Daniel Lyons on Richard Stallman
p2pnet.net News:- Linux Tech Daily has lit into Forbes over an article by Daniel Lyons which kicks off with, “Software radical Richard Stallman helped build the Linux revolution. Now he threatens to tear it apart.”
The story is replete with observations such as, “Now Stallman is waging a new crusade that could end up toppling the revolution he helped create. He aims to impose new restrictions on IBM and any other tech firm that distributes software using even a single line of Linux code. They would be forbidden from using Linux software to block users from infringing on copyright and intellectual-property rights (”digital rights management”); and they would be barred from suing over alleged patent infringements related to Linux.”
And
“Stallman hopes to use that licensing power to slap the new restraints on the big tech vendors he so reviles. At worst it could split the Linux movement in two – one set of suppliers and customers deploying an older Linux version under the easier rules and a second world using a newer version governed by the new restrictions. That would threaten billions of dollars in Linux investment by customers and vendors alike.”
And
“A cantankerous and finger-wagging freewheeler, Stallman won’t comment on any of this because he was upset by a previous story written by this writer. But his brazen gambit already is roiling the hacker world. His putsch ‘has the potential to inflict massive collateral damage upon our entire ecosystem and jeopardize the very utility and survival of open source,”‘ says a paper published in September by key Linux developers, who ‘implore’ Stallman to back down. ‘This is not an exaggeration,’ says James Bottomley, the paper’s chief author. ‘There is significant danger to going down this path.’ (Stallman’s camp claims Bottomley’s paper contains ‘inaccurate information’.)”
And so on, and it concludes with:
“The biggest beneficiaries of Stallman’s suicide-bomber move could be other companies Stallman detests: the proprietary old guard–Microsoft, which pitches its Windows operating system as “safer” than Linux, and Sun, which lost customers to Linux but now hopes to lure them back to an open-source version of its Solaris system, which doesn’t use the GPL.
“And a big loser, eventually, could be Stallman himself. If he relents now, he likely would be branded a sellout by his hard-core followers, who might abandon him. If he stands his ground, customers and tech firms may suffer for a few years but ultimately could find a way to work around him. Either way, Stallman risks becoming irrelevant, a strange footnote in the history of computing: a radical hacker who went on a kamikaze mission against his own program and went down in flames, albeit after causing great turmoil for the people around him.
“Richard Stallman’s kamikaze attack on Linux could hurt tech companies that have built thriving businesses on top of this free program. These are the top targets.”
However, “Forbes magazine is a joke” and Lyons’ article, ” goes on a personal attack against Richard Stallman and a fear mongering campaign against GPLv3 and its effect on Linux,” declares Linux Tech Daily. “They should be embarrassed to print something like this.”
The Linux Tech Daily goes on to quote Lyons lines such as:
a lesser-known programmer – infamously more obstinate and far more eccentric than Torvalds – wields a startling amount of control as this revolution`s resident enforcer
He and a band of anarchist acolytes long have waged war on the commercial software industry
in some ways he is downright bizarre. He is corpulent and slovenly, with long, scraggly hair, strands of which he has been known to pluck out and toss into a bowl of soup he is eating.
Stallman engages in what he calls ‘rhinophytophilia’ – ‘nasal sex’ (also his term) with flowers
Stallman labors mightily to control how others think, speak and act, arguing, in Orwellian doublespeak, that his rules are necessary for people to be free.
Most major tech vendors declined comment rather than risk tangling with Stallman`s enforcers, such as his sidekick and attorney, Columbia Law School professor Eben Moglen
And so on.
But, “Would Forbes refer to others in this way?” – asks Linux Tech Daily. “Would they call Steve Ballmer a bald headed, monkey dancing