Leave Richard Stallman alone

Summary: Free software pioneer Richard Stallman gave a talk in London yesterday, on the topic: "It's free software and it gives you freedom". Normally, this kind of thing passes without comment, because Stallman has given hundreds of talks.

Free software pioneer Richard Stallman gave a talk in London yesterday, on the topic: "It's free software and it gives you freedom". Normally, this kind of thing passes without comment, because Stallman has given hundreds of talks. In this case, it led to him being mocked by people who have achieved nothing remotely as worthwhile. They don't usually mock his view of free software, of course, though not everyone agrees with Stallman about its ethical dimension. In this case, the cause célèbre has been the speaker notes he provides, which appeared online via mySociety's mailing list.

This prodigious "info packet" provides a brief overview of GNU and why Stallman is involved with free software and not open source. It also reveals that he doesn't feel the need to travel business class (he'd rather have the money, if possible), and that he'd rather sleep on someone's floor than stay in a hotel. Also, he'll drink non-diet Pepsi but not Coke, and he likes to stay with people who own parrots, as long as they're not acquired for the purpose.

This certainly has its amusing aspects, especially to people who haven't travelled very far, and are too young to be familiar with the Usenet FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions file), which it greatly resembles. Stallman, of course, travels a lot, and also gives talks in Asia, South America and Africa. Many of the people organising these talks are not native English speakers, and are unfamiliar with what passes for civilisation in Boston, Mass. It does no harm if Stallman spells things out in accumulated detail, and it should help avoid disasters.

The 'Stallman slept on my floor' club

However, anyone who thinks that Stallman is somewhat precious or hard to get along with is wrong. I know this from experience. I've interviewed him a couple of times, first for the Guardian in November 1998 -- The code of the freedom fighter -- and he has slept on my computer room floor. (In normal suburban semis, our computer room is the dining room.) We both like Chinese food, so I've taken him to restaurants I like. Otherwise, he travels with what he needs, apart from a working internet connection. Provide that and he's no trouble at all.

In fact, if you're going to entertain a visiting speaker, it's better to have someone who carries his own bag, isn't scared of hiking up the Edgware Road in the dark, and prefers hopping on a bus to taking a cab. As internationally-famous speakers go, he's one of the least precious. And rather than having a hissy fit about The Stallman Dialogues, a website carrying made-up conversations based on his "info packet", Stallman has linked to it from his humor page.

Even if you think Stallman's speaker requirements are pushing it a bit, there are plenty of reasons to cut him some slack, including his long-running campaigns against software patents and so-called Digital Rights Management.

Stallman set out to write a free clone of Unix, single-handed, in 1983, and wrote the free Emacs editor, GNU C compiler and debugger and other programs -- a prodigious feat. He also founded the Free Software Foundation, and developed the GPL (GNU Public Licence) under which a great deal of free and open source software is released.

GNU and the GPL have been hugely influential, and in this context, complaining about the fact that (say) Stallman likes parrots is ridiculously small-minded and conformist. Harmless eccentricities should be celebrated, not disallowed.

Richard Stallman Photo credit: Bill Ebbesen

Do you use Linux or GNU/Linux?

Of course, Stallman's achievements have been widely recognised with a MacArthur Foundation Fellowship, the ACM's Grace Murray Hopper Award, and honorary doctorates from Sweden's Royal Institute of Technology, the University of Glasgow, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Universidad Nacional de Salta in Argentina, Universidad de Los Angeles de Chimbote in Peru, the University of Pavia, and Lakehead University in Canada.

The one thing that does bug some people is Stallman's insistence on calling Linux GNU/Linux, on the grounds that GNU (GNU's Not Unix) is the operating system while Linux is the kernel. Indeed, Linux was developed using Stallman's tools and released under Stallman's GPL, but it wasn't originally intended to provide the kernel that GNU still lacked. As Torvalds' initial announcement in comp.os.minix said: "I’m doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won’t be big and professional like gnu)".

That, in my view, gives Linus the right to call his operating system whatever he likes, even if most of the parts shipped with distros had previously been assembled under Stallman's direction. However, I also think people should get due credit for their contributions -- and Stallman's contribution has been massive. In a civilised society, people would be grateful for that.

Bullying and the web's "culture of disrespect"

Stallman is not alone in being attacked, of course. As Dave Winer ("Visiting scholar at NYU in journalism. Developed first blogging software, RSS and podcasting, outliners, web CMS") has pointed out in Why I stand up for Stallman, the web has a pervasive "culture of disrespect". It is, quite simply, bullying, and if you do it, you should be ashamed. Winer writes:

"I seem to have escaped it, mostly. But I still see it going on for Stallman, and that makes me feel ill. I think a guy like Stallman should be heard and we should think about what he says. And if you disagree, have the self-respect to express it with dignity. And if people start getting personal about it, there should be moderators around to put a stop to it at least stand up to it. No one should stand alone when being subjected to personal attacks."

What tells you everything you need to know about the "culture of disrespect" that pervades today's web is Winer's final update: "This piece is getting a lot of traffic and the comments have turned ugly, so I turned them off."

