Talk:Richard Stallman/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The subject of this article, Richard Stallman/Archive 1, has edited Wikipedia as
Rmstallman (talk • contribs).
This is a controversial topic, which may be under dispute.
Please read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure you supply full citations when adding information to highly controversial articles.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Richard Stallman/Archive 1 as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Arabic language Wikipedia.

Contents

Platitudes

What a complete acre of manure, this article. Typical wikipedia platitudes drawn up by a load of bored hackers. Too bad programmers can't stick to writing now and then about things that they actually understand, like software. In matters of psychology, politics and humor, they are braindead.

Communism

I spoke with him once, complimenting him on his work. In our discussion, he seemed to be a somewhat irrational anti-Communist (that is, seeing communism in more places than would be reasonable to expect).

Is this one of his controversial characteristics? If so, should it be mentioned in the article? Does anyone know more about him personally than I do? And do personal characteristics belong in an encyclopedia at all? What do others think? --David 18:55 Dec 10, 2002 (UTC)

I think Richard is known to be somewhat eccentric in a variety of ways, and I don't think a fair account could be given in the scope of just this article (not one people would agree is fair, at least). If people want to know more about this, they should read the Free book linked at the bottom of the article. --Fcrick 10:39 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)
I think it's entirely fair to call RMS eccentric, and point out that he has a reputation for a total inability to compromise and a lack of people skills. The point of contention is that some people recognize the above and accept the good with the bad, others in the free software/open source community regard him as a liability that interferes with getting it accepted in the wider world, and still others regard him as a loony Commie. --Robert Merkel
RMS is not a communist, really. He's said before that he's been inspired by leftist anarchists, which is not at all the same thing. As for his lack of people skills, well, that's to an extent true, but it's also been exaggerated a lot, RMS is very principled, and refuses to compromise on his principles. He's perfectly willing to compromise on practical issues to achieve those principles, though. --Joakim Ziegler
For this particular case, I dont think we should include information which is not published somewhere. Wikipedia is not original research. Optim 15:10, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
For what it is work, I wouldn't be surprised if Stallman was vociferously anti-Communist, as the whole point of his crusade is freedom, right? And there are few political philosophies more antithetical to his conception of freedom than Communism. --Maru (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Replying to Robert Merkel. I think people should be careful about this "inability to compromise" phrase. Richard has compromised many times. The LGPL is a compromise. The GFDL is a compromise (too much of a compromise in many people's books). On certain things, he may be unwilling to compromise - but calling this an inability is a mis-phrasing. Gronky 20:24, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


Biography

I added some rephrased and abridged material from Sam Williams' 2002 "Free as in Freedom" book which is licensed under the GFDL in the "Biography" section. I have also cited (Williams 2002) inline in the text as the source of the quotes. It's little unclear to me how the GFDL is supposed to work for short extracts of documents like this, but it seems to me using short segments like would conform to the spirit of the GFDL, especially if we cite the source. Other more legal eagles please correct me if I'm wrong. I plan to add some more material from the book for the other sections, but not overly long extracts and only factually-oriented sections that make sense for the encyclopedia format. --Lexor 11:01, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I found the copyright notice for this book on the O'Reilly site (below), and there are no problems with needing to include "invariant sections" etc. as it specifies no invariant sections -- Lexor 11:13, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Copyright © 2002 Sam Williams. Cover photograph of Richard Stallman © Sam Ogden/Photo Researchers, Inc. and cannot be used without permission. St. Ignucius photograph © Wouter van Oortmerssen. Printed in the United States of America.
Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.1 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with the Invariant Sections being no invariant sections, with the Front-Cover Texts being no invariant sections, and with the Back-Cover Texts being no invariant sections. A copy of the license is included in Appendix C, GNU Free Documentation License . All images are to be included verbatim when the document is copied, distributed, or modified under the terms of the GFDL.
OK, I did what I should have done before, I checked out Wikipedia:Copyrights for the details, and in accordance with the GFDL I have cited the author and placed links on the page back to the network copy of the text maintained by the author: http://www.faifzilla.org.
At the very least, short extracts should fall under fair use. --Maru (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


Caption

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Richard_Stallman&diff=2571685&oldid=2571622 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Richard_Stallman&diff=2571685&oldid=2571622

Photo isn't "self-captioned" (re:captions) ... and a caption gives a bit more info (read not "superfluous") ... As to the opensource, ur right (my mistake) ... but it should be "free software pioneer" instead of "opensource pioneer". pioneer would be better than Evangelist Sincerely, JDR
Hi.
Photo isn't "self-captioned" (re:captions)
pioneer would be better than Evangelist
  • Google favors evangelist, though I'm sure they're both reasonable descriptions. Neither belongs in a caption, however, for the same reason that the portrait of Jesus Christ is not captioned "the son of God" and the portrait of Søren Kierkegaard is not captioned "Existentialist". The article itself, in particular the first paragraph/sentence, is the caption.

Best wishes, chocolateboy 16:21, 29 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[1] Graphic is a ambiguous (eg., who is he / his importance) [read as: not unambiguous] ... Jesus Christ as the Mesiah could be captioned "the son of God" and the portrait of Oliver Heaviside is captioned "scholar". The captions adds info inaddtions to other txt in the article (and should not be used in lieu of ...)
...
[2] Pioneer versus Evangelist = Pioneer wins.
Stallman Pioneer versus Stallman Evangelist = Stallman Pioneer wins
Richard Stallman Pioneer versus Richard Stallman Evangelist = Richard Stallman Pioneer wins.
SIncerely, JDR
It's only ambiguous if you're somehow unable (or unwilling) to read. If that's the case, then, by definition, a caption's not going to be of much use. The caption is meant to describe the picture (e.g. Image of Jesus Christ from Agia Sophia, Istanbul, Turkey (12th century)). The article is the place to capture the essence of the subject. The "scholar" example you cite was added by you! And, of course, it was quickly reverted by a bemused passer-by...
re: "Free Software Pioneer" (68) v "Free Software Evangelist" (167) (or, as you seem to prefer, "Free Software Pioneer" (735) v "Free Software Evangelist" (19,600)) - as I said, I'm sure both are reasonable, but ":::::Pioneer Award Winner" and "Stallman ... Pioneer DVD" are not the same as "Free Software Pioneer".
Best wishes, chocolateboy 01:31, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Unable (or unwilling) to read? Umm, no ... browsing through (and seeing a pic with a info cap (not just a desc. cap)) gives more knowledge (and, if the info cap info isn't in the article ... it's more useful) ...
[snip definition straw man]
Caption's that are useful (info caps, not just desc caps) and should be used more.
The caption is meant to describe the picture ... _but_, can be there for usefulness to the overall article ...
And ... very good ... the "scholar" is an example that I added! ... it shows exactly what I'm stating ... geesh ...
Quickly reverted? Because, I presume, that it was because of a misunderstanding of why it was there [scholar is means different things on different sides of the pond (see def)] ... [btw, the article doesn't call him a scholar IIRC, but he was ... so it's appropriate (as the cap here would be appropriate) ...]
RMS is more of a "Pioneer" ... than a evangelist [and, in history most likely, be recalled as a pioneer than a "preacher"].
Sincerely, JDR

Caption's that are useful (info caps, not just desc caps) and should be used more.

  • If that's the case, you should lobby for the complete overhaul of Wikipedia (and practically every other online resource with illustrated biographical, news and reference material) in the proper corridors of power. Not by doodling on an article whose subject you (if your "Opensource" faux pas is anything to go by) have no familiarity with.

[ snip: more wibbling about "pioneer richard stallman" (86) v "evangelist richard stallman" (165) ]

  • "Free Software Pioneer" is a compliment. "Free Software Evangelist" is a job description. Captioning the article "Free Software Pioneer" smacks of favouritism when the pioneering spirit of such luminaries as Linus Torvalds, Eric Raymond and Bill Gates isn't afforded the same gushing treatment.
  • Either way, the caption is in violation of Wikipedia policy and will be removed.

Best wishes, chocolateboy 12:49, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Complete overhaul of Wikipedia? No ... and your "every other" _exaggeration_ is funny (plus it misses the point) ...
... as to your "faux pas" comment, FS encompasses OS [or OS is a subdivision of FS (given the restrictive criteria of FS ...) ... maybe jotted the wrong one down, but the description is needed ...
"Free Software Pioneer" is a fact. "Evangelist" is a description (but a poor one) ... and, it should be noted for Linus Torvalds, Bill Gates, and Eric Raymond (for their respective contribution to computing)
Just to let you know, the the "Manual of Style" is a guideline, not an "all mighty rule" ... variations exist ...
Sincerely, JDR
You'll forgive me if I don't regard your elucidation of the difference between "Open Source" and "Free Software" as particularly enlightening (or accurate).
the guidelines should be considered ,I agree ... but deviations can be allow [very very infrequently ...
And yet you advocate "deviation" for practically every article we've discussed (the only exception being Søren Kierkegaard):
(Note: I've used your style of POV simplification rather than sticking with the job description for most of those).
Your definition of "very very infrequently" and mine differ.
  1. Please explain why all of those illustrations are "ambiguous".
  2. Please explain why Wikipedia policy (and common sense) should be systematically violated for each of those examples.
  3. While you're at it, please explain how this site can possibly be comprehensible when it fails to adopt your captioning policy: BBC. Or this one: Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy.
  4. Please explain why the Oliver Heaviside (mathematician and physicist) picture is arbitrarily annotated "scholar".
  5. Please explain why your picture of Christ is not annotated "The Son of God".
Best wishes, chocolateboy 14:36, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
  1. illustration "ambiguousness"? primarily because of hte lack of info about the pic.
  2. systematically violated? YMMV ... it's also "policy" to allow variation ...
  3. Comprehensible? More info adds to the "comprehensibility" ... and wikipedia is not the BBC or Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy (thankfully)
  4. ... arbitrarily annotated? YMMV on arbitrariness ... "scholar" explains his life ..
  5. why my picture of Christ is not annotated? It's in the _fricken_ quotes section [notice he's saying something] ... [but now that you mention it, it is needed somewhere else]
Sincerely, JDR
I missed your "examples" ... and as to "infrequently", this is a good case ... (the later ones below may be good exceptions. too)
  • Christ is the "The Son Of God" (not Jesus, fine delicate line there [if you understand the name fully])
  • Torvalds is a "Linux pioneer"
  • Heaviside is a "scholar")
  • Bill Gates is "Microsoft founder"
  • Raymond is a "Hacker culture anthropologist" (though a better title could be found, probably)
  • Stallman is a "Free software pioneer"
Sincerely, JDR
As to your "elucidation" snipe, the difference between "Open Source" and "Free Software" was something that you wanted changed ... --JDR
Please explain why Søren Kierkegaard should not be captioned.
systematically violated? YMMV ... it's also "policy" to allow variation ...
Just for the record: with the exception of the Jesus Christ example (which I provided to illustrate the tackiness and inadvertent humor of captions) and Richard Stallman, all of your captions are wrong (as well as redundant). (cf. "unable (or unwilling) to read", above):
  • Bill Gates is not the founder of Microsoft. He's a co-founder. He is, however, the Chairman.
  • Torvalds created and possibly "invented" Linux. He isn't a "Linux pioneer", whatever that means.
  • Heaviside was a mathematician and a physicist.
  • Eric Raymond is a self-styled Open Source Evangelist.
the difference between "Open Source" and "Free Software" was something that you wanted changed
  • I didn't want it changed. I wanted it removed. Please reread the original request.
illustration "ambiguousness"? primarily because of hte lack of info about the pic
  • In that case, every picture on Wikipedia which isn't accompanied by a tabloid TV caption is ambiguous. Come back to RMS when you've captioned every other picture on Wikipedia. I'm sure no-one will object.
Best wishes, chocolateboy 11:08, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Protected

