU in the tools themselves. RMS has no credible reasoning to request (or demand) that a Linux-based system be called anything but "Linux".
bickering (Score:2, Insightful)
RMS has no right to dictate terms or to use a BS SC to usurp the seats of influence or any other means.
if he attempts this sort of thing again, it is the duty of the community to throw him out on his ass. but lets be a little forgiving, put him on parol, don't nail him to a cross.
RMS has done some really cool stuff for us, permit him the dignity of a second shot. thats the very least you can do for a comrad who has strayed from the flock.
where would we be with out the GPL? the GNU project? the FSF? or RMS?
Re: TCP stack (Score:2, Insightful)
They didn't want to risk any legal trouble. The TCP stack is what made it take so long to go from 0.95 to 1.0, and was much harder to get it right then anybody dreamed it would be. Have I got my history correct?
Kirby
Re:That's FUD (Score:2, Insightful)
The "similar in spirit to the present version" language offers very little protection to the copyright holder / licensor for two reasons. First, as a technical legal matter, one could argue said language is so vague as to be unenforceable. Secondly, more practically, and far more importantly, even if enforceable the language is so vague as to invite multiple, endless litigation. How the hell is anyone, much less a judge or jury, going to know whether a future version of the GPL or LGPL is "similar in spirit" to the present version? What the hell does that mean? How do you decide?
I'm an attorney who has worked for a number of judges in the past. Upon looking at such language, they would know they had a horrible case that could not be resolved short of trial, and probably appeal.
Vague contractual language breeds litigation.
Re:Thought Police (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's choose our real battles, everyone here, and RMS too... What's more important? GNU/Linux or Skylarov and DMCA and DeCSS and tyrany?
That question I leave up to you to decide.
{soap box mode: off}
Stupid and Arbitrary. How about GNU/Solaris? ;-) (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just stupid, and besides many people use OSes who wouldn't use a compiler and wouldn't know or care what libraries their software is linked to. An OS, like it or not, is defined by its kernel.
Let me lather, rinse, and repeat: an OS is defined by its kernel. And here's where I prove it: If I run a Solaris box and install and link to a bunch of GNU stuff, does that magically transform my OS into GNU/Solaris? NO.
This is why I think Stallman should be largely ignored now that he has already made his historic contribution of the GNU tools. He will go down in history for that accomplishment. But at the moment he's a hindrance, not a help. He has passed his prime, made his contribution, and is now being a petty bitch who squabbles about naming an OS he didn't write. He is actively trying to harm Linux, what with his devotion to the HURD. Anyone who doubts this, should read the post referenced in this story where the Linux glibc porter/maintainer states that Stallman tried to push him into working on glibc for Hurd instead of for Linux.
It should be obvious that Linux is RMS's "bastard child"--it's the first OS born from the GNU tools, and it has made the Free Software movement what it is today as well as helping spawn Open Source. Without Linux, Free Software would still be a tiny little movemwent instead of being on so many desktops and servers. Yet Stallman doesn't care about Linux, he cares about finally building the kernel for his GNU/HURD dream and eventually putting Linux out to pasture. And that's fine. But don't be a schmuck and think Stallman cares about Linux or should be listened to about a damned thing that has to do with Linux. If it were up to him, all Linux developers would drop their work and start on the Hurd. Things like the attempted coup mentioned in this story just go to show that RMS is slowly sabotaging Linux, in order to promote his Hurd. And before marking this as flamebait, at least read the account linked in the story.
Re:So all this is about (Score:2, Insightful)
Aren't we on technical site , discussing "stuff for geeks " ??
I would NEVER trust any software that is driven by ideology instead of standard pursue of excellence.
Drepper is wrong here (Score:5, Insightful)
1. RMS is accused of taking over the control of a GNU project. Not mentioning that RMS probably started the glibc project and contributed code in earlier years, how has RMS tried to control glibc? Does RMS decide, say, how glibc should be written? I don't see that. Drepper is in full technical control.
2. The only place where Drepper is unhappy about seems to be the "GNU/Linux" mentioning in LGPL 2.1. Otherwise LGPL 2.1 and 2.0 are about the same. The licenses give the same rights to users. Drepper makes a big deal out of a naming issue which is not even part of the actual license requirements. And glibc being a GNU Project, switching to LGPL 2.1 seems ony natural. Just a routine step.
