Richard Stallman, industry activist and founder of the Free Software Foundation has – once again – relinquished his role as maintainer of the phenomenally successful GNU Extensible, Customizable, Display Editor (Emacs). The news was slipped out on the Emacs developers’ forum and Stallman explained his reasons in a later interview.
…is just too funny, classic even. (no harm intended)
You’ve committed a mortal sin. You must repeat one hundred times:
——————————————
The number of the beast is VI VI VI.
My favorite operating system is GNU/Emacs.
——————————————
May Saint IGNUcius have mercy on your soul.
That’s truly rich.
If the Linux Kernel is one program, then all this crap invading the Web are a few actions/behaviors and dont’ remotely resemble a program. You know what the hell I’m talking about. All this AJAX crap and PHP application junk at Facebook and others where we have thousands of applications.
Give me a break.
If the Linux Kernel is one program then we might as well call KDE or GNOME of OS X or Windows Vista as just examples of one program in a series of programs.
Edited 2008-02-26 22:43 UTC
I think he’s just a little pissed that Linux is associated vastly more with Linus than himself.
No, I think he’s pissed that his project comprises about 50% of most “Linux” systems, and yet the most associated project comprises about 2%
Edited 2008-02-26 23:43 UTC
sadly those 2% is what enables people to use the others…
also, the linux kernel may never have happened if the hurd had been usable in 91 or so…
And if we could eat rocks, we could use them for food.
It’s 2008. And we’re still waiting.
The FSF has accomplished much, but has a penchant for laying claim to even more… while downplaying the significance of the projects which have accomplished what they failed to do, despite having a 7 year head start, in general, and a 1 year head start with HURD, in particular. Namely, getting a usable kernel out to crown their “GNU OS”.[1]
Richard urges people to give his organization credit for its work, while failing to give others due credit for their amazing, and apparently supergnustical feats.
As Linus quipped the other day, “User space is **so** easy!”.
[1] Work on GNU OS started 23 years ago, I believe. There was a failed attempt to adapt a kernel from a prexisting project. And work began on the HURD in 1990.
Edited 2008-02-27 01:15 UTC
To be fair, writing software such as compilers and debuggers and C libraries isn’t the easy part of userspace coding and is arguably comparably difficult to kernelspace work. The tools that usually fill this niche on Linux are all from the GNU project.
So, why haven’t Linus and his gang written a user space to complement their kernel yet, if it’s **so** easy? And why haven’t they written a C standard library, a C compiler and a debugger for their “LinuxOS”? Surely they know that a Unix system needs both a kernel and a user space before people can actually use it, and also that you can’t develop either of these if you don’t have any programming tools.
So why has Linus’s crew failed so miserably to write a complete Unix system, which they could rightfully call the “Linux operating system”? And why is Linus downplaying the significance of a project which has accomplished what they failed to do? Where’s the Linux user land? And where are the Linux development tools? Well? It’s 2008. And we’re still waiting.
But seriously, the HURD kernel hasn’t been a priority for the GNU project pretty much for the same reason why the user land and the development tools haven’t been a priority for the Linux kernel developers. The GNU system doesn’t necessarily need HURD because the GNU system and the Linux kernel put together already comprise a free/libre Unix-like system.
The important point here is that the main goal of the GNU project was never just to create a microkernel-based Unix-like system (as your comment seems to suggest). Instead, the main goal that the GNU project has pursued from the very beginning has been to create a Unix-like system that is made entirely of free/libre software. And, with the addition of the Linux kernel, the GNU project has successfully accomplished this goal.
There’s really no need for the Linux developers to write their own versions of the GNU user land or the GNU programming tools when the GNU project has already provided those. And, for the same exact reason, it doesn’t make much sense for the GNU project to work their butt off just to write their own version of a free/libre kernel. Still, I’ve heard that the HURD kernel has been more or less usable for some time now, but it’s just not nearly as good or stable as the Linux kernel.
So why has Linus’s crew failed so miserably to write a complete Unix system, which they could rightfully call the “Linux operating system”? And why is Linus downplaying the significance of a project which has accomplished what they failed to do? Where’s the Linux user land? And where are the Linux development tools? Well? It’s 2008. And we’re still waiting.
A note: Linus never had any intentions whatsoever of writing all the userland also. The plan was right from the beginning to port any existing software and use that. As such they haven’t failed anything, they’ve achieved what they intended to. GNU Hurd however is a project that was set out to create a kernel along with userland. They still have a long way to go regarding the kernel.
True. We’re getting a bit off-track, though. The *real* point, in my opinion, is that Linus does not try to tell other people what they should call the software they use on their own computers. Nor does he insist that people take a “Torvaldsesque Pledge” before he will talk to them.
