-
Blogrovr!
-
-
-
Proudly Hosted By:
-
Oct
25
Stallman, GPLv3 Attack by Forbes is Ridiculous
Filed Under Editorial, Forbes.com, Stallman, Uncategorized, free software, gpl, gplv3, open source, rms
Forbes magazine is a joke. In an article nicely titled “Toppling Linux”, Forbes goes on a personal attack against Richard Stallman and a fear mongering campaign against GPLv3 and its effect on Linux. They should be embarrassed to print something like this. Richard Stallman, for the uninitiated, is the creator of Emacs—a text editor and lifelong enemy of Vi. He also created the GNU C Compiler and GNU C Debugger. He co-founded the GNU Project and the Free Software Foundation (FSF). He was the lead author of the GNU General Public License (GPL), the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL). In other words, a big shot in Open Source Software. Scratch that, Free Software as he prefers it to be called.
Known by the initials rms, he is respected, loved by the ladies and sometimes called a pain in the ass. I use Free Software daily, and believe most of it would not be possible without him. He is a vital figure. Every movement needs someone viewed as an extremist. It makes moderate gains possible. He asks for a full arm, maybe we get a hand. He does not deserve the treatment Forbes gave him. Quotes include: “a lesser-known programmer–infamously more obstinate and far more eccentric than Torvalds–wields a startling amount of control as this revolution’s resident enforcer” “He and a band of anarchist acolytes long have waged war on the commercial software industry” “A cantankerous and finger-wagging freewheeler, Stallman won’t comment on any of this because he was upset by a previous story written by this writer.” “in some ways he is downright bizarre. He is corpulent and slovenly, with long, scraggly hair, strands of which he has been known to pluck out and toss into a bowl of soup he is eating.” “Stallman engages in what he calls "rhinophytophilia"–"nasal sex" (also his term) with flowers” “His site also boasts a recording of him singing–a capella and badly–his own anthem to free software.” “He hasn’t hacked much new code in a decade or more.” “Stallman labors mightily to control how others think, speak and act, arguing, in Orwellian doublespeak, that his rules are necessary for people to be "free."” “Long ago Stallman was a gifted programmer.” “Most major tech vendors declined comment rather than risk tangling with Stallman’s enforcers, such as his sidekick and attorney, Columbia Law School professor Eben Moglen.” Would Forbes refer to others in this way? Would they call Steve Ballmer a bald headed, monkey dancing chair tosser? Would they call our president an inappropriate back-rub giving, hillbilly talking chimp? They think it is acceptable to trash rms and it shows they have an agenda.
Click here for Free Information Technology Resources!They are trying to create the famous Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) about Linux. The article describes a nightmare scenario where rms and his anarchists “tear apart” the Linux revolution. It begins with the newest version of the GPL, which they see as so radical it will force Red Hat to hire employees that it can’t afford, it will “Balkanize” the community and help Microsoft. Hilariously, the writer interviews Larry McVoy, bff of Linus himself and darling of the kernel programmers. McVoy tells us that “Red Hat gets a lot of code from people that don’t work for Red Hat.” He didn’t mention that the sky is blue and up is the opposite of down. Does that mean that Slackware gets a lot of code from people who aren’t Patrick Volkerding? He also interviews Simon Lok, of Lok Technologies, who apparently got so scared of the extremists years ago that he dumped Linux out of fear. Mr. Lok diplomatically refers to “Stallman’s bunch” as “jackasses” and “fanatics”. He is also afraid they will kill him. I won’t even get into the inaccuracies of the GPLv2 vs. GPLv3. Unlike the author, I realize I don’t know enough about it to comment. The little bit I do know is that GPLv3 is in draft form right now, so it is a bit premature to go having panic attacks about it. The main people involved are passionate about it, but do not seem overly concerned that the dawn of GPLv3 will be the death of Linux. The debate also coined the obnoxious term "Tivoisation".