3. Drepper seems unhappy about the creation of a SC. He accuses the SC was an attempt to steal the project. From him. Now, who is the one wanting control here? The SC is a more democratic way to run a project than a single maintainer. At least the other contributors have more say than letting Drepper decide everything.
4. Drepper wants control, which can be seen by his handling of the gcc 3 issue. Drepper disagreed with gcc developers (many of them) on certain technical issues over gcc 3. He once declared he would never accept patches to make glibc capable of being built with gcc 3. Despite other glibc contributors' attempts to find a solution, he just says, "NO, I won't accept any patches". This issue does not involve RMS at all, and Drepper just goes against many gcc developers, who are perhaps some of the smartest compiler people in the world. It is hard to say that Drepper is right and all these gcc people are wrong.
RMS may like control, but in this story Drepper is more of a control freak and has a bigger ego.
Re:Thought Police (Score:2, Insightful)
The Linux kernel, sure. But the system as a whole?
The idea of a free (libre), Unix-oid system is and was the core of the GNU project [gnu.org]. RMS was hacking on this before the Linux kernel was a gleam in Linus's eye - since 1984, for crying out loud.
Let's look at what RMS has to say:
Linus didn't "borrow" from the GNU project. He fit the last piece into a puzzle that RMS and the GNU Project had been working on for over a decade. RMS would like this to be known and understood - perhaps for reasons of ego, perhaps for reasons of spreading the free software philosophy, perhaps both. Either way, his request hardly makes his a raving loon.
Something doesn't ring true here (Score:3, Insightful)
"Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?"
If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs.
I think I agree with all of that. But Stallman does not. He demands that the naming rights tag along with the work - a stupid, tragic restriction on the use of those programs, one that has nothing to do with coding, and one that will in effect prevent GNU software's use by endlessly confusing possible users.
Having created, Stallman is using all his efforts to control his creation. So, by his own thinking, Stallman deserves punishment. Q.E.D.
You don't have to like RMS (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about what RMS does, and why -- he has a passionate belief "software should be Free", and expresses it in a fairly consistant manner. He fights a somewhat unpopular fight with little reward -- outside of recognition within of a small, tight-knit community, which isn't much.
RMS has been fighting this fight longer than some GNU/Linux nerds have been alive. He had the vision to kick the thing off in the first place. His reward? A string of Slashdot readers questioning his relevency, sanity and parentage.
While I may disagree with some of RMS's views (I get the occasional whiff of Unreconstructed Socialist from some of his writing, and nobody hates a commie (or a socialist) more than me), I have the utmost respect for his work, and I'm thankful for it.
While Ulrich may have a genuine beef with RMS, waving it about in public (and Slashdot posting the story) is not very professional, nor productive.
Re:Stallman (Score:3, Insightful)
Face it the United States is one of the most hostile nations on the planet. What RMS does is childs play compared to the merchants of hostility and hate that pollute the airwaves these days. Put RMS on side of the table and Bill O'reilly on the other and see who is hostile.
The Philosophical Ideals of Gnu/Linux (Score:2, Insightful)
This kind of personal bickering should remain exactly that - personal. Private. Not Public. The heat that public infighting brings will only fuel the discord, and that hurts everybody in the Linux and FSF community. Drepper shouldn't be using his glibc 2.2.4 Release Notes as a podium for attacking other members of the community, that's what Slashdot's for.
Also, I agree that Stallman is vocal and extreme in his views, but that's because none of the rest of us are. If it were up to most of us developers, Linux would be as proprietary as Windows. Things already seem to be heading that way, as most of the distros are adding in non-GPL stuff to try and get a leg up on the competition. We ARE becoming Microsofts, slowly, and RMS is trying to fight that trend. Look for a distro that uses 100% free software... maybe Debian? Not many out there anymore. *Technology is becoming more important than philosophy, and this is very bad*. Technology should not be amoral. Amoral technology is deadly. Amoral people controlling technology is deadly. But how do you enforce morality on an amoral individual? How do you ensure technology is never used to enslave? The freedom to enslave is NOT a freedom, despite what Gates and Ballmer may say.
