The Curious Incident of Sun in the Night-Time 370
Joe Barr writes "NewsForge is carrying a story by Richard Stallman which blasts Sun's recent Java move, claiming it is deceptive and self-serving, makes Java neither free nor even open source, and leaves him wondering why it has attracted so much attention."
Before all the.... (Score:5, Informative)
[mildly offtopic] - Does anyone know what the significance of the title stallaman chose? It's too close to the book [randomhouse.co.uk] to not be a reference, but I'm just not getting it...
Re:Before all the.... (Score:2)
Re:Before all the.... (Score:5, Informative)
Perhaps RMS is suggesting that a lot of people took the overhyped media version of what occured at face value, instead of looking into it for themselves and seeing whether this was truly an open source license?
Re:Before all the.... (Score:3, Insightful)
RMS is very up honest about what they mean by "free" and "Open Source" and define their terms up front. So is Sun.
Others are not so honest. Take Apple with their Darwin shenanigans for example, or SugarCRM with their releasing the original SugarCRM under the MPL and then threatening to sue others when they tool the MPL project. rebranded it as the license requires, modified the installer so the installer actually worked and extended several modules, and then released it. Well, the Suga
Re:Before all the.... (Score:2, Informative)
He references the work... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Before all the.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose he refers to his opinion (haven't read the article yet to call it fact) that Sun has actually accomplished nothing while everyone is celebrating because it seems like something. If this is the case, I would actually use a better fitting metaphor.
Re:Before all the.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Before all the.... (Score:2)
If you reread my post, you'll see that this is what I was saying... I know that story.
Re:Before all the.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Incidentally, why have we suddenly started commemorating Sir Arthur's birthday this year? I can't recall anyone ever mentioning it before.
Re:Before all the.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Before all the.... (Score:2)
The media does this ALL the time. Does he only notice this when the media reports on something he doesn't agree with?
Well welcome to the club, RMS. If this happened more often on topics like this that you're upset about biased reporting on, you'd understand why so many other people in this country are ticked off at the media.
It's Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, not Haddon. (Score:3, Informative)
He actually uses this quote in the essay.
Re:It's Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, not Haddon. (Score:5, Funny)
Doesn't he realize how much ACD contributed to his headline? Why doesn't he do the right thing and put ACD/ in front?
Re:It's Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, not Haddon. (Score:2)
I consider this one of the more insightful quotes from any bit of literature, ever. You can learn a lot from considering what should have happened if X is true and comparing it to reality to determine if perhaps X is not true.
People more usually ask whether X is a plausible explanation, but that false-positives too often to be a useful standard. With a bit of work and perhaps a dollop of self-deception, anything can be a plausible explanation for anything else.
This principle is an excellent t
Re:Before all the.... (Score:2)
Re:Before all the.... (Score:2)
For me, what would be nice is if RMS would not spend the first 75% of his dissertation criticising Sun, but actually criticising those who are the actual targets of the dissertation.
Re:Before all the.... (Score:3, Informative)
It's a Sherlock Holmes reference.
The curious incident was that the dog didn't bark.
Rather co-incidentally, it was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's birthday a couple of days
back.
What is Sun's new contribution to the FLOSS com (Score:2)
Life, perhaps. No? I thought only Microsoft was run by the undead.
Re:What is Sun's new contribution to the FLOSS com (Score:3, Funny)
Totally not true. The undead actually pursue people with brains.
Re:What is Sun's new contribution to the FLOSS com (Score:2)
Understandable (Score:5, Insightful)
That being said, his position is equally valid. From his perspective, he's only interested in Java being "free" as in shiny boots. My own frustration with Mr. Stallman, however, is that he doesn't really seem to work with companies like Sun to see if their interests and his own can coincide. So he spends his time on an attempt to replicate a complex system that he lacks the resources to properly follow. (Don't get me wrong, GCJ is nice, but I doubt it will ever "catch up".)
Even more frustrating is that many of the other OSS "leaders" (*cough*de Icaza*cough*) feel it necessary to start brand new projects out of a sense of NIH syndrome rather than help support the platforms that are actually needed by the industry. (i.e. Java) The result is that the OSS community has managed to fragment its efforts and has had a much harder time catching up than it should have.