What really bothers me about this article is that if someone uninformed about Linux (someone like your boss or parent that you have been trying to persuade to try it out) reads this, it only reinforces their fears. Why try Linux when Forbes is saying that in the near future this crazy hair eating Stallman and his lunatic anarchists will be at your door? He strikes fear into the heart of IBM according to the article. If IBM is terrified of him, so scared they have invested billions into Linux, then why shouldn’t you be? Because the article is complete and utter bullshit, that is why.
Advertisement:
Selection of best web hosting has become a big problem for webmasters. It is because of huge number of web hosting companies. Still the companies which provide maximum wireless security with their linux hosting package are considered the best. For this many companies have hired specialists with apple training and 642-812 certifications to handle their computer software in an efficient manner.
Comments
55 Responses to “Stallman, GPLv3 Attack by Forbes is Ridiculous”
What struck me as most baffling about the article was the sheer volume of ad hominem attacks. Whether or not Stallman engaged in “nasal sex” is irrelevant to GPLv3, free software and linux.
I agree. The author really dislikes Stallman. I honestly can’t believe something like that was published. It contributed nothing to the topic it was covering. Thanks for the comment.
RMS is overstated. Without him open source would have used the BSD, MIT and Apache licenses.
The whole GTK vs QT thing would never happened (some programmers still wish for an unified Linux API) and open source would certainly be different.
But GPL didn’t make open source happen, as it already existed.
Did the author tell lie about Stallman?
I agree he didn’t give much praise to Stallman, instead he explained the “quirky” side of Stallman. But in these days of age, if you want to be consider a leader, you should definitely check yourself in the mirror and fix your quirky attitude before it becomes a backlash for you one day. It’s like you’re playing chess; you need to carefully think about your next step ahead so you won’t get bitten slowly by the enemy.
In the mean time, seeing how RMS reacts on daily base, I would agree with people like Mr. Lok. Who knows what else RMS has in his mind.
I won’t even get into the inaccuracies of the GPLv2 vs. GPLv3. Unlike the author, I realize I don’t know enough about it to comment.
Then how in the world do you know enough about it to claim the the Forbes portrayal of it is inaccurate?
D’oh, it ate my “quote” tags. Above comment should read:
“I won’t even get into the inaccuracies of the GPLv2 vs. GPLv3. Unlike the author, I realize I don’t know enough about it to comment.”
smile!
you are on slashdot!
Well said!
There’s a thread at forbes where people are trying to get the magazine’s attention. Please take a moment to sign up and express your opinion there, too. This is ridiculous; approximately on the same level as Maureen O’Gara.
http://forums.forbes.com/forbes/board/message?board.id=stallmanreaction&message.id=8
The man is not loved by the ladies. He came to my university, he made a few feel uncomfortable (he would just blankly stare).
I like how this articles cites “He hasn’t hacked much new code in a decade or more.” as if thats offensive. Its the pure truth AFAIK.
Oranda did you read the article. You don’t need to be an expert to realize that the Lyons characterization e.g.
“GPLv3, with its tougher restrictions and a ban on anything that would protect or enforce copyright and other digital rights.”
is total bullshit
Others: please sign up to Forbes and express your opinion in this thread:
http://forums.forbes.com/forbes/board/message?board.id=stallmanreaction&message.id=8
I think Lyons is as bad as Maureen O’Gara of yesteryear
The original forbes article has some valid points. As about RMS, he is far from a well balanced person in his ideas, he is a fundamentalist that lost grip on the current world.
re: Oranda
I simply meant I don’t consider myself an expert, certainly not enough to comment in depth. I am a lot more informed than the author of the forbes article. I didn’t want to go and make claims about GPLv3 that were wrong. It is certainly a far cry from what the article claims, though.
thanks for visiting, thanks for the comments, people
-rich
RMS’ fight against “Tivoisation” is pretty rediculous. Its things like that that will prevent a decent/secure electronic voting machine from ever being created. Everyone now crys about how anyone could just overwrite the software…….it it was TiVoized…..it should be fine.
