Does Stallman and the FSF damage Opensource?

[Virogenesis]

Stallman seems a bit too extreme, for example no use of proprietary to ever exist on linux now don't get me wrong but proprietary does lock you down but proprietary software can also be good.
Show me some programs that do the job of dreamweaver, flash and photoshop that are opensource.
Very few exist now Stallman in my opion and others in the OS communiy believe hes more interested in politics than the idea of working together.
Its a shame that his efforts have amounted to nothing basicaly he wanted a system which was proprietary free but others feel thats too extreme so by using the linux kernel has backfired in his face as he has no control over the project.

I believe it was Eric Raymond who once called Stallman a idiot for the way he marketed opensource.

Opensource Vs Free software...which sounds more friendly?
With opensource you can change the program to fit your companies need if ever you wish to or Free software is good because sharing is good,
Which sounds better for a company to embrace?

Me I like opensource but I also like proprietary software I like being able to watch dvds on my computer, I like being play some games.

Linus and the other hackers behind linux seem to be more interested in getting the program to work correctly.

If you answer undecided please state your reason.

[xequence]

Both have worked for me so far.

But I really dont like the Extremists, like Stallman. He seems to hate anything not GPLed, and, yea... Its just really annoying.

[mstlyevil]

I think they do more harm because they turn off many people who otherwise would embrace opensource by their elitist attitude. The fact that some supporters want to deny people the right of choosing between proprietary and opensource software shows that they do not truly believe in freedom. Instead their political philosophy is more important than a persons right to choose what they wish to use.

[fuscia]

it's more likely open source dilutes the efforts of FSF.

[hoodwink]

Can't answer the poll question in the format it's presented.

RMS did some good things for open source (GNU utilities, etc.), but it went to his head and he became Richard the A;;h;;; intent upon controlling the world. Debian swallowed his ideas hook line and sinker, and I would probably have never taken up Debian except for the moderating influence of Ubuntu. At least Ubuntu has suppressed the urge to call Linux GNU bloody Linux fifteen times on every documentation page <grin>.

[super]

meh,
i don't think he matters all that much. seems the only people who listen to him are people who already use linux.

besides, some people actually like his brand of 'freeness'

i think you need a more moderate option on your poll. maybe a 'little/no effect on linux' option

[Virogenesis]

maybe a mod will be able to alter the poll to make it more suitable as you are right there isn't a inbetween i've just noticed.

I personaly believe linux is in its best state as it is, it has a good business model it can be promoted.
Saying to IBM you must share sharing is good wouldn't of got them to back Linux, same goes for all the other companies that do try to promote the idea.

[Lunixfanboy]

How about if Opensource damages Free Software Foundation? If not for RMS and copyleft, the whole heart of Linux wouldn't exist.

[BoyOfDestiny]

What does open source mean? There are over 150 licenses. Richard Stallman is the father of the GPL (IMHO the best license there is, since it encourages/allows folks to stand on the shoulders of giants, and build great things).

If you disagree with him on some points (seems human to me), just do what you want. He isn't stopping you from using proprietary software. He doesn't show up at your door demanding you delete anything.

Why are you attacking Stallman, because he doesn't compromise his principles?

EDIT: Erm you can play DVD's with Free Software. In the U.S there are DMCA issues. The whole world is not the U.S. I want the DMCA ammended to allow fair use (i.e. break encryption to watch a DVD you legally own).

EDIT #2: Good lord... Just looked up Eric Raymond in wikipedia. Honestly, if he calls Stallman an idiot... Stallman must be doing something right.

[GreyFox503]

Sorry for the 'divide and conquer' quoting method, but it's probably the best way to respond with my ideas.


Stallman seems a bit too extreme, for example no use of proprietary to ever exist on linux now don't get me wrong but proprietary does lock you down but proprietary software can also be good.
Only he and the FSF follow this rule. He doesn't demand it of anyone else, just recommends it (naturally).



Show me some programs that do the job of dreamweaver, flash and photoshop that are opensource.
These seem irrelevent. They are examples of non-free programs which have no equivalent free program, but it doesn't mean that proprietary software is inherently better just because none exist yet.