I think most of us are perfectly fine with the idea of various disparate groups coming together in synergy to produce something more powerful than the simple sum of its parts. It’s only when one of those groups begins inisting that they are, in Orwellian terms, “more equal than ohers” that I begin to become concerned. And yes, a bit annoyed, as well.
This allegation is made a lot, but I really don’t think this is it. If anything, I think Stallman is really about the ideology of GNU and his definition of free software, and what he doesn’t like is that ideological element, which he sees as being foundational and essential to the success of Linux, being divorced from it.
For him, “GNU/Linux” is as much a philosophical, moral, or ideological triumph as it is a technical one, and I think his insistence on these things is acknowledging the free software ethic, the communitarian principle, that was important to creating all of this.
You can agree or disagree with the copyleft concept, and god knows, vast armies of people align on both sides every time it comes up, but I think it’s unfair to say that this is about ego. I see no evidence of this. I see a man on a kind of crusade for an idea, not a man on a crusade for himself.
In my personal opinion only, I think all the truth about what’s important is encoded conspicuously in the story of Linux –
One faction creates a body of software riding on the energy and zeal of a moral concept, but can’t quite finish the thing – can’t quite tie it all together.
Another faction creates a body of software they want to be technically excellent, using many of the tools developed by the first.
A beautiful balance, IMHO. I have long imagined that if Richard Stallman could somehow make a deal with God, whereby from now on Linux would always be referred to as GNU/Linux at the price of Stallman’s name being removed from history, he’d make it.
I continue to feel that some people are occasionally unfair to him. An eccentric and uncompromising man, indeed, but one driven by principles he has stood by consistently, as far as I can tell.
Whether or not the GPL is good for the future of software development is a separate issue from the man’s motivations. Out of irritation with the viral nature of the GPL, certain individuals have attempted to criticize his character, and I think this is unfair and unwarranted.
As to the question of whether the GPL has limited the adoption of Linux, that is still open to debate, but I also have to say that I doubt Linux would have come as far as it has without it. I know that I have personally had a difficult time getting GNU software into my company for reasons specifically related to the license. It is not without its costs, at any rate. The question is whether the costs are worth it.
But I respect Richard Stallman and bristle a bit at some of the personal attacks he receives.
as any person, he is complicated. i guess he is just one odf those that wear his complexities on the outside rather then the inside.
and in a age of constant compromises, a uncompromising man can sadly be seen as a agitator…
I think Stallman would only be satisfied if there was only One Great GNU Monopoly in software.
Of course, there’s a hell of a lot more GPL software than what GNU provides. And very useful free, non-GPL software (X.org, Python, Ruby, Apache…). And BSD userlands that could be used instead of GNU’s, if needed.
So unless you count GCC and Emacs, the open source world doesn’t revolve around GNU.
Edited 2008-02-27 12:06 UTC
And tell me, just how many of those other projects would exist at all if not for GCC, Emacs, or the rest of the GNU userland?
You don’t have to agree with him, but you should give the guy the credit that he deserves.
And for the record, a GNU monopoly would be impossible, as a monopoly demands a controlling entity.
Uhh… Linux IS just one program.
It’s really a shame that GNU doesn’t get more of the credit for the complete systems like Fedora and Ubuntu. Linux itself is a very large kernel – it comprises about 45MB of code according to kernel.org – but things like GCC, Glibc, Gnome etc etc comprise FAR more of those systems.
I don’t agree with much of what Stallman says, but the marketing thats gone on around the “Linux” name is a real shame. Your text here is a good example of that, and you should be ashamed of your ignorance on that topic.
It’s really a shame that GNU doesn’t get more of the credit for the complete systems like Fedora and Ubuntu. Linux itself is a very large kernel – it comprises about 45MB of code according to kernel.org – but things like GCC, Glibc, Gnome etc etc comprise FAR more of those systems.
One can see it that way too but well…What would you do with a distro with only GNU software on it? F.ex. GNOME doesn’t belong to GNU as far as I know, and I kinda think all the other software too which don’t belong to GNU actually comprise a bigger part of the distro than the included GNU software. As such, should it be called GNOME/Linux, or KDE/Linux, or something similar? Sure, the whole userland wouldn’t be possible without GNU software, but neither would any of the modern desktop environments without non-GNU software.
In the modern times a Linux distro without useable userland is more or less as useless to any average user as a Linux distro without useable and modern DE. In that sense they are both equally important. And don’t forget all the other software..
As such I just find nitpicking about calling it Linux instead of GNU/Linux rather irritating.
http://www.gnome.org/about/
GNOME is Free Software and part of the GNU project.
Still, you get the point. Change the distro (or DE edition… ie. Kubuntu or PCLOS or Fedora KDE Spin) and a couple of the technologies exclusive to it (KWin/KDE/etc.) and… you get the idea.
Thanks for the correction though… (I’m not a Gnome/Ubuntu user myself.)
