Free Software Foundation Turns 25 183
An anonymous reader writes "On this day, 25 years ago, Richard Stallman created the Free Software Foundation. He had been the director of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Artificial Intelligence Lab. Tired of seeing software that he and others had written appropriated (without acknowledgment or compensation) by disreputable software companies and then told to pay for software they had written, Stallman took action, creating the foundation. The original license was written by Stallman. Stallman had subsequently written a large number of GNU tools, but the license was his most important contribution."
Dear Richard, (Score:5, Insightful)
Thank you.
The GPL is the most important.... (Score:5, Insightful)
The Open Source movement owes its existence to it. Many a intellectual property lawsuit has been decided by it.
Director of the AI Lab? (Score:5, Insightful)
Citation, please? I think he worked there and was probably their most famous programmer. But besides that I don't think he held an executive position at that lab.
GCC (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a hard time believing that anything RMS is even partially responsible for is anywhere near as important as GCC, from its humble beginnings as a replacement for CC on UNIX to its present juggernaut Compiler Collection.
Thanks Richard for leaving your fingerprints on all of my object files! GCC is the awesome.
Re:Dear Richard, (Score:1, Insightful)
Thank you.
Agreed, the man should win the Nobel Peace prize.
Re:Dear Richard, (Score:1, Insightful)
Yes, I concur. Thank you very much, Mr. Stallman. Good job, sir.
The world desperately needs more ethically capable leaders, such as yourself.
Re:And it never would have amounted to anything... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nope. The GNU tools were already being used to augment commercial Unixen and as a foundation for bootstrapping the development environments of alternate hardware platforms like video game consoles. Free Software was already making it's mark before Linux came along. Many of us were exposed to the GNU tools first and then to Linux later.
Dogma (Score:5, Insightful)
Bethany: What is Stallman like?
Rufus: He likes to listen to people talk. I remember the old days when we were sittin' around the computer lab. You know, whenever we were goin' on about unimportant shit, He'd always have a smile on his face. His only real beef with programmers is the shit that gets carried out His name. Wars. Bigotry. Mobile Operating Systems. The big one though, is the factioning of the distros. He said, "Linux got it all wrong by takin' a good idea and building a belief structure out of it."
Bethany: So you're saying that having beliefs is a bad thing?
Rufus: I just think it's better to have an idea. You can change an idea; changing a belief is trickier. People die for it, people kill for it. The whole of Free software is in jeopardy right now because of the Open Source belief system in this software as a service bullshit. RedHat and SuSE, whether they know it or not, are exploiting that belief, and if they're successful, you, me, all of this ends in a heartbeat. All over a belief.
Re:GCC (Score:5, Insightful)
GCC would not be important today at all without the license, because it would be proprietary software, therefore the license trumps it in my opinion. They are kinda two faces of the same coin though. Without GCC, the GPL probably would have never taken off at all.
So he's got two huge contributions, a lot of big ones (Linux was just GNU with Torvald's kernel at first), and then a bunch of crazy wacko rants.
Re:The GPL is the most important.... (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL is the most important license or legal construction In the history of computing. Easily. It's not even close.
No. Whoever invented the EULA and figured out that software should be licensed instead of sold was a far more important legal construction. That move changed the entire industry to such an extent that almost no software is sold these days. The GPL is only modestly important compared to that monumental legal change.
Re:What about emacs (Score:5, Insightful)
GPL is cool but I think emacs was his greatest accomplishment. At least technical accomplishment.
Whoever modded this flamebait needs to have their privileges revoked. I'm not sure I agree with the parent post, but Emacs is unquestionably a substantial contribution in its own right, as is the GCC.
Flamebait is not a synonym for disagree.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Without the license, GCC would have been closed (Score:5, Insightful)
GCC is what it is because of the license. Without the license, it would just be another compiler most likely closed or restricted in some way. That it isn't is because of the license, not because of the code.
To what do you attribute the Wright brothers plane? The internal combustion engine or the dream to fly? Without the engine there could have been a plane driven by say a rocket, but without the dream their would never have been a plane.
It can be very hard to truly comprehend just how big Stallman's contribution has been. Freedom is very hard to grasp, if you are used to it.
In another response to the story about net neutrality I linked the internet to the press and the contribution to freedom that this tech has made. But what is that contribution? The art of reproducing text quickly OR the power of the written word? The capability of human beings to pass on their thoughts to others without ever meeting them?
Just as the chattering monkey became more human by being able to write down speech, and then more free by being able reproduce it easily and even free'er(?) by being able to transmit what he had for breakfast around the globe (oh okay so it ain't all good), the GNU, FSF etc have given us a degree of freedom that once we couldn't imagine and now can't imagine being without.
The oldies MIGHT remember machines on which you paid for every single second of access. In which hardware was not owned but leased. Only the very powerful could own a computer and making it doing anything useful cost even more.