Very few exist now Stallman in my opion and others in the OS communiy believe hes more interested in politics than the idea of working together.
Yeah, he is a bit political, but he's an idealist. And the FSF people do work on the same projects with open-source people. They mostly work together, they just have different ideals and guiding principals.



Its a shame that his efforts have amounted to nothing basicaly
Whoa, amounted to nothing?! It's shocking how you could think that. He started the snowball that became the avalanche that the entire free software world is today. He and the GNU project personally wrote an entirely free operating system (shells, compilers, utilities, etc.), with the exception of the (admittedly important) kernel. Try making a linux system without any GNU software. I don't mean GNU-licensed software, I mean just software written by GNU.


he wanted a system which was proprietary free but others feel thats too extreme so by using the linux kernel has backfired in his face as he has no control over the project.
He has just as much control over his project as he did before the linux kernel was developed. That's the whole idea behind Free software. Anyone can copy and modify and distribute it. It he doesn't like the kernel, fine! He's free to write another one. And anyone could have used the GNU project's software before the linux kernel came out. Doesn't change anything. No one really controls free software in the same way they can proprietary software. That's the fundamental distinction between them.



Opensource Vs Free software...which sounds more friendly?
With opensource you can change the program to fit your companies need if ever you wish to or Free software is good because sharing is good,
Which sounds better for a company to embrace?
Irrelevent. Who cares? We should choose to support open source because it has a better name? Stallman is dumb because open source sounds better to businesses?



Me I like opensource but I also like proprietary software I like being able to watch dvds on my computer, I like being play some games.
You're free to do that. Stallman would choose not to, but you can do whatever you want. Also, Stallman doesn't try to restrict you or somehow curb your behavior. He just advocates a different approach. It would be different if he somehow prevented his free software from running your proprietary game.



Linus and the other hackers behind linux seem to be more interested in getting the program to work correctly.
:confused: Ok...


Now, I'm surprised you didn't bring up the best point against Stallman: his desire to include anti-DRM measures into GPL v3. I'm actually not decided on this because it may be going too far. I'd need to gain more knowledge to make an informed decision on this subject. Besides the GPL v3 hasn't been finalized yet, so we don't know exactly how it will turn out.

[xequence]

The thing I dont like about Stallman and his extremist followers are how they are so... So intent on thinking that just because something is closed source means you are a slave to it. They feel closed source stuff is evil. Its not. Its just that the creator didnt want to make it open source, which is perfectly fine. They are spreading more "FUD" then anyone ive seen from even microsoft.

[midwinter]

Great post GreyFox503, my thoughts exactly.

[Virogenesis]

Only he and the FSF follow this rule. He doesn't demand it of anyone else, just recommends it (naturally).

True which is why we have many distros



These seem irrelevent. They are examples of non-free programs which have no equivalent free program, but it doesn't mean that proprietary software is inherently better just because none exist yet.

So true but those are well known examples others do exist



Yeah, he is a bit political, but he's an idealist. And the FSF people do work on the same projects with open-source people. They mostly work together, they just have different ideals and guiding principals.

idealist and extremist are a bit different, thats correct they do mostly work together but companies choose to embrace


Whoa, amounted to nothing?! It's shocking how you could think that. He started the snowball that became the avalanche that the entire free software world is today. He and the GNU project personally wrote an entirely free operating system (shells, compilers, utilities, etc.), with the exception of the (admittedly important) kernel. Try making a linux system without any GNU software. I don't mean GNU-licensed software, I mean just software written by GNU.

He has just as much control over his project as he did before the linux kernel was developed. That's the whole idea behind Free software. Anyone can copy and modify and distribute it. It he doesn't like the kernel, fine! He's free to write another one. And anyone could have used the GNU project's software before the linux kernel came out. Doesn't change anything. No one really controls free software in the same way they can proprietary software. That's the fundamental distinction between them.