I guess its back to paper ballets
>The little bit I do know is that GPLv3 is in draft form right now,
>so it is a bit premature to go having panic attacks about it.
Once it is finalized GPLv3 is finalized it is too late to comment.
Comments good or bad at this point can not be disregarded, they need to be evaluated instead of thrown away.
sylentmode, what are you talking about? Do you think that the Government buying a secure voting machine *shouldn’t* have the keys to ensure the software they have audited is the same software as running on the hardware? Because that is the ONLY thing that the GPL 3 provision about DRM and signing would stop: the mnufacturer keeping the key secret and being the only ones allowed to put software on the hardware.
You spout Linus’s misapprehension of that clause almost word for word. Can’t you think for yourself?
Oranda, Steve Ballman does a monkeydance. Sweats like a hog.
Jobs has a huge reality distortion field ™
Gates is probably autistic
What does that have to do with the APPLE EULA or the Windows EULA? Or the quality of the software/hardware?
If you cannot attack the ideas, why attack the man? Only to discredit their ideas before you can hear them.
sylentmode said:
“”RMS’ fight against “Tivoisation” is pretty rediculous. (sic) Its things like that that will prevent a decent/secure electronic voting machine from ever being created. Everyone now crys (sic) about how anyone could just overwrite the software…….it it was TiVoized…..it should be fine.
I guess its back to paper ballets “”
Not sure what you’re missing about the idea — Stallman was concerned that companies were violating the spirit of the GPL by eliminating the ability to tinker and extend GPL code. The Tivo source code was supposedly open source — however they locked it up in a manner where you could not access it. He was worried that other companies would follow this lead, and would dilute the power of the GPL. SSL works fine with open source code — security /can/ be implemented in an open manner. DRM - very possibly cannot — but the only way DRM can work long term is to lock us out of our computers completely. As long as we can run debuggers on our own systems, we can break DRM. And Stallman /IS/ worried about making debuggers illegal — he was worried about it when it seemed ridiculous to everyone else. Go and read “Right to Read” — then look at the date — and think back as to whether you’d think that 10% of the things which he predicts which HAVE come to pass would ever happen. The DMCA making reverse engineering encryption systems illegal — single use DRM — pay per use — incredibly restrictive license agreements — self help remote deactivation of your OS. (It’s legal - and MS has the means at the moment.)
Our voting machines should have all source code be compeletely public — your absolutely and completely and astonishingly WRONG on what we need in terms of security for our voting machines. The code should be public — and it should include at the VERY minimum 1 type of Write-Only medium for recording the votes. I personally would prefer two.
1 CD-R or DVD-/+R would do fine. Simply write a streaming log of all actions the OS takes to a Write once medium.
CD-R drives are $26 — DVD-/+R’s are $35. If you go optical only — there should be two systems — The DVD drive should have an extra read head controlled by a separate system — which displays your vote total. If you disagree with what it reads out — They would record a nullification of you ballot — (time and date stamped) and allow you to re-vote.
Personally my preference is for paper - optical scan ballots — Volusia County Florida used them — and we did our recount that evening with the computer totalizers — the hand recount was completed in just over two days. But the blind pac managed to get the federal government to sue Volusia county and force them to buy a less secure system. (Touch screen voting) That sucks.
- Jeff Dodge
re. admin, slentmode. Fair enough ^^. I readily admit that the Forbes article is FUD, no question about that, and I wasn’t trying to defend it. But at the same time, I can’t help but agree with many of the points presented in it, even if the method of presentation is totally irresponsible. When a man holds as much sway over an organization as the FSF (or Microsoft, or Apple, or whatever), it is equally irresponsible to think that his personality and external actions will not influence that organization’s policies. Simply crying “Bill Gates is autistic” is not the same thing as saying that “Bill Gates is autistic, and certain members of Microsoft’s board of directors are concerned that the condition is worsening and affecting his ability to run the company”. The autism is a pertinent thing at that point. The fact that the presentation in the article was constructed as a personal attack does nothing to migitate the truth or untruth of the statements presented. You must separate the slant of a bigot from the validity and consequences of the information he is using to slander.