Today, I can own a computer far more powerful, own it completly and use countless pieces of software for free. Not saying I have to, but I can and the fact that I can already means that those who wish to control software/hardware and freedom are restricted in doing so. Good luck MS with their ActiveX and attempts to stop the internet. IE did NOT manage to make the web an MS experience. Can you imagine what MS would have been like if they had IBM mainframe style control of the IBM compatible? If there never had been a Compaq, never had been a Dr-DOS? It would have been the Apple from Hell.
Trying to explain this alternate reality would be like trying to explain the holocaust (godwin can kiss my hairy butt) in a universe were said holocaust never happened. We escape the complete control of our PC's by IBM, so how can we imagine what the world would have been like with IBM in control?
And of course Stallman didn't do it all alone. But he has been the most central figure who has stood firm for 25 years. He and everyone else who has helped create the idea of software not as an owned and controlled resource has made the world we live in today. How could countless websites have gotten started without free Apache, free Perl/PHP/Python/etc, free databases yes even free OS'es?
But isn't MS software as easily available? Yes, BUT and this is a HUGE BUT, without IBM loosing control over the PC, MS would also never have been. MS, the closed source control freak company owes it existence to "free" software/hardware. Proof? No MS on mainframes.
So yes. GCC is awesome, but it is a minor tool, the AK47 of the freedom movement. It is the fight, not the weapons that matter. The decleration of independe vs the guarilla tactics. The refusal to obey seperation laws rather then choosing a seat in a bus.
And to those who think free software is not comparable. It isn't. But lack of freedom in small areas can mean the lack of freedom is far larger areas. Wouldn't it be convenient for those who want to control freedom, if printing presses could only be bought with identification? If a website could only be setup with a real ID?
So thank you Richard Stallman. I would never have the courage to do what you did, but the world is a better place cause you did it. Not perfect, but better. Just that the rest of us must remember that if we take it all for granted, we might loose it all. DMCA, Trusted Computing etc are real treaths and they do NOT go away just because we managed to stop them once.
Re:Dear Richard, (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree. Thanks, Mr. Stallman and all the good people at the FSF and FSF Europe.
Re:the license? really? (Score:5, Insightful)
GCC would not have mattered one lick without the license.
Really, it's just a C compiler. It's important, but rudimentary. Anybody with sufficient programming skills can write one for a given machine (and they do). The license was the stroke of genius. GCC only exists in its current form because of the license. Without it GCC would be just another compiler in the dustbin of history.
The real important contribution was the counter-culture he started, and that was only able to survive the extremely proprietary world of computers because of the license.
I don't even like Stallman (I think he's an asshole, frankly), but that's clearly one thing he got very right. It was a brilliant move to use the same copyright laws that were used to steal his (and his compatriates') software in order to ensure their software would be free to use by everyone forever.
In other words, open source software - GCC included - would likely not exist today without the GPL.
Re:What about emacs (Score:5, Insightful)
Only a tiny percentage of people use Emacs.
Programers have the option of Vi, Eclipse.org, Netbeans, XCode, Notepad++, and any number of other free as in speech or beer IDEs.
Think of all the software that is available under the GPL including Linux.
Then think of all the software written using GCC.
While I do not agree with RMS's extremist dogmatic view that all software should be free, I tend to believe there is room for both models. I also really dislike his devoted followers.
But I will say this about him.
GPL was important in influenced a lot of people including myself to write and contribute free software. Emacs while I do not use it is a very powerful editor/ide/os/religion. GCC is wonderful and I use it often. And about the man himself. I wrote him an email once and he actually took the time to respond to me. I didn't agree with him but he was polite and passonate in his view point. I will say that my opinion of RMS is he is a gentalman that I respect but have an honest difference in opinion with.
Re:What about emacs (Score:5, Insightful)
Technical accomplishments pale in comparison to cultural accomplishments.
Are you really arguing that emacs is a greater accomplishment than the entire open source software movement? GPL is what made OSS possible, without license the software would have been stolen before it could get off its feet. That's exactly what prompted the GPL in the first place - Stallman and his MIT buddies were writing software that vendors were picking up, incorporating into their own products, and then forcing Stallman and his buddies to pay for in the next iteration.
Re:Dogma (Score:3, Insightful)
I at the very least owe you a coke.
Re:What about emacs (Score:5, Insightful)
You'll note that the negative moderation was balanced against at least 4 other positive moderations. The moderation system was built on the assumption that some people will moderate poorly but most will moderate appropriately. So Slashdot is working as it's supposed to. You can relax now.
Re:the license? really? (Score:5, Insightful)
The BSDs would exist without the GPL. Of course, getting to use GCC helps. Of all the things that RMS is responsible for, GCC is the only one I really use in any meaningful way. I think the majority of GPL software that I use isn't actually GNU or sponsored by the FSF, it just happens to be GPL. But the majority of my platform isn't GPL:
- FreeBSD is BSD licensed
- Apache is Apache (basically BSD) licensed
- PostreSQL uses a modified BSD-style license
- Perl is dual licensed with either the Artistic License or the GPL, depending on which you want to accept
- BIND is BSD licensed
I'm not particularly reliant on any GPL-based software other than GCC. That is the crux of my argument. Don't confuse "open source" with "free software" with the GPL.