I protected the page since there was an edit war over the image's caption. I reverted to the "(cur) (last) . . M 09:20, 27 Feb 2004 . . Sj" version which is the last one prior the edit war, If I am not mistaken. Please resolve the dispute and develop a consensus over which caption to use - then inform me or another admin to unprotect the page. --Optim 17:02, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Unprotected

After about 24 hours I unprotected the page because Protected pages are considered harmful and I don't like not letting hundred of people edit the page because only two Wikipedians had a dispute over the caption of the photo. Also note the photo is now changed by Eloquence. If I see more edit wars here, I will re-protect it. So be careful :) --Optim·.· 20:04, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)


Photo

I've got an alternative photo of him (taken today) at: http://www.livejournal.com/users/_imran_/6028.html If people think that one might be better or help avoid a pointless argument. --Imran 17:39, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

I think the photo that is here now is much better, your is too small and doesn't show as much of his persona as the current one, what argument b.t.w.? --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 17:51, 2004 May 22 (UTC)
That photo is shrunk, so I can provide a bigger size if wanted. But I'm happy enough with the current one, I just want to make another one available in case people found it useful. I'm not entirely sure what the argument is but there seems to be some sort of caption/photo altering argument going it. --Imran 19:11, 22 May 2004 (UTC)
In any case, upload the big version, we'll at least have it in the database for later use. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:21, 2004 May 23 (UTC)
Another photo of Saint IGNUcius [1] which might fit well with that reference. Given that it's on Stallman's site, I imagine he would have no disagreement with the usual copyleft. --Gzuckier 18:01, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
First of all don't assume that it's under the GFDL or that he is willing to licence it as such, even if he is RMS., second I don't think the image belongs here. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:17, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)


Eben Moglen

I snipped this ref from the Westchester County/Eben Moglen anecdote: Complete transcript of interview with Eben Moglen: The Encryption Wars

I also snipped the HTML comment ("info from first paragraph of Moglen's last answer on the page I linked to"). It's hardly a controversial addition that needs to be motorcaded with caveats and citations. --chocolateboy 14:25, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Symbolics war

I think the statement:

"In particular, a group of breakaway AI Lab hackers founded the company Symbolics, which actively attempted to recruit the rest of the AI Lab hackers in order to replace the free software in the Lab with its own proprietary software."

is misleading. Symbolics did hire AI lab hackers, and did produce proprietary software, but I don't think one can infer that the hiring was done in order to replace the lab's systems with non-free ones. Both Symbolics and LMI were founded by AI Lab hackers, and both produced non-free software, but more importantly hardware (Lisp machines). I think the incentive for hiring hackers was rather their high level of expertise that would help designing good computers to sell. it was not a planned attack on the AI Lab like the article suggests. Do you mind if I rephrase that sentence? --Sam 00:59, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree this should be corrected. --Gronky 20:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I've detailed the origins of the Symbolics war to give a more neutral approach. Any comments? --Sam


On "Parodies"

IP address 64.110.74.244 has just added a "Parodies" section which is just links to troll stories of RMS raping people, being molested, etc. etc. This is quite out of character for 64.110.74.244. He usually sticks to defacing the Michael Moore page. He's made a similar edit to the Eric S. Raymond page, adding a gay sex story of ESR, but that's been reverted. Does anyone know off the top of their head how you report the IP of a repeated vandal? (check his contributions) --Gronky 20:56, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

IP address 64.172.219.100 re-added a parodies section, with the same stories linked to. I removed it. --Sam 01:02, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I just removed them again. He'll get bored. --Gronky 02:27, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm watching this page. I think the next time this happens will be a 36 or 48 hour ban, given the history, if nobody objects? --Pakaran. 03:39, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'd have no objections, but the vandalism is being done by 8 different IP address and one account (64.110.74.244, 67.100.135.242, 64.217.122.131, 24.214.217.95, 65.110.54.92, 67.153.93.156, 151.202.154.243, 64.172.219.100, and user Trollaxor). My guess is that some very talented people are sitting in some IRC channel telling each other to re-add that parodies section. 64.110.74.244 seems to be the worst offender, he spent the 17th and 25th of July defacing the Michael Moore page. Banning him would be good, but if it's a dynamic IP, we'll just have to watch out and wait for him to grow up or get bored. --Gronky 12:23, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Adding a parody to this article doesn't strike me as a sufficient reason to ban the contributor. There was a parody linked from the Eric S. Raymond article ("Surprised By Cock") which ultimately was removed because the page was unavailable, not because the satire was inappropriate. The Tony Blair article makes numerous references to his satirical representation. What do these august figures have in common? They're all (among other things) politicians...
Stallman is widely parodied, derided and flamed (as well as lauded, celebrated and revered). He has enough good humor to parody himself (St. Ignucius), so I don't see why third party parodies should be censored.
I agree, though, that a bevy of trollish links is not quite the same thing as a sample of counterbalancing satire. --chocolateboy 01:24, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Blocked 66.144.4.4 (talk) for 24hrs due to the parodies section. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 07:20, 2004 Aug 29 (UTC)


Protected

I've protected this page for now to deal with this repeated vandalism. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:25, 2004 Aug 30 (UTC)

It's been six days or so. Can this be unprotected? [[HURD]] needs to be changed to [[GNU Hurd|Hurd]] for capitalization consistency. 12.214.45.9 15:29, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Unprotected it. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:22, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
And i fixed the hurd link. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:24, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)
The parody section *must* be removed. It is in no way comparable to the satires written about Tony Blair and other politicians. It's just an act of vandalism. It demeans and humiliates RMS. Administrator of this page kindly take note. --Ghoseb 18:37, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Putting the page in a category..

I was thinking of putting it in something like Category:Member of the Free Software Foundation board of directors but I cannot quite get the wording right, is that an appropriate name for it? -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:31, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

How about "Free Software Foundation Leaders"? --Betterworld 18:33, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be kind of vague for some guys who are the board of directors? -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 20:04, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)
Probably right. But why not include the other employees' articles (which is currently only Dan Ravicher's article as far as I see) in the category? If we do include them, my suggestion will be more accurate. --Betterworld 21:21, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)
How about making Category:Member of the Free Software Foundation board of directors a sub category of something like Category:Free Software Foundation Members and then again have that in the category Free Software Foundation? -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 08:04, 2004 Sep 7 (UTC)
Good idea. But I'd write "Members" instead of "Member"
Because the category will be a list of members not a member since they are many, at least that's the naming scheme used currently for categories - that is - plurals. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:48, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)
Okay, it must be one of those days, it seems you agree with me =) -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 14:50, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)


Interwiki Link

Since the page is protected, could one of the Admins please add the Interwiki-Link to the Luxembourgish Wiki ? [[lb:Richard Stallman]]

Thanks :) --Briséis 12:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Wikiquote

I just added {{wikiquote}} to this article linking it to Richard Stallman on Wikiquote and gave the wikiquote article an all-round facelift, however some things still need fixing there, for instance the sources for each quote must be cited and more relevant quotes could be added. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:56, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)


Trivia

I have removed this (formerly this) addition by Pakaran which reads:

"Stallman's personal homepage has "action items" much like some political party and action group sites, often taking a far-left perspective; he typically updates these items daily.".

Firstly i think that it doesn't belong in the trivia section at all, a trivia section should contain knowledge which is not commonly known even by those who are familiar with the man, such as that he meant to name GNU Hurd Alix and that he gave POSIX its name, something which would be obvious to anyone after clicking the first external link in this very article does not fit that.

Secondly think that the contents themselves are vague and just factually wrong, "often take a far-left perspective", most of what stallman puts in these action items have to do with human rights which I don't think anyone would call far-left. -- Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 02:06, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)

I think some of his sources have an anti-Bush bias. If that kind of topic doesn't belong in the article in any case, than that's true :) --Pakaran. 02:15, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It was mainly the 9/11 conspiracy theories I was thinking of. However, the fact that he updates his page daily is not that important in any case. I'm just back here because that addition is one of the things I significantly regret of what I've done on WP. Pakaran (ark a pan) 03:24, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the trivia, I believe sources should be cited for each claim made there, especially the most recent one. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 21:58, 2005 Feb 9 (UTC)
The Conlon Nancarrow pica is mentioned in this Bruce Sterling interview. There's already a reference for the Sussman paper. Another collaboration ("Heuristic techniques in computer-aided circuit analysis") is mentioned twice in Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs. "St. IGNUcius" and POSIX are trivially Googleable. [2] [3] --chocolateboy 19:26, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I heard the trivia that was deleted (that rms never owned a computer) from rms himself at a conference he gave at the École Polytechnique in 2002. --Sam 20:16, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Stallman has a habit of referring to those who don't subscribe to his terminology as "ignorant."
  • Has developed a reputation of being something of a prima donna.
  • Stallman named the GNU HURD kernel "Alix" after his then- (and only) girlfriend.
OK, I do know Stallman is a bit touchy on the whole free software vs. open source software thing, and the GNU/Linux vs. Linux. But these trivia points seem like digs on him. The 1st two are obvious, the third I'm more concerned about the fact that "Alix" was his only girlfriend. Does anyone have any sources to back these up? (the 2nd point might be hard to find sources). Note that the first two (and subsequent others dealing with his hardline stance on terminology was all done by 65.168.18.72) --Bash 04:08, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Bash, Alix was most definitely not his only girlfriend. Hell, Free as in Freedom closes with the author and his wife having dinner with Stallman and his (starting 2001; current status unknown) girlfriend Sarah. --Maru (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

--

What the hell is going on here? 65.168.18.72 reposted the "prima donna" accusation again:

  • "Is widely regarded as something of a prima donna, especially when it comes to terminology. Stallman is on record as requiring interviewing journalists to use his particular terminology throughout their articles if they wish to interview him. As a result, many journalists refuse to interview him at all."

It's milder, but still an attack on Stallman. Moderate it a little at least. --Bash 19:05, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: Alright, I deleted the attack, but 65.168.18.72, two things
  1. Don't call him a prima donna. That's a personal attack.
  2. Please back up the statement that Stallman refuses to be interviewed unless his terminology is used throughout the interview. This sounds plausible, but I need sources to back it up. --Bash 19:10, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I used to work for the FSF - Stallman would in fact set pre-conditions such as using "GNU/Linux" and "free software" for interviews. That is completely true, at least as of 2001-2002. It was his way of getting people to use those terms, using the leverage of whether he would grant an interview or not. --Brianyoumans 05:43, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Last comments...

