If open source were a religion, Linus Torvalds, the Finnish engineer who wrote the core of the operating system that would become Linux, would be its prophet. In 1991, Mr Torvalds created the kernel, or core software, that would eventually be adopted by millions of computer users and lay the foundation for a vibrant open-source community. In an email interview with Red Herring, Mr Torvalds says the increasing focus of venture capitalists and large companies on open source can only be good for a community that, until now, was on the fringes of the commercial realm.
So what would that make Richard Stallman?
I guess, god. Lower-case ‘g’.
+1
I guess, god. Lower-case ‘g’.
Pronounced ‘guh-odd’.
A TV Envangelist
“””So what would that make Richard Stallman?”””
A well meaning, Bible thumping fundamentalist, who honestly thinks he is doing the right thing, but is, in fact, doing more harm than good at the present time, despite having accomplished worthy things in the past.
Edited 2006-08-20 20:43
Honestly? We’re talking about a representative of FSF who brought forth the GNU Toolchain and the GPL. Credit where credit is due, you can’t bash Stallman that much for not liking DRM.
A well meaning, Bible thumping fundamentalist, who honestly thinks he is doing the right thing, but is, in fact, doing more harm than good at the present time, despite having accomplished worthy things in the past
Where did you got it wrong ?
Ah yes, RMS is actually the one that dictated the principles written in the Bible.
It’s also his principles that are the most followed in the “religious” circle.
So I guess you are one of the minority opportunists trying to hijack his work because of jealousy.
We need richard stallman.
He starts fights, some of which are needed.
He mades a big noise about issues that might affect the free software community. Wether or not they are actually issues that we should be worried about, it’s important that stallman spreads the word so what people can become aware of the issue and form a calm and collected opinion.
My take:
Richard Stallman – god, The Creator ]:->
Bill Gates – god, The Creator, but it’s another religion
The Tux Penguin – The Sign
Linus Torvalds – pope
OSS coders – prophets
people – people
animals (except penguins) – animals
>Do you think companies like IBM and Red Hat will help to increase the reach of open source, or do you fear that the spirit of the movement will be hijacked by corporations?
As i have read this question i smiled despite myself. Does the open source movement fears that their spirit will be hijacked by some companies?
A question to a representative of the Open Source movement, the movement which have hijacked 1998 the spirit of the Free Software Movement (at least in some areas).
Fear spreads, maybe the hijacker will be hijacked…
Edited 2006-08-20 20:32
“If open source were a religion?”
If?
Its a cult actually.
Bill Gates is Satan.
Edited 2006-08-20 20:47
Actually, with so many followers it’s more like a religion. A cult is just a small, recently formed religion. Opensource began well before Torvalds, infact proprietary software is the newcomer. I’d say Torvalds is an important disciple. Then again, since there is no specific person to assign to prophethood, might as well give him that.
“””Actually, with so many followers it’s more like a religion.”””
I agree that it is truly a religion to some. However, as a descriptive term, I would be inclined to give it “cult” status.
If you count all the people involved in open source, there are a lot. However, most of those people have not adopted it as their religion. If you restrict membership to those free software fundamentalists who *have* adopted it as their religion, the numbers are, surely, much smaller. In the cult range, I’d say.
As would be expected, that subset is more vocal than the average, but still a fairly small number.
Edited 2006-08-20 21:18
Well, for one thing it is just a metaphor. I don’t think anyone is really saying its a religion. yet. It could become a societal moral framework, I suppose.
The actual contributors are like the priests (maybe linus is like the pope). The users are like the churchgoers. By this you have a huge quantity of people, definitely a religion rather than a cult.
When you count a religion’s patronage you don’t just count its funamentalists.
Well, almost. In actuality, a religion has the added burden of answering and/or assuaging the fundamental quandries of life: its purpose and destiny among others. While open source is a hard-fought development tactic and a respected mode of operation, it’s no more a religion than the “lather, rinse, repeat” advise on shampoo bottles. You can say its devotees are “cultish” in their faithfulness, but they fall short of believing (I very well hope) that open source is (or will divulge) the meaning of life.
Then I think Stallman would be it’s prophet, not Linus. I thik to Linus, open source is a software license, not a religion. And that’s pretty much the way I feel about it too. There are a lot of cases where an open source (eg – GPL) license makes sense, and some where it doesn’t. I don’t think you’re ever going to see something like Photoshop get GPL’d because as soon as they do it, its value pretty much becomes $0 straight away.