It appeared to me at first that the poster was disregarding the article completely as just plain wrong because of the attitude of its writer. After reading a few more of admin’s comments, however, I realize that this probably isn’t the case and apologize ^^.
I’ve got to agree, the Forbes article didn’t need all those personal attacks against Stallman. I’ve met the guy. He’s a little quirky, but so am I. I wouldn’t want my philosphical differences with others to be reduced to “Hey, look at that wierd guy Tyler! He’s so… WIERD!”
Current disagreements are a very small side to the thing as a whole - he’s an important voice and part of his job is to step a little further out there every time the world alligns itself closer to his ideals. Resistance is expected, and a certain amount of it is a good sign.
The article sounds more like personal grudge the author has against RMS than anything else, and it makes Forbes look like a tabloid.
Orendo, can yoy let us know WHAT personal attribute Lie-ons used (nice type, hope you like it!) used affects the FSF? The only one is “zealotry”. OK Judas Iscariot was a zealot. However, so was Jesus. So if being a zealot is bad, then Jesus is bad!
We have one one side, MS-EULA saying “you CANNOT” and listing things they have NO RIGHT to limit. E.g. reverse engineering, installing on a new computer having the code fixed (SP3 for XP may never happen: so why can’t I make a business fixing your software now you don’t want to?). Even you aren’t allowed to benchmark unless you ask MS first.
So one side is zealously asking for the moon and stars be given to them
On RMS’s side, he says “you CANNOT stop your users freedom to use your product or learn from it”.
Now, you may think “well, SOME freedoms should be limited”. However, if RMS hadn’t stated his extreme, your case would now be extreme. So those freedoms and a few more will be restricted (gotta be fair: if MS gives up something, you do to).
If you get a chance, read Bill Watterson’s 10th Anniversary of Calvin and Hobbes. He refused to compromise because he didn’t care about making more money and his publisher didn’t care about artistic integrity. Since neither cared for the values of the others, no compromise is possible.
In much the same way, many CSS companies don’t CARE about what you want to do. They just care if you have money.
For RMS (and the FSF) they don’t CARE how much money you make (you can sell Linux for $2,000 like Oracle want to). They DO care that the person you sell to gets the freedoms stted in the FSF statement of principles.
Where is the compromise?
IMO, copyright on computer programs should ONLY be aavilable if the source is available. That DOESN’T mean you are allowed to make copies of that code. Just that you get it. The binary, when released in 2655, will be worthless because there will be nothing to run it on.
However, the ideas that were used can be utilised to the benefit of the society at that time.
THIS is what copyright was supposed to give: the public is enriched by knowing. The law allows the loss of knowledge NOW for the promise of using the ideas in the future. But with closed source, you don’t get that payback. So why should society (other than the bit asking for protection) lose their right to learn for nothing in return?
“Forbes magazine is a joke.”
Amen.
It seems to me that the Forbes article is fundamentally correct. Stallman is a nutcase, and he’s trying to force the Linuz community to do things his way, on penalty of losing the GNU stuff. Stallman is trying to impose his concept of DRM on the Linux community, and a heck of a lot of very important people aren’t buying what he’s selling. So this will inevitably lead to a split between Stallmanized code and non-Stallmanized code.
It’s unpleasant to think about this, but it’s very likely to happen. Nobody can get Stallman under control, and he has enough fanatical followers to cause a serious split.
The Forbes article is right on: Stallman is a lunatic and Linux is in trouble because of it. It’s not FUD, boys and girls, it’s reality.
@Richard Bennet:
I think that you haven’t understood how OSS works in practice. It doesn’t really matter if the GPL v3 is all wrong, because that just means that people won’t use it. Choice, remember? It will only matter in so far as it is better than v2.