I must agree with a previous poster; the last few tidbits are a thinly veiled attack against the man. And note that the below statement

"At one point, Stallman named the GNU HURD kernel "Alix" after his then- (and only) girlfriend."

is wrong. Stallman has had more affairs since; this is a piece of knowledge I picked up from the semi-biographical book free as in freedom. http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/.

I think the statement should be:

"At one point, Stallman named the GNU kernel "Alix" after his then girlfriend although it was subsequently renamed to HURD by its main developer."

I noted that several of the statements whilst not false are worded in such a way as to present Stallman as a weirdo. For instance, the term "hacker" is widely used by the open source/free software community to mean something different than what non-experts think it means. Ok, finally look at this:

"For example, although virtually the entire world recognizes Linux distributions as "Linux" -- this is true; but it is also true that free software advocates call it GNU/Linux. One only has to check announcements by software companies to note that the term has become somewhat pervasive, at least in the hacker community and/or communities that promote the Free Software ethos."

Anyway, if anything, somebody should drop the "only" girlfriend claim. It is untrue and a cheap shot. I thought Wikipedia was aiming to be a great information resource rather than tabloid trash. I am not going to make the changes though; I do not presume to know what's best. But please consider the above few points.


Bias

"Has developed a reputation of being something of a prima donna"

This is not very polite and not very objective or encyclopedic in tone. Your views on his work/ideas should not lead to personal attacks. As far as I am aware he stays in people's homes rather than hotels whenever possible and is the perfect guest. Added Free software Free Society to books.


Richard Stallman and Wikipedia

Richard Stallman is the father of Free software. He wrote / developed the Gnu Public license, and later the GNU Free Documentation License. He did the pioneering work behind what everyone calls "Linux" but really ought to be called "GNU" (GNU's Not Unix). L. Torvalds supplied only a small part of the GNU/Linux operating system but has garnered the lion's share of the credit. This is not fair to Stallman. He also was first to propose a free, on-line encyclopedia. And Wikipedia owes him a double or triple debt:

  • Stallman's operating system provides the platform for MediaWiki
  • Stallman wrote the GPL license which fueled the development of MediaWiki
  • Stallman wrote / developed the documentation license that facilitated the voluntary creation of half a million articles at Wikipedia

I want to buy that man a beer - or at least a vegetarian dinner! ---- Uncle Ed (talk) 17:24, May 27, 2005 (UTC)


Richard Stallman and Rationalist International

rms: I am indeed an honorary associate (I don't recall what term they use, so I'll take this page's word for it) of Rationalists International. I also subscribe to the Skeptical Inquirer and was for a while a member of the New England Skeptics. I was asked to be listed, I felt honored to be asked to be in such company, and I said yes.

Someone (221.134.25.93) added to the recognition section: Honorary Associate of [http://www.rationalistinternational.net Rationalist International].
The RI site says that Stallman has "joined" RI. This is not believable, and there's no one claiming that RMS has joined RI, except RI. Stallman's not shy about his opinions, and he's particular about his associations. Without examining whether or not RI is philosophically compatible and meets the level of precision RMS demands of those around him, the lone fact that Stallman hasn't announced or confirmed this unusual unprecedented joining of a political association is grounds enough for this claim to be left here until it can be properly proven or disproven. --Gronky 02:16, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
PREJUDICED
The above statement is highly prejudiced and tries to deny the fact that Richard Stallman is an Honorary Associate of Rationalist International. Gronky can check it with RMS. Richard stallman's association with Rationalist International campaign can be seen in his personal web site www.stallman.org
The Honorary Associates of [http://www.rationalistinternational.net Rationalist International]are:

Dr. Pieter Admiraal (The Netherlands), Prof. Mike Archer (Australia), Katsuaki Asai (Japan), Sir Hermann Bondi (UK), Prof. Colin Blakemore (UK), Prof. Vern Bullough (USA), Dr. Bill Cooke (New Zealand), Dr. Helena Cronin (UK), Prof. Richard Dawkins (UK), Joseph Edamaruku (India), Jan Loeb Eisler (USA), Prof. Antony Flew (UK), Tom Flynn (USA), Jim Herrick (UK), Christopher Hitchens (USA), Ellen Johnson (USA), Prof. Paul Kurtz (USA), Lavanam (India), Dr. Richard Leakey (Kenya), Iain Middleton (New Zealand), Dr. Henry Morgentaler (Canada), Dr. Taslima Nasreen (Bangladesh), Steinar Nilsen (Norway), Prof. Jean-Claude Pecker (France), James Randi (USA), Prof. Ajoy Roy (Bangladesh), Dr. Younus Shaikh (Pakistan), Dr. G N Jyoti Shankar (deceased, USA), Barbara Smoker (UK), Richard Stallman (USA), Prof. Rob Tielman (The Netherlands), David Tribe (Australien), K Veeramani (India),Bary Williams (Australia), Prof. Richard Wiseman (UK) and Prof. Lewis Wolpert (UK) --Aparna

That page on Stallman's website says nothing about any association between him and Rationalist International, besides recommending people CC: somewhere on that domain when sending an email about an specific issue. As there is a worry that the link has been added solely to increase the site's PageRank, I have neutered the links here on the talk page, and removed it from the article. Please present concrete proof that Stallman has joined RI before adding the link back on the article. --cesarb 16:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This also introduces a question over the claim on the page about Taslima Nasrin that she is a member, plus any other references. I've been trying to get to the bottom of this, but I haven't yet found anything which would prove that Rationalist International is anything more than some guy with a website and newsletter, who says what he likes in each. Stallman's membership is not believable, I don't even want to take up his time by asking him. If the RI website contains false information (as seems to be in little doubt), the link to it from the Rationalism page should have a note beside it saying so. --Gronky 22:46, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)


Latest edit

Has anyone else noticed that the most recent edit by 128.30.16.48 introduced a comment "<!-- In any case, it is true. -- rms. -->"? Interesting, especially considering the IP address which resolves to aarau.csail.mit.edu. The edit looks okay to me, for what it's worth. --Rl 17:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If it is indeed him, it is quite shocking how much was incorrect about him in his bio article. --132.198.104.164 23:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
It's him. I emailed him to confirm. I'll post our email exchange online later tonight and put a link here. --[[User:Rl|Rl]


Founding GNU section

the line that starts: "By luck" doesn't really make much sense. I'm not sure of all the details, but I know that there was some work involved in making the kernel compatible with the GNU tools.


Java = C + Lisp?

The trivia section includes: "Stallman has done a little bit of programming in Java, but that code was written in C and Lisp." Is this a typo meant to say it was rewritten in C and Lisp, a cute joke about Java's similarity to C and Lisp, or some other possibility I'm missing?

D'oh, I just checked the Java link and get it now.
rms: Please do not rewrite this text in ways that change the meaning

or even the topic!


"Copying" subsection in "Terminology"

The following paragraph used to exist as a "Copying" subsection in the "Terminology" section:

Stallman asks that the term piracy be used only to describe boarding ships and stealing their cargo, not to unauthorized copying, he suggests instead that the term 'sharing information with one's neighbor'. Stallman and other critics of Digital Rights Management see it as a misnomer and refer to it instead as "Digital Restrictions Management". He refers to digital audio discs using Copy control and other similar technology that are designed to prevent copying as "corrupt discs" rather than Compact Disc to emphasis that they break the Red Book and recent discs are printed without the Compact Disc logo.

rms: That is entirely accurate, and I often say these things in my speeches. As for where in the page these things should be, it may not matter much to me.
I've merged most into the "Lesser terminology issues" sections for the following reasons:
  • I know Richard says copying shouldn't be called piracy, but I haven't heard him say what that word should be used for.
  • I think he sees "piracy" as a propaganda term, not a misnomer.
  • I've never heard him suggest that others refer to copying as "sharing information with one's neighbour"
  • This is not something he pounds on as hard as he does on "open source", "Linux", and "IP" --Gronky 00:04, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • RMS often describes the meaning of the term "piracy". I don't remember the exact words, but boarding ships and stealing their cargo is certainly close.
  • He also does refer to copying music, software, etc. as sharing information with one's neighbour. (he is not opposed to copyright law per se, but for shorter terms and different scope)
  • Copyright laws (and related legislation like the DMCA) seems to have become more important to him over time (as they have for many of us).
I recommend you read some of his newer stuff (and there should be a video of his Wikimania talk somewhere). --Rl 08:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
He explains the history of the word piracy, and says it shouldn't be used for copying information, but he doesn't tell people what it should be used for (only what it should not be used for). He says that sharing with one's neighbor should be legal, and therefore copying should be legal, but he doesn't say the two terms have the same meaning or that one should be used instead of the other.
Copyright reform (and prevention of deform) is important to him but the terminology section is for his major terminology issues. Until around 2000, they were "GNU/" and "free software". "IP" has since become a big thing for him. I haven't seen a recording of his Wikimania talk, but I've listened to probably every other audio recording of him available on the Net. --Gronky 10:53, August 16, 2005 (UTC)