Some would say that Gimp is just as good as Photoshop, and I am in no position to argue, since I am not a graphics professional. But if I were, I would certainly use it instead of paying hundreds of dollars for the commercial alternative.
Edited 2006-08-20 21:19
I don’t think it’s just a software license to him. It’s more of the ideology, the system of open collaboration driven by ‘itch scratching’.
“A well meaning, Bible thumping fundamentalist, who honestly thinks he is doing the right thing, but is, in fact, doing more harm than good at the present time, despite having accomplished worthy things in the past.”
I would have said more likely a guy who can see the forest for the trees, stuck in a society who can’t see it’s own ass when it comes to the religion of free market economics.
By giving it away, Linux fits perfectly into a free market economy as a service, rather than a product, just like Google.
Furthermore, it’s a product that’s not quantified by a price tag, the value of the product is the source code viewable by all.
I would have said more likely a guy who can see the forest for the trees, stuck in a society who can’t see it’s own ass when it comes to the religion of free market economics.
A lot of people get pissed off when someone compares open source (esp GPL) to socialism, but then I see comments like this, and I don’t know what to think. So if you’re not socialists and you’re not capitalists, then exactly what are you?
I think in terms of computers and software, free market economics works quite well. I mean, would things like copy-protected music even exist if people weren’t buying it? Some call it evil, but obviously others find it valuable enough to pay money for it. That may be a bad thing for many of us who’d rather have an open format, but what is the alternative? Having the government tell you that you’re too stupid to make up your own mind and deciding for you, or telling businesses what formats they are or aren’t allowed to sell?
Edited 2006-08-21 00:13
I think he means that Stallman understands what a free market truely is (which he does).
I think he means that Stallman understands what a free market truely is (which he does).
I think Bill Gates understands what a free market is, too.
Definitely Bill (and many advisors) understand what a
free market is. They have done such a great job at
subverting it that it would be an unlikely coincidence
that they simply think what they do is being competitive.
I think Bill Gates understands what a free market is, too
Yes. The difference between RMS and B. Gates, is that RMS want to get the free market back, and B. Gates want to destroy it at all costs.
So if you’re not socialists and you’re not capitalists, then exactly what are you?
All socialists are GPL supporters, but not all GPL supporters are socialists. Overgeneralizing, of course.
I don’t think Novell’s and Redhat’s CEO are socialists.
That may be a bad thing for many of us who’d rather have an open format, but what is the alternative? Having the government tell you that you’re too stupid to make up your own mind and deciding for you, or telling businesses what formats they are or aren’t allowed to sell?
I don’t think having mega-corporations and media brain washing dictating their own thing is ideal either. Free market is simply “less worse” for me. Let’s hope something better will come up in the future (long after we’re all dead, probably)
I think he’s pure and cool and did more for the “computing world” then he would ever wished to be. It looks like he doesn’t know anymore how to answer those stupid questions. At least he made me happy with a nice alternative. B.Gates wanted to be rich and thats what he got. I guess that Linus never thought that this would happen.
Minix3 is superior in reliability and security but not great for serving.
Try it for yourself. It’s free.
I took a look at the Minux site, and I must say the feature list is amazing, **Over 400 UNIX programs** available. Man, that certainly beats Debian’s 16,000, or FreeBSD’s 5000+ (I don’t know the exact number, but I know it’s over 400)
Software Monopolies are bad. If there were no monopolies, the free market would be just fine without Free Software. The problem is that they were allowed to exist and Free Software became the only means to fight them.
RMS didn’t show us what we didn’t already know, he didn’t even invent the idea of Open Source. He created a way to fight back and led the charge.
Does that mean the Open Source is the only way? No. But because RMS believed in it 100%, made it his life’s work, we are all better off.
Edited 2006-08-21 04:19
Is it just me, but I thought open source could be use in commercial software. It’s free software that can’t such as GPL and FSF software… what Stallman did in fact start, no? One person even said GPL and Open Source in the same sentence.
I don’t really care that much, but there is a very real difference in both and is why businesses are now attracted to open source (and not free software or GPL).
Is it just me, but I thought open source could be use in commercial software. It’s free software that can’t such as GPL and FSF software…
BS, you’re just clueless. Free Software is used in LOTS of commercial offering, though most are hardware, not software, as it doesn’t make sense in lots of case.
I don’t really care that much, but there is a very real difference in both and is why businesses are now attracted to open source (and not free software or GPL)
That’s plain BS, they just don’t want to sell GPL software, as they would have to give the source.
Vorlath,
There is actually almost zero distinction between OSS and FS. The licenses are the same. The software is the same. I can think of no OSS which is not also FS. Exceptions may exists. But, if so, they are quite rare.