Also, any article that engages in personal invective in this way should immediately be discounted as FUD and unprofessional journalism. It’s simply not acceptable to try and destroy someone’s reputation to discredit them. I will beware henceforth of any articles by this Daniel Lyons fellow, personally.
Stallman is trying to impose his concept of DRM on the Linux community, and a heck of a lot of very important people aren’t buying what he’s selling.
hi dick, sorry to inform you but: fuck the “linux” community. anyone ignorant enough to go around talking about “linux” this and how “linux” deserves this or even thinking that there is such a thing as the “linux” community. okay, so there is a community that exists around developing the linux kernel. so there is such a thing. HOWEVER, that kernel means absolutely nothing (NOTHING) without: glibc, gcc, and countless gnu utilities. its people like you walking around talking about “linux” as if its worth a damn without gnu. linux is a kernel. it has a lot of problems. if i had a company the size of Be Inc, with approximately the same capital, we could produce a better kernel than linux can ever hope to be.
the problem with the “linux” community is that they’ve always been relatively quick to sell out to capitalist rhetoric, when in truth without gnu their kernel would be a piss stain.
FIN
Attack on Stallman? Grow up people. Sure the article did point out that RMS is a weirdo, but we all knew that allready. There did not seem to be any mud slinging, just restatement of various oddities that RMS does nothing to hide and in fact publicizes. RMS & fellow travelers are subject to no more or less personal scrutiny in the press than any one else who wishes to be a political leader.
Did the author tell lie about Stallman?
————
I agree he didn’t give much praise to Stallman, instead he explained the “quirky” side of Stallman. But in these
days of age, if you want to be consider a leader, you should definitely check yourself in the mirror and fix your quirky attitude before it becomes a backlash for you one day. It’s like you’re playing chess; you need to carefully think about your next step ahead so you won’t get bitten slowly by the enemy.
In the mean time, seeing how RMS reacts on daily base, I would agree with people like Mr. Lok. Who knows what else RMS has in his mind.
————
whatever dude.. if you have to fit into someone elses arbitrary necktie wearing mould, they’ve already won
you probably drive a minivan^W SUV^W whatever the hippest suburb-a-car is these days anyway.. loser
I emailed rms shortly after Forbes put up this article. I asked him, “What in the hell does this guy have against you?” In typical Stallman fashion he replied meekly and intelligently, “People can only speculate. . .”
One of the little details that I saw was that it was dated 10-30-06, did anyone else catch this?
[...] • L’accouchement de la version 3 de la GPL -la licence qui porte et accompagne les logiciels libres- se passe dans les invectives, les anathèmes et les longues discussions. Normal que la mise à jour d’un tel texte juridique fasse du barouf: dans le logiciel libre, c’est bien l’utilisation du droit qui est révolutionnaire, pas la technologie. •Firefox 2 est dispo. Ok, tout le monde est courant. [...]
the problem with the “linux” community is that they’ve always been relatively quick to sell out to capitalist rhetoric…
Thanks for proving Forbes’ point: Stallman and his disciples are a bunch of scruffy pinkos.
…copyright on computer programs should ONLY be aavilable if the source is available. That DOESN’T mean you are allowed to make copies of that code. Just that you get it. The binary, when released in 2655, will be worthless because there will be nothing to run it on.
However, the ideas that were used can be utilised to the benefit of the society at that time.
THIS is what copyright was supposed to give: the public is enriched by knowing. The law allows the loss of knowledge NOW for the promise of using the ideas in the future. But with closed source, you don’t get that payback. So why should society (other than the bit asking for protection) lose their right to learn for nothing in return?
Excellent! Thank you for saying it, slentmode.
(Oops, looking at “slentmode” and being confused for a minute and figuring out that sylentmode was someone else, I accidentally used <blockmode> instead of <blockquote> above for that bit about copyrights. Funny that it didn’t work right.)
I believe Lyons knows what he wrote, what I don’t know is whether he “believes” what he wrote.
