 |
Congratulations! You win the "Made Steve Jobs Smile" award for this thread! |
Posted on 10/23/2006 9:07:01 AM PDT by N3WBI3
Software radical Richard Stallman helped build the Linux revolution. Now he threatens to tear it apart.
The free Linux operating system set off one of the biggest revolutions in the history of computing when it leapt from the fingertips of a Finnish college kid named Linus Torvalds 15 years ago. Linux now drives $15 billion in annual sales of hardware, software and services, and this wondrous bit of code has been tweaked by thousands of independent programmers to run the world's most powerful supercomputers, the latest cell phones and TiVo video recorders and other gadgets.
But while Torvalds has been enshrined as the Linux movement's creator, a lesser-known programmer--infamously more obstinate and far more eccentric than Torvalds--wields a startling amount of control as this revolution's resident enforcer. Richard M. Stallman is a 53-year-old anticorporate crusader who has argued for 20 years that most software should be free of charge. He and a band of anarchist acolytes long have waged war on the commercial software industry, dubbing tech giants "evil" and "enemies of freedom" because they rake in sales and enforce patents and copyrights--when he argues they should be giving it all away.
Despite that utopian anticapitalist bent, Linux and the "open-source" software movement have lured billions of dollars of investment from IBM, Hewlett-Packard, Red Hat and other tech vendors, plus corporate customers such as Wall Street banks, Google and Amazon and Hollywood special-effects shops. IBM has spent a billion dollars embracing Linux, using it as a counterweight to the Microsoft Windows monopoly and to Sun Microsystems' Unix-based business.
Now Stallman is waging a new crusade that could end up toppling the revolution he helped create. He aims to impose new restrictions on IBM and any other tech firm that distributes software using even a single line of Linux code. They would be forbidden from using Linux software to block users from infringing on copyright and intellectual-property rights ("digital rights management"); and they would be barred from suing over alleged patent infringements related to Linux.
Stallman's hold on the Linux movement stems from the radical group he formed in 1985: the Free Software Foundation. The Boston outfit, which he still runs, is guided by a "manifesto" he published that year, urging programmers (hackers) to join his socialist crusade. The group made Stallman a cult hero among hackers--and ended up holding licensing rights to crucial software components that make up the Linux system.
Stallman hopes to use that licensing power to slap the new restraints on the big tech vendors he so reviles. At worst it could split the Linux movement in two--one set of suppliers and customers deploying an older Linux version under the easier rules and a second world using a newer version governed by the new restrictions. That would threaten billions of dollars in Linux investment by customers and vendors alike.
A cantankerous and finger-wagging freewheeler, Stallman won't comment on any of this because he was upset by a previous story written by this writer. But his brazen gambit already is roiling the hacker world. His putsch "has the potential to inflict massive collateral damage upon our entire ecosystem and jeopardize the very utility and survival of open source," says a paper published in September by key Linux developers, who "implore" Stallman to back down. "This is not an exaggeration," says James Bottomley, the paper's chief author. "There is significant danger to going down this path." (Stallman's camp claims Bottomley's paper contains "inaccurate information.")
Simon Lok, chief of Lok Technology in San Jose, Calif., a maker of cheap wireless-networking gear, dumped Linux a few years ago in fear of the Stallman bunch. "I said, 'One day these jackasses will do something extreme, and it's going to kill us.' Now it's coming to fruition," Lok says. "Some of this stuff is just madness. These guys are fanatics." He adds: "Who do these people think they are?"
Even the Linux program's progenitor and namesake, Linus Torvalds, rejects Stallman's new push to force tech companies to design their software his way and to abandon patent rights. Torvalds vows to stick with the old license terms, thereby threatening the split that tech vendors so fear. The new license terms Stallman proposes "are trying to move back into a more 'radical' and 'activist' direction," Torvalds says via e-mail. "I think it's great when people have ideals--but ideals (like religion) are a hell of a lot better when they are private. I'm more pragmatic."
But then, Richard Stallman rarely is pragmatic--and in some ways he is downright bizarre. He is corpulent and slovenly, with long, scraggly hair, strands of which he has been known to pluck out and toss into a bowl of soup he is eating. His own Web site (www.stallman.org) says Stallman engages in what he calls "rhinophytophilia"--"nasal sex" (also his term) with flowers; he brags of offending a bunch of techies from Texas Instruments by plunging his schnoz into a bouquet at dinner and inviting them to do the same.
