And he's gotten the facts wrong or misrepresented issues so many times it's pathetic. Let's take a few:
"They would be forbidden from using Linux software to block users from infringing on copyright and intellectual-property rights "
That is incorrect. The GPL3 states that software can't be modified with DRM to the extent that it prevents a user from using the software anywhere, anyway he wants. Not all Linux software is GPL, therefore this statement is rediculous. The new terms apply equally to GPL3 software running on Windows.
In addition, the main thrust of the DRM clause is to prevent the "TiVoization" of GPL software. The TiVo scheme is that its hardware requires a digitally signed version of Linux before it will allow the OS to run. So Stallman is mad that people can't modify the installation of Linux that's on a TiVo and still have it work on a TiVo (the bastard actually wants to control hardware now). However, note that doing so doesn't infringe TiVo's copyright (you did buy the hardware, didn't you?). It's more like buying a Linux system from Dell and installing your own legal copy of Linux on it.
"and they would be barred from suing over alleged patent infringements related to Linux."
True. But then all of the better open source licenses, including Sun's, require patent grants. Stallman is just finally getting with the times, since the GPL2 was written when software patents weren't so common. So this is not a proper basis for a rant against Stallman.
"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"
Again, technically true. But he fails to mention that until then people in his position were pretty much free to tinker with all software. Stallman got mad because this new "closed-source" software that came along wouldn't let him fix the bugs and make enhancements himself -- he had to wait for the vendor.
"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"
This might be a valid comparison if they were trying to do the same thing, but they weren't. The fact is that the envisioned GNU kernel was a far more complicated feat to pull off, given that they wanted a true microkernel architecture. Linux has a monolithic kernel, which is a lot easier to write. But most people reading this article won't know that.
"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."
Wrong. Linus Torvalds did not come up with the name. He wanted to call it "Freax," but his friend Ari Lemmke who ran the FTP server Linux was first posted on named the folder for the project "Linux," and the name caught.
"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 (actually, a contractor for Linksys before the buy) used Linux and then put in their modifications and utilities. So did TiVo. He makes it sound like they used a few lines of Linux in their larger product, which is wrong -- it's the other way around.
"Cisco caved in to Stallman's demands rather than endure months of abuse from his noisy worldwide cult of online jihadists."
True, but generally those who are caught red-handed engaging in copyright infringement tend to settle rather than go to court. Would he take this tone with Microsoft chasing after an OEM that's been shipping systems loaded with free copies of Windows? Microsoft does this all the time, and rightly so. Where's the outrage?
BTW, they did not have to give up any code. They could have ripped Linux out of their systems, recalled all products using Linux, and paid some money. That probably would have cost more than what their code cost to produce, thus their decision.
Stallman's agenda is so cracked
You'll get no disagreement from me, or from a lot of open source advocates.
No, what is "ridiculous" is you claiming that the inclusion of any GPL3 software within the Linux O/S does not taint that O/S with the restrictions imposed by GPL3. If GPL3 code is included anywhere in the software, it can't be used for DRM purposes, per the license. And you can't do jack with just a kernel.
True...Again, technically true.
Sounds like even you are having trouble disputing the article.
This might be a valid comparison if they were trying to do the same thing, but they weren't.
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.
True
LOL watching you try to discredit the Forbe's article was hilarious.