If he does believe it then it’s just his personal take on FOSS, horribly presented, inaccurate, and mean spirited (as usual).
If he doesn’t believe it, that’s another matter entirely.
I personally think this was an intentional hatchet job. I think Forbes is in the business of influencing public opinion as opposed to informing it. Lyons articles tend to echo the FUD themes of the Corporatocracy.
I think many entrenched interests who have been fighting and FUDing against FOSS (GPL primarily) realize that DRM will end run the GPL and see v.2 as the lesser of two enemies. I think think they see Open Source, Linus, and others view of “as long as the “developer” has the “freedom”" as closer to their own and more tractable.
It’s Stallman’s constant and insistent demand for “freedom” for “users” that is at the heart of this struggle. I believe that is what is setting off the greatest alarms in the halls of power and privilege.
Screw the “halls of power and privilege”, I want to know who elected Stallman God and why he thinks he has the authority to re-write American copyright law.
The only answer I see is: A) he’s a communist; and B) he thinks he can get away with it.
I don’t think anyone elected him God. I think he had a vision of what he wanted to accomplish with free software and he jump-started a whole movement to achieve it. He had made huge contributions to bring his vision to realization and now we’re seeing the benefits of it. Now that free software is big business, many people think they should be able to appropriate it. He is staying consistent with his original vision and working to ensure it isn’t thwarted. No person or corporation has been forced to use free software — they adopt it because they see a benefit. Please don’t demonize Stallman for staying true to his beliefs.
(Damn — another double post…) He has made huge contributions, I meant to say, and is continuing to make them.
He may have ideas about changes he’s like to make to copyright law, but that’s his right. He has worked within copyright laws to further the goals of the FSF. He is not claiming any authority to rewrite American copyright law as far as I know. He’s working on a new version of the GPL, which anyone will be free to use if they want to. They will also be free to reject it.
[...] Previously I had made an aside about my dislike of Forbes magazine. Well one of the articles that struck me as being particularly useless was this about RMS and how he threatens to tear linuxapart. Beyond the fact that as others have pointed out that is just a collection of ad hominem attacks, it is also factually full of errors. [...]
A great article which slaps and kicks the forbes magazine and the article’s author. Thanks for this response !
Richard, does this sound like the quote of a communist?
“The paradigm of competition is a race: by rewarding the winner, we encourage everyone to run faster. When capitalism really works this way, it does a good job; but its defenders are wrong in assuming it always works this way.”
–Richard Stallman
Yes, that’s a communist on his best behavior.
Comment from Oranda:
> it is equally irresponsible to think that his personality and external actions will not influence that organization’s policies.
Well I dont know why a persons looks and external actions matter ..
dont you think if a person is comfortable in what he wears, he can do his job in a better way.. Personally i believe: one should not choose Looks over Convenience and Convenience over freedom!
The rest of the article from forbes is full of crap.. He say RMS has not done coding for a while.. y dont the forbes guy do it then,, RMS is busy with other far more important things. And just because you (Daniel Lyons ) dont share same concerns with RMS does not mean he is wrong. When he is actually wrong..
when he is actually right….
It is sad to see that people with very little, or no knowledge or understanding about the contribution that RMS has done to humanity, criticizing him for absolutely trivial things. He is a living legend who started a revolution called the GNU project and FSF that eventually led to the birth of the linux kernel. I can only pity people like Dani Shorel who commented earlier, that he would have used open source if the free software movement had not existed.
Presenting an idea of some journalist as views of Forbes is wrong. Forbes may have done countless other articles that we may not have come across. Articles in Forbes, usually are in drafted to suit the taste of its majority readers, and, hence, need not necessarily be ethically ordered. RMS, Linux, FSF, GNU and GPL are all ideologies, those that drive a community to commit themselves to a *technology of human sacrifice*. There is little point in discussing the issue with those who fail to understand what it conveys, what it projects, what it means or what it does. Its better to realise that communication simply is no longer possible. The Forbes journalist would have understood it by now, and so would also be the countless other members of Free Software community.
