5 ms·

Stallman's inability to see how damaging his rhetoric is to his cause is rapidly overshadowing any of his achievements. I went to HOPE 2006 in NYC a few years

Stallman's inability to see how damaging his rhetoric is to his cause is rapidly overshadowing any of his achievements. I went to HOPE 2006 in NYC a few years ago, and ran into him while heading to a lecture about Asterix PBX use. As a huge admirer of GNU tools and the GNU/Linux operating system in particular, it was thrilling to finally get to meet one my heroes. For about a few seconds. I shook his hand and somewhat shyly asked him to sign one of the few paper-based items I had in my bag, a copy of (surprise surprise!) PG's "ANSI Common Lisp". He refused outright, claiming it was not "free" in its licensing and printing. I shit you not. The man is that much of an asshole. I just goggled at him for a moment, and wandered away in a daze. Don't get me wrong, I love his ideas. Information wants to be free. But to be so mindlessly pedantic about little things like what he is signing detracts from his cause.

pg 18y ago
Odd. What's not free about ACL? All the code is available online with a notice saying you can use it for whatever you want. http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/paulgraham/acl2.lisp http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/paulgraham/acl2.lisp
- deleted 18y ago
  [deleted]
- sspencer 18y ago
  Was that available in 2006? If so, I guess he just meant the book, which is even more bizarre. So he won't sign any book not published by a "free as in speech" publishing house? Curiouser and curiouser.
  - pg 18y ago
    Sure, that file hasn't been changed in years. I wonder if the problem is that just saying people can do whatever they want with code seems to him too unrestrictive.
    - andreyf 18y ago
      I wonder if the problem is that just saying people can do whatever they want with code seems to him too unrestrictive. I doubt it. Both the MIT and BSD licenses are listed as 'free software' licenses on the FSF website: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/
  - tjr 18y ago
    I don't think RMS is opposed to all non-free books, but believes that books meant as reference or instruction ought to be free. And as pg mentioned, the fact that the code is free for (implicitly) any use whatsoever means that the code could be used in proprietary software without issue, and thus the code isn't free. Was RMS opposed to the book, the code, or both? I suspect both, and since it appears that he quickly recognized the book, he had probably already contemplated his opposition to it at some prior time. His behavior in this situation surely would strike most as odd, but he seems to just be living by his ideals as much as possible. You may not see non-free reference books or non-free software as unethical, but he does, and wants no positive connection with it.
    - gwniobombux 18y ago
      RMS doesn't have a problem with the ACL code (obviously he would prefer the GPL for it, but I reckon he would consider it free software), as he doesn't have a problem with GNU/Linux distributions shipping e.g. BSD-licensed code. And, yes, he is opposed to non-free books, though he distinguishes between those which should be modifiable and those which shouldn't be; for more on this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html#opinions http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.ht... On a different note: there's is no reason to call him names for not signing ACL, he just takes a principled stand. Why should he sign it anyway? If I had a copy of ACL (yes, I am poor) I wouldn't want anybody but pg to sign it.
      - tjr 18y ago
        Touché, you are correct. The ACL code would be not be considered "copyleft", but it would be conisdered "free".
- sfg 18y ago
  I do not think he is talking specifically about the code. From http://www.gnu.org/doc/gnupresspub.html http://www.gnu.org/doc/gnupresspub.html: "GNU Press publishes ...books on computer science using freely distributable licenses... We believe the reader should be free to copy and redistribute it, just like our software". I do not know what right readers have to distribute ACL, but if it is in anyway restricted then I would guess that is what he means.
kleevr 18y ago
I recently watched the documentary called "Revolution OS" and became disenchanted with the guy as a personality. (The movie is available on the NetFlix WatchNow service...ironically only if you run windows+IE+MediaPlayer.)
- andreyf 18y ago
  It's also available on Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7707585592627775409 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7707585592627775409 or as avi: http://vp.video.google.com/videodownload?version=0&secureurl=rgAAAFgXLPxqV-0wnFmlqdPwfE51lABMTCJCzUO7yxtiszExniOA7NRCbYY3Jg6Tron3LcaC0fBbhqgtrWROqSr1lu_wjDXZNWpFK-8fKpNHmSnYoV4j5QHcav3t2fRn730CgbHt7_S5iIHqpAdWqRrHf7UugQU-yHjQw_HzXc2-djHGBUQU1OMsROiPd8UNbwdLEGKfbc3lVtu43-Pdt40g8iJ6Hpg3Re0cABYzZyptYAyO&sigh=Jk2g5-N3Rcf771XtDGNBbDm0W98&begin=0&len=5109676&docid=7707585592627775409 http://vp.video.google.com/videodownload?version=0&secur... It's funny, but I thought Stallman was portrayed very well in that movie. I found final scene in which he describes what "the whole GNU project" is in one sentence especially touching - it's my favorite in the film.
  - tlrobinson 18y ago
    The scene I found most amusing was during Stallman's acceptance speech of an award at LinuxWorld when Linus Torvald's kids were running around on stage distracting everyone. Stallman then goes into his usual diatribe about how Linux should always be refered to as "GNU/Linux". Cut to scene of LinuxWorld show floor, with no "GNU" in sight. Very symbolic and representative of the GNU and Linux relationship. (starts at 1:11:45)
    - andreyf 18y ago
      Yeah, the GNU/Linux naming issue is one thing I never understood. It seems very petty to me, arguing over credit. I wish his attitude were "The good is done, great! Let's do more." :) But maybe that's because I've never worked on anything as hard as Stallman did on GNU. Still, it seems impolite.
      - 18y ago
aggieben 18y ago
To me the great irony is that FSF software isn't really free either - it just has its own restrictions that it prefers to others'. To me, FSF is synonymous with "hypocrite", and seems to have sprung directly from Stallman's own peurile bitterness, and not from anything so noble as what they claim. Even if you like the FSF stances (and I have no problem with that), I think it's hard to argue that their idea of "free" is really, truly free as Stallman likes to pontificate. I shit you not. The man is that much of an asshole. After years of stories about interactions just like the one you described, interviews, and countless mailing-list flame fests, this should be perfectly obvious to anyone. Let anyone think I'm picking on Stallman because of personality differences, here's another: Theo de Raadt. He is most definitely an asshole - but at least he's consistent, focused, and not judgmental.
- ericb 18y ago
  The MIT license and the BSD license are much truer to the idea of "free" than any FSF licenses. The FSF licenses cause more proprietary code to come into existence (duplication at a great cost to society) when companies cannot integrate GPL products with their proprietary licensed software. So companies write their proprietary version of the component and no one can see the source, or the source of their subcomponents.
  - andreyf 18y ago
    > The MIT license and the BSD license are much truer to the idea of "free" than any FSF licenses. The point of the licenses is different. BSD and MIT gives you the freedom to take away other people's freedoms using the code. FSF does not. I don't think it's quite obvious which of these is "truer to the idea of 'free'", which is a pretty vague phrase. Where you are coming from makes sense, but one could also think of it as MIT and BSD giving a certain user more freedom, and FSF protecting all user's freedom better.
    - deleted 18y ago
      [deleted]
    - ericb 18y ago
brent 18y ago
You honestly think his rhetoric (mostly ignored) overshadows emacs, gcc, and gdb? You must be kidding. Also, if he wasn't such a pedant from the start we'd be MUCH worse off.
andrewf 18y ago
The whole book is an invariant section!
Tichy 18y ago
Calling him an asshole for not giving you an autograph? I am rather impressed by his determination. He should have double checked the license for ANSI Common LISP, though.