Which nicely bookends the other article going on right now about the inclusion of mono in Gnome as a dependency for tomboy, and the inherent risk of Microsoft taint because of that. Which, by no small coincidence, RMS discouraged.
I bask in the irony.
Stallman should support KDE.
I think they should have worked with dotGNU instead… I’m not sure why more people aren’t aware of that project :/
RMS is getting stranger all the time.First his personal vendetta with the tivo/GPL3 thing and now Linux.
Why he singles out Linux is beyound me.Last time I checked emacs (and other GNU tools) did run on a bunch of OS’s.Even (gulp) windows.
It’s GNU/windows!! Take that Ballmer!
Obviously MIT/BSD/GNU/{KDE|GNOME}/Linux.
No it’s GNU/Linux because :
MORON/with/stupid/comments/never/show/up/in/courts/or/use/there/real/n ame/to/make/a/point.
In an ideal situation, it would simply be “Ubuntu” or “Fedora” etc etc… and people would be made aware of the underlying technology as they use it…
The community wishes to give the appearance of unification however, so they chose “Linux” as it was simpler, and kept the religious stuff that GNU represents out of the picture.
If the FOSS world tries to explain GNU philosophy to everyone, there would simply never have been the resources made available by the large companies involved today.
I simply took offense to the fact that the guy seemed offended that RMS was pushing the acknowledgment of GNU while he gave an interview. That is his prerogative.
It’s rare that I push a comment up or down but you get a plus 1 or at least if I can get the button to recognize my mouse click.
For a long time I’ve tried to explain the very thing you bring up; Debian != Ubuntu != Red Hat != Mandriva. They are all seporate and destinct OS distributions that coincidentally use the same available commodity parts (Linux kernel, GNU tool chain, Gnome/KDE UI).
Refering to the whole Linux based OS segment of the greater FOSS market place is like refering to all cars as “six cillinders” while ignoring *everything* wrapped around that engine block. Does Ford = GM = Handa? They are all based on an engine after all.
Inspite of using the same core engine block, the latest new distribution anounced out of left field with some specialty bent too it is not equal to a distribution like Debian (it may become equal given time to evolve but not right off the starting line).
For me, it’s lead to “Linux based OS” or simply using the correct branding “Mandriva” or “Debian” versus the misleading and confusing single component name in reference to the whole potential gambit of great on down to really not great distribution options.
MS likes “Linux” to be called such because it’s easier to find a really crapy distribution, refer to it generaically and claim it is representative of all including the really good distributions.
The Linux based OS snobs like it because they can always say “Just install Linux, any of the hundres of it”. Either they feel superior for overcomplicating a very simple thing or (if part of the particular mind set) know they’ve scared another “mundain” away from there elitist geek only OS preference.
Bah.. Linux is only the kernel; refering to proper distribution names should be the way of things.
>F.ex. GNOME doesn’t belong to GNU as far as I know
GNOME is a GNU Project (see: http://www.gnome.org/about/)
By the way Gtk+ is a GNU project too.
See http://directory.fsf.org/GNU/ for all programs which are part of the GNU project.
>As such, should it be called GNOME/Linux, or KDE/Linux, or something similar?
GNOME/Linux is not necessary because GNOME is already mentioned with GNU so you can stay by GNU/Linux. If you want to give KDE credits you could call it KDE/GNU or KDE/GNU/Linux or whatever you want.
(see: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#many)
At the end you can’t use your computer with Linux and you can’t use your computer with GNU (to some extend you can) but if you combine Linux and GNU you get an operating system which allows you to use your computer so GNU/Linux is a adequate name. It’s a little bit like TCP/IP. You need both for a common network stack so it is neither TCP nor IP but TCP/IP.
If you wan’t a shorter name you should pick the part which is larger and more important and this is GNU. Why is GNU more important? Give someone a GNU System and replace the Kernel Linux with another Kernel and most user won’t discover any difference. On the other Hand take Linux out of GNU and put it e.g. into MacOS (to replace the BSD kernel) people will discover a huge difference. So while the kernel is an important part it doesn’t make the difference. The difference come from the part of the OS which is necessary to run a computer and interacts with the user and not the part which interacts with the hardware.
Edited 2008-02-27 11:48 UTC
At the end you can’t use your computer with Linux and you can’t use your computer with GNU (to some extend you can) but if you combine Linux and GNU you get an operating system which allows you to use your computer so GNU/Linux is a adequate name.
Linux can also be combined with non-GNU software and still make a useable computer. As such, Linux != GNU/Linux. Sure enough, I don’t know of any Linux distro which would provide a useable userland without GNU software, but still it is possible and as such Linux just isn’t synonymous with GNU/Linux.