Mahatma Gandhi (whom some people may ridicule for the way he dressed) once said, “First they ignore us, then they ridicule us, then they fight us, then we win”. If you look at history, you can see these various phases in Microsoft’s attitude towards Free Software. They have now started fighting. But some people who have posted their comments here seem to be stuck in the phase of ridiculing. We should soon be seeing them fighting.
>”in some ways he is downright bizarre. He is corpulent and slovenly, with long,
> scraggly hair, strands of which he has been known to pluck out and toss into a > bowl of soup he is eating”
I and my collegues had an oppurtunity to have a dinner sitting right next to him. He had a tasty bowl of “Murgh Badami Shorba” Soup and various other dishes. Our dinner crossed two hours and not once did he even touch his hair during those two hours.
His knowledge of the exquisite Indian cuisine was surprising. I was convinced he enjoys food the most. I am of the opinion he would not like himself tossing locks of hair into a bowl of soup he is eating.
“Divide and conquer” is an old trick, fine tuned by the early British empire builders. The Forbes article is a hint that the software empire builders (read monopolists) are taking history lessons in earnest. They want to divide our community and make us fight each other - the Free Software Guys Vs The Open Source Guys. Expect to see more such articles in the future.
Journalists who disseminate sense and sensibility do not attract criticisms or flames. The unending stream of flames here appear to reinforce a fact that the article is absurd. The sweeping generalisations on various themes made by this journalist show that he is a *man in a hurry* and not a *researcher*. Free Software is developed largely by an academic community that is geographically dispersed, who develop it as part of their fulfillment of academic course - whether it is a graduate programme or a research programme. Most of the projects are guided by eminent experts in their own fields. The whole gambit of such a development, then qualifies to be called a *technology of human sacrifice* - if a comparison is made with the proprietary counterpart. This phenomenon, which do not fall within the cognitive sphere of such closed, proprietary developers need no elaboration for the developers of free software or its users who experience it on a regular basis. It would be great if Forbes contracted a few journalists who are eager to learn and disseminate useful thoughts or views.
[...] Links: 0. http://www.linuxtechdaily.com/2006/10/stallman-gplv3-attack-by-forbes-is-ridiculous/ 1. http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/22/2214203&tid=117 [...]
Forbes is a magazine for (and published by) sociopathic nutcakes who are not only completely out of touch with reality - they have not the slightest idea what reality is and would not recognize it if it stared right in their face.
So what can one expect from an article in Forbes about someone who deals with real situations and definitely does not inhabit the fantasy-world the Forbes-loonies live in?
Does one expect the inmates of a lunatic asylum to deliver coherent, adequate statements about the real world?
The article is exactly as it has to be - incoherent pseudo-intellectual babbling - it would be a miracle if it were otherwise, and there are no miracles in the real world …
I read almost every comment here. Is ridiculous how much indoctrined persons i found.
Forbes is right… but now is just too late.
GPL was a pure communist manifest, and now (as always happend with communism in story of our world) that is not enough. We need soviets… you know… Intellectual property… nooo! That’s a joke… We don’t need even PROPERTY! This is what Stallman will say in the next 3 years.
This is just the beginning of the end…
I’m sorry for Linux users. That was a nice dream but remains dream as long as we decide to push ourself to an ideological group with communist ideas. And collapse can be painfull also… like it was for some poor contries of Eastern Europe…
Renis Cerga
Tirana, Albania
I read the Forbes article and some of the comments here. I tend to gloss over the personal attacks and characterizations and look for the substantive arguments. If GPLv3 makes LINUX unprofitable for my business, I’ll look for an alternative. If GPLv3 presents unacceptable risk, I’ll look elsewhere. The characterizations of Stallman and Lyons are irrelevant. I’m sure both have some valid points, I’ll just have to sort through them. Like Reagan said, trust but verify.
Hello, Your site is great. Regards, Valintino Guxxi