pg 18y ago

Odd. What's not free about ACL? All the code is available online with a notice saying you can use it for whatever you want. http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/paulgraham/acl2.lisp http://lib.store.yahoo.net/lib/paulgraham/acl2.lisp

deleted 18y ago
[deleted]
sspencer 18y ago
Was that available in 2006? If so, I guess he just meant the book, which is even more bizarre. So he won't sign any book not published by a "free as in speech" publishing house? Curiouser and curiouser.
- pg 18y ago
  Sure, that file hasn't been changed in years. I wonder if the problem is that just saying people can do whatever they want with code seems to him too unrestrictive.
  - andreyf 18y ago
    I wonder if the problem is that just saying people can do whatever they want with code seems to him too unrestrictive. I doubt it. Both the MIT and BSD licenses are listed as 'free software' licenses on the FSF website: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/
- tjr 18y ago
  I don't think RMS is opposed to all non-free books, but believes that books meant as reference or instruction ought to be free. And as pg mentioned, the fact that the code is free for (implicitly) any use whatsoever means that the code could be used in proprietary software without issue, and thus the code isn't free. Was RMS opposed to the book, the code, or both? I suspect both, and since it appears that he quickly recognized the book, he had probably already contemplated his opposition to it at some prior time. His behavior in this situation surely would strike most as odd, but he seems to just be living by his ideals as much as possible. You may not see non-free reference books or non-free software as unethical, but he does, and wants no positive connection with it.
  - gwniobombux 18y ago
    RMS doesn't have a problem with the ACL code (obviously he would prefer the GPL for it, but I reckon he would consider it free software), as he doesn't have a problem with GNU/Linux distributions shipping e.g. BSD-licensed code. And, yes, he is opposed to non-free books, though he distinguishes between those which should be modifiable and those which shouldn't be; for more on this: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.html#opinions http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/copyright-and-globalization.ht... On a different note: there's is no reason to call him names for not signing ACL, he just takes a principled stand. Why should he sign it anyway? If I had a copy of ACL (yes, I am poor) I wouldn't want anybody but pg to sign it.
    - tjr 18y ago
      Touché, you are correct. The ACL code would be not be considered "copyleft", but it would be conisdered "free".
sfg 18y ago
I do not think he is talking specifically about the code. From http://www.gnu.org/doc/gnupresspub.html http://www.gnu.org/doc/gnupresspub.html: "GNU Press publishes ...books on computer science using freely distributable licenses... We believe the reader should be free to copy and redistribute it, just like our software". I do not know what right readers have to distribute ACL, but if it is in anyway restricted then I would guess that is what he means.

