[wplug] GNU Linux

[Bryon Gill]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, Jonathan S. Billings wrote:
> 
> The problem is that he's not particularly polite.  

Somwhat true.  He also has poor hygiene.  But that's completely 
irrelevant to his ideas.

> He starts flame wars
> on the linux kernel mailing list about it, 

He stands up for his interpretation of the license he wrote.  To quote 
Truman, he never gave 'em hell, he just gave 'em the truth and they 
thought it was hell.

> he makes outrageous demands
> if someone asks him to speak (as in the Portland group), 

A conditional yes is worse than a no?  He asks them to not insult his work 
with the name of their group.  They are free to say no.

> and he comes
> off as a very idealistic, but not very realistic guy.  

The gnu project is quite real.  The hurd did not succeed as linux did, but 
I use gcc and emacs all the time.  

He also is responsible for the LGPL, so it's not even like he doesn't 
compromise- he just isn't willing to bend on his insistence that software 
be free.  Given the state of free software today, and his seminal role in 
the history of free software, I'd say he's more realistic than you give 
him credit for.

> I really can't
> agree with you when you consider this 'polite'.  

I've never called him polite, as I mentioned above.  But Richard's 
feelings about the GNU/Linux issue are well known and quite personal 
given that he spent basically the better part of the 1980's and beyond on 
a personal crusade to create a free unix clone for the benefit of the 
world.  If you want the guy to speak at your event, don't insult him, 
even if you think it unreasonable that he take offense- after all, you're 
the one asking him a favor.

> It's funny that you should say that, because I often think of the GNU
> folks as one of the biggest offenders of groupthink in the open-source
> world.  Sometimes using GNU tools or the GPL license *isn't* in the best
> interest of a person or company.  It's so bad now that license politics
> has been *written into the linux kernel*.  

License politics were in the kernel from the moment Linus slapped the GPL 
on his work.  There is room for disagreement about whether using 
nonfree software is ever in someone's interest.  Ultimately though, I 
think you mistake application of a principle that yields a predictable 
result for groupthink.  A lot of people think proprietary software is at 
best a necessary evil because you are not fully free to use/share it.  

Contrast this with the assertion that RMS is a communist or fanatic or 
unwilling to compromise or whatever it is people are calling him this 
time.  People often attack him for ideas that are obviously contrary to 
his thought.  It bothers me to see a person who has done so much for all 
of us attacked so unfairly.