If you wan’t a shorter name you should pick the part which is larger and more important and this is GNU. Why is GNU more important? Give someone a GNU System and replace the Kernel Linux with another Kernel and most user won’t discover any difference. On the other Hand take Linux out of GNU and put it e.g. into MacOS (to replace the BSD kernel) people will discover a huge difference.
You are contradicting yourself. First you say changing kernel won’t change anything for the end-user and then you say it will make a huge impact? Nah, I’d just say both GNU and Linux are more-or-less equally important. Neither of them would be what they are now without eachother. All the Linux-related development just wouldn’t have been possible without GCC et al, but they wouldn’t be so good as they are now without all the movement and interested developers that Linux has attracted.
So, in the end, I’ll just stick to calling GNU GNU and Linux-distributions as Linux.
>As such, Linux != GNU/Linux.
right! Linux is a kernel and GNU/Linux is an complete operating system, the combination of GNU and Linux.
>You are contradicting yourself. First you say changing kernel won’t change anything for the end-user and then you say it will make a huge impact?
No!
In the first scenario i change the Kernel: GNU system once with a Linux kernel and once with a different kernel. -> almost no differences even that the kernel has changed.
In the second scenario i keep the kernel and change the rest of the system: Linux kernel in a GNU system vs Linux kernel in MacOS. -> hugh differences even if the kernel is the same
right! Linux is a kernel and GNU/Linux is an complete operating system, the combination of GNU and Linux.
You quite missed the point: A Linux-based OS does not necessarily equal GNU/Linux. As such calling every Linux-based OS GNU/Linux is wrong.
No!
In the first scenario i change the Kernel: GNU system once with a Linux kernel and once with a different kernel. -> almost no differences even that the kernel has changed.
In the second scenario i keep the kernel and change the rest of the system: Linux kernel in a GNU system vs Linux kernel in MacOS. -> hugh differences even if the kernel is the same
Take GNU/Linux, replace GNU with BSD alternatives -> Almost no difference yet the same kernel and completely different userland. Sorry to burst your bubble.
>As such calling every Linux-based OS GNU/Linux is wrong.
I don’t say that you should call every Linux based system GNU/Linux! You should call the common desktop system GNU/Linux which is a combination of GNU and Linux. If you have a MacOS with a Linux kernel than you would probably continue to call it MacOS or maybe MacOS/Linux, if you have a BSD system with a Linux kernel you would probably continue to call it BSD and if you have a small embeded system where Linux is probably the largest and most important part than you may call it only Linux.
You see? It’s not black or white!
>Take GNU/Linux, replace GNU with BSD alternatives -> Almost no difference yet the same kernel and completely different userland. Sorry to burst your bubble.
Don’t mixup cause and effect.
It wouldn’t be that different because both GNU and BSD are Unix-like operating systems and not because the kernel makes them identically.
Edited 2008-02-27 15:17 UTC
Don’t mixup cause and effect.
It wouldn’t be that different because both GNU and BSD are Unix-like operating systems and not because the kernel makes them identically.
Just how exactly is that any different from your own examples then? Replacing a Unix-like kernel with another Unix-like kernel, that’s the example you gave in your previous post. So why not replace Unix-like userland with another Unix-like userland then? The point here is that the GNU userland is not as important as you make it out to be. It can be replaced just as well as the kernel. They are both very much dependant on each other though, neither can be run by itself and atleast in the case of Linux and the GNU userland, neither would be even nearly as useable without the features provided by eachother.
Why is GNU more important? Give someone a GNU System and replace the Kernel Linux with another Kernel and most user won’t discover any difference.
Do you have any idea what’s wrong behind that reasoning? Well, it’s the fact that the kernel isn’t even supposed to be visible to the users, it’s the userland. You’re just comparing apples to oranges here, and then just claim GNU userland is more important. Yet, you just admitted that replacing GNU userland with BSD userland would mean almost no difference to the user either.
>Just how exactly is that any different from your own examples then? Replacing a Unix-like kernel with another Unix-like kernel, that’s the example you gave in your previous post. So why not replace Unix-like userland with another Unix-like userland then?
Because your example only works if you change two almost equal userlands (e.g. BSD and GNU).
And my example also works if you change some complete different kernel. You can put whatever kernel you want into a GNU, BSD, MacOS, Windows,… system and the user will still have his GNU, BSD, MacOS, Windows,… system.
>Do you have any idea what’s wrong behind that reasoning? Well, it’s the fact that the kernel isn’t even supposed to be visible to the users
Yes, you are right. The kernel is (a) not visible to the user and (b) only one program of an operating system. That’s why almost no operating system in named like the kernel (most kernel don’t have a name at all) and why Apple hasn’t rename his OS after they have changed the kernel and why no MacOS user cares which kernel they use they would also like their MacOS if it would use an Linux kernel and they would probably not call it Linux because of the kernel.