Re:Understandable (Score:2)
Dang it. I got confused about my "Free" metaphors. He's only interested in Java being "free" as in the "Declaration of Independence". "Free" as in shiny boots is the other side of "free". Sorry for the mixup.
Re:Understandable (Score:2)
I don't care if it 'catches up' that much. So long as it remains free. As in shiny declarations.
Re:Understandable (Score:3, Interesting)
Free Software doesn't need Sun, but Sun uses and distributes Free software. Sun should work with RMS, his type of software is * gaining * market share. If Sun doesn't shape up real soon they will soon become go out of business, leaving proprietary java in a mess, and another popular de-facto java won't have
Re:Understandable (Score:3, Insightful)
Good question. Why are they supporting
Sun should work with RMS, his type of software is * gaining * market share.
Java already gained it and owns the industry. I'm not sure what your point is.
If Sun doesn't shape up real soon they will soon become go out of business, leaving proprietary java in a mess, and another popular de-facto java won't have to "catch up" to sun's.
Lots of hyperbole, little substance. Sun is still profitable (even if
Re:Understandable (Score:2)
because it's not a proprietary standard
http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/ecma/ [microsoft.com]
Re:Understandable (Score:3, Insightful)
Neither is Java.
http://www.jcp.org/en/home/index [jcp.org]
Like it or not, the JCP is a REAL standards committee with thousands of members [jcp.org] whos only goal is to standardize Java and Java-based technologies.
Re:Understandable (Score:5, Insightful)
The primary difference between .NET and Java for Free Software hackers is that Mono is usable right now, while gcj and GNU Classpath is not. The Free Software crowd doesn't really care about standards, sure it tries to follow standards when they are applicable, but these folks primarily care about Free Software. Mono is unequivocably Free Software, and Mono is usable today. gcj and GNU Classpath are also Free Software, but they aren't nearly as usable as Mono. This set of facts leads lots of folks to fall into the "Java trap" which is basing Free Software on a proprietary platform.
Had Sun released a Free Software version of Java before Mono became popular there would be very little Free Software written in C#. However, thanks to Sun's short-sightedness lots of Free Software hackers are taking a look at the available platform choices and are choosing Mono over Java. Sun's own "Java Desktop" has more C# in it than Java. If one of your prerequisites for choosing a language platform is that the platform has to be Free Software then Mono is the clear winner. Unfortunately for Sun, the Free Software community is becoming a very important segment of the computer industry. A large portion of the software that makes Sun hardware a worthwhile purchase is Free Software. Sun should be doing everything in its power to make Java the best platform for Free Software development in the world. Instead Sun is trying to guarantee that it retains the upper hand in the Java world, even if that means that Java gets surpassed by other platforms.
I just don't see it (Score:3, Interesting)
Perhaps, its because people can take the Jakarta projects and use them on WebSphere, Weblogic, Sun One (or whatever its called today), Oracle App Server, or almost any other J2EE server. Developers are using free software on proprietary servers in huge numbers. Perhaps, just perhaps, the majority don't really care about the license issue. If they did then maybe there would be a lot more people working on the CLASSPATH project
Re:Understandable (Score:3, Informative)
Mono has an optimizing JIT compiler for a number of architectures (x86, x86-64, Itanium, SPARC, SPARCv9, S390 and S390x mainframes, PowerPC and StrongARM) and works on a variety of operating systems beyond Linux, MacOS and Windows (see our web site for details).
Regarding
Re:Understandable (Score:2)
"Good question. Why are they supporting
because it's not a proprietary standard
http://msdn.microsoft.com/netframework/ecma/ [microsoft.com]
You are confusing
Re:Understandable (Score:3)
These are quibbles -
Right up until Microsoft drudges up a patent for WinForms or some other technology not covered by ECMA standard. The funny thing about patents is that they don't lose their potency with time or popularity. The
Re:Understandable (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Understandable (Score:2)
Am I the only one who finds his logic suspect?
Re:Understandable (Score:2, Insightful)
However, he seems to have achieved more towards realising his dream that many of us considered possible when he started.
Re:Understandable (Score:5, Insightful)
So while you are right that Java is needed, free Java is not needed. Mono, by virtue of being free and needed at the same time, stands to gain.