@jackschofield

Topic: Tech Industry

Jack Schofield

About Jack Schofield

Jack Schofield spent the 1970s editing photography magazines before becoming editor of an early UK computer magazine, Practical Computing. In 1983, he started writing a weekly computer column for the Guardian, and joined the staff to launch the newspaper's weekly computer supplement in 1985. This section launched the Guardian’s first website and, in 2001, its first real blog. When the printed section was dropped after 25 years and a couple of reincarnations, he felt it was a time for a change....

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

15 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • The only part of RMS's rider that bothers me is the section discussing any journalists an event might be allowing to meet him - not that he refuses to talk unless the publication will guarantee the phrase GNU/Linux instead of Linux, but the assumption that all tech journalists he meets will be male... the open source world has problems of sexism and it would be helpful for people with leading roles in that world to be more proactive and inclusive.

    M
    Simon Bisson and Mary Branscombe
  • :-) It's *non*-diet Pepsi. Stallman has done for years exactly what has needed to be done: build a massive worldwide constituency of highly principled advocates for the intrinsic right to express logic freely in code. We owe most of our strength in the information freedom movement to his character, though many may not exactly notice how it expresses itself, flexes its strength, and influences developments. Without that principled constituency, we would have at numerous junctures accommodated far less enlightened policies, both public and private.
    Differance-c8bbc
  • @Differance

    Many thanks! I've taken the liberty of fixing that ;-)
    Jack Schofield
  • I'm offended by his statement about Steve Jobs and his constant crusade against Apple while he remains silent about Microsoft even though they're much worse offenders.
    anonymous
  • I'll be happy to give credit to Stallman for all the work he's done with GNU and for creating GPL. However His constant braying in the wind that Linux should be called GNU/Linux Implies that all the work done by others in the Linux community is not as important as his own and that he wants credit. It's a bit self serving and annoying. Add to that his incessant claims that this party and that party is evil because they are not 100% FOSS. I love True GPL Compliant FOSS software as much as the next guy, but the reality of software development, especially the highly polished stuff is that it requires capital to direct and develop. A single look at the biggest contributors to Linux will show you that the biggest code contributors are corporate. As I see it there is room for both commercial and open source software and that both benefit greatly from the contributions of each other. In fact I would say GPL compliant operating systems should be more open to using commercial software (kind of like Ubuntu and to a lesser degree Android - which is released under apache not GPL) as well as FOSS. Stallman loves talking about letting users have choice, but insists on the only choice being FOSS. Here is a thought richard, Sometimes people want all options as choices and sometimes the best option is not necessarily FOSS. Maybe if all options where on the table we would see greater adoption of GNU/Linux on desktops (see that, I just gave you credit).
    Santeno
  • @Santeno: I like to point at the difference between the everyday mode and fighting mode. We were so fortunate that RMS and Eben formulated the GPL. Copyleft has substituted for many years for the disciplined political apparatus of principled advocates that is critical when taking on the devious forces that work against software freedom. Nobody's required to use the GPL, but I would stress that it provided the backbone that the cause of information freedom lacked for many years, and probably is still needed though the circumstances online have undercut its legal effectiveness in some ways. BTW, you may recognize the merits of my point here or not, and it doesn't always turn the light on for everybody, but let me note that it is fully consistent with the stance that RMS has always taken, just phrased in a different way that some people seem to need to hear.
    Differance-c8bbc
  • @Mike Cohen via Facebook

    > I'm offended by his statement about Steve Jobs and his constant crusade
    > against Apple while he remains silent about Microsoft even though they're
    > much worse offenders.

    That's a matter of opinion. Stallman does slam Microsoft, but he told me he was not interested in focusing on one thief rather than another. To him, they're all bad.

    However, we all know that the Idiot Wing of so-called FOSS supporters concentrates almost exclusively on hating Microsoft, and this does more harm than good.

    As Linus Torvalds said: "I may make jokes about Microsoft at times, but at the same time, I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease."
    http://www.linux-mag.com/id/7439/
    Jack Schofield
  • It still surpises me how many people are actually not aware of what the GNU people actually did.

    You said the following:
    > That, in my view, gives Linus the right to call his operating system whatever he likes, even if most of the parts shipped with distros had previously been assembled under Stallman's direction. However, I also think people should get due credit for their contributions -- and Stallman's contribution has been massive. In a civilised society, people would be grateful for that.
    But you see, It is not Linus' operating system, is it? Did Linus develop coreutils, bash, gcc, glibc, tar, grep, gzip, grub and countless more essential software that millions of people use everyday. (see:https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_GNU_packages)