While what you say is particularly true with something like KDE, let’s not forget that before GNOME became just another name it was an acronym; GNU Network Object Model Environment
So, has anyone tried the new Ubuntu GNU/Upstart/PulseAudio/XOrg/Metacity/GNOME/Mozilla/Linux lately?
Once the HURD is done, he’ll have his wish–an operating system with his name on it, and even be able to place requirements (trademark) of adding the word (acronym?) “GNU” to any product based on it. Unfortunately for him, it seems that DNF has a higher chance of being released before then.
Edited 2008-02-27 01:11 UTC
>Unfortunately for him, it seems that DNF has a higher chance of being released before then.
Yes… and do you know why? Because GNU isn’t interested in replacing existing free software. GNUs interest is to create a free operating system. If parts are developed outside of GNU they are happy with it. That’s why they also don’t develop their own x.org for example. There is no need! So the concentrate on missing parts like GNU Classpath in the past or today Gnash and more (see: http://www.fsf.org/campaigns/priority.html)
You know… one of the big technical advantage of free software is that you don’t have to invent the wheel again and again.
Edited 2008-02-27 11:51 UTC
I suppose you’re prone to being dense about context.
That one program comprising of millions upon millions of lines of code enables his EWACS to be commonly distributed around the globe and not give him a heart attack about Linux not being dictated on his terms.
When LLVM becomes mature and supports what GCC does, with improvements in performance are we going to not use that to work on our applications? Hell, LLVM 2.3 is making great strides and 2.2 is very stable.
The notion that the brain is just one program and on the same level as your ear is retarded.
Ok… but tools like sed, and gawk, and grub, bash and glibc are ALL parts of GNU, not to mention Gnome, GNUstep, WindowMaker, GIMP, AbiWord/GnuCash/Gnumeric… so much of the system…
It’d be pretty hard to get Linux working without glibc and grub on most Linux systems.
Point is, Richard Stallman has the right to demand acknowledgment for the work of the GNU project he started when he gives an interview.
EDIT: So while it’s true that comparing a brain to an ear is wrong… having a brain in a jar on your desk is a useless brain.
Edited 2008-02-27 08:18 UTC
He has the right to demand credit for the organization he created. He does not have the right to demand credit for the work he is not responsible for.
Just because someone makes a program and releases it under the GPL license, does not mean he can claim it as his own!
Maybe Microsoft have hired him to work on Emacs.NET ;=)
I agree that not differentiating between GNU/Linux and Linux is a major problem. But I don’t think anyone should be angry because no one is really stealing any credit from anyone here. Very few Linux users don’t know who Richard Stallman is or what GNU is and what it represents.
I agree with you there to some extent. However, I believe that it will be mostly the veterans that will know who Stallman is or what he did. I don’t think that I can assert the same about the crowd of Windows refugees going to Ubuntu in droves…
Yup, can’t even do a simple interview without using it as a platform for pushing his own naive idealistic socialist agenda… Even when the questions asked have nothing to do with ANY of what he started out DICTATING as terms.
Let’s face it, people call it linux because if not for linux, 99%+ of the world wouldn’t give a rats backside for GNU anything apart from a handful of backroom unix server geeks who got left behind by the REAL computer revolution that pretty much occured without them or the free software movement…
Edited 2008-02-27 02:05 UTC
Socialism is apparently a word you can plug in to any concept that, (if you’re an American from the US), you don’t like.
What this has to do with a voluntarily chosen software license, I have no idea.
As for “dictating” terms, that’s another interesting use of that word. I am clearly confused, but in a capitalist environment, parties enter into agreements and contracts by way of mutual consent, do they not?
I must have missed the part about Richard Stallman chomping on a (Cuban) cigar, with a military rifle, insisting that people interview him, with a list of demands.
Just for kicks, I would like to see the term socialism ascribed to jock itch, because jock itch, we can all agree, is one hell of a downer. Like Lenin. That guy was no fun at all. He even stuck around after he died to wig out thousands of tourists.
Edited 2008-02-27 02:12 UTC
How is the original author wrong though? he wasn’t being disparaging to socialism, what he is being disparaging is to the nativity of his (Stallman’s) idealistic notion of software creation. Socialism and Communism are ideals which can never be achieved because it would be undermining basic human nature.
Even those who were bought up in strictly socialist/communist like environments such as the Kabutz where everything was community owned on a small scale – ended up rebelling and reverting back to freemarket capitalism, be it with a slight bent towards a social contract like concept of obligations to society as well stick to basic business fundamentals.
The issue is the idea that you can force everyone into your particular ideology. The problem with Stallman isn’t his idea, but his unwillingness to even acknowledge that there are other schools of thoughts and that their ideas have as much merit as his own. That is the issue – down right arrogance more than anything else.