kleevr 18y ago

I recently watched the documentary called "Revolution OS" and became disenchanted with the guy as a personality. (The movie is available on the NetFlix WatchNow service...ironically only if you run windows+IE+MediaPlayer.)

andreyf 18y ago
It's also available on Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7707585592627775409 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7707585592627775409 or as avi: http://vp.video.google.com/videodownload?version=0&secureurl=rgAAAFgXLPxqV-0wnFmlqdPwfE51lABMTCJCzUO7yxtiszExniOA7NRCbYY3Jg6Tron3LcaC0fBbhqgtrWROqSr1lu_wjDXZNWpFK-8fKpNHmSnYoV4j5QHcav3t2fRn730CgbHt7_S5iIHqpAdWqRrHf7UugQU-yHjQw_HzXc2-djHGBUQU1OMsROiPd8UNbwdLEGKfbc3lVtu43-Pdt40g8iJ6Hpg3Re0cABYzZyptYAyO&sigh=Jk2g5-N3Rcf771XtDGNBbDm0W98&begin=0&len=5109676&docid=7707585592627775409 http://vp.video.google.com/videodownload?version=0&secur... It's funny, but I thought Stallman was portrayed very well in that movie. I found final scene in which he describes what "the whole GNU project" is in one sentence especially touching - it's my favorite in the film.
- tlrobinson 18y ago
  The scene I found most amusing was during Stallman's acceptance speech of an award at LinuxWorld when Linus Torvald's kids were running around on stage distracting everyone. Stallman then goes into his usual diatribe about how Linux should always be refered to as "GNU/Linux". Cut to scene of LinuxWorld show floor, with no "GNU" in sight. Very symbolic and representative of the GNU and Linux relationship. (starts at 1:11:45)
  - andreyf 18y ago
    Yeah, the GNU/Linux naming issue is one thing I never understood. It seems very petty to me, arguing over credit. I wish his attitude were "The good is done, great! Let's do more." :) But maybe that's because I've never worked on anything as hard as Stallman did on GNU. Still, it seems impolite.
    - 18y ago

aggieben 18y ago

To me the great irony is that FSF software isn't really free either - it just has its own restrictions that it prefers to others'. To me, FSF is synonymous with "hypocrite", and seems to have sprung directly from Stallman's own peurile bitterness, and not from anything so noble as what they claim. Even if you like the FSF stances (and I have no problem with that), I think it's hard to argue that their idea of "free" is really, truly free as Stallman likes to pontificate. I shit you not. The man is that much of an asshole. After years of stories about interactions just like the one you described, interviews, and countless mailing-list flame fests, this should be perfectly obvious to anyone. Let anyone think I'm picking on Stallman because of personality differences, here's another: Theo de Raadt. He is most definitely an asshole - but at least he's consistent, focused, and not judgmental.

ericb 18y ago
The MIT license and the BSD license are much truer to the idea of "free" than any FSF licenses. The FSF licenses cause more proprietary code to come into existence (duplication at a great cost to society) when companies cannot integrate GPL products with their proprietary licensed software. So companies write their proprietary version of the component and no one can see the source, or the source of their subcomponents.
- andreyf 18y ago
  > The MIT license and the BSD license are much truer to the idea of "free" than any FSF licenses. The point of the licenses is different. BSD and MIT gives you the freedom to take away other people's freedoms using the code. FSF does not. I don't think it's quite obvious which of these is "truer to the idea of 'free'", which is a pretty vague phrase. Where you are coming from makes sense, but one could also think of it as MIT and BSD giving a certain user more freedom, and FSF protecting all user's freedom better.
  - deleted 18y ago
    [deleted]
  - ericb 18y ago

brent 18y ago

You honestly think his rhetoric (mostly ignored) overshadows emacs, gcc, and gdb? You must be kidding. Also, if he wasn't such a pedant from the start we'd be MUCH worse off.

andrewf 18y ago

The whole book is an invariant section!

Tichy 18y ago

Calling him an asshole for not giving you an autograph? I am rather impressed by his determination. He should have double checked the license for ANSI Common LISP, though.