    So that it why is it good to call it GNU/Linux as this gives both camps credit for all their hardware developing the software millions of people use all the time.
    danyoo
  • Infact, you've got the totally wrong end of the stick. Stallman does not want you to call it GNU/Linux so he can take credit, he wants the countless people who worked on essential software that millions of users use everyday to have *some* credit (look at: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_GNU_packages). You see, it's called GNU/Linux because it is the Linux kernel in combination with the GNU system (which is a combination of smaller programs that work together, e.g bash, grep, coreutils, tar).
    danyoo
  • I would definitely take a look at those doing the mocking, and tell them to go look into a mirror. Honestly I haven't seen too much of this activity going on myself. I am assuming that anybody against Stallman, is probably so because they are against Stallman's philosophy of free software. This would include developers of proprietary software, for sure, and probably employees of companies that solely write proprietary software (Microsoft?). And I am also sure that many have no clue as to what Stallman's ideals are, or why they are there. Stallman is a genious. What he did back in the 1980's was to think outside of the box after realizing the huge disadvantage of proprietary software, and he changed the software world forever, in a very positive way. We should also give credit where credit is due, and calling the GNU/Linux operating system as such is fine. After all, Stallman did come up with the GNU operating system first, and thankfully Linus filled in the missing piece which was the kernel. Thankfully they worked together and formed one of the best operating systems today. Let's not worry about petty stuff, instead let's use what Stallman has given us, build upon it, and enjoy software freedom.

    I would highly recommend reading the book "Free As In Freedom: Richard Stallman's Crusade for Free Software", if you would like to learn more about Stallman and what his ideals are, and why he formed the GNU General Public License and Free Software Foundation. There is a wealth of information in that book, and after reading it you will understand why open source and free software is so important now, and why Richard took the initiative he did. The book contains a lot of background on Richard, and helps understand his beliefs. I would also recommend the book "Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman", which is also an excellent read. It contains clips on Stallman's position on software patents and copyright, which he is strongly against for software. Before I switched to GNU/Linux from Windows, I read these books and it made me even more confident that throwing out Windows was the correct move.
    Chris_Clay
  • @apexwm

    > I am assuming that anybody against Stallman, is probably so because
    > they are against Stallman's philosophy of free software. This would include
    > developers of proprietary software, for sure, and probably employees of
    > companies that solely write proprietary software (Microsoft?).

    I really don't understand why you think you're entitled to assume things for which you admit you have no evidence, when you can't be bothered to check. Is it physical or purely intellectual laziness?

    Otherwise, I can see plenty of evidence that anti-Microsoft hatred is a common factor in the Idiot Wing of so-called FOSS supporters, and I agree with Torvalds when he says: "I may make jokes about Microsoft at times, but at the same time, I think the Microsoft hatred is a disease."
    Jack Schofield
  • Jack,

    "I really don't understand why you think you're entitled to assume things for which you admit you have no evidence, when you can't be bothered to check. Is it physical or purely intellectual laziness?"

    As stated, it was an assumption. Microsoft has clearly shown us that they do NOT like the GNU GPL or any of Richard's inventions (example: Microsoft blocking GPL based apps from its Windows phones, or example: Microsoft releasing less than 1% of its products as true open source under the GPL, or example: Microsoft pursuading PC vendors to use UEFI to break GNU/Linux from booting). If you happen to find evidence to the contrary, please share. Any statement... any... that is posted by a Microsoft employee that states something positive about Richard Stallman, would be a start to prove your case.

    "Otherwise, I can see plenty of evidence that anti-Microsoft hatred is a common factor in the Idiot Wing of so-called FOSS supporters, and I agree with Torvalds"

    It is a common factor for those of us that have used Microsoft software, and open source software, and have compared the two at equal levels. As we've pointed out many times, one has advantages over the other. Luckily for Linus, I don't think he uses Microsoft software on a day to day basis. He uses GNU/Linux and develops for GNU/Linux, so fortunately for him, he doesn't get to face the Microsoft garbage that others do.
    Chris_Clay
  • @apexwm

    Windows users are a mixed-ability group. Some of them are just more incompetent than others. Same as Linux users, really. However, in my experience, the intelligent and well-informed Linux users don't suffer from the mental sickness that Linus has so accurately identified, and are therefore able to lead useful lives....
    Jack Schofield
  • If you go to a backery and buy a cake, is it unethical if you don't get the recipe as well?
    If you buy a radio, is it unethical if you don't get the construction plans for it?
    If you buy some software, is it unethical if you don't get the source-code?
    If you buy a processor, is it unethical if you don't get the "hardware description language"-description of the processor?

    Stallman sees it as an ethical issue. Maby he is ultimately right. I simply don't know.
    He's right that sharing is a good thing.
    But is it really an ethical issue whether or not you get some recipe, construction plans or source-code??
    tony12321
  • tony12321 :

    I don't know if I'd call it "unethical", but there are a lot of drawbacks to keeping the source code (or in your case, the recipe, construction plans, etc.) a secret. There are many more advantages to opening up the source code. In your example, the recipe could be shared, but some may not feel like baking, they just want to buy the cake already made. Yet others may want to look at the recipe, and improve upon it. This is where some of the best recipes are found, those that are shared on the Internet. Thousands of eyes can test it out, and offer feedback and improvements. And the same concept can be applied to open source software as well.
    Chris_Clay