Edited 2008-02-27 02:23 UTC
This is hardly axiomatic. And besides, my objection is that the term socialism is, as I said earlier, used to describe *anything* that (mostly Americans) don’t like. If you are indeed comparing GNU to socialism, I think it’s kind of odd to say that it hasn’t worked, considering I’m typing this largely on a system comprised of (and compiled by) GNU tools. The idea that the GPL can’t or doesn’t work is ludicrous, considering we’re even having a debate about it.
As for socialism, there are a fair amount of socialist countries around the globe and a lot of people who would disagree with you.
In point of fact, I don’t see what GNU or the GPL has to do with socialism, which is a transitional stage of an *economic system* between capitalism and communism. How this relates in any way, shape, or form, to, say, gcc, I do not know.
Yet even if it is related, how is it the Linux kernel gets developed and released under the GPL on a regular basis if “GNU/GPL” is like socialism, and “Socialism and Communism are ideals which can never be achieved because it would be undermining basic human nature.”
Unless I’m misunderstanding you, which is possible, you are using the worst possible example (GNU, which does work) to prove that socialism/communism doesn’t work.
This is wildly off topic, on top of which you are equating or lumping together communism and socialism, which are two different things. You are also ignoring the fact that *kibbutzim* were Zionist entities, first and foremost.
Kibbutzim occurred in a closed environment. While you are correct that most of them evolved away from their earlier collectivist leanings, you speak categorically.
In point of fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samar_%28kibbutz%29
I may well be wrong, but I do now now (nor did I in 1989) share in the zeitgeist of the times that socialism was dead. As long as there is poverty on a mass scale, there will be socialism…and possibly communism.
(Incidentally, I am not a socialist or communist, in case you are wondering. I just don’t like the complete misappropriation of terminology when discussing these issues.)
If Stallman has campaigned to make non-free software illegal anywhere – that is, to compel anyone to use his license or software, please quote your sources. If he has in any way, shape, or form, attempted to coerce anyone to use the GPL, please state where, because I am laboring under the understanding that he has not.
To me the GPL is like any other legally binding agreement – you create software, and you put conditions of use upon it, the same way proprietary software comes with an AUP. As a consumer, you can choose to use the software according to those terms, or not.
It is fair to engage in the tired semantic arguments about whether the GPL or BSD licenses truly grant “freedom,” but to use the terms coerce, compel, or “force,” as you did, is exaggeration. If you don’t like the GPL, don’t use the software. You are absolutely free to refuse those terms, just as you are an AUP (and unlike most AUPs, the GPL is well documented and can be perused before you “purchase” – not that you ever have to do that – the software). Likewise you are free to write your own software and choose the license (and terms) you release it under.
Stallman has hardly refused to “acknowledge” other schools of thought, either. That he doesn’t find them convincing merely makes him principled – at least as principled of those who hate him and the GPL. He views closed or ‘horded’ software as immoral. I don’t know that I buy that personally, but at the same time, it seems ridiculous for him to grant currency to a point of view he disagrees with, any more than I should endorse points of view I disagree with. I consider them, and some I buy and some I don’t.
The GPL is a license freely chosen by software authors, freely adhered to by users, who can at any time stop using the software and write their own or use an alternative. It is no different in this regard than any other license.
And it *works*. However annoying this may be to those who oppose the license, here many of us sit on systems comprised largely of, or compiled by, GPL software.
Sure he was. He was comparing it to Stallman’s crazy-a$$ opinions.
Um, you are aware that there are a lot of successful socialist states in the world, right?
Please don’t confuse socialism with communism.
Congratulations, you just described socialism. Socialism is not the opposite of capitalism. The two can, and do, co-exist successfully.
“Socialism and Communism are ideals which can never be achieved because it would be undermining basic human nature.”
Socialism : CANADA
Communism : CHINA
Since your lying as base to make a point , I will not adress the rest of your nonsense.
What I don’t get is that for all your lies and bulshit The FSF and Stallman are not moving target , hence I submit that if you want to stop being a lying coward that you get yourself a lawyer and try and submit to court that is false use of GNU/Linux according to you is undermining your business on a daily occurence.
It would be really fun to watch your nonsense meet legality and the best lawyers and legal minds above and outside those of Microsoft.
Try Social Democratic Nation.
Thank goodness someone said it; there hasn’t been a truly socialist country for at least 20 years. New Zealand moved from being socialist to social democratic in 1984 after 40 years experimenting with it. It died in the UK when Maggy came to power, and it never really existed as such in the US.
The only one left is Sweden which is quickly dropping it as real wages have dropped, growth has slowed to non-existent. Same can be said for France as well. Interesting that these two countries were free-market and open before, they tinkered with socialism and found that after 20 years of tinkering with it their countries are now worse off than when they started.