new Criticism section

Someone added a criticism section, apparently based on a rant they found on some ESR site. Starts like this: "Stallman's zealous idiosyncrasies generally are a hit with the senior programmers in the open source community, but fare less well off broadway." — "Off broadway"? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a blog. There's precious little criticism in the new section, it's mostly rather pointless trivia (that are covered in the Trivia section already) and making fun of him. I'm inclined to delete the whole section. Thoughts? --Rl 21:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd recommend dumping the text here, moving the new, interesting, and useful bit of information (if any) into the other sections of the article, and then delete. There's a current dispute right now as to whether a section on the ESR page should be called "trivia" or "criticism". It's possible that this has sparked a "if ESR has to have a criticism section, so does Stallman" reaction. This happened before when someone was adding a section called "parodies" to the ESR article. --Gronky 00:17, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
Note the warning at the top: "This may be longer than is preferable" Get it Gronky? No need to reproduce article text.
Is any of this worth factoring into the rest of the article? The first paragraph seems to be something Eric Raymond said back in the late 90s. There doesn't seem to be widely held criticism here (which would tell something about Stallman), instead it seems to be jabs that tell more about the person that said them.
That people not familiar with him find him eccentric is one thing that might be useful in the article, but on the other hand this is already strongly implied from the article which discusses his St. Ignucious role etc. That he doesn't talk to Torvalds is mildly interesting, except that it's not strictly true. They're not friends and they don't consult each other, but they have addressed eachother in emails. --Gronky 12:12, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment. --Rl 12:30, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Emails are now "talking". That's a fine distinction. I suggest you go to dictionary.com and submit your recommended change of the word "talk" to now include "email correspondence". Suggestion: Why don't you try to escape sometime from your delusional little minds.
Yes, talking. How often do you think Torvalds and Stallman come face to face? Email is the method of choice. --Maru (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Rather than spending time rationalizing their basis for wholesale deletion, why don't Gronky and RH just form a new club called "Programmers for Fascism"? If people don't agree that there is a place for critcism of Stallman, then their fascism club has a great charter and audience. Otherwise, read through the TALK section above including "Communism" to get an idea of how badly twisted and subjective their fascism is "indeed". http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism
I'm deleting the criticism section again. The re-adding of it is being done by IP addresses and a spoof account "Qronky". This looks like a trolls work but reverting it still deserves an explanation: The above reasons for removing the criticism section still stand. The new paragraph about people turning against the GPL is simply not true. OpenBSD is against the GPL, and recently Eric S. Raymond has spoken out against it. That's all. They are a tiny part of the community and they are not growing. Also, GPL arguments should be the the GPL page. If asked, Stallman recommends the GPL but asking people to use it instead of other licenses is not one of his big campaigns. He sometimes recommends people use other (non-GNU) licenses, like he recommended that Ogg Vorbis should use the modified BSD license. The license is a means, not an end. --Gronky 20:29, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
And someone will keep putting it back, Gronky. Get your head out of your you-know-what. See http://sean.chittenden.org/ and plenty more criticisms that exist, including Business Week, if you take the time to look. They are just getting warmed up. Who are you, the frigging Wikipedia gatekeeper? Like I said: "fascist". http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fascism
Don't worry. Wikipedia has procedures and features for dealing with revert wars and trolls. This isn't the first one to happen to this article. And like I said, this isn't even the first time this has happened while a similar thing was happening on the Eric Raymonds page.
A single rant by a blogger no-one and an unprovable a claim that Business Week had one criticism, once, does not amount to much. Even if the Business Week claim is true, one journalist still doesn't amount to much. We know from the SCO fiasco that the press can be fooled.
And as for talking to Linus Torvalds. Does every Wikipedia entry about a free software developer that doesn't talk with Linus (face to face) have to get a note on their page about it? No. Could this go in an existing section? Yes: trivia.
Create an account, sign your posts, and justify your edits. --Gronky 20:59, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
BTW, that anti-GPL rant page you linked to ends with a "KDE Now!" button. "D0n't u5e GPL'd s0ftware!!! Use a GPL'd desktop environment". Um, yeh. --Gronky 21:11, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Tough luck Gronky. You're ranting time expired. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.125.93.94 (talk • contribs) 23:34, 26 August 2005.
I support Gronky's position on this issue, especially in the light of the arguments made by those opposing him. Personal attacks are not a suitable replacement for coherent arguments. --Rl 07:28, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Just in case anyone isn't yet convinced that the person adding the "Criticism" section is a troll::

Re-adding the criticism section and renaming "Criticism" to "Trivia" on ESR's page are most of what this person does on Wikipedia. None of this means that there should or should not ever be a criticism section, but I recommend not wasting too much time trying to talk sense into this particular contributor. Just revert whenever you're passing by. --Gronky 14:56, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

If I may offer an outside view. There are fair criticisms that can (and have) been made about RMS. Jamie Zawinski, for example, has written extensively on why he thinks cooperation with RMS is impossible, particularly with respect to the XEmacs/Gnu Emacs split. Others have written in depth about his attempts to, in their opinion, distract from the dramatic failure of The Hurd and co-opt Linus's work by, essentially, publicly whining every time someone says "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux". While I respect the view that you don't want to give in to trolls, I think the right thing to do here is to add a well-written "criticism" section. The fact that the criticism section the trolls keep trying to insert is poor is not a reason to not have one at all; that is curring off your nose to spite your face. A proper "criticism" section will make this article better than either a troll version, or no such section at all. If people would like, I could take a crack at writing one. Thoughts? --Nandesuka 11:29, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Go ahead. No one is objecting to the idea of a criticisms section, only to that particularly badly written one. It might be even better to have full evaluation of Stallman spaced through the article rather than a separate criticism section. For example, there is already criticism of him embedded in the "Terminology" section. Doing this well would take significantly more effort than writing a decent "Criticism" section, and would probably need a fair amount of debate to get a suitable balance. Writing just the criticism section would be an excellent step forward. --gadfium 22:47, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
I've finished a rough draft of the "Criticism" section. I went ahead and put it in place of the contested material. I tried to source all claims, and I left out a few things that I think are "fair" but which I couldn't find clear sources for. Please feel free to edit it as appropriate, or discuss the edits here. It might be the right thing to do to eventually disperse the criticisms throughout the article, as Gadfium suggests, but I agree that that is harder. At least this is, I hope, a start. --Nandesuka 03:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)


Protected

I have protected this page to stop the ongoing edit war. So far, users Gronky and R1 have explained here on the talk page why the criticism section is not suitable for an encyclopedia, and a succession of anonymous editors and impersonators have reinserted the section without debating it rationally. A request for comment does not seem to have drawn more attention to the situation apart from my own involvement. Protection appears to be the only valid response at this point. -gadfium 09:07, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't been involved with this article up until this point; I got here last night from the RfC. I believe the article needs a criticism section, as without it the article is hopelessly incomplete. That being said, I agree that the particular section being reinserted was somewhat weak (an entire paragraph on an obscure webcomic?) and something better can and should be created. I'll see if I can throw something together here that will be acceptable to both sides. --Nandesuka 11:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


I just wanted to add these links to the page


Criticisms of RMS

I'm not absolutely opposed to a criticism section, although I'm not sure it's appropriate. Most biography articles don't have one. For this article too, I think criticisms would be best worked into the main text of the article. For example, saying that some say his requests that the OS be called "GNU/Linux" are heavy handed should really be put in the section of the article that describes his reasons for that request. Then readers can make up their own mind. Having these related pieces of information in separate sections makes no sense, and not mentioning RMS's response to such accusations, when he has made some, leads to a biased section.

Most of the section is about the negative opinions by people that don't like him about his ability or style of work in teams. We could add that he's a very bad helicopter pilot, but he has never claimed to be a good helicopter pilot. His links to software development are closer than those to helicopters: he has started numerous projects, and has been the project leader of his projects, but he gave everyone the freedom to fork, so no one was legally bound to his team style. Also, note that has time has progressed, he has decreased the number of project-lead roles he has taken. This suggests that he has taken leadership when necessary, but has recognized that this is not is strength and so does so only when necessary.

About the XEmacs team comments currently in the new Criticism section:

  1. Yes, RMS is strict about complying with legal requirements. That the XEmacs team see this as over-burdensome is a comment on the legal environment, not on RMS. Linux was less strict, SCO threw a party.
  2. Emacs is heading for its 30th birthday, GCC has proved very maintainable, and RMS has other high class software under his belt. The comments of a declining software project on RMS's coding ability are rich.
  3. When one's opponent won't conceded, (s)he's "unwilling to compromise". When it's yourself, you're "doing the obvious sane thing". It's highly subjective, quoting only one side of such an argument is bad journalism.
  4. I don't see the importance of this one persons opinion of RMS's reasons for compromise.

As for Linus' comments, RMS never asked for "Linux in general" to be called GNU/Linux. RMS only asks that systems made by combining GNU+Linux be called "GNU/Linux". And as for someone's essay about the Meriam-Webster definition of "operating system", and then stripping this down to an academic interpretation - creating a pretty useless system, the likes of which as never been shipped by anyone as "an operating system" - this is not scientific.

Richard can be hard to work with, yes. He's not everyone's ideal project leader, yes. Some people have decided not to work in his teams, and some people have managed their projects differently as a response of not liking his style. But Wikipedians should be careful not to add content for content's sake. Maybe a section on misinterpretation and misrepresentation of his words, requests, actions, and suggestions would be more appropriate - maybe something could be added there about people attacking his methods as a way to undermine his message, like has happened to many pioneers of civil liberty causes. (Also, the GNU/Linux naming controversy already has its own page.) --Gronky 13:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to want the criticisms to be distributed throughout the article. But if you follow the talk page, above, the specific complaint was that the article really did not contain references to any of the well-documented criticisms that have been made of him. I didn't write this section because I hate RMS; I wrote it because criticism of RMS hasn't just been occasional and marginal, but constant and credible, from a variety of sources. That doesn't mean that the criticism is always true, or that we shouldn't present points of view that are laudatory of RMS. But an article about him that doesn't discuss (for example) Zawinski's very public, very detailed, and very specific critiques is incomplete. I am open to threading the criticism throughout the article rather than it having its own section, but like I said: getting the credible, sourced criticisms down in one place is a first step. It is not our place as editors to interpret the criticisms that other (credible) commentators have made, but to simply report them where they are relevant. (It is appropriate for us to present counterarguments that others, including RMS, have made. It's just not appropriate for us to make those arguments ourselves.)
We probably also need to work in some more discussion of the "Free Software" vs "Open Source Software" debate; right now, this article reads like an FSF position paper with respect to that issue. --Nandesuka 14:02, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
Later (when the Wikipedia server recovers from whatever is making it so slow) I'll take a stab at integrating the criticism into the article. For one thing, the place for criticism of his software development projects would be a section on his software development projects. It only struck me now that it's strange that such a section doesn't already exist.
Regarding the "Free Software" vs "Open Source Software" debate, this page is Stallmanic on that topic because this is a page about Richard Stallman. The free software and open source software pages have their own takes on it. That Zawinski doesn't like RMS, and that XEmacs is a group of people that forked GNU Emacs with a different management style isn't disputed.
I'll try to stick the little content of the Speeches section into other sections too. Gronky 14:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
I do not think WP should be a forum for character assassination. Enough of these exist. Give the guy a break. --Amnonc 11:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I should add to criticisms of RMS. A lot of them stem from his control of GNU projects. As you may not know, in order to become a GNU project, you must sign over copyright of your work to the Free Software Foundation, so RMS effectively gets control over it. That means he can deny changes to it. This is why forks like XEmacs became necessary. That wasn't the first nor the last.
There have been researchers who have made rather substantial modifications to gcc which were either severely delayed entry into or completely denied entry into the main repository for what amount to ideological reasons and procrastination. It was for this reason that gcc-xml was forced to fork. Certain patches for gcc relating to Java and C# were also denied on ideological grounds. ProPolice extensions were denied for a long time for some reason I'm not sure of. --Nathan J. Yoder 04:34, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Nathan - can you find any sources which discuss this issue in some detail? Preferably something non-XEmacs yet also significant. The more credible the source, the better. Perhaps a statement by the gcc-xml folks? --Nandesuka 12:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


Assigning copyright to the FSF

it's not true that assigning the copyrights to the FSF gives RMS control over the running of the project. Assigning copyrights is a legal strategy so that the copyrights can be fought by the FSF legal team if a problem comes up, instead of having to contact each individual contributer in the case of a problem. There are hundreds of GNU projects and RMS does not "control" all of them.