Re:What about emacs (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:And it never would have amounted to anything... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Without the license, GCC would have been closed (Score:1, Insightful)
The Wright Brothers' contribution was their wind-tunnel testing of propeller and wing designs, the successful completion of which made powered flight in a heavier-than-air vehicle possible. Not some bullshit "dream to fly".
Their next contribution was the stifling of the American aircraft industry due to patent lawsuits, up until the government stepped in and forced cross-licensing deals for world war 1.
Re:the license? really? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GCC (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a hard time believing that anything RMS is even partially responsible for is anywhere near as important as GCC, from its humble beginnings as a replacement for CC on UNIX to its present juggernaut Compiler Collection.
There is an important symbiotic relationship between the GPL and the GCC. (And also with other "free" software tools, but the GCC is a good poster child.) One explanation came up in a number of projects that I worked on at Digital back in the 1980s and early 1990s. The question kept coming up there of why DEC supplied a number of BSD-based unix OSs, but not Sys/V. They had Sys/V ported internally, and provided it for a few customers that asked, but they didn't much market it. The explanation that kept coming up was that DEC's lawyers had looked into Sys/V software (with some engineers' help, of course), and had noted that the binaries all contained AT&T copyright notices, usually many copies that were inside various library routines. They suggested that, although the courts hadn't ever decided the status of such copyright claims, it was possible that AT&T could use these embedded strings to claim legal ownership of any software that they wanted. Thus, building your products on AT&T software was risking a court case that might give everything to AT&T.
Since then, I've worked on a number of projects at other companies whose lawyers use a similar argument for why they should use GCC rather than any proprietary compilers and libraries. Again, the legal status isn't clear. This means that you're taking a chance that any binaries produced by proprietary tools or using proprietary libraries could become legally the property of the companies that own the compilers or libraries. The GCC license makes it clear that, if you use GCC, you don't have to worry about this. It's about the only C compiler that provides such safety. We've read versions of this argument in the explanation of why google pushed for the Android platform, as a way of keeping their own software free from takeover by Microsoft or Apple (or AT&T or Comcast or ...).
This isn't a trivial concern. There are growing attempts to use "intellectual property" to take control of the work done by others. Look into how Apple now controls the software that runs on many of their devices such as the iPhone and iPad. Look at how Amazon controls what can be on the kindle, to the point of reaching out and deleting content that customers have bought. We even read here some time back that Microsoft is getting patents on some XML encodings, something we thought was beyond such takeovers because XML is a "public" standard.
The GPL in its various forms is one of the few tools we have to fight such control by the industry giants. Figuring out how to use the copyright laws to fight the slow privatization of what used to be public "intellectual" space was an important legal development. It's about the only thing we have left (at least in the US) that protects the efforts of individuals against the legal power of big corporations. So we should be encouraging the people who work on legal tools like this, at least if we want a society in which it remains legal for private individuals to work on anything that involves software.
Re:the license? really? (Score:5, Insightful)
He may or may not be an asshole, but it is his attitude what made this possible. Without the attitude nothing would have happend.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:the license? really? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't even like Stallman (I think he's an asshole, frankly), but that's clearly one thing he got very right. ... open source software - GCC included - would likely not exist today without the GPL.
If you start such a movement and doing so frustrate self-interested grabbers of all kinds, you are naturally going to be the target of abuse and personal attacks on such a scale that you may have, or you may need to already have, a thick skin to merely survive.
But your post does underline the significance of the accomplishment, so I concur.
Re:What about emacs (Score:3, Insightful)
as a way to screw them for taking code
Perhaps that was a motive. But if it is, should it be characterized that way? You might as well say that people who don't buy movies are "screwing" movie producers. Even if they never watch movies-- never pirate them, go to theaters, or even see them while visiting friends. Or that the police are "screwing" criminals whenever they make an arrest. If anyone writes useful software and gives it away, some business "opportunity" is "lost". That's crazy thinking, based on a fundamentally unsound business model.
The truer characterization is that an underhanded rent-seeking scheme was foiled, or punished. The scheme may have been legal, but it sure wasn't ethical. I have no sympathy whatever for the perps. It only takes one effort for any capable programmer to make another alternative. Business people will have to get over that eventually. Neither monopolization of ideas, or of copies, can be a viable long term business. We want business conducted fairly and honestly. Limits will always be probed, and scoundrels will still try to pull off evil schemes, and even win praise and admiration when they are successful particularly if they've hoodwinked everyone into thinking they're honest. But we ought to make it as difficult as possible, for the sake of society, and sure don't need to be letting rent seeking schemes work, and even backing them with enforcement activities, or pushing public perceptions with name calling like "piracy" and that "screwing" word you used. I call it Justice.
Re:That's 21 too many (Score:3, Insightful)
What has the Free (as in Freedom) Software Foundation got to do with the State owning the means of production on behalf of the workers, authoritarian government and the elimination of dissent?