Linux isn't *about* the technology, it's about the ideology of freedom. We choose Linux because of the ideas behind it, not because of the technology. Otherwise, we'd all be using BeOS, the BSDs, MacOS, and of course, Windows. Linux isn't technically superior to any of these, and it sure wasn't in the beginning, when developers were drawn to it for only the right reasons! In the beginning, people chose GNU/Linux for the GPL, for the idea that they could contribute to something that would be free forever to all, and could never be subverted. People came because they wanted to contribute and make a difference by doing something noble and pure; giving their labor, talents, and the fruits of their minds to the world, and using the GPL to ensure it would always be free, open, and accessible to all - never to be taken by corporations and bound into a product that does not freely offer anything in return.
People chose it for its philosophy, not its technology. Those who choose it for its technology do not develop the same deep roots as RMS or the other idealists in the community, and thus they're the ones who will try to change the community into a business venture rather than a noble venture. It is because of RMS and his unique license that kids in India, China (no, they didn't use it to make CodeRed), and all over the world (wherever they couldn't afford, couldn't get access to, or chose not to use, Microsoft's offerings) have access to an excellent system like Linux, which promotes freedom, sharing, and community. And it was all offered freely, with the condition that it stay free forever.
One last thing: saying "Gnu/Linux" is not a nod to RMS, it's an acknowledgement of the philosophy behind the technology. I'm not going to push the "GNU word" on anybody, but I agree with RMS. If people don't say it, people don't think about it, and people forget about it. This system is losing its roots and becoming another Microsoft. Look at Caldera. What a shame. They have nearly abandoned the ideals that brought us this far in favor of a greater potential profit, which I think will never come, since they can't compete directly with Microsoft, and by losing the ideals of Gnu, they alienate much of the Linux community.
And I'm not calling it Gnu/Linux because there's enough content in here for people to grumble about. But normally I do call it Gnu/Linux. To me, it's not the word Gnu so much as understanding the reason for saying the word that counts.
Goodbye, sweet karma...
Re:Thought Police (Score:3, Insightful)
Now why is that and how can that be? Well, it's because the Linux kernel is licensed under the *G*N*U* Public License.
This, is why it is not completely unreasonable to think of Linux as somthing being a part of the GNU system, although, yes, I know, FSF does not have the copyright.
And this, is why it is a lot more reasonable to think of Linux as GNU, than GNU as Linux.
Re:Presumption of Innocence (Score:2, Insightful)
Who? Stallman? Yes, I agree. Stallman is not playing well with others.
Of course, you really mean to imply that Drepper isn't playing nice. However, when I think about Drepper putting in all those hours to contribute code to something that helps sooooo many people out, and then I think about Stallman swooping in and saying "this is mine now" -- well, frankly, I feel for Drepper. I would think and feel the same way if someone tried to lay claim to something I had put a good part of my life into.
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Thought Police (Score:2, Insightful)
Certainly nothing remotely as obnoxious as Ulrich Drepper's comments.
Re:Score -1, Troll (Score:5, Insightful)
"The glibc situation is even more frightening if one realizes the story
behind it. When I started porting glibc 1.09 to Linux (which
eventually became glibc 2.0) Stallman threatened me and tried to force
me to contribute rather to the work on the Hurd."
That's how it's supposed to be bad. If you look at ESR's recent article, he says that developers should have the freedom to do what they want. If i'm not reading this wrong, Drepper is the maintainer of glibc, and so should decide what goes on - if he has a plan for how it will work and evolve, and it's his project, then he should have the right to have the project follow his plan, and not be taken out of his control.
He also says:
"I find this completely unacceptable and can assure
everybody that I consider none of the code I contributed to glibc
(which is quite a lot) to be as part of the GNU project and so a major
part of what Stallman claims credit for is simply going away."
If he's an important contributor, and the project maintainer, I think he has every right to control the project. He is not a control freak just because he wants his project to be given to someone else! This doesn't apply to all situations, but for some projects it's good to have one person in control who decides how things will work, and controls the overall architecture and the project in general.