-Mark
Re:Understandable (Score:3, Informative)
Free Java was making its own inroads and there were several people working on various angles of it (Kaffe, the Transgaming company, Classpath, Japhar and much more). The fact that a full Java later struggled is a topic worth debating, and I have put some thoughts in a recent blog post here [tirania.org].
Now, that being said, I am amused by your sugge
Remarkably Calm and Coherent for RMS (Score:2)
The desire is for Java that the open/free community can hack on, improve and get the features they are looking for into the core implimentation. This is still not possible.
Re:Remarkably Calm and Coherent for RMS (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's exactly the problem. 20 minutes after Java goes "free", some idiot will start adding pointers to it. Sun's stewardship of the language is the only thing preventing this.
Re:Remarkably Calm and Coherent for RMS (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can make a pointer system that gets past the bytecode verifier then there is nothing to stop you implementing it now. Free java compilers are not in short supply its the libs that are the issue.
Re:Remarkably Calm and Coherent for RMS (Score:2)
Re:Remarkably Calm and Coherent for RMS (Score:3, Interesting)
(Grand parent's point) ---> (whoooooooosh)
(your head here)
But why listen to the grandparent? I for one can't wait for there to be a million different versions of Java that aren't cross compatible, with various open and closed source projects using specific copies of each one, resulting in mass confusion.
Re:Remarkably Calm and Coherent for RMS (Score:3, Insightful)
What I was doing was disagreeing with its validity, and alluding, through sarcasm, to facts in the real world which suggest that the concern it articulates is empirically unsupported.
Whether Sun open sources its implementation of Java is pretty much irrelevant to whether or not this
Re:Remarkably Calm and Coherent for RMS (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Remarkably Calm and Coherent for RMS (Score:4, Funny)
Oh wait, they did that already? But isn't operator overloading evil?
Re:Remarkably Calm and Coherent for RMS (Score:3, Insightful)
You want to be able to rely on something unified like Java ( and sablevm and kaffe and jamvm and microsoft java and ibm java and gnu classpath and gcj and jikes and apache harmony and jupiter ).
Honestly... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, that's just your average Slashdotter. When the last story was posted, I was shocked at the caliber of people who didn't know about Java's source code. The fact that the source has been available for about 7 years makes this incredibly frustrating.
Most of the OSS "leaders" are well aware of the SCSL and JRL. They don't like the SCSL because of fears of "contamination" by reading the source code. (Sun's lawyers are often terrible at writing licenses. They seem to add in every boiler-plate requirement in existence, even if it isn't the intent of Sun Microsystems Corp.) The JRL license fixed many of these problem with viewing the code, but it doesn't allow for the source to be forked or otherwise redistributed. There's also a lot of handwaving from OSS projects that the JRL might be dangerous even though they can't find anything wrong with it.
What they *do* have a valid complaint about is that Java isn't OSS as in the OSI definition. Which it's not intended to be. It's open source as in the source can be freely read and played with. It's also open as in it's fully standardized by the JSR Committee. Sun has been very reticent to actually "Open Source" (note the caps) Java because of the problems they had with Microsoft. Had Microsoft not abused their contract with Sun all those years ago, Sun might still be releasing only a reference implementation for others to build their own JVMs against.
Given that it was a reference implementation, it would have made sense to make it Open Source by now. Unfortunately, Microsoft did what they did and Sun is now the primary Java distributor rather than the merely the enforcer of the standards.
Re:IBM legal counsel is not handwaving (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, yes it is. The exact same "residual" issue exists with any source code that isn't in public domain. That includes GPLed code. I could write a module that's extremely similar to GPLed code, and the original author of the GPL code could sue me for failing to observe the licensing restrictions imposed by the GPL.
I hate to break it to people, but merely existing is a legal risk. The only way to mitigate that risk is to attempt to only do business with entities you trust.
Re:Crushing? how? (Score:3, Informative)
OSS hasn't posed a serious threat, yet. But if Mono does take off, Microsoft will be looking to crush it. Which means that they'll use any dirty trick they can think of, including patent warfare. While they're pretty new to patents these days, I have no doubt that
Re:Honestly... (Score:3, Interesting)
This is just complete and utter nonsense. Microsoft is free to implement whatever language they want. Whether it's based on Sun's code or not is completely beside the point. What they can't do is calling it Java u
Thank You For Reminding Us You Still Exist (Score:2, Funny)
"Richard Stallman Denies He's Irrelevant, Again!"
