Saint Stallman
Posted on 10/23/2006 9:07:01 AM PDT by N3WBI3
We covered that pretty well earlier in the thread. Why don't you take the time to actually read it before you start bloviating.
True.
If Stallman really goes over the edge on GPL3, (it's possible he might realise the danger and back off- it's not final yet), I forsee many distributions advertizing themselves as GPL2. It might even be something Linus would do on his kernel builds. A 'uname -a' on my laptop reports "2.6.18-1.2200.fc5" for the kernel version. We could see it modified in the future to "2.6.18-1.2200.gpl2.fc5" so it would be easily identifiable by both humas and software.
quote of the thread...
That's the first thought that went through my head too.
The license goes with specific pieces of software, not a whole system. A vendor could easily modify the GPL2 kernel like TiVo, and include any GPL3 software, as long as the GPL3 sofware is not modified like TiVo.
Besides, the comment was "Linux software," and there's a lot of non-GPL Linux applications that are in no way affected by the GPL, or its terms. So the statement is absolutely false.
Sounds like even you are having trouble disputing the article.
You might think it's right because you pull the same stunts. He was making technically true comments in a way that is misleading or unfair given the whole picture. Remember, the second-best lie is the truth, twisted.
I especially liked his comments on enforcement of the GPL against OEMs. He has a problem with that, but I don't think he, or any of us, have a problem with Microsoft going after OEMs distributing Windows without proper licensing.
Another was going after the patent clause of the GPL, which only brings it up to speed with other open source licenses like Sun's -- which he mentions but doesn't complain about.
Obviously they were trying to do the same thing - write a kernel - types of kernels may be a reason Torvalds succeeded first but the article remains correct, and you left reaching for straws.
He was trying to say that one kid was better than Stallman's whole team, and it falls apart when you look at the facts. Again, misleading, distorts the facts.
LOL watching you try to discredit the Forbe's article was hilarious.
About the absolutely provable lies I caught. No comment on those?
Michael Moore learned how to technically tell the truth while misrepresenting it so much that the end effect is a lie. I think Lyons learned most of his writing from Michael Moore, although he totally blew it on the factual error of the GPL3 terms and the origin of the name "Linux."
If there's a split, expect the "V2" folks to win, because the folks shipping distros for profit are going to back the "V2" side. And, frankly, good... Stallman is over-reaching with the V3 license.
One thing GE and Stallman have in common is they overestimate the force that the extreemest can really bring to bear on the majority of OSS users....
I'm obviously not overestimating anything. Stallman has the power to create legally incompatiple versions of Linux, that could require Linux vendors to invest significantly more dollars to provide updates to Linux in the future. You can keep trying to close your eyes and wish it all away, but with 0 of the ~5,000 applications currently controlled by Stallman breaking with him over GPL3, looks like the kernel guys might be one of just a few if not the only one that refuses to convert.
So does Bill Gates, Steve Jobbs, Darl McBride, Myself, You, and Bill the Janitor. The problem for this whole group is because all key pieces ofa Linux Distro like RedHat are out there in a compatible format those versions can continue to exist. If Stallman was to say put the gcc compiler under a license that says 'this can not be used with gplv2 software' he cant unrelease the versions that are themselves under gplv2. He only has power if nobody has the will and resources to maintain that version themselves, unfortunately for him IBM, RedHat, HP, Novell, and thousands of volunteers will do what needs to be done to keep Linux healthy.
BTW add Sun to the list of companies that have an interest in keeping things like gcc open for use with DRM, afterall they include a good deal of GPLv2 code with their operating systems (like gcc)..
No he can't. He's not the copyright holder, so he cannot change the license it is distributed under.
He does own the copyright on many if not most of the GNU tools that Linux needs to operate. As I already mentioned above the developers of the tools signed over the copyrights to him as the ultimate tribute of their work to his cause. See post 16 from someone else for more info.
You didn't prove anything was a lie, at best you proved the author made an insignificant mistake on minor peripheral issues. A "lie" is something someone says when they know it to be absolutely false, such as the lie you willingly and knowingly perpetuated for months that some Unix developer was a Russian hacker when you were trying to defend actual Russian hackers who were violating US intellectual property laws. I'll be happy to link it, but since it was just a few days ago that you admitted it, I'm sure you still remember. THAT was a "lie", hopefully you won't confuse the two again.
Geez, is that just classic or what? GE lecturing someone on the difference between a lie and making an "insignificant mistake on a minor peripheral issue". I think my irony meter just broke. Next he's going to come out against someone twisting semantics.
I did prove there were "numerous inaccuracies and misrepresentations," as was my initial claim in this thread. Lyons always has this problem when writing about OSS, therefore he should not be trusted.
such as the lie you willingly and knowingly perpetuated for months that some Unix developer was a Russian hacker
There's a difference between a lie meant to factually deceive and stringing along an idiot who should have been able to catch it if he knew as much as he claimed he did.
trying to defend actual Russian hackers who were violating US intellectual property laws
You see there's a little problem. They're in Russia. US laws do not apply. Aside from that, what I did say was legal was emulating EFI, which doesn't belong to Apple, but Intel, who has open-sourced much of the code for it anyway.
That's not a problem, that's the pathetic excuse you're trying to give for your endless defense of Russian hackers who violate US IP protection, including the lies you knowingly perpetuated for months that attempted to claim an American Unix developer was a Russian hacker too. Don't deny it, it's all on the record now, as you know.
1) He owns no copyrights in the Linux kernel.
2) He cannot retroactively "unlicense" anything previously released with a GPLv2 license. The only thing he can do is "fork" new development, in which case, as I poitned out earlier, the "v2" folks are going to win over the "v3" folks because the majority of folks using the programs are doing so on systems that will be incompatible with GPLv3 (unless they're running something obscure like HURD).
1) we already know the kernel is apparently staying v2, although so far it appears to be the only thing.
2) Yes, Stallman would create new v3 versions of his ~5,000 software tools, and encourage the devs to use the new versions. The can use the v2 Linux kernel on their v3 anti-DRM frankenstein O/S without needing a different kernel, and the anti-DRM folks across the globe willl likely rush to using it just like some use the "all-free" Debian now.
Saint Stallman
Only up to the time that the v2 and v3 forks have diverged sufficently. If they functionally differ its more than likely the linux kernel will not work with gpl3.
Stallman's GNU system will even run on top of Solaris (see Nexenta), the Linux kernel guys would have to pull a Microsoft and purposefully lock Stallman out which could land them in EU or other court.
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.