His site also boasts a recording of him singing--a capella and badly--his own anthem to free software. ("Hoarders can get piles of money / that is true, hackers, that is true. / But they cannot help their neighbors, that's not good, hackers, that's not gooood," he warbles, which culminates in polite applause from his followers.) He hasn't hacked much new code in a decade or more. Instead he travels the world to give speeches and pull publicity stunts, donning robes and a halo to appear as a character he calls "St. IGNUcius" and offer blessings to his followers. (GNU, coined in his first manifesto, is pronounced "Ga-NEW" and stands for "Gnu's Not Unix"; the central Linux license is known as the GNU license.)
And though he styles himself as a crusader for tech "freedom," Stallman labors mightily to control how others think, speak and act, arguing, in Orwellian doublespeak, that his rules are necessary for people to be "free." He won't speak to reporters unless they agree to call the operating system "GNU/Linux," not Linux. He urges his adherents to avoid such terms as "intellectual property" and touts "four freedoms" he has sworn to defend, numbering them 0, 1, 2 and 3. In June Stallman attempted to barge into the residence of the French prime minister to protest a copyright bill, then unrolled a petition in a Paris street while his adoring fans snapped photos.
Long ago Stallman was a gifted programmer. A 1974 graduate of Harvard with a degree in physics, he began graduate school at Massachusetts Institute of Technology but dropped out and took a job in an MIT lab. There he grew furious that companies wouldn't let him tinker with the code in their products. A Xerox laser printer was a key culprit. In the early 1980s he called on hackers to fight their oppressors by helping him create a free clone of Unix, naming it GNU.
Stallman and his allies hacked away for nearly a decade but couldn't get GNU to work. In 1991 Torvalds, then an unknown college kid in Finland, produced in six months what Stallman's team had failed to build in years--a working "kernel" for an operating system. Torvalds posted this tiny 230-kilobyte file containing 10,000 lines of code to a public server, dubbing it "Linux" and inviting anyone to use it.
Soon people were combining Torvalds' Linux kernel with Stallman's GNU components to make a complete operating system. The program was a hit. But to Stallman's dismay people referred to it as Linux, not GNU. Torvalds became famous. Stallman got pushed aside. The ultimate insult came in 1999 when his Free Software Foundation was given a "Linus Torvalds Award." Stallman accepted but said it was "like giving the Han Solo award to the Rebel Alliance."
As programmers wrote hundreds of building blocks to add to Linux, Stallman's Free Software Foundation persuaded them to hand over their copyrights to the group and let it handle licensing of their code. Stallman wrote the central license for Linux: the GNU General Public License or GPL. For his part, Linux creator Torvalds never signed his creation over to the group--but he did adopt the GNU license, granting Stallman further sway.
In recent years Stallman and the FSF have been cracking down on big Linux users, enforcing terms of the existing license (GPLv2, for version 2) and demanding that the big tech outfits crack open their proprietary code whenever they inserted lines from Linux. Cisco and TiVo have been targets; Cisco caved in to Stallman's demands rather than endure months of abuse from his noisy worldwide cult of online jihadists. Nvidia, which makes graphics cards for Linux computers but won't release enough of the code behind them to satisfy Stallmanites, also came under attack. "It's an enemy of the free software community, so we call them 'inVideous,'" says Peter Brown, executive director of the Free Software Foundation.
Now the Stallman stalwarts are pushing a new version of the Linux license--GPLv3, with its tougher restrictions and a ban on anything that would protect or enforce copyright and other digital rights. Thus Stallman is living an anarchist's dream: The tech giants he has spent his career attacking send lawyers to sit at his feet and beg. Stallman has invited companies to comment on his drafts but insists he alone decides what goes into the final version, due in early 2007.
Often he won't listen. HP suggested changes in patent language in the new license. In a sign of how much fear Stallman inspires even at the largest tech company in the world, HP's lawyers emphasize they didn't "ask for changes"--they merely "suggested modifications." Whatever. Stallman rejected them.