Re:Thank You For Reminding Us You Still Exist (Score:2)
Re:Thank You For Reminding Us You Still Exist (Score:2)
Might not be open but... (Score:2)
I for one welcome my new Java .debs. IMVVHO Sun should have made these changes a long time ago. At the end of the day I (and I suspect the vast majority of people) don't care all that much if Java is OSS I care about how easy it is to install and use.
Sure, it would be nice if Java was OSS but in the real world I don't think Java being closed source has slowed it's adoption. Java being a pig to install probably has.
Stallman rants about media coverage... (Score:2)
Is it me or did anyone else get the image of King Canute on the beach ordering the sea to go back?
I know that RMS isn't directly attacking Sun here but the reporting, but it would be nice if once in a while he had something positive to say rather than contending that everything is rubbish. And gets in as ever a plug for the GNU project rather than talking about all of the other efforts out there, paticularly the Apache one. He also ignores several contributions to FLOSS that Sun did make around the netbeans
King Canute (slightly OT) (Score:5, Insightful)
That said, the essay really had just one topic (reflected by the title): there's a mistaken identity problem with Sun's change in licensing. It's not "Free Software," nor even open source. Now, it doesn't seem like you disagree with his thesis, so what's the problem?
Canute gets a bad rep (Score:2)
ian
I like RMS but (Score:2, Funny)
Story title (Score:2)
Re:Story title (Score:2)
Now it is.
No. (Score:2)
Bizarre thought processes (Score:2, Insightful)
Sheesh. Companies don't use the term 'free softwar
Re: More Bizarre thought processes (Score:3, Insightful)
You're not helping your point. Given "Linux," the reader is more likely to assume that Linus wrote the entire thing. Given "GNU/Linux," the reader is given the two main sources of code for the core operating system. Perhaps you don't think that GNU deserves that much credit, but you at least have to realize that there's a difference here.
Re: More Bizarre thought processes (Score:2)
Re: More Bizarre thought processes (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me reiterate, for clarification. Your initial statement was that RMS pushes for GNU/Linux because it will bring in more publicity for GNU, with the downside that some people might assume that GNU was responsible for the "entire Linux package" (emphasis mine). My response was that, given the two opti
"Free software" (Score:2)
The Curious State of Being Non-Free (Score:2)
"With this change, GNU/Linux distros can include the non-free Sun Java platform, just as some now include the non-free nVidia driver. But they do so only at the cost of being non-free."
Which, to the vast majority of users, means absolutely BUPKIS.
Re:The Curious State of Being Non-Free (Score:2)
He's writing this article to NewsForge. You know, the self-described Online Newspaper for Linux and Open Source ? I think that the main audience for this piece might understand (and perhaps even care about) the subject matter.
Re:The Curious State of Being Non-Free (Score:3, Insightful)
And yes there are alternatives to Sun's Java
http://viva.sourceforge.net/runtime.html [sourceforge.net] is a list of free Java run times.
If Sun dropped off the face of the earth and Java was still important you can bet someone would help the OSS version catch up.
Not saying it doesn't matter at all. Just that to the vast majority o
Sun, Sun, Sun (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Java NDA? (Score:2)
I am not familiar with the Nvidia situation, but this is very different than the MS source code that has been kept secret until China demanded the source code to scour for backdoors, etc. After this Microsoft dropped the st
Re:NDA FUD (Score:3, Insightful)
Which is not an NDA.
I've signed NDAs before, this is not one./p.
Stallman still doesn't get it (Score:3, Informative)
There's a couple things he missed in the article.
One is a nitpick. The way the DLJ goes, we require one person per organization to agree to the license. Not per user, per organization. In the debian bundles that's handled through a debconf key that remembers the license has been seen and agreed to. An administrator for an organization could distribute that debconf key and then silently install Java across their organization. At least that's what I've been told is possible.
The other thing he missed is the other announcement last Tuesday. The "it's not a matter of whether, but how" comment.