Do you know how hard it would be to replace the linux kernel its the key part to the system the goals of linus's and stallman's are dffierent didn't amount to anything was a bit harsh but none the less stallman would make different choices to linus



Irrelevent. Who cares? We should choose to support open source because it has a better name? Stallman is dumb because open source sounds better to businesses? Businesses care they are the ones who have chosen Opensource rather than the term free software....average consumer cares...



You're free to do that. Stallman would choose not to, but you can do whatever you want. Also, Stallman doesn't try to restrict you or somehow curb your behavior. He just advocates a different approach. It would be different if he somehow prevented his free software from running your proprietary game.

So true and I understand that but he believes proprietary software can't co exist.



Now, I'm surprised you didn't bring up the best point against Stallman: his desire to include anti-DRM measures into GPL v3. I'm actually not decided on this because it may be going too far. I'd need to gain more knowledge to make an informed decision on this subject. Besides the GPL v3 hasn't been finalized yet, so we don't know exactly how it will turn out.

1. not been drifted up properly
2. very confusing

Please understand this isn't intended to be offensive but it is a interesting topic.
Please notice how I did mention compliers....
Please also note how I made one of the poll options I will support RMS as he has given so much to the community

[GreyFox503]

Yeah, man. This is a good discussion. Gets people thinkin'.

I once read the amount of code written by GNU was many times greater vs. the Linux kernel, but I can't find any sources at the moment. Can anyone shed any light on this?

You are right, though. It would appear that writing the kernel is much harder than writing other kinds of software. Since I have no experience with such things, I could be wrong, but the FSF has been working on their kernel for a while w/o much progress. Of course, maybe the momentum for that project has been dying down since the release of linux.

Especially because Linux is licensed under the GPL, there's no need to replace it as one would with a proprietary program. Unless they just think they can write a better kernel in a technical sense. Who knows...

EDIT:

I forgot to add something after reading the post below. I actually don't follow Stallman's recommendation for a pure free software system. I use proprietary codecs, Java, and even a game or two. I'm glad no one has ultimate authority on how free software/open source stuff operates.

[Kvark]

Yes, Stallman and FSF are a bit extream and goes all the way about things being purely open. But just because they are purists doesn't mean you have to act like them. They are not going to come knocking on your door with baseball bats if you listen to mp3s.

I compromise, I wouldn't want to be entirely without closed stuff. But I'm very glad there is someone who belives fully in openness and doesn't compromise. I'm glad there is an organization with a firm belief that can be trusted to keep everything open. Well, at least as long as I don't have to follow their every word.

PS. The poll is not neutral. One option is worded in a positive way and the other option is worded in a very negative way. The results will be much more in favour of the positive option and against the negative option then they would be if both options where written in a neutral language.

[fuscia]

most of the time, i couldn't care any less about this, but an interview with jorge arellano cid, the lead developer of dillo, got me thinking a little more carefully about the potential impact of free software on third world nations. http://www.dillo.org/interview.html
if i could get to my yahoo groups, using dillo, i might care even more.

[Lovechild]

Stallman was right in the 80's and he continues to be right - so what if his social skills are lacking. Closed source is inheritantly evil.

[Iandefor]

Stallman was right in the 80's and he continues to be right - so what if his social skills are lacking. Closed source is inheritantly evil.Equivocal statements like that demand to be backed up. Prove it.

[Jucato]

Fuscia, thanks for that link. Though there is one part of that interview that I couldn't fully understand:

The problem is that OSS allows denying some of the freedoms granted by Free Software.
I wonder what were those freedoms that OSS denied.

Anyway, I voted on "Undecided", not because I'm undecided but because it was the only middle ground option.

If I'm not mistaken (and this is just based on what I've read), FSF came first bringing GNU along with it and Linux a bit later. Open Source then just sprung up when there was fear of Free/Libre Software being rejected by the business community (which has an innate disgust for the word "free"). So in a way, OSS was a sort of compromise so that Free Software could enter into the business world.