In September a committee of leading Linux companies spent two days in Chicago discussing the GPLv3 with Stallman's representatives--and left worried. Stallman's camp refused to answer even simple questions about whether v2 and v3 code will be able to coexist. "They've been at this for nine months, and it's time to clarify. Everyone wants to make sure that Linux keeps accelerating," says Stuart Cohen, chief executive of Open Source Development Labs, a vendor-funded consortium in Beaverton, Ore. that employs Linus Torvalds and supports Linux development.
Most major tech vendors declined comment rather than risk tangling with Stallman's enforcers, such as his sidekick and attorney, Columbia Law School professor Eben Moglen. A spokesman for Novell, the second-biggest Linux distributor, says the company won't comment because negotiations are ongoing. Red Hat also declined to comment. Privately some Linux vendors say they hope Stallman will relent and soften the terms of GPLv3.
One big potential victim of the Stallman stunt is Red Hat, the leading Linux distributor, with 61% market share. Red Hat bundles together hundreds of programs contributed by thousands of outside coders. If Linus Torvalds sticks with his old kernel under the older and less restrictive version-2 license, and Stallmanites ship version-3 code, what is Red Hat to do? The two licenses appear to be incompatible. There's also the problem of forfeiting patent enforcement rights if Red Hat ships v3 code. Red Hat could stay with an entirely "v2" Linux system, taking on the burden of developing its own versions of whatever programs move to v3. But it's not clear that Red Hat has the staffing to do that.
"Red Hat gets a lot of code from people who don't work for Red Hat. They would have to replace all that and do the work in-house," says Larry W. McVoy, chief executive of software developer Bitmover and a longtime Torvalds collaborator. Even then, however, Stallman and his loyalists may carry on developing their own v3 versions. This "forking" of multiple incompatible versions could lead to "Balkanization" and derail Linux, the Torvalds camp warns.
Red Hat and other Linux promoters also may find themselves in an awkward spot with customers. "IT managers want to buy stuff that puts them at as little risk as possible. If there was a risk that Stallman could become such a loose cannon, that's something most IT managers would have wanted to know before they bet their companies on Linux," McVoy says.
Some customers are wary. ActiveGrid, an open-source software maker in San Francisco, originally planned to distribute its program under a gpl license but changed plans after a big European bank declared it wouldn't use products covered by the gpl, says Peter Yared, chief executive of ActiveGrid.
The biggest beneficiaries of Stallman's suicide-bomber move could be other companies Stallman detests: the proprietary old guard--Microsoft, which pitches its Windows operating system as "safer" than Linux, and Sun, which lost customers to Linux but now hopes to lure them back to an open-source version of its Solaris system, which doesn't use the GPL.
And a big loser, eventually, could be Stallman himself. If he relents now, he likely would be branded a sellout by his hard-core followers, who might abandon him. If he stands his ground, customers and tech firms may suffer for a few years but ultimately could find a way to work around him. Either way, Stallman risks becoming irrelevant, a strange footnote in the history of computing: a radical hacker who went on a kamikaze mission against his own program and went down in flames, albeit after causing great turmoil for the people around him. Collateral Damage
Richard Stallman's kamikaze attack on Linux could hurt tech companies that have built thriving businesses on top of this free program. These are the top targets.
No I didn't, I clearly indicated it is a seperate product called Nexenta that uses the Solaris kernel, only. LMAO at your desperation.
Amazing, even after already having to admit you purposefully lied, for months, defending criminal Russian hackers, you're still lying to defend them. Their violation is obvious, of breaking the license on the software that requires it be run on a particular piece of hardware. Exactly as expected, your ridiculous argument once again puts you in perfect lockstep with the radical leftist Stallman, who is creating GPL3 just so those types of restrictions couldn't exist in the first place.
But at least Stallman, even being the leftist scumbag he is, respects the law and wants his license changed, whereas you endlessly lie in defense of criminal Russian hackers who broke one just like it. Cue for you to trot out more ridiculous lies in support of your radical leftist philosophy and criminal Russian hackers.
And that is criminal how?
People didn't mind
Stallman's philosophy when
they used his software.
Nothing in the world
stopped anyone from doing
what Stallman and friends
were able to do:
reverse engineer software
and write their own code
that did the same things
but with different code structure.