It is harder to do commercial GPL software. But doable. There is nothing that says you cannot charge money for binaries. But if the source is freely available, it’s harder to make that work.
========
Ookaze,
Your posts here demonstrate *precicely* why I feel RMS is doing more harm than good. He grooms people to use extremely poor advocacy tactics, and to feel that a frontal assault is the most effective approach.
Just look at your technique. You begin by openly insulting the person you are trying to persuade. That almost guarantees failure.
If you could change just that one thing, you would be a more effective advocate, though I imagine there would be other things, as well, that you could change to enhance your persuasiveness.
Find a common ground with the person. Something you both can agree on. And then work from there. You are *asking* them to see things the way you do. They don’t *have* to listen to you. Keep that in mind
But please don’t create active enemies of FOSS by acting like a fanatical hothead. And I’m sorry to say it, but that is how you are coming off in this thread.
Please consider this.
Edited 2006-08-21 15:58
There is actually almost zero distinction between OSS and FS. The licenses are the same. The software is the same. I can think of no OSS which is not also FS. Exceptions may exists. But, if so, they are quite rare.
Stallman has been trying to clear this up for years, yet false notions still abound.
If there’s zero distinction, then try and use a GPL licensed product in a commercial product and not distribute the source. Please don’t pretend to correct me and then contradict yourself. Unless of course, you belive that zero = one (or more) distinctions.
Take this example. You can use OpenSSL, make changes, use it in commercial software and distribute no code. You can’t do that with Free Software.
edit: Here’s a quote I just found in another OSNews linked article:
“… the new GPL, version 3—a license that would … attempt to bridge the divisions between the free-software and open-source camps.”
Edited 2006-08-21 19:42
Vorlath,
Are you saying that only GPL or other copyleft licensed software is Free Software?
If so, you are not in agreement with RMS. RMS does not restrict the term Free Software to software with a copyleft license. He includes as Free Software any license which does not violate his freedoms 0-3, but also feels that licenses which are not copyleft do not do as much as they could to protect those freedoms.
This is not just my interpretation. He has been very explicit about it on a number of occasions.
If you consider non-copyleft licenses to be OSS but not FS, that’s fine. But it is not customary, and you should spell that out or risk being misunderstood.
I would encourage you to research this. I could probably dig up a transcript or video in which Richard explains this if you have problems finding a reference.
I believe he may have referenced this in the presentation of the first draft of GPLv3 in January, but can’t remember for sure, as I don’t catalog these things.
Edited 2006-08-21 21:27
OSS licenses don’t protect RMS’ freedom. People can use in closed source software. Yeah, the original code that was used is still protected. I get that. But if OSS and FS were truly the same, there’d be nothing to talk about. There is a real difference there is all I’m saying.
BTW, I’ve seen plenty of RMS’ video and speeches. I know exactly what these licenses are and have read them all (well, GPL, LPGL, Apache, and OpenSSL + other Open licenses).
I know more Law than I ever wanted to know. So no, I don’t want to look anything up anymore that I’ve already seen. It’s old hat.
Vorlath,
Here are a couple of links to FSF literature which explain their position:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html
http://gnu.univ-paris.com/philosophy/categories.html#FreeSoftware
From the second link:
“””The term “open source” software is used by some people to mean more or less the same category as free software. It is not exactly the same class of software: they accept some licenses that we consider too restrictive, and there are free software licenses they have not accepted. However, the differences in extension of the category are small: nearly all free software is open source, and nearly all open source software is free.”””
Note also the OpenSSL license is listed on the first linked page as a Free Software license.
Vorlath,
sbergman27 has already said almost everything.
But i just want to add one point to sbergman27 statement.
You (Vorlath) say: “If there’s zero distinction, then try and use a GPL licensed product in a commercial product and not distribute the source.” and use this as an argument that Free Software is different to Open Source. But look at the Open Source licenses: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ the GPL is a Open Source license too.
Their is a great range of Free Software licenses (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html) and Open Source licenses (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/) both lists contain copyleft licenses like the GPL and non-copyleft licenses and the lists are almost identical.
ESR is the prophet of Open Source. Linus doesn’t preach about Open Source, he just uses the methodology in one of his projects.
RMS is the prophet of Free Software. He has nothing to do with Open Source.
I think he got this one right:
“Bad patents—and software patents really are horribly bad, it’s essentially exclusive rights to a thought—obviously have the potential to be a much nastier problem.”
imo open source is religion, a computer-religion