Secondly, RMS is quite clear that his main goal is software freedom, not making a technically superior piece of software at any cost. If there's a choice between software freedom and technical superiority, RMS will take freedom and I congratulate him for that. If that gets him a reputation as "uncompromising", then that reputation is coming from the people who are choosing technical superiority. If that's what they value, then perhaps they need their own project (which i suspect is the case with XEmacs)

because of these reasons, and others, I think that instead of the "criticism" section, it should say that RMS is uncompromising in his choice of freedom over technical superiority when the two are at odds. It seems to me that pretty much every complaint about RMS' software management stems from some guy who wants to go the other way and choose technical merit over freedom, and is pissed that RMS won't compromise freedom. It's back to "Free Software" vs. "Open Source" again, and I think it has less to do with RMS personally and more to do with conflicting values. --Doviende 17:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

RMS controls the FSF, the FSF controls the copyrights, therefore RMS controls the copyrights. He can and has historically exerted direct control over Emacs, gcc and other projects using this power, that is incontestable fact. Your ideological, POV and emotion-based argument doesn't belong on Wikipedia. The fact still remains that it's a criticism of RMS and you can't exclude criticisms just because you disagree with them. It's not "free software" vs. "open source" issue as it's not a licensing conflict and it shouldn't go on those pages. There is nothing in the licenses that forbids these additions to the software. It is only RMS' executive decision that prevents them, thus it specifically belongs here. --Nathan J. Yoder 05:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
RMS is president of FSF. As an organization, FSF has a charter that it is legally bound by (this is not available online), and it has a board of directors. When someone assigns copyright, they and someone in FSF sign a contract. The FSF is also legally bound by these contracts. Also, the ability for people who disagree with him to fork his projects is a social limit on his ability to use his influence. Those are facts. It sounds like you've mixed assumptions and speculation, and come to an over-simplified and incorrect conclusion. --Gronky 20:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
How does that contradict any of what I said? You yourself said he's president. Denying his influence over the FSF would be naive. Has there ever been a case where RMS said that certain code shouldn't be included in a GNU project, but it was included against his wishes anyway? Let's be honest: if RMS gives a command about control over the project, that's the way it will go. What cases of defiance have there been from within the FSF? --Nathan J. Yoder 20:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
Our statements contradict because you said that RMS controls the FSF copyrights, and I informed you that FSF (including RMS) are bound by a charter, a board of directors, a contract with each GNU contributor, and the social limit that everyone is free to walk away from FSF and take a copy of the source code with them. --Gronky 13:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
And that doesn't contradict what I said. All of the people within the FSF obey RMS, that includes the board of directors. It doesn't matter if technically the board has to vote on matters if they're going to automatically side with whatever RMS says. I asked you to provide me with an instance that those within the FSF have contradicted RMS and you haven't been able to provide a single case, which only reinforces my point- that his word there is that of God. The "social limit" you discuss is typically meaningless, as I've discussed before, because it requires a massive undertaking in an independently maintained fork. You're approaching this from a purely theoretical, idealistic perspective that completely and utterly ignores the reality of the situation. That's another common criticism of RMS that you carry, an inability to see past idealism and look at the actual empirical evidence instead of hypotheticals (e.g. that maintinence of a very large forked project is NOT easy). --Nathan J. Yoder 17:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I battle to figure out what your point is each time you post. Please try to be concise (trimming the insults would be a good start). FSF's three largest software projects (GNU Emacs, GNU Libc, and GCC) have all been forked. The size of the effort doesn't have to be debated - the facts are that it's possible, and it's happened. Also, if we skip the debate of whether RMS has human- or God-like power, can you say what problems he's caused with his power? (more than just "some scientist's patch was rejected, even though it was big and super") --Gronky 21:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I HAVE been very concise about rejected contributions. Go back and read my previous comments and if you want a starting point, go read the mono mailing list and read other posts here and here and here and here just from a quick search). It seems you haven't been following many of the other mailing lists regarding development of new front ends and back ends and there has been a LOT of this going on, especially by university students and hobbyists over the past few years.
Ok, you've coughed up some links:
  1. [4]This developer agrees with stallman!
  2. [5]On this long page, searching for "Stallman", "RMS", "moral", "politial", and "Richard" finds no complaints
  3. [6]Someone says: "i read somewhere that there was a ANDF producer for gcc but RMS had a problem with it and asked the creator to take it of his web site I don't know if he did but the problem is that I can't find the page again. but if there is one then we could use that" - RMS was never criticized, and RMS's reasons aren't even discussed
  4. [7]This article contains no (zero) criticisms of RMS! The mail is written by someone who disagrees with RMS, and it has a section about RMS, and still it doesn't criticize him - not even a silly joke or a snide
Final score: a flabbergasting Zero. I'm dumbstruck.
I even followed links on those above pages in an effort to find something to back you up, and all I found was this thread: [8] - where people debate the technical effectiveness of Stallman's request to not include a Java virtual machine in GCC. The thread includes 6 people, and most agree that Stallman's request is not a sure way to prevent proprietary exploitation of GCC, but no one says "we should include it" or "what a rotten waste" or "I think critically of RMS". Also, Stallman was not in the discussion, and no one concluded with "lets ask Stallman to reconsider" or "lets explain this to Stallman" or "lets rebel".
It seems you are basing your comments on imagined criticisms. Similarly, your criticisms of me are imagined. You've claimed that I want the article to be criticism-free, but if you read this page you'll see that I've said that real criticisms should be included, and they should be placed in the appropriate section. --Gronky 23:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
None of those developers actually agreed with stallman. Dupont was confused as to the LEGALITY of what he was doing (and potential illegal,GPL-violating use), so he changed his code simply to comply (see here and here). That doesn't mean he believes ideologically that gcc shouldn't have that functionality, quite the contrary, the fact that he added the functionality in the first place seems to indicate the opposite. If you read the links, they clearly outline RMS' refusal to include extensions of that kind in gcc, that was the point. The links also make it clear that some people think that those extensions should exist.
Dupont says in the mail you linked to: "the fsf is worried that such an interface could be used to write non-free backends on the gcc. Last month I met with Stallman about this issue, I understand his concerns and am trying to figure out the best way to proceed" Gronky 12:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
If you read further in the thread, you'll note someone correcting Dupont in that very thread and disagreeing with RMS on the matter.
Here's even more, pay attention to quotes like this: "Well, in case you haven't noticed. Most of us are not of the opinion of RMS on this topic..." source. They clearly indicate that these things SHOULD be included with gcc. Even the links I pasted to you before indicate that too, which makes me wonder about your motives in flatly denying that.
Yes, I saw that quote, it's about whether or not removing functionality from GCC is an effective way to prevent proprietary abuse. RMS thinks it is worthwhile, and sender or that email thinks it's not. The sender doesn't go on to say that RMS is causing harm. It's just a technical debate with no one offering a conclusion. --Gronky 12:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
And really, you've demonstrated you completely inability to be honest here. You even admit the last developer disagrees with RMS, and yet strong, analytical disagreement is somehow not a criticism? Please look up the definition of 'criticism.' I'm not sure why people need to use loaded language like "lets rebel" for it to be criticism.
The last developer generally disagrees with Stallman's insistence on the name "GNU/Linux", and on emphasizing freedom. He does not disagree with Stallman in the link you gave. --Gronky 12:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
It also appears you didn't really understand the link you pasted there. It wasn't a JVM that RMS was taking issue with at all. The specific issue was not the existence of a JVM (which he didn't actually write- you don't include a JVM inside of a compiler, that wouldn't make sense), but rather Java bytecode backend to gcc (other discussions involve a front end). Trent Waddington very explicitly disagreed with RMS, as did Gerald Pfeifer (a developer of TenDRA, mind you). They believed that he should have allowed the patches to be integrated into the main branch and that his fears regarding use of java bytecode as an intermediate language were unfounded, that sounds like a criticism of his behavior to me.

I wrote JVM instead of JBC, big deal. It was late, and my motivation for double-checking information I give you is wearing thin. Gronky 12:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Look, I don't know what it's like where you come from, but over where, criticism doesn't need to be of the form "you're a dumb poopy head" or "I am criticizing you right now!" --Nathan J. Yoder 00:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Back to the insults. Ok, lets move on to your new material... --Gronky 12:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Bam! I found a later follow-up post from Dupont (the guy who you said "agreed" with Stallman) and it looks like my hunch was correct, he was just confused and was complying out of what he perceived was a legal requirement. Quote: "be prepared for lots of FUD from the FSF." (That is in reference to someone else initiating a similar type of project on their own). Sounds pretty disgruntled from his interaction with RMS. --Nathan J. Yoder 01:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Wow, this thread is from Dupont and includes responses from various others very blatantly criticizing RMS. I don't think there's any doubt from this that Dupont was, in fact, confused and is now very critical of RMS. There are even other more general criticisms of RMS as well in that thread (from other people). They go into some detail regarding this issue and the RMS/FSF FUD. --Nathan J. Yoder 02:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, you've found some actual criticism. Some things to keep in perspective: the thread is reasonably informal, and it takes place before a scheduled meeting with RMS, not after, and since that 2002 discussion, there has been no outrage over the loss of the contribution the developer was discussing working on.
Also note that neither this discussion, or it's participants, were or have become widely listened-to. One guy agrees that adding the code to GCC could only produce dangerous situations. Another tells the coder to be afraid of FSF suing him, and warns that FSF will aim to outlast him in a court case. Given that FSF has never sued anyone in it's 20 years, this line of thinking is ...in Ireland we say "away with the faeries". Other parts of the thread are "that RMS hates your stuff is valuable - now you can go wade into the fray waving your "I'm a victim of RMS" banner". So, as long as it's not twisted or blown out of proportion, yes this could be added to the page, IMO. --Gronky 12:53, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
The previous threads were actual criticism too. You don't accept something as criticism until people are making MEAN COMMENTS? Look, criticism does not and has not ever required being cruel or sadistic. That's not an "insult" either, despite your dishonest mischaracterization of it as such, it's simply pointing out the fact that you're attempting to play a game of semantics to avoid what is obviously criticism. Take a look at the definition (see also: the definition of criticize), it doesn't require malice to be critism, it doesn't need to be part of a formal conversation, nor explicitly saying "I'm criticizing you", nor saying something like "I'm outraged!"
Their criticism is based on known past exchanges on the gcc mailing list and with rms directly (via his personal e-mail). RMS HAS openly taken the stance in the past that piping the output of one program to another (especially in the context of specially modified version of gcc) could still be violating the gpl and this was backed up by other people on the gcc list, so their concerns are not unwarranted. It's silly to assume that Dupont is on anything but bad terms with RMS. You previously assumed, with no valid reasoning, that he agreed with RMS, and I completely blew that reasoning out of the water with this post. Apparently RMS is going to have a sudden change of heart since previous exchanges and is going to woo Dupont into his corner...
And you have no idea how many people read that mailing list exchange, so you can't say how many people listened to it. This isn't the only exchange about it too, the past ones I pasted were about it too. Somehow, the past blatant disagreement with RMS on the matter isn't criticism only because they didn't throw out insults like "ur a meeny hed!" or use one of your loaded phrases. The people in the past exchanges obviously disagreed with RMS. The past developers of patches obviously wanted their patches integrated. You say they didn't offer a conclusion, but apparently this is some other strange semantic twist of yours: they offered a clear one: that RMS' concerns are completely unwarranted and that they should be able to integrate those patches into the main branch. Are you seriously arguing that none of the people had their own conclusions (despite the fact that they strongly voiced their stance that RMS was wrong--CONCLUSIVELY)?
I'll call a duck a duck: you're on your last rope here, you've run out of any valid arguments, so you've engaged in the last bastion of hope for a sophist--the semantic argument--criticisms aren't criticisms and conclusions aren't conclusions. --Nathan J. Yoder 21:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Disagreeing with a person, and criticizing them, are not the same thing. That's just fact. For example, you can reply to this post, and you can blatantly state that you disagree, but whether you also criticize me is a seperate decision. It's strange that you think ducks should be called by their right name, but you want blatant disagreement to be called criticism.
About these people that you say "obviously wanted their patches integrated". Your guess could be right, but Wikipedia is not for original research. On the thread you linked to, one list contributor told the developer that the patch could only have "dangerous" use, and the developer mentioned he would be meeting with Stallman in the future to discus this. You can't just assume that the developer didn't change his mind after the discussion, or after meeting Stallman, or after further reflection.
You say "It's silly to assume that Dupont is on anything but bad terms with RMS", but I've never heard of this Dupont guy before, I only know what you've pointed to, and that has Dupont saying "the FSF is worried that such an interface could be used to write non-free backends on the gcc. Last month I met with Stallman about this issue, I understand his concerns and am trying to figure out the best way to proceed". (which seems to back up my above note that patch developers are capable of changing their mind.)
Now, maybe Dupont hates Stallman, maybe he always has and always will and is boiling over with criticism for the man - but I'm just going on your evidence. You can't give evidence which contradicts you, and then criticize me for believing it. --Gronky 23:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
It's pretty clear that when someone says something like: "he's not interested in the backend for the jvm which I wrote 18 months ago (and doesn't think anyone else should be)" and " At the time I was instructed that it would be impossible to get the copyright on the backend assigned to the FSF." (that is from a link you yourself pasted), that they want be able to work with it on the official gcc project. Why would Trent Waddington bother voicing his concerns if he weren't? Why try to get copyright assigned to the FSF?
So far your track record is miserable. So far you lied about Dupont agreeing, he never actually said he agreed in that mailing. Now you've forced me to re-look up (it was already linked to) even more specific quotes about another individual, and it turns out you were completely wrong about that too.
The "blatant disagreement" has continually been raised in the context of specific patches and their integration into gcc and consequently, RMS' refusal to allow them. Yes, they specifically brought up the fact that RMS didn't want them integrated or for them to exist for that matter. Analytical disagreement IS criticism. Criticizing someone's behavior and especially their reasoning for that specific behavior is the same as criticizing them. --Nathan J. Yoder 00:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
[The Short History of GCC development] includes details, various quotations (from developers and other commentators) and information on the gcc/egcs fork. If you don't consider that criticism of RMS' control over gcc, then I don't know what to say... Oh and I'm aware that *eventually* RMS merged the branches years later, after he realized his error, but it still goes to the point about his control-complex creating all that needless added effort for those years. --Nathan J. Yoder 06:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
How many gcc forks have actually survived historically? I'll give you a hint: they have this big tendency to rot off and die. Forking a project adds copious amounts of efforts needed just to maintain the seperate forked version and most of the time LARGE forked projects die off. This is actually a pretty well known principle to anyone who has followed OSS/Free software projects in general and has had to watch the shame of watching otherwise coo-operative projects split apart. --Nathan J. Yoder 22:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, you could assume that all forks of GNU died because forking is difficult, but lack of interest (i.e. Stallman not being problematic) is an equally possible reason. Gronky 23:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