I think what Stallman and FSF is fighting for is right. But sometimes, the way they do it can be a bit extreme. Ideals are one thing. But to implement them in a real world is quite another. I just find that some stances (at least at this stage of the GPL v3 development) are quite bold. It makes me wonder if Stallman knows that part of the success of FSF, GPL, GNU, etc is due to the help the business sector, who has accepted this kind of movement through the efforts of OSS. I think that it weren't for OSS, Linux might still be a geek thing today.

But on the other hand, Linus should also start developing some social and moral sense of responsibility, and drop the "just an engineer" attitude. Linux has past that "just my project" stage long ago and has become something that affects people around the world. So whether he likes it or not, whether Linux or OSS should be a crusade or not, he has a moral obligation, too.

These two men (RMS and Linus) were once able to work together to bring forth one of the greatest things on this earth (GNU/Linux). I hope that they will be able to work together again for the future of FLOSS. (I can't resist thinking how MS is enjoying these events, especially the GPL v3 debate. What better way to divide and conquer).

btw, how can closed source be "inherently" evil? As in inherently, innately, by nature, evil? It isn't the first time I've heard of the statement. But it will be the first time I'll be able to ask for clarification? :D

[KiwiNZ]

Stallman was right in the 80's and he continues to be right - so what if his social skills are lacking. Closed source is inheritantly evil.

I also would be interested in seeing you backthis statement up with some detail and evidence.

[DrFunkenstein]

I also would be interested in seeing you backthis statement up with some detail and evidence.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/

Have fun!

And while we are at it. This poll is dumb, uninformed and insulting.

[John.Michael.Kane]

@GreyFox503 http://www.dwheeler.com/sloc/
also here is the current size of the kernel http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_lines_of_code
Operating System SLOC (Million)
Red Hat Linux 6.2 17
Red Hat Linux 7.1 30
Debian 2.2 56
Debian 3.0 104
Debian 3.1 213
Sun Solaris 7.5
Linux kernel 2.6.0 6.0

[NoNo_231]

I searched too much on this issue, I am doing my thesis on this. Well If there was no Stallman, there would be neither free software neither open source software. Stallman started all this thing, Stallman with a team did all the GNU project from 1983 and Linus did the Kernel in 1991, and they combined it in 1992. Linux Kernel would be nothing without GNU, GNU would need many years more to write a kernel.

The copyright - copyleft most of the GNU programs belong to FSF. FSF (by Stallman) was made to write and use free software and he has the right to defend it.

Isn't too much to say to somebody, ok you wrote good program, you wrote also free program, but now you are not needed any more, we take the programs you wrote and you want them to be distributed for free and we make it proprietary???

Isn't also too much to buy a program (see tivo) that is using free or opensource or whatever you call it, which you can do whatever you want with it, but when you are bying it to be like windowz, where you can look but not touch?

Thanks

[hscottyh]

I'm a developer for fortune 500 coorporation.... and Stallman is right! You are a slave to proprietary software. If you're not in my business you would not believe how many crazy, messed up, not technically sound things we have to do because it's not in the budget to do it the correct way.

This is precisely because the new licenses required for the existing product in use just to cost to much to do it the correct way. It always takes about 3 times longer to do it the wrong way and still make it work, but our salarys are cheaper than the CAL's.... and I get paid well.

With that said, I am not the purist that Stallman is.... If I can't find an open source alternative and have a need... and don't have the time to write it myself, I'll use proprietary software. But I am very thankful for purist like Stallman. If it wasn't for him, I wouldn't even have that choice to make!

[JimmyJazz]

he scares young children

[Lovechild]

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/

Have fun!

And while we are at it. This poll is dumb, uninformed and insulting.

Agreed, and thank you for saving me the time.

Where would we be without GNU - if you want a more "modern, shiny take on things" read Lawrence Lessig - it's exactly the same statements as Stallman makes just with a friendly face and legal speak.

[Sirin]

Praise the Almighty Butterfly.

http://www.stallman.org/rms.jpg

[Malphas]

Eric Raymond is a worthless idiot.

[Lovechild]

Eric Raymond is a worthless idiot.


You do know he's a gun nut right.. I'm just saying..

[Iandefor]

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/

Have fun!

