RMS is a traitor to the Free Software community | Hacker News Reader

RMS is a traitor to the Free Software community

daeken.com

23 pointsdaeken22 comments

No he's not. He invented Free Software, and he wants Free Software to win over the half-assed "open source" movement. Many people think they're the same, but they're not.

He also wrote emacs, gcc, the GNU userspace, etc.

Also:

attempts to fight Tivoization of Linux with the GPLv3 (notice that the Linux kernel is still GPLv2? This isn't an accident.)

You're right, it's not an accident. Linus didn't require contributors to assign copyright to anyone, and hence the only way Linux's license can change is by getting permission from each copyright holder. Since many of Linux's copyright holders are dead, this isn't going to happen. Linux is stuck at GPLv2 forever.

The copyright claim on Linux, although correct, is misleading. 1) Sections of the kernel could be dual-licensed GPLv2/3 or converted to GPLv3 without the entire kernel being moved over, and 2) Linus himself has come out on numerous occasions against the GPLv3, especially the early versions.

"Since many of Linux's copyright holders are dead"

can you quote from where you got this information ?

For some definition of "many" this is surely true.

It's a reasonable assumption given that Linux is almost 20 years old.

The problem is the author defines "progress" in a very different way than RMS does. Is progress number of users or is progress getting the best possible system without sacrificing the core principles of Free Software?

If you are going to throw around the word "traitor", then you are talking about principles. Nobody can say RMS has sacrificed his beliefs at any point.

If you wanted to write a blog post that said "RMS is not the best spokesman/salesperson for free software", I'd believe that. But traitor and a bad seller are two totally different things.

The first and foremost problem with your inflammatory and ill-informed post is, RMS doesn't do "Open Source".

The stated goals and ideals of "Open Source" and "Free Software" are very different.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

just as a reference for those who dont know the fsf stance on this matter

I'm well aware of this, hence why I generally used 'Free Software'. However, he's largely responsible for the overall 'open source' movement, which Free Software is a part of.

No, he explicitly rejects the open source definition of free software.

You only have to google "Stallman Open Source" and read the first three results to see how ill informed your opinion is.

edit: Links

  * Why Free software is better than Open Source: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html

  * Why “Open Source” misses the point of Free Software: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

It does not matter whether you think "Free software" is "Open Source". The originator of the "Free software" term does NOT agree with you. He is quite explicit in stating the philosophical goals of the FS movement. It's not limited to "Open source" at all.

I think there's a very important semantic point to be made here. The open source movement would not have happened in the way it did without the free software movement. I believe to deny that is to be delusional about the reality of the situation.

The semantic point is that the opinion of an originator of an effect has no necessary correspondence as to whether they were responsible for that effect or not. Despite Stallman's protestations to the contrary, despite his opposition to open source, these things do not make him any less responsible (in the cause-effect sense) for the open source movement. The inadvertence of the effect is irrelevant to the fact of its existence.

You're ignoring my words entirely. I'm speaking about the 'open source movement' as the general trend toward open source and Free Software. RMS is clearly one of the early figures in the movement. I'm not saying RMS is a figurehead of 'open source', which is why I used the term Free Software in every instance but one.

You used it at least twice, in particular casting RMS as a 'leader' of the Open Source Movement:

"...open source is bigger than ever ... the last thing we need is a 'leader'..."

My apologies, I hadn't intended to use that there, was just writing quickly. I've corrected it to 'Free Software'.

Eh? This is a very content lite and illogical blog post with some random ranting against RMS.

FlameBait.

Digg is calling.

I'm actually fine with RMS being intransigent about licensing and code and so on. Where he stepped over the line was attacking Miguel in person. If he wants to be personally nasty to anyone who has anything to do with proprietary software, he's going to end up a very lonely person.

Have you met Richard Stallman? Not exactly a people person, anyways :)

To be clear, I have nothing but mad respect for Stallman, even though my personal beliefs differ from his. He can be extreme sometimes, but his firm adherence to his beliefs is important. Calling him a traitor is completely out of line.

Yeah, I have, and no, he's definitely not a people person. There's a difference between being a 'people person' and deliberately saying nasty things about other people who have worked their asses off producing free software, though.

You're right in any case: name calling is out of line, for everyone involved, starting with RMS. If he doesn't like Mono or Microsoft or Debian or Apache or whatever, that's fine. But please refrain from personal insults.

I guess my point in saying he's not a people person is to reiterate that folks should just kind of ignore him when he says something like this. Getting personally offended by a Richard Stallman comment is like getting personally offended by a young child wetting the bed. His role is 'tireless proponent of a powerful idea', not 'personable leader'.

Well... I don't care if RMS being an extremist.

Because he is the upper bound.

The followers can follow the ideas to an extent they are comfortable with. But still the community stays strong that way.

The comments in this discussion are useful to bring this poorly written article up to standard, but even so this story should not be appearing on the front page of HN.

I think the conflict arises from a confusion.

If we accept that Free Software is an extreme subset of Open Source, then Open Source is not bound by criteria of Free Software.

RMS is welcome to set rules and conditions for Free Software but he has no business what so ever to dictate limitations to the Open Source, even if he despises it so much.

No one is traitor, if everyone knows their boundaries.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com