How is that equally probable? These aren't exactly the easiest extensions to write to begin with, so people have a vested personal interest from the beginning. To attribute it to a simple lack of interest as being on equal grounding with a greatly increased amount of maintenance (work) required is silly. It's as if you have no programming experience at all. --Nathan J. Yoder 00:59, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, it seems that you're insistent on excluding criticism on the basis of whether or not you personally think it's valid. That's not how Wikipedia works. If something is a common criticism of him, it should be included. This isn't a pulpit for you to espouse your pro-RMS POV. If, for example, it is the popular view that he's stubborn and unwilling to concede, that must be included, regardless of how true you think it is. This whole thing is a whitewash on your part. --Nathan J. Yoder 20:17, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
If you're claim is just that RMS is stubborn, you'll have a hard time finding someone to argue with you.
But, if you're claiming that RMS being stubborn harms GNU projects, then you'll have to back up your claim. Keep in mind that the goal of GNU projects is not popularity, it's to give people freedom, and protect that freedom. --Gronky 13:11, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I've already backed them up. I've already given specific areas in which his stubbornness has inhibited the development of specific projects. You're just being disingenuous now. I don't care whether or not the purpose of GNU projects is to maintain popularity, that's a complete non-issue when it comes to including criticisms. Your constant bombardment of this talk page with red herrings is getting irritating. The goal of this talk page isn't to argue over whether or not you think the criticisms are meritorious, just whether or not they are popular. And as I've already clearly demonstrated they ARE specific (to the point) and if necessary I or someone else can dig through newsgroups and mailing lists to show those specific criticisms are also popular in addition to being specific.
From this point on if you say anything about "the goal to preserve freedom", I'll just ignore it, as that's a moot point (the criticisms disagree on that premise obviously--Wikipedia does not take an ideological position on the "goal to preserve freedom" despite what you may think) and is just a diversionary tactic to avoid inserting criticism (whitewash) the article. There are criticisms, that you disagree is not reason to exclude them and ideological arguments are NOT valid rebuttals on Wikipedia (and are in, fact, very POV) as means to exclude criticism. There are numerous articles on Wikipedia that list criticism on them based on many different, conflicting ideologies and it has never once been the policy to deny criticism simply on the basis that there are conflicting ideologies. Even the craziest religious views on Wikipedia get represented as-is, regardless of how valid they are. This is matter of de facto and de jure standard Wikipedia practice, please do not bother to argue further with me about this, it is a waste of time. --Nathan J. Yoder 17:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
You've backed up nothing, shouted "POV" a load of times, insulted people (or maybe just me), wrongly claimed that I've tried to avoid criticism of RMS on the page (when I actually said it should be woven into the other sections), and (IMO) drawn any dialogue in never-ending directions. I still don't know what edit you're trying to justify!
Try editing the article. (and expect peer review) --Gronky 21:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm not justifying any particular edit in this part of the discussion. I'm trying to get you to understand that whether or not YOU PERSONALLY think a criticism is valid is not the criteria for inclusion/exclusion within a Wikipedia article. Whether or not the criticism agrees with RMS' personal ideology/philosophy is not grounds for excluding a criticism. It just needs to be a) something popular, b) something specific, c) address him as directly as possible, and d) something professional/not childish (e.g. "he's a Nazi"). For example, regardless of how great one might think the "GNU/Linux" term is, the usage of this term could even end world hunger, but one can't deny that RMS has received a lot of specific criticism regarding his endorsement of it, which makes it worthy of inclusion.
I have no interest in touching 'criticisms' sections, as I generally don't make edits to controversial parts of articles, so I use the talk page to make arguments for future editors to refer to save them the time of having to spell out existing Wikipedia standards and practices. --Nathan J. Yoder 22:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Consider your tutorial complete. --Gronky 23:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Gronky - Drowning in his own self-aggrandizement as RMS gleefully observes the minions doing his bidding.


Specific Cleanup Tasks

Here is a partial list of problems I see with the article right now. I'm going to work on these if I find the time, and will mark them as struck through when I think they are "done enough". Others should feel free to try to tackle them before I do, and strike them through. (And of course, since this is Wikipedia, if you think my definition of "done enough" is too lax, feel free to keep working on them or any other part of the article! These are just my suggestions).

  • "Stallman enabled others to write free software independent of the GNU project. In 1991, one such independent project produced the Linux kernel" - I find it hard to believe that this is a fair description: the Linux kernel' was certainly more "enabled" by Andrew Tannenbaum's MINIX class. Do we have a source for this statement? (Note that the following sentences, indicating that GNU did enable Linux to be used as part of a complete operating system, are certainly accurate, and Linus has said as much.)
  • "Stallman is prone to being something of a monologist. He does not take kindly to criticism or interruption.". While I certainly believe this and know it personally, we should add a citation to someone else saying this. Wikipedia is not a place for us to provide our own personal opinions.
  • "Support for this term was no doubt bolstered by some influential figures' dislike of the moral philosophy of the free software movement, which came from Stallman." If it was "no doubt" bolstered by "some influential figures' dislike" then it should "no doubt" be easy to find a citation to a credible source saying this. Otherwise, this is original research.

Comments, thoughts, additions? --Nandesuka 14:14, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

On #1, Stallman wrote and published GCC, GDB, Emacs and other software development tools. This enabled others by providing the tools necessary. Linus, one example, used GCC. This is well known. On #2 I was thinking of deleting that too. It could be better said. No opinion on #3. --Gronky 14:44, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
That statement is still wrong. One can compile free software with non-free compilers, in fact, I've done that many times. Not just that, but the tool he's most famous for, gcc, just allows you to compile the software, not write it. There's nothing to suggest Linus used Emacs or gdb. Do you know that Linus didn't have access to other compilers and couldn't have done this otherwise? --Nathan J. Yoder 06:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Decline of hacker culture and "hacker" POV usage

The header "decline of hacker culture" is POV, as it suggests there is this singular hacker culture consisting of just those people that ceased to exist then. I'm not sure how to properly phrase the change though, it should be something in terms of his prior relationship with them, while avoiding the term "hacker."