Every ‘socialist’ country so far has either gone to the right to save their economy from collapse or they are in the process of collapsing (look at hugo Charvez and his ‘economic programme’ and what ‘joy’ it has bought to his people).
As for calling China communist; oh please, I laughed so hard my sides almost split. Even China has redefined what their nation is; clue, they no longer call themselves in any of their official documents as communist.
Edited 2008-02-27 04:55 UTC
Sweden is social democratic and has been so for the last 60 years or so.
What make me laugh is people who say social but not socialism.
Social
Social ism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrat
“Social democracy is a political ideology that emerged in the late 19th century out of the socialist”
“The only one left … can be said for France ”
Nice try , but wrong , try all the top country They all have socialism base.
1)Iceland
2)Norway
3)Australia
4)Canada
5)Ireland
Free or almost free Education being the norm. Free healthcare , using there major ressource for the well being of there citizens … You need balance in everything.
“Interesting that these two countries were free-market”
Free Market don’t exist , it’s a myth that retard like to spin on problem as the go to solution , Trade boarder , protectionism , taxes on exportation of goods , regulation of market , don’t exist in a free market.
Beside The Euro is such in bad shape that it as never been this high :
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/26/business/26dollarfw.php
“look at hugo Charvez and his ‘economic programme'”
Yes being out of debt is so lame ( cynical here ) :
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18406119/
“President Hugo Chavez announced Monday he would pull Venezuela out of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, a largely symbolic move because the nation has already paid off its debts to the lending institutions.”
“As for calling China communist” :
Why don’t you go there and tell them that they are not communist … don’t forget to tape it , that’s going to be fun to watch.
There is something seriously wrong with your education and thinking when France and Sweden are seen as bad place to live.
There is something seriously wrong with your education and thinking when France and Sweden are seen as bad place to live.
Gz!! This has to be the first post by Moulinneuf that I actually agree with
Please don’t confuse the social theories with their de-facto implementation on subsets of mankind. What you see in Canada or China is not socialism, not communism, even if it’s called that way. The same thing applies for societies that call theirselves “democratic”, see the formder DDR (en: GDR) and the actual BRD (en: FRG) for eamples.
Communism may be a fine utopy, but it doesn’t work with humans. It appeals to man’s fidelity, honor and healthy common sense. But because most examples of mankind don’t meet these requirements, communism is an utopy and won’t work in reality. (Maybe it’s possible to add “sadly”, but to understand this, you need to understand the theories.)
I’ll make an easy claim: Because communism requires “the good”, capitalism rewards “the bad” in man, that’s why it’s working.
You’ll see this confirmed if you look at today’s China. Allthough the government is declared to be communist, the society and especially the economy are oriented very much capitalistic.
Okay, that was off topic.
Actually, I believe we are a democracy here in Canada which is different from the democratic republic of the United States though the US is generally mistaken for a pure democracy and we are often called socialists (usaually by Americans telling us why privatised healthcare is not what they prefer).
Not really all that important as we Canadians also tend to have a sence of humour about ourselves and others.
heh, yeah, people seem to think the USA is a Pure Democracy..
but, um, no. It isn’t. It’s barely a Representative Democracy. A REAL Democracy is extremely hard put to work on as large a scale as a country such as the USA. Pure Democracy does NOT scale well. It barely works for small, local type governments…
I think the correct term for the USAs choice of poison is “Representative Republic”. But I could be wrong…
I usually stop listening the moment someone starts throwing around “Communist” and “Socialist” to describe the shared development model. It’s a BS argument that is used far too often by people who don’t aprove of not buying into proprietary and limiting licenses.
The proprietary model is too consume everything. One central authority holding ownership over physical goods and ideas (patents or the BS term IP). You may all use the goods for a price (devoted national servitude or in this case, money) and you may even use some of the ideas for a price but ownership must be retained by the central authority. Corporate law helps this along with the legal obligation to do what is best for the shareholders regardless of what is best for the customers. Now where have we seen that kind of government?
On the other hand, you can choose to participate in a free market where anyone with goods or services may join in even if they are not part of the boys club. Everything is not graciously provided by one single central authority. The customer may choose from a selection of competing options and in doing so, democratically votes for which option is the better of the available ones. In taking posession of those goods, they customer may then build on those goods and in turn, compete in the market or be happy that there option works for them even if it doesn’t work for others.
Yet someone, FOSS is the comunist/socialist threat to life, liberty and the freedom to use your purchased hardware as you choose while the broken free market remains dominated by a single market leader that retains it’s possition through synthetic market forces while barely tolerating the customers it claims to be supporting.
Don’t get me wrong, MS greed and Stallman ideology are extremes on either side of the same coin. Of course he’s going to come off ideological; his motivation was always ideological and it’s not like he’s unknown for requiring every interviewer to use gnu/linux. I personal fall somewhere inbetween the FSF ideal, OSS prduction model and the propriatery retail model (I’ll pay for software if it’s quality and functions justify the fee). My point is simply that this socialist/communist BS is just that; a steaming fresh patty out back of the barn that always seems to come up when someone doesn’t agree with things being different from how they operate.