The issue isn't
philosophy from
Stallman, the issue is scum
lined up against him.
They want to take code
for free, re-package it, then
sell it for income.
It's not an issue
of capitalism and
Marxism, it is
a simple issue
of John Galt and The Looters.
Stallman did the work
and now scummy types
of businessmen are pissed off
they can't just take it!
|
Congratulations! You win the "Made Steve Jobs Smile" award for this thread! |
Again, how is what they did criminal?
AntiRepublic here was actually defending hackers thatwere pirating Apple's software, so I doubt Jobs is smiling over that, although I certainly sensed your sarcasm.
It's pirating Apple's software, pure and simple. It's obvious you don't consider such things criminal, as you have only been defending them for months including making up lies on their behalf,which you later admitted to doing, but it is clearly illegal, and apparently even Stallman has higher morals than you as he at least is attempting to legally change the license verses your approach of using Russian hackers to crack the software and illegally distribute it.
Essentially, Stallman and friends are looking to room with the XFree86 guys.
If 1/10th of the resulting forks were as successful as the XFree86/X11 fork, the benefit to Linux would be huge.
I say, bring it on!
So you say that them violating the terms of Apple's license just to get their copy of OS X working on their non-Apple system is criminal?
"Their" copy of OSX? Who do you think you're fooling? They cracked Apple's protection and gave it out to every hacker on Earth so that they can all run bootleg on cheaper chinese hardware. I know that sort of thing makes you tingle, the thought of Russian hackers cracking US software products so their hacker budies all over the world can all pirate our code, but the reality is it proves you're just another techno whore without a shred of integrity or patriotism. Your admitted lies nail the coffin shut.
So you say that them violating the terms of Apple's license just to get their copy of OS X working on their non-Apple system (and showing others how to do it) is criminal? Answer the question.
Of course it's illegal, which is why these hackers you worship live over in Russia. AntiRepublican, a man who admits he doesn't have a God, but doesn't have a country either.
bttt
You can't answer a simple question, can you? Was it criminal?
AntiRepublican, a man who admits he doesn't have a God, but doesn't have a country either.
I fought for mine in a war. Did you?
I already said of course. Go defend Russian hackers with your admitted lies somewhere else.
Debating with you is almost no fun anymore since you constantly don't know what you're talking about.
You are wrong of course given the available information. Simply violating a license by not abiding by the terms (if those terms are deemed enforceable by the court) is a civil tort, not a crime, thus, no "criminals." It could be come a crime had they copied OS X itself and widely sold it beyond a certain dollar value amount, but nothing in the article indicated this.
They could also be liable for contributory infringement if the court deemed the main purpose was to install unlicensed ("pirated") copies of OS X on other PCs. Again, it is a civil tort matter.
Aside from the licensing the DMCA, horribly written by the copyright cartel, does rear its ugly head. It forbids the practice of reverse-engineering like this for the most part. So, IF their actions didn't fit into the exceptions (such as interoperability, which is what they were doing) then they are subject again to civil tort. It could become a criminal matter IF they were doing it for profit, but they freely distributed the tool to do it, so no profit.
However, the DMCA has a spotty history in going after people like this anyway. I know of one victory, where the hacker Eric Corley was sued over DeCSS (which cracked DVD encryption). The ruling was IMHO highly questionable since they ignored the Fair Use allowance in the DMCA, dismissed 1st Amendment Free Speech considerations, and the court was really biased against Corley since he was an infamous hacker.
I know of many losses though. One was for reverse-engineering Lexmark's printers that only allowed the them to accept Lexmark ink refills (the competing cartridge maker won). Another was by Chamberlain, maker of garage door openers, against an independent maker of garage door opening remotes who had reverse-engineered Chamberlain's door opening codes (the opponent won). The one against the Russian company Elcomsoft was criminal since Elcomsoft was selling PDF-cracking software for profit (with the FBI among their customers), but they were acquitted. Also, the RIAA threatened Prof. Edward Felten with the DMCA for figuring out how to remove their audio watermarks, but they quickly backed off after he went public about it.
So as usual you are talking about subjects on which you are woefully uneducated.
You are welcome for the primer in copyright law and precedent. Class dismissed.
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.