And while we are at it. This poll is dumb, uninformed and insulting. Interesting reading, but I find nothing to convince me that closed-source software is evil.

[KiwiNZ]

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/

Have fun!

And while we are at it. This poll is dumb, uninformed and insulting.

I am well aware of that . However it does not back up the statement that closed source is evil

[zenwhen]

I won't vote on this poll because the only option that is positive about him makes me make an extreme statement that I do not agree with.

Without Stallman and the GNU project, the Linux kernel would be worth exactly nothing.

Without the ability to interoperate with proprietary technologies, both are worthless.

[DrFunkenstein]

I am well aware of that . However it does not back up the statement that closed source is evil
The point is it makes the case for free software and against closed software quite extensively and that's how I understood your question.

Bottom line, there is no need to act as if the case why "closed source is evil" (though maybe calling it evil is not the best way to describe it) hasn't been made yet.

[darkmatter]

Without Stallman and the GNU project, the Linux kernel would be worth exactly nothing.

Without the ability to interoperate with proprietary technologies, both are worthless.

Stallman is a nut... but thats why we love him... that and emacs :p

but yes... agreed and agreed....

Particularily on point two... until such a time as enough free alternatives arrive... and have had enough time to grow and spread across all platform... it is mostly a deathwish to oss to preach the 'evil' card...

I long for the day when open standards rule the digital realm.... but until that day is a reality.... I will do my part to ensure that my customers recieve the functionality they need... even if that functionality be proprietary...

In the end... if that is what it akes to bring more people over to free software... then it is a worthy sacrifice...

[KiwiNZ]

Mr Stallman is unique. His views border on extreme. However he has done a lot and deserves respect and recognition for this.

I do not agree with all his beliefs. But I appreciate what he has achieved and applaud it.

I do not see closed source as evil and do not see open source as the devine saviour of computing. A mix of both is in my opinion the best solution.

[vayu]

Mr Stallman is unique. His views border on extreme.

Actually capitalism in its current form which rules our government, populace and environment is what's extreme. He only appears extreme because he's juxtaposed next to our suicidal, genocidal society which is baselined as the norm.

[DrFunkenstein]

Actually capitalism in its current form which rules our government, populace and environment is what's extreme. He only appears extreme because he's juxtaposed next to our suicidal, genocidal society which is baselined as the norm.
Newsflash: Free software is not in and of itself anti-capitalist.

[kabus]

I believe it was Eric Raymond who once called Stallman a idiot for the way he marketed opensource.

http://geekz.co.uk/lovesraymond/wp-content/ep013.jpg

[DrFunkenstein]

A mix of both is in my opinion the best solution.
Can you back this statement up with some details and evidence?

[KiwiNZ]

Can you back this statement up with some details and evidence?

Suse
Redhat
Windows

Three OS's off the top of my head that do well with both open and closed source Software.
The two camps provide motivation for development to each other. The user benefits in the end.

[DrFunkenstein]

Three OS's off the top of my head that do well with both open and closed source Software.

Do they?
And doesn't it depend very much on what do well means in this context?

[BoyOfDestiny]

Do they?
And doesn't it depend very much on what do well means in this context?

Agreed. It'll be a lot of if's piled on if's (yay circular reasoning! :rolleyes: )

I don't think all closed source things are evil. I think for essential applications (and formats), it can be very damaging....

It's opinion, but honestly, not hard to google several real cases where this occurs. Or just take a look around. *cough* word docs *cough* (although with reverse engineering it's not a big issue, but who knows about the latest doc format)

[GreyFox503]

Plissken: Thanks for the link. Although it tells you how many lines of code are in the kernel, there is no definitive number for the lines of code written by GNU (I have Googled this with few results).

I knew the 2.6 kernel was bigger than the 2.4, but holy cow. It nearly doubled in size! (measured by lines of code)


About whether proprietary software is evil:

It really depends on how you define 'evil'. By my definition, proprietary software is not inherently evil. Murder is evil. Rape is evil. Proprietary software... may take away freedoms, may be less convenient, may be secretive... but I wouldn't say it's evil. Especially because it's possible to write a non-free program with good intentions that helps people.