1.) RMS’s political viewpoint is better described as anarchist rather than socialist or communist. His primary concern is for freedom not economic objectives. His views are closer to the anarcho-communist thinker Prince Kropotkin with his ideas on mutual aid than those of Marx or Lenin.
2.) There have been no modern socialist or communist societies. All states claiming to be such have used the power of the state to further capitalist accumulation. Social-Democratic “socialist” states use welfare programs in order to try to smooth out the inherent problems of capitalism while maintaining capitalist ownership of the means of production. So called “communist” states used a form of bureaucrat state capitalism to accumulate capital in countries like Russia and China where the effect of global capitalist development, from centres in North America and Europe, prevented the development of an indigenous market capitalism out of an existing feudal society.
By and large most developed countries now have a some form of state capitalism where there is major intervention by the state in support of large capitalist corporations. For example the US where the combination of the military industrial complex, subsidies to large scale agriculture and so on, marks a dependence on their integration with the state for its current capitalist mode of production to survive.
3.) The idea of “human nature” is garbage in spite of what some respected evolutionary psychologists will tell you. Human societies have shown a complex and varied history none of which cannot be constrained by a defined human nature. They have developed by cultural evolution where the selection of memes has become primary over the selection of genes. Memes change a lot faster than genes which is why cultural evolution is a lot faster than biological evolution.
For example during the hight of the Roman Empire the idea that the economy should depend on free men selling their labour power rather than vast masses of slaves would be regarded as either mad or dangerously subversive. Come to think of it that view was held in certain parts of the United States not that long ago.
However empires come and go. The USian empire is in its decline and fall just as Roman Empire was in the early Christian era.
Sic transit gloria mundi.
Edited 2008-02-27 06:02 UTC
For some reason, he sounds very much like the general secretary of the 5% communist party in _this_ country
Again – don’t see why it has to be Linux.You could apply this to any OS that uses GNU tools.Why is RMS jumping on Linux? Give me one reason besides the guy being a publicity hound.
It’s just a bunch of doubletalk – why doesn’t he mention this in the GPL if he wants to have people call it GNU/whatever?
How about this:
* 3. All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software
* must display the following acknowledgement:
* This product includes software developed by the
* GNU,RMS and its contributors.
Oh wait – they took that part out of the BSD license because the GNU guys didn’t like it.
So what now?They want credit or not???
It’s sad that somebody that has contributed that much for that many people sinks to such a level of childish knitpicking.The high opinion I had for RMS is evaporating at a quick rate – not like he’d care about it.
This point is covered in great detail on the fsf homepage and many other places. They have no interest in and are principally against forcing people to acknowledge and give credit to GNU (goes against free speech), but they would like it if people did it because they thought it was the right thing to do. They also refuse to ‘do business’ with people who refuse to do what the FSF believes to be the right thing. It’s a fairly simple and reasonable stance basically: We won’t force you to do what we want, but we won’t work with or endorse you if you don’t.
Comparing Stallman’s views to socialism or communism. Similarly to how open source advocates view freedom as a side benefit, free software advocates see free-as-in-beer software as a side benefit.
It has nothing to do with cost, or economics at all.
Did anyone notice RMS saying that he envisions Emacs adding word processing capabilities?
I guess it’s the next step for the Lisp processor that just so happens to have a text editor, psychotherapist, terminal emulator, email client . . . why not add in a word processor too . . .
I’m happy to refer to “GNU/Linux” rather than just “Linux”. “Linux” may be a catchy name, but since the system is vastly more GNU, it is only fair to include them first.
Plus, while I appreciate that GNU/Linux is free (as in no-cost), I find its freedom is the most important part. If people got stuck on the free (beer) part, and neglected the free (speech) part, then they could wake up one day and find that while they could still download their OS for free, they would not longer be free to use it the way they wanted. Some corporation might have gained control over your computer’s behaviour, then you’d be no better off than if you had used Windows, except financially, as that’s all free (beer) means.
RMS has been fighting to keep software free (as in speech), and has been fighting for your rights over that of greedy corporations, and that truly is more important than more money in your wallet. It’s a shame that so many people fail to recognise this.
It’s the GNU operating system, and Linux is but one of its kernels, albeit a very good one.
My operating system is Mac OSX, but 90% of my time is spent using Emacs, gcc and gfortran, so should I call my OS
GNU/OSX ???
What if I used Windows / Cygwin, would it then be
GNU/Windows ????
Personally, I consider the use of the term ‘Linux’ as a Linux Distribution, a set of programs put together by packagers into a distribution and they should be free to call it whatever they like.