Re:Thought Police (Score:2, Insightful)
The crucial role of GNU was brought home for me again this weekend, as I watched gcc flawlessly build from scratch--close to 950K LOC. The GNU contribution to the core Linux platform is a tour de force of high-quality code, without which the platform would be immeasurably poorer.
Bulletproof compilers, libraries and related devel tools are at the very heart of open source, and Linux would be a shadow of itself without them. Equating the GNU oeuvre with RandomUtilityWhoseRpmIHaventInstalledYet 1.0 is disingenuous, and a slap in the face to the massive amount of excellent work that's gone into GNU.
I agree, there comes a point where prepending something slash to Linux gets ridiculous, but that point is after GNU becomes the initial something. I don't always agree with RMS, but agree and respect are two whole different animals. You don't have to agree with RMS to respect the biggest single contribution to Linux as it exists today. GNU rocks, and GNU/Linux it is.
Re:And isn't it ironic... (Score:2, Insightful)
My solution is to... tah dah... not mix ethics and politics!
If you really wanted to write free code, you'd release it without any copyright: ie, public domain. That's why I sort of like the BSD license over the GPL, though they are both sort of nifty.
WHY... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stallman.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, it's not about stallman's ego, it's about making people realize that there is more to Free Software than the apolitical views of Linus.
Well, to apply a little "pseudo/buddhist pop psychology":
People identify themselves with the ideas and opinions that they hold. So his ego is most definetly bound up with the ideals, and the more people he can get to agree with this ideal, the "bigger" his ego becomes. This is why it's so tricky to disagree with someone, often resulting in fierce argument--you're not just disagreeing with an idea--you are disagreeing with them, and their "rightness".
Which is not to say that nobody is ever right. It's just that, while a person may want to change the world for the better, and may perform positive actions, their basic starting point is that they want themselves, ie. their identity, their ego, to be associated with "doing good". The ego is always there, because people have an identity.
glibc is a FSF project if any exists (Score:3, Insightful)
But glibc was, as far as I understand, a project where Roland McGrath was _hired_ by the FSF to write a C runtime library for use in GNU (and meanwhile in order to provide GCC with an ANSI C compliant library on proprietary Unixen. The first glibc target was SunOS).
This makes it as much a GNU project as anything can be. Owned by and developed for GNU, in the start for FSF money.
UD should of course have thanks for accepting the BURDEN of maintainership, his technical and political contributions to the project (convincing the Linux developers to use the official branch of the GNU library instead of thei own ancient branch is no major feat).
However, if he somehow have forgotten that he was appointed to and have worked for years on a GNU project, I think it is best if he leave at least the political part of the job to someone else, for example a Steering Comittee (with people like Roland McGrath, the original author).
Re:Thought Police (Score:3, Insightful)
So if I write a new operating system (called Nifty_New_OS) but I use Borlands compilers and toolset, Borland should have the right to insisting it be called Borland/Nifty_New_OS? Frankly I think RMS is off his rocker.
Re:Stallman.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Q. Does RMS lie when he speaks?
A. No.
R. Then he's not a politician.
Re:Thought Police (Score:2, Insightful)
Linus wrote it.
When Linus started, he wrote that too. It wasn't until libc4 that the Linux C library was derived from the GNU project, and it wasn't until libc6/glibc2 that it became part of the GNU project.
Which would consist of tty support, terminal emulation, and a shell. The tty support was part of the kernel, and Linus also started out by writing his own terminal emulator. At the time, GNU bash wasn't available, so presumably Linus used csh, which is BSD software.
So according to your own definition, the operating system I call Linux started out without relying on a lot of GNU software.
No, that's most definately not true. From David Wheeler's analysis of RH 7.1: [dwheeler.com]
kernel 2.4.2 - 2437470 SLOC
glibc 2.2.2 - 646692 SLOC
GNU binutils-2.10.91.0.2 - 690983
And binutils contains a lot more than your definition of just "the most basic interface possible". Even if you throw in the compiler suite, you still won't end up with as many SLOCs as the kernel.
Re:Stallman (Score:3, Insightful)
Right. The GOP has secret death squads going from clinic to clinic gunning down doctors.
Please stop being an idiot.
