3 ms·

I agree with you on these points. But they don't affect this letter's main point.

jmclnx 6y ago
I too agree, but I think there is a hidden "fight" going on. I believe RMS is the only person around that can prevent a full corporate take over of Linux. All ready people are creating non-GPL tools in hopes of replacing their GPL cousins. And in most cases, one cannot use Linux on many devices without using closed source blobs. Right now it "seems" these blobs do not impact user privacy, but what is to stop these blobs from phoning home in the future. Unless someone steps up to continue RMS FSF policies, he is very much needed.
- jasonpeacock 6y ago
  > I believe RMS is the only person around that can prevent a full corporate take over of Linux. How? What has he actually done - what have been his successes? What can he do? He can't stop companies from writing software. He's a champion of GPLv3, which companies are already avoiding like the plague and is driving them to development alternative SW to replace the GPLv3 tools.
  - jmclnx 6y ago
    > He's a champion of GPLv3, which companies are already avoiding like the plague and is driving them to development alternative SW to replace the GPLv3 tools. The above proves my point, companies will not use the GPL-3 because thay cannot enhance Free Software with out giving back. It is all about money and Linux has turned into a big money maker for companies.
- pwinnski 6y ago
  > I believe RMS is the only person around that can prevent a full corporate take over of Linux. Conversely, I believe RMS is one of the last people in anything related to open source that can prevent a full corporate takeover of Linux. He may be the most passionate, but the most passionate advocates for an issue are rarely those who actually make any progress on that issue. The passion itself is off-putting when one is in the direct focus of it, but it inspires others to actually do the work and make the progress. RMS specifically is so off-putting that it is one of the first things his advocates say about him. His passionate views on free software, as well as everything else, are routinely dismissed entirely by anyone other than his closest adherents. It's hard to see how he can have any reasonable impact on any corporations that might try to "take over" Linux.
- mariusor 6y ago
  > I believe RMS is the only person around that can prevent a full corporate take over of Linux. FSF and Stallman have no word in the decisions concerning the Linux kernel. Torvalds and Greg Kroah-Hartman, unlike RMS', seem like very pragmatical open source proponents. That's why the kernel has contributions from major companies, contains opaque binary firmware, and when it comes to GPL violations they're using carrots not sticks. If you mean the Linux ecosystem in general, I still doubt that FSF has an impact outside its immediate proximity (the list of free GNU/Linux distributions). Personally I find that the pragmatist side is predominant, and outside a small number of developers and users, RMS' stance on free software is not that popular.

I too agree, but I think there is a hidden "fight" going on. I believe RMS is the only person around that can prevent a full corporate take over of Linux. All ready people are creating non-GPL tools in hopes of replacing their GPL cousins. And in most cases, one cannot use Linux on many devices without using closed source blobs. Right now it "seems" these blobs do not impact user privacy, but what is to stop these blobs from phoning home in the future. Unless someone steps up to continue RMS FSF policies, he is very much needed.

jasonpeacock 6y ago
> I believe RMS is the only person around that can prevent a full corporate take over of Linux. How? What has he actually done - what have been his successes? What can he do? He can't stop companies from writing software. He's a champion of GPLv3, which companies are already avoiding like the plague and is driving them to development alternative SW to replace the GPLv3 tools.
- jmclnx 6y ago
  > He's a champion of GPLv3, which companies are already avoiding like the plague and is driving them to development alternative SW to replace the GPLv3 tools. The above proves my point, companies will not use the GPL-3 because thay cannot enhance Free Software with out giving back. It is all about money and Linux has turned into a big money maker for companies.
pwinnski 6y ago
> I believe RMS is the only person around that can prevent a full corporate take over of Linux. Conversely, I believe RMS is one of the last people in anything related to open source that can prevent a full corporate takeover of Linux. He may be the most passionate, but the most passionate advocates for an issue are rarely those who actually make any progress on that issue. The passion itself is off-putting when one is in the direct focus of it, but it inspires others to actually do the work and make the progress. RMS specifically is so off-putting that it is one of the first things his advocates say about him. His passionate views on free software, as well as everything else, are routinely dismissed entirely by anyone other than his closest adherents. It's hard to see how he can have any reasonable impact on any corporations that might try to "take over" Linux.
mariusor 6y ago
> I believe RMS is the only person around that can prevent a full corporate take over of Linux. FSF and Stallman have no word in the decisions concerning the Linux kernel. Torvalds and Greg Kroah-Hartman, unlike RMS', seem like very pragmatical open source proponents. That's why the kernel has contributions from major companies, contains opaque binary firmware, and when it comes to GPL violations they're using carrots not sticks. If you mean the Linux ecosystem in general, I still doubt that FSF has an impact outside its immediate proximity (the list of free GNU/Linux distributions). Personally I find that the pragmatist side is predominant, and outside a small number of developers and users, RMS' stance on free software is not that popular.