Posted on 05/31/2006 7:19:40 AM PDT by antiRepublicrat
Stallman-headed group's increasing politicization leaves a sour taste
When Richard Stallman created the Free Software Foundation (FSF) in 1985, it was organized around a radical idea: Software should be free, not just as in free of charge, but free as in the concept of liberty. During the next 20 years that idea turned out to be not just radical, but surprisingly practical. Beginning with Stallman's Emacs text editor, to the various Gnu utilities, the Linux kernel, and beyond, free software has proved to be an enduring success.
Much of the credit for that can be given to Stallman himself. Through his tireless campaigning, he has transformed this idealistic notion into something that the wider world, and even the business community, can accept and take seriously. Although it may not always be easy to agree with him, his arguments have been rational, and if nothing else, intellectually consistent to the last.
All the more reason to be disappointed by the FSF's recent, regrettable spiral into misplaced neopolitical activism, far removed from its own stated first principles. In particular, the FSF's moralistic opposition to DRM (digital rights management) technologies, which first manifested itself in early drafts of Version 3 of the GPL (Gnu General Public License), seems now to have been elevated to the point of evangelical dogma.
The FSF's most recent effort -- an anti-DRM protest staged at Microsoft's WinHEC conference last week, complete with demonstrators costumed in hazmat suits -- was particularly troubling. It signals a shift in the FSF, from an advocacy organization to one that engages in hysterical activism cut from the PETA mold.
(Excerpt) Read more at infoworld.com ...
They were the first to produce PCs But not "desktops", as I specifically mentioned. It was a new paradigm, time for you to admit it. And we know Compaq reverse engineered Bios with a clean room, while all the Unix cloners over in Europe were using Unix documentation. You obviously love counterfeiters for some strange reason.
The understanding is out there, just beyond your grasp. It was a new paradigm, just like open source is a new paradigm. It was not about the technology, it was about how the new paradigm changed the market, leaving some (like Apple) behind, and making others (like Compaq) rich.
And we know Compaq reverse engineered Bios with a clean room, while all the Unix cloners over in Europe were using Unix documentation.
The IBM PC BIOS was proprietary, so direct copying was infringement. Being UNIX-like is a published standard (POSIX, IEEE 1003). Big difference. Microsoft even implemented POSIX for Windows.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.