Re:Score -1, Troll (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly how can you "force" someone to contribute to a project? Especially since this library is released under LGPL, Drepper would be free to port it to whatever he wanted. Give me more details and some evidence. I'm not about buy rhetoric.
If i'm not reading this wrong, Drepper is the maintainer of glibc, and so should decide what goes on
You may have noticed the list of the main contributors. This is not, repeat not, a one-man project. Therefore, no one person should have complete control.
I find this completely unacceptable and can assure everybody that I consider none of the code I contributed to glibc (which is quite a lot) to be as part of the GNU project and so a major part of what Stallman claims credit for is simply going away.
That's funny cause glibc is GNU libc. This guy contributes some code to it and now suddenly it's no longer a part of the GNU project. Interesting. If I take the Linux kernel, contribute to it, then turn around and say I don't consider it a part of the Linux project, would that go over well?
Sure, Drepper is an important contributor, but he is by no means the only contributor. Therefore, it seems to me rather that he is the control freak here: when he realized that other contributors have a say in "his" project, he started whining. This is nothing more than his ego.
Is this Drepper's brain "kaput"? (Score:1, Insightful)
At the time he started porting glibc to Linux (see article) it must have been cristal clear to Ulrich Drepper what the deal with GNU, GNU projects, the LGPL, and the glibc in particular were. In short it is about individuals making (many small) contributions to something that in the end is beneficial for a big group of individuals - call it user base, comunity, or society.
The GNU Project was the first of its kind and many similar free projects followed. The GPL and LGPL are constructed to protect this freedom, the basic idea of sharing. That is the reason why many of the follow-up projects chose this license - as the best possible protection for their code.
Making the above statement Ulrich Drepper, for me, becomes questionable as a project maintainer for glibc. His statement is a complete negation of the idea behind free software and GNU in particular. For him free software seems to be about claiming credit, not about sharing contributions (and I think it is more than ok that RMS claims a major part of the credit for Linux and that he wishes to see GNU mentioned together with Linux).
Ulrich Drepper seems not willing to continue playing by the rules that must have been clear to him, and that he accepted, when he started contributing to glibc, one of the core GNU projects. Even worse: Instead of walking away
Personally I think that the post script to this release note was written in rage and that is wasn't really clear to Ulrich, what he was actually saying. But it still makes me sad to see that a brilliant developer like Ulrich looses control over himself to such a degree that he makes statements perverting his own contribution to GNU and GNU/Free Software in general.
Stallman's a political genius (Score:1, Insightful)
I agree that he has a blind spot about the "Gnu/Linux" issue. RMS is profoundly innovative, which means that he's profoundly indifferent to peer pressure. This enabled him to develop Project GNU from scratch, but it also leads him into bonehead moves like "Gnu/Linux" and "Lignux".
Re:Don't be Rediculous (Score:1, Insightful)
When Stallman and the FSF are willing to admit that their political opinions are opinions, and demonstrate - by their actions - that they are willing to do something other than disregard and disdain individuals with opinions that differ from theirs, then you will have the moral hight ground neccesary to make the argument you just presented.
Re:Ulrich Drepper Attempting Hostile GPL Takeover (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a flaw in your reasoning
The author can always change the license.
Re:Don't be Rediculous (Score:3, Insightful)
I lambast RMS and the FSF when they engage in such practices as well, but lately I haven't seen any such demagaugary coming from the FSF. I have, however, seen a lot of public airing of dirty laundry coming from the ESR/O'Reilly camp
As for moral highground, as an observer who has engaged in no demagaugary against either side, and whose anti-Microsoft comments have been based on factual information, not ad homonem innuendo, I think I have the right to decry the use of demaguagary and ad homonem attacks like this one (and the O'Reilly/ESR Flerbiage absurdity of last weekend) without being in the least bit guilty of hypocracy.
If and when RMS engages in the same thing I shall point my flame thrower at him with just as much enthusiasm as I do now at O'Reilly, ESR, and company.
Re:Stallman (Score:3, Insightful)
Gads. Is there a spectrum of wrongness going from mildly naughty to diabolically evil? Certainly. Just because something lies closer the naughty end of that spectrum doesn't negate its underlying wrongness.
Argh!