I've discussed this in the Hacker talk page as well, classification of people as a hacker (because it's no different, POV-wise, from saying "very skilled programmer"), as a matter-of-factly by Wikipedia, is also POV and this seems to be a problem with a lot of articles. I'll elaborate on an earlier discussion I started on the Hacker talk page sometime later (not now though because I'm feeling lazy). --Nathan J. Yoder 05:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how "MIT hacker culture" is much better than "the hacker culture." MIT ceased having a hacker culture in 1983? I'm sure the MIT students of today would disagree. It seems more like, Stallman's relationships with his MIT friends broke off, not that this had anything to do with a "hacker culture" (which in itself is a subjective qualification of a group anyway).
Also, the section as a whole is written in a way that is very unclear if you're not already familiar with the history. It also appears that the "single-handedly" part isn't correct about Emacs (see Gosling Emacs and Emacs). --Nathan J. Yoder 08:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The article doesn't say that MIT's hacker culture ceased, it says it declined. Most of the hackers were hired away, and hackable software (free software) was replaced by unhackable software, so this is justified. Also, the "single-handedly" bit is not about Emacs, it's about Symbolics. --Gronky 12:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
So it declined and stayed that way? That still doesn't make sense. It seems you're trying to sensationalize what was a temporary slump in the MIT AI Lab's history, one based on one sided accounts which don't even cover what the many other MIT students, not in the AI Lab, were doing at the time. And according to the current article, he replaced their works eventually, so if you're going based on the status of the software's "freeness" (rather than the interpersonal relations), it wouldn't be a decline, it'd be an upswing. You either need to be really, really specific with the already POV term "hacker" or just drop it completely and describe it strictly terms of RMS' relation to them. The symbolics work he "replaced" involves his work with Emacs, which replaced symbolics' zmacs. --Nathan J. Yoder 18:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
First you ask "MIT ceased having a hacker culture in 1983?", I tell you that I didn't say that, then you ask "So it declined and stayed that way?", and I have to tell you that I didn't say that either. I'm not sure we can have a productive discussion on such foundations. --Gronky 00:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
But that's exactly what the article says, as per your modification. You don't say an entire culture declined to describe a temporary slump in a single lab, that's very misleading, to say the least. You also don't describe the entire university for what applies to only a specific part of it. It's also a subjective, POV description ("hacker culture"), one which you've already contradicted yourself with since RMS IMPROVED the 'hackability' of the software by the end of that period (that's "hackability" by your own definition). If one wants to be NPOV, one would give a description stating something (in more concise terms) in terms of RMS' declining relationship with his MIT AI lab colleagues.
Also, I take it you no longer have an objection to RMS not single-handedly duplicating the Symbolics work (which included Emacs as I mentioned)? --Nathan J. Yoder 12:14, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
The description that you call POV was not written by me. Claims about RMS single-handedly duplicating stuff were not written by me. The title of the "Decline..." section was not written by me (I only added one word). You are calling me to account for other people's edits, and I am simply not accountable for them. I am accountable for my edits. Only. --Gronky 18:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
That's fine, but doesn't really address any of what I said. I could care less WHO made the edits. You were arguing against my criticism of the current state of the article, which was the issue. So do you have an objection to changing the title to something phrased more in terms of the way I described? Do you have an objection to removing 'single-handedly'? --Nathan J. Yoder 22:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Do I have an objection to changing the title to something phrased more in terms of the way you described? I can't answer that. I can't predict what wording you would use/suggest. Do I have an objection to removing 'single-handedly'? It's not a big deal to me, but it seems to be backed up by this: [9] (About halfway down, read the paragraph staring "It also guaranteed"). --Gronky 00:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
I already explained it, but you ignored it for some reason to complain about you not making certain edits. It would be in term of his declining /relationship/ with his /MIT AI lab colleagues/, not in terms of "hacker culture." The source you quote is ridiculously biased and a non-credible source. It appears you also ignored my explanation that part of his duplication efforts included duplication of Zmacs (part of Symbolics' Genera) by creating Emacs, which he didn't create from scratch. Please don't make me become a broken record. --Nathan J. Yoder 00:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


Free software

I think the Free software section should be altered to reflect the fact that the English language has the unambiguous word "freedom" to reflect Stallmam's intended meaning and the ambiguity problem stems from his use of the word "free" rather than "freedom" and NOT a limitation of the English language as is the current mythology. Libre software is freedom software. Further, open software HAS A DIFFERENT DEFINITION. It is NOT an alternative way to say freedom software. --WAS 4.250 13:42, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Open Source Initiative's definition of open source software is derived from FSF's definition of free software - Bruce Perens reworded FSF's free software definition to make the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and Open Source Initiative used that definition with the words "free software" replaced by "open source software". For this reason (and more importantly anyway) the two definitions are practically identical. By "practically" I mean "in practice; in the real world". I justify this because the vast majority of software that is one, is also the other. The sliver of software that is one but not the other is small and contains little or nothing that is widely used. The English spoken in Ireland, and the English spoken in England is different - if one wants to split hairs - but they're practically identical. --Gronky 01:01, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I went off to prove the importance of the difference and proved to myself you were right. So I crossed out that part of the above. Thanks for setting me right. --WAS 4.250 01:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
So what's the source for this thing about most other languages not having this problem? See Wikipedia:Cite your sources. --Nathan J. Yoder 17:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't have a source to cite for that information. It comes from me being familiar with a number of languages (Germanic, Romance, Indian, Chinese, and Austronesian). The guide you link to says "if you add information to an article which you gleaned from a specific external source, please cite where you got your information." Since my information didn't come from a specific external source, it seems I'm not required to cite anything. If I could cite a source, that would be great. Maybe this [10] is a useful document because it shows that in a very varied set of languages, there are unambiguous terms for free-as-in-freedom. Also, after living in the free software community for some 7 years, I have yet to hear others complaining about the "freedom/cost" confusion in other languages - the absence of a problem, after 7 years, suggests there is no problem, or the problem is very isolated. If anything, "most" is probably an understatement. --Gronky 19:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
No, you're misunderstanding the policy. It says if you acquired it from a specific source, you must cite it, not that if you didn't acquire it from a specific source, you don't have to cite it. One doesn't logically follow from the other (P -> Q doesn't imply ~P -> ~Q). Read a few lines down: "If you are writing from your own knowledge, then you should know enough to identify good references that the reader can consult on the subject—you will not be around forever to answer questions." Anecdotal evidence is not enough.
The romance languages appear to use grat* (gratuit) and libr* (libre) (http://www.wordreference.com/) as a seperate distinction, for a start. Someone needs to compile an actual list. --Nathan J. Yoder 22:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I edited the section as I had suggested. The issue of english versus foreign languages goes away. On the other hand the question of why don't people just say "freedom software" cries out to be adressed. I don't have a clue to the answer to that, so I don't address the issue. --WAS 4.250 02:50, 13 October 2005 (UTC)


Trustworthy Computing

I'm editing the part that references Trustworthy Computing. Trusted Computing is not the same as Trustworthy Computing. The first is a "family of specifications from the TCPA, which extend the behavior of a personal computer or server to offer particular cryptographic security services", while the latter is a Microsoft marketing campaign that was a response to the security problems within windows. Microsoft is involved with Trusted Computing, but it seems as if they refer to it as NGSCB. Though Trustworth Computing is mostly marketing hype, from an inside perspective, it's more oriented towards eliminating buffer overflows, ensuring privacy of data, etc. --Timbatron 05:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


Vandalism

I've reported this to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress for all the 71.141.* ip addresses under the 'moderate' section. --Nathan J. Yoder 03:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Great. Thank you. --Maru (talk) 03:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


Symbolics

The article says, "As no agreement could be reached, most of the remaining lab hackers founded Symbolics." Then the very next sentence reads, "Symbolics recruited most of the remaining hackers — most notably Bill Gosper — and they left the AI lab." So, did most of the remaining hackers found Symbolics, or were they recruited by Symbolics? HistoryBA 01:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Both. Noftsker had an idea for Symbolics, and they left the Lab for it- incidentally becoming the founders/first employees. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


Killjoy

Not to be a killjoy but the guideline "Make sure, however, that it is still clear what the link refers to without having to follow the link" from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) clearly indicates the format of the Java joke is unencyclopedic. It's a good joke, but this is an encyclopedia. WAS 4.250 07:48, 23 October 2005 (UTC)


Page protection

Can someone unlock this page? --Jacoplane 21:12, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Done. I think it's been long enough. --Maru (talk) Contribs 22:02, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


Weak

This biography is generally very weak. For one, it does not introduce Stallman as a controversial figure who's actions were questionable. I would put a POV flag on it, but I fear that would set off some sort of violent, bloody conflict. I don't know enough about Stallman to revise it, but conflict in the AI Lab is much more interesting the Decline of MIT's Hacker Culture makes it. As an example, http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ has many interesting insights that could be responsibly incorporated. For the second result on Google for "stallman", this is a very poor introduction to the character. In fact, almost every article about Stallman on the Internet in a better introduction to him than this article. --149.169.20.229 05:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"renowned hacker" vs "notable programmer"

An anon changed the former to the latter in the lead. I can't help but think that if rms is not a hacker, then who is? On the other hand, I can't disagree with the latter. Any comments/opinions? --Stevage 11:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd say "programmer" is more appropriate than "hacker". He most certainly is a hacker's hacker, and it should be in the article, but, while considering what should go in the intro, I think something to keep in mind is that his being a programmer is better known than his being a hacker. I find the harder decision to be "renowned" vs. "notable". After a while I decided the latter, but maybe even better would be "acclaimed"? Just my 2c. --Gronky 15:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
He wrote Emacs. I'd go with "acclaimed" if we can find a sufficiently gushy article to reference. --Stevage 23:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
As well as Emacs, he wrote gcc, gdb, and others, and if you look at the Recognition section of the article you'll find at least 5 prestigious awards which are for his software development. (entries 1, 2, 5, 7, and 8. Maybe more than 5, I don't know what the honorary doctorates are for.) So he's not just notable, he has been noted. "Renowned" is not great since he is not renowned by the general public. "Acclaimed" is a good fit because he has been acclaimed by the respected organizations listed in the Recognition section. I wasn't too happy with "acclaimed" at first, and I was going to then suggest "noteworthy", but after thinking about it, "acclaimed" is quite apt, and "noteworthy" has the same flaw as "notable". So, in light of new evidence: how about "acclaimed"? --Gronky 23:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd support that. --Maru (talk) Contribs 00:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Who has met him?

I don't claim to know RMS at all. I just met him today as he was giving a speech on the Free Software Movement at WPI, where I am currently going to school. He doesn't seem to be as abrasive as I gather from a lot of the criticisms against him, and is actually pretty funny. So, I ask of you: do any of you people know him in person? Tell me about your experiences. I'm curious. EDIT: forgot to sign. --130.215.171.13 18:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I've met him at conferences and talks and conversed with him over email. He's an extremely unique and intriguing character who's always seemed to me to be gracious. He has a strong personality but his most heated comments are otherwise both polite and relevant. There's a phrase used on the left, "The personal is political", that I think arose from second-wave feminism but is now used in a variety of contexts. I think of this recent adage when I hear from Richard's critics. They often make seemingly apolitical criticisms of his personality or character, but if you look closer, the deeper problem is often rooted in their political--or as Richard would say, "philosophical" or "moral"--differences. If you're familiar with his biography, you know he's a busy individual. This can make working with him trying because he can be short with you and have little patience for those who disagree. In a situation involving some of these critics, RMS is quoted, "We want to cooperate, but we are not doormats." --216.114.169.154 21:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Prince Kropotkin of Software Chapter 3 of the open ebook Portraits of Open Source Pioneers

Why is this link continuously deleted? Of all the external links to there are none that are critical of him right now. The person is reputable, there are links to Nikolai Bezroukov's site in The Cathedral and the Bazaar, Eric S. Raymond, Open source, Alan Cox, GNU General Public License, Linux kernel, John Socha, and other articles. The site is informative and well researched and includes much information on open source and non open source software. Clearly the site is not a troll as I'm sure some of you will call it, it just presents an alternative view of the open source movement. Just because you don't agree with him or think he is too critical of RMS doesn't mean you can delete the link. A link critical of him deserves to be included just as much as a link singing his praises. GNUwatch 18:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, This has already been rejected on 02:57, 21 December 2005 on the basis of it not being a reputable or widely known source and authored by a person who's only reputation is perhaps as a troll.[11] --Ashawley 19:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Did you not read what I wrote? It is referenced in many places on wikipedia (as can be seen in my original post). It is reputalbe, just because you haven't heard of it doesn't make it not reputable. It is not shocking that Eric S. Raymond is going to disagree with a book that is critical of him. Did you expect him to write a response saying that Bezroukov got it all right? You can't just label everything you disagree with as a troll, people can have different opinions you know. GNUwatch 19:20, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, in fact there is a "Criticisms" section on the page. I have not changed my opinion because these sort of links appear on other Wikipedia articles. --Ashawley 23:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, That page is not deleted because it contains criticism, it is deleted because it contains crap. That page simply lumps together the text from numerous third-party webpages and slashdot comments and the author has added his own wildly speculative and usually incorrect interpretations. Gronky 12:06, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Trivia: An eyesore

The "trivia" section of this article is an eyesore of a laundry list. Any volunteers to start trimming away the cruft? Nandesuka 19:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up some of it, however the grounds for removing some items from the trivia section was that was that they were insufficiently trivial. So maybe they need mention elsewhere. Phr 04:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The trivia section used to be in rough shape and was, up until now, much better. I'm archiving the old section here. I think people are letting themselves get to dstracted from a fun and legitimate section of the article.

Old Trivia (January 29, 2006)

  • An aficionado of a wide range of music from Conlon Nancarrow to folk, Stallman is the author of the filky Free Software Song. He has performed renaissance music and Balinese gamelan music, as well as international folk dance. He plays the recorder.
  • Stallman is a science fiction fan and occasionally goes to conventions.
  • Stallman gave POSIX its name.
  • In 1977, Stallman published an AI truth maintenance system called dependency-directed backtracking. The paper was co-authored by Gerald Jay Sussman. He jokes that "This is how the computer can avoid exploding when you ask it a self-contradictory question." [12]
  • When asked who his influences are, he has remarked that he admires Martin Luther King Jr., Nelson Mandela, Aung San Suu Kyi, Ralph Nader, and Dennis Kucinich. He has also commented: "I admire Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill, even though I criticize some of the things that they did."
  • Stallman has never learned Java. He has done a little bit of programming on Java, but he used the C and Lisp programming languages.
  • Stallman did not participate in the counterculture of the 60s, but found its rejection of wealth as the main goal of life inspiring.
  • Stallman initially named the GNU HURD kernel "Alix" after his then-girlfriend, who managed a Unix computer facility and had told her friends "They ought to name a kernel after me."
  • Stallman speaks fluent English and French, moderately fluent Spanish, and flawed Indonesian. He has studied Latin, Chinese, Hungarian, and Navajo, but did not reach the point of being able to speak them. He feels he has mastered a language when he can make puns in it. [13]
  • In 2004, having been asked, he endorsed Hugo Chavez, recommending people to vote No in the Venezuelan recall referendum, 2004
  • The movie documentary Revolution OS features interviews with Stallman.
  • He has been the subject, or some would say the instigator, of a number of widely-publicized flamewars. Although occasionally for technical reasons (Tcl vs. Scheme), most of these flamewars have revolved around the use of non-free software.
  • Stallman founded the League for Programming Freedom in 1989 to fight software patents and interface copyright. The League never gained the momentum Stallman hoped for, and has become dormant.
  • In 1999, Stallman called for development of a free on-line encyclopedia through the means of inviting the public to contribute articles. See GNUPedia. [14]
  • Stallman cannot swim.
  • Stallman is on the Advisory Council of teleSUR, a Latin American TV station
  • Linus Torvalds said: “Think of Richard Stallman as the great philosopher and think of me as the engineer.” [15]
  • Stallman notably produced the Emacs editor; its popularity rivaled that of another editor vi, spawning the editor wars; Stallman's humourous take on this was to saint himself "St. Ignucius" / "St. IGNUcius" (of the Church of Emacs). [16] [17]
  • For years, Stallman's account on the Free Software Foundation computer systems had an empty password, as Stallman believed in as few barriers as possible.[18] This allowed anyone to use Stallman's account for any purpose. With the rise in popularity of the Internet in the early 1990s, increasing vandalism and hacking attempts from FSF systems forced a secret password to be used.
  • In his Personal Ad [19] he declares himself an atheist, reputedly intelligent, with unusual interests in politics, science, music and dance.
  • His initials, RMS, are also the initials of Microsoft's Rights Management Services, the DRM component of Windows Server 2003 and Windows Vista.

GNU manifesto

I think the GNU Manifesto was first published in 1983 or 1984 (need a cite). The 1985 publication mentioned was the printed version in Dr Dobbs. See also Talk:GNU Manifesto. Phr 08:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

An apology

I'd like to apologise for some of my past comments on this page, which were at times provocative and juvenile. Such material was both unbecoming of me and at odds with the stated intention of this site. Petrus4 23:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Lots of these items are worthless, and many of them belong in the copy of the article... at the moment it reads like a lazy schoolboy essay written in bullet-point form.

Examples:

  • "Stallman did not participate in the counterculture of the 60s, but found its rejection of wealth as the main goal of life inspiring." -- Hardly trivia since it describes his main motivations. It needs to be sourced and written into the article copy, or removed.
  • "POSIX" -- again, hardly trivia. It needs to be sourced and included in the article copy or removed.
  • "He cannot swim" -- big deal. This is relevant how?
  • "He can't program in Java" -- relevant how? He has talked about "The Java Trap" in the past. If the article had part discussing his objections to Java, it might be relevant there. As it is, it's just a rather pointless factoid.
  • "Right Management System" -- pointless bit of cruft, unless Microsoft chose the name specifically to irk him, and I don't think they did.
  • "Linus Torvalds said: 'Think of Richard Stallman as the great philosopher and think of me as the engineer' -- interesting, but not for a trivia section. More appropriate if written into the article section discussing his relationship with Linux. -Motor (talk) 18:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Well said. Most of these points -- Java, POSIX, Linus, philosophy -- need to be moved and/or expanded on, not deleted. Until they are expanded on, they should stay, as a form of "stub". --GRuban 20:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I've removed a couple of the most obviously poor entries (I'm waving on the SF entry... it should probably go too, unless it is a major influence on him).. I added the fact template to others -- without sources for these, they should be removed. Additionally, as I said above, once these items are sourced many of them should be written into the article rather than left in a shoddy bullet-point form. -Motor (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
All of those, except the Java and influences ones, cna be sourced to at least Free as in Freedom. --maru (talk) contribs 23:06, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

People shouldn't complain so much about the Trivia section. The article has a bibliography of which people should be familiar before questioning the article's accuracy, and it has been edited (and verified) by the article's subject, so let's not get too obsessed with the this section. Suprisingly, the biographical section of the article had most of the inaccuracies fixed directly by RMS, and not so much the trivia section.--71.241.138.70 16:21, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

"People shouldn't complain so much about the Trivia section." -- the Trivia section is an eye-sore on this article. "Suprisingly, the biographical section of the article had most of the inaccuracies fixed directly by RMS, and not so much the trivia section" -- What does this have to do with requesting cites for the facts in the trivia section, and removing obviously irrelevant nonsense to tighten up a poorly-structured article? Not to mention requesting that many of trivia section entries are not trivia at all, but substantive claims that should be written into the article rather than left as bullet-points. It's not a matter of accuracy, so much as tidying up a bad article and wanting the information in it verified to a higher standard. That's why I've re-reverted you... anon IP editor. BTW: by adding the fact template I'm requesting more than just "it came from this book"... preferably a page number so it can be easily verified by others... there are too many people adding crap to this article to trust just one person, especially if they happen to be an anon-IP editor. -Motor (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, the Java entry can be considered confirmed by Stallman- I think he may even have been the one who added it in. Of course, then there is concern about verifiability... --maru (talk) contribs 18:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted the Java entry (again), because this is an encyclopedia. If RMS, or any other editor, wants to make clever puns, I suggest they start a weblog, not use Wikipedia for non-encyclopedic content. Nandesuka 00:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The trivia section is definitely not an eyesore. The article is probably one of the higher quality biographical articles on the site. Although silly, the trivia section is fine and people have been distracted by it (or instead the criticism section) while the main biographical material has not been verified by the same standard (proof by RMS's fixes). These pleas to make the article more "encyclopedic" fall flat when paper encyclopedias are not required to have footnotes and don't have trivia sections. If having trivia sections doesn't prescribe to your sensibilities, then I'm sorry to hear that. But don't use fact checking to enforce your motives. Further, attempting to find a compromise by merging trivia items into the main article will likely result in an article with poor style. People familiar with Stallman (or Stallman himself) have and will continue to speak up when inaccuracies exist. This current exercise is futile and wasteful. You win the edit war; I'll just surrender. --65.19.87.53 06:19, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Core speech

"explainging the proposed changes became a core speech." -- typo aside, 'core speech' sounds like a bit of opaque management-speak. If by "core", you mean that explaining the changes to the GPL is one of the most important parts of his agenda when speaking, then it needs to be stated clearly and in plain English. - Motor (talk) 00:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If you can smooth the wording, please do. My meaning is that before 2006, he had 3 speeches (each with a seperate topic) that he gave over and over again. Now, he has a 4th speech, and during 2006 he will give it over and over again. Gronky 01:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

reverts in Criticism

Hi, 64.222.109.153 and 71.241.136.108 (are you one person or two?) Thanks for helping out; I see you think the number of sources on the Emacs/XEmacs split here should be limited and the others moved to XEmacs.

I don't much mind where that material goes (except that XEmacs is a little messy at present.) But I do ask you to be more careful in your reverts. Each of you now (or you, twice, as the case may be) has, while cutting down the discussion of the Emacs conflict, reverted edits I made that clarified text, labeled links, and fixed typos. As you might imagine, I find this a little frustrating.

After the first instance, I made a comment at User_talk:64.222.109.153, but in hindsight I suppose that wasn't the right place. =) I am a little new around here.

Thanks,

Greg Price 08:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


I restored again the edits unrelated to XEmacs. Please don't revert them (unless you have a reason, in which case please give it here.)

I made a new rewrite of the XEmacs text, too, for two reasons:

  • Stallman wasn't "at the center" of the split; necessarily it had two ends, and he was just one of them.
  • The link to JWZ's email archive should be labeled.

If you think the resulting text is too long, please go ahead and tighten it. But please don't just revert it without discussing it here.

Thanks,

Greg Price 08:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Your initial rewrite was good, except for the formatting, and 71.241.136.108 should not have deleted it. I've restored the Xemacs discussion that lists Ben Wing's, Zawinski's, etc. criticisms separately. I think devoting a few sentences to the topic is not excessive. Nandesuka 12:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry about ignoring Gnp's grammar fixes. I thought I had moved things pretty close to as-is to XEmacs, and reverted sentences back to a form agreeable for some time (In Wikipedia time at least). The material belongs at XEmacs not just because it duplicates material, but its more notable at the XEmacs article. The poor quality of the XEmacs article is only reason to improve it, not to avoid putting your contributions there.

Links that serve as references don' always have link text. I'd think it could result in poorly chosen link names and make external links appear like Wikipedia entries. There could be a Wikipediai guideline on this, but it contradicts the style in this article. --71.241.136.108 16:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/i/c/Talk%7ERichard_Stallman_Archive_1_0399.html"