Now if you want to call it evil compared to free software, because it is more harmful to our society in general, then I would agree with that statement.

Of course, you can write software to commit acts which could be seen as evil, whether that software is free or not.


Almost forgot: I spent way more than one hour reading those GNU philosophy pages. There is some really good stuff in there. I read that before I ever installed my first distro. Those pages are probably the number 1 reason why I'm here today. (I don't mean alive, I mean running Linux, silly) :p

I'm tempted to say they should be required reading for those us. (at least those at this forum). Heck, since I don't control anything, I think I will make it required reading. :)

[BWF89]

I think Stallman is hurting the community by posting all that liberal commie nonsense on his website www.Stallman.org, he's supposted to be promoting openness and sharing. Not expressing his politicial views and possibly offending people on the opposite end of the politicial spectrum.

If he was a regular guy than fine I wouldn't care. But when you represent an entire OS and it's philosophy you should stay as politicially neutral on non-software/media laws as possible.

[DrFunkenstein]

I think Stallman is hurting the community by posting all that liberal commie nonsense on his website www.Stallman.org,

:roll: Great argument...



he's supposted to be promoting openness and sharing.

No, he isn't. He's absolutely entitled to post his political oppinion on his very own website.



Not expressing his politicial views and possibly offending people on the opposite end of the politicial spectrum.

See above.



If he was a regular guy than fine I wouldn't care. But when you represent an entire OS and it's philosophy you should stay as politicially neutral on non-software/media laws as possible.
Stallman does represent the FSF and the GNU project and he is absolutely entitled to voicing his political oppinions, just like anybody else is.

[BWF89]

He CAN voice his opinions. But just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. But when millions of people see him as the creator of his "Linux OS" and he starts spouting off all these non-software related politicial views it would make some people feel uneasy and possibly loose respect for Linux and think that the supporters of open source ("free software") are all like him.

If I was RMS I wouldn't be putting up "Bush-Cheney 2004" banners and links to The Savage Nation all over my site.

[BoyOfDestiny]

I think Stallman is hurting the community by posting all that liberal commie nonsense on his website www.Stallman.org, he's supposted to be promoting openness and sharing. Not expressing his politicial views and possibly offending people on the opposite end of the politicial spectrum.

If he was a regular guy than fine I wouldn't care. But when you represent an entire OS and it's philosophy you should stay as politicially neutral on non-software/media laws as possible.

From the top of Stallman's page

"This is the personal web site of Richard Stallman. The views expressed here are my personal views, not those of the Free Software Foundation or GNU Project. For information about them and their positions, see www.gnu.org."

It's a great page BTW.

[DrFunkenstein]

But when millions of people see him as the creator of his "Linux OS" and he starts spouting off all these non-software related politicial views it would make some people feel uneasy and possibly loose respect for Linux and think that the supporters of open source ("free software") are all like him.

So he should shut up because some people might be dumb enough to think he's the creator of the Linux OS, though he isn't, or that his private political views don't have anything to do with free software in general and certainly not with open source, because that's a different beast all together?
Not very convincing if you ask me.

[commodore]

I like Stallman, but I'm forced to use some closed source stuff.

I like free software more than open source software (though open sourcers came from free software as I have heard).

[mstlyevil]

Stallman has done great thing for GNU/Linux. I personally benefit from his and the FSF efforts. I agree with some of his positions that are in line with my Libertarian philosophy. I am glad there are people like him that dedicate themselves to making software freely available to us all.

Stallman has every right to express his personal views on his web page. He even put up a disclaimer that these were his views and not that that of the FSF or GNU. I have the right to disagree with those views I consider extreme. That is what freedom is.

I wished there was a middle ground option in the poll myself because now that I think about it what I originally voted on does not reflect my true feelings and beliefs about RMS. I still believe some of the rhetoric he and his advid followers espouse can be harmful to his own efforts and counter productive. Many people are turmed off to Linux because they are convinced it is a Communist operating System just because of a few vocal people and their ideology. I believe they should tone down the rhetoric a bit without compromising their principals.