Show some gratitiude (Score:4, Interesting)
Aren't these 2 separate announcements? (Score:4, Insightful)
1 - It will now be easier to distribute Java with a Linux distro
(see http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2006/05/05/java_lin
2 - Sun is planning to open source Java but has not decided on all the details (I presume they're trying to pick the right OSI-approved license)
(see http://news.com.com/Sun+promises+to+open-source+J
Look at the dates in the articles. The "we will open source Java" announcement (#2) was made at JavaOne. The "we'll make it easier to distribute Java" (#1) was made before JavaOne AFAIK.
Where is the "blasting"????? (Score:4, Informative)
Borrowing a title? (Score:2)
Just read it a couple months ago, else I don't think I would have recognised it.
Wrong reference :) (Score:2)
Let's see here... (Score:2)
Strange article... (Score:2)
free software vs. open source (Score:4, Insightful)
Ever since the term "open source" was coined, we have seen companies find ways to use it and their product name in the same sentence.
Whats funny is I don't understand the confusion here. Sun announced that Java has a new distribution license so Linux distros can have java in their non-free sections of their package management systems.
Sun also announced that they are looking in to releasing Java source under an osi approved license. They are two individual stories, and it has absolutely nothing to with the decade old free vs. open source software debate.
Sun has no obligation... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sun owes me nothing; they paid the salaries of the people that developed and implemented Java. And Sun's current financial situation, in spite of the hugely popular language, is evidence that they aren't laughing all the way to the bank as a result of controlling Java.
So what freedom of mine is Sun denying? People and/or corporations who create intellectual property are under no obligation to give it away for free.
Go use C++, or PHP, or PERL, or Ruby if you can't abide by Sun's terms.
Stallman doesn't seems to understand open source (Score:2, Insightful)
" A program is free software if its users have certain crucial freedoms. Roughly speaking, they are: the freedom to run the program, the freedom to study and change the source, the freedom to redistribute the source and binaries, and the freedom to publish improved versions. (See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html. [gnu.org]) Whether any given program is free software depends solely on the meaning of its license. "
Sun don't say java will is free
I wish I could understand (Score:4, Insightful)
The biggest problem I have w/ RMS is loudly using words like "ethical" and assuming that everyone means the same thing by them as he does. It's a common failing in the modern world (listen to US political parties pretending to disagree with each other sometime), but it makes a guy who was once supposedly a good engineer sound like the guys who are _really_ trying to destroy the world, and not by selling closed source software either.
In the end, Sun has the right to use any license they want, and the ethical choice in a free society is to support that. Anyone is welcome to try to convince others to change the social contract, but the good guys shouldn't do it by demonizing Sun, etc, because they won't accept someone else's non-advantageous license terms for their own work.
Re:I wish I could understand (Score:3, Informative)
Um, perhaps you're thinking of a different Stallman, but I was pretty sure that RMS's ability was pretty well established [wikipedia.org].
Open Letter to Slashdot "Editors" (Score:5, Insightful)
It has come to my attention that you are doing a woefully inept job. Communication between editors is apparently non-existent, no attempt is made to drill down to original sources, misleading and incorrect article summaries are often posted, your copy editing is virtually non-existent and you frequently commit numerous other sins against journalism. *You should be ashamed* by your lack of professionalism. It casts a shadow on you, on Slashdot, and on the tech community. In fact, were you my employees, you would almost certainly be out of a job.
Please, please, please, stop screwing around and treat this like a fucking job. There are eight hours in a workday: use them for working and you might even gain the respect of the Slashdot community and that of other, professional journalists.
Thanks for your time,
Acy Stapp
Re:Open Letter to Slashdot "Editors" (Score:3, Interesting)
Well said.
I was originally going to bash Java and make a few snide remarks about Ruby on Rails. But yes. Slashdot is terrible. Calling it yellow/tabloid journalism is too good. I don't know why I keep reading the site.
That being said I'm still going to bash Java (and Ruby). I've found a really wonderful video demonstration on why Java sucks ass for developing web apps. [nasa.gov] So I really don't care if Java becomes truly open source or not.
Sun's motivations (Score:5, Insightful)
First, Sun is ripe to be aquired. With the CEO-for-life gone, a reasonable market-valuation, and a set of "crown jewels" (Solaris, Java, fantastic server design), it's just a matter of time before someone (Apple?) sees the match and ponies up. Given that very likely possibility, why would Sun weaken its short-term value proposition for a buyer by giving up a certain amount of control over Java. (Not to mention putting a lot of cutting-edge VM code out there for competitors to leverage.) Java is a crown-jewel for aquisition; why give that up?
Second, Java is doing quite well without being fully open source, thank you. Go do searches on the job market. Java is still the hot ticket. It is a skill in demand because it holds a commanding share of server-side development; past, present, and through intertia, future. For any sysadmin, downloading and installing a Java VM is child's play. It's also free-as-in-beer. Yes, that isn't the same thing as fully free, but it's good enough for Java to be successful.
Third, Java has succeeded, in large part, due to a reasonably open, albeit slow, process known as the JCP. There's a level of quality, consistency, and prudentness to Java which has made it successful. We can argue day and night whether all the open-source developer's in the world tweaking Java outside of Sun's stewardship would be more or less successful. What matters, for Sun, is that the current process is successful. Change from that course must be accomplished in steps to verify Sun isn't heading in the wrong direction, for its bottom line.
I should add that as a developer, I'd love to see Java be FOSS; GPLed or BSDed or whatever. Consider, for a moment, that Sun is a public company, and you'll see why Sun has done more to open-source their flagships than, say, Oracle or Microsoft. Or IBM for that matter (AIX, mainframe-OSes, DB2, Lotus apps, Websphere, Rational apps, MQ...)
Apologies in advance that the article is mainly about the media's misinterpretation of Sun's move, but in my opinion, Java licensed in a way that promotes its distribution as part of Linux flavors is still newsworthy, and Sun has taken yet another big step.
I think RMS is bang on (Score:3, Insightful)
The new Java licence does not preserve the Four Freedoms. If you use Java under the standard binary licence, you are at the mercy of Sun. And although they might be playing nice today, the fact remains that they could change their minds at anytime in future, potentially leaving you up a certain well-known waterway without an implement of propulsion.
I can see why Sun want to protect Java, but I don't think keeping the source code locked up is the best way to do it.
The Java brand name is undeniably strong. So what would be wrong with keeping Java as a registered trademark; and then licencing the use of the trademark on separate terms from the copyrighted software? Then, if you changed the functionality beyond what Sun would permit, you would no longer be allowed to call it Java. The GPL, para. 7, is explicit that you can't distribute software it covers if some other restriction stands in the way. They obviously meant this to cover software idea patents, but a condition regarding unauthorised trademark use would also fit with this. If you just removed all mention of the word "Java", then you would be beyond the scope of trademark law -- so nothing would then prevent you from complying with the requirements of the GPL.
That, then, is my proposal. Experimenters get a GPL'ed and extensible Java-alike. Meanwhile, the likes of Microsoft can't subvert Java and squeeze Sun out of the market. Everyone should be happy!
Perl 6 will be do all that Java does and more (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Is Stallman relevant anymore? (Score:2)
Actually, I'd day it *does* matter how free Java is, especially if it's less free that the media led us to believe. And I'd have to say that RMS is still fairly important to the movement. I mean, this *did* make NewsForge.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is Stallman relevant anymore? (Score:3, Insightful)
On one side we have the 'use it if you can' camp, and on the other, the 'it's not free so screw that' camp. We need both, though we could do without some of the scaremongering [iu.edu] so favoured by the latter.
Re:Okay, so I know that RMS is a little out there (Score:5, Informative)
He actually uses this quote in the essay.
Re:Would Somebody... (Score:2)
I am not sure which of the Sun whiners you are referring to as a hippy, but yes, shut them all up and their whining pathetic excuse-making and empty announcements.
Re:I'm so sick of Stallman (Score:2)
"We say that non-free software is antisocial because it tramples the users' freedom,"
So in other words no one should charge for software no matter how much
time and effort they've put into it because by some tortured logic he
believes free software = free user. Err , yeah ok. Presumably he'd extend
that logic to music, art , literature or any piece of human endeavour
that required effort and he thinks people should share in. The man is just a
tragically naive hippy which obviously no
Re:I'm so sick of Stallman (Score:3, Informative)
So maybe you are the one coming off as ignorant. IMHO you should be quiet and stay out of discussions you know nothing about.
Re:I'm so sick of Stallman (Score:2)
How typically slashdot. Anyone who holds a different view from one of its
adolescent posters is "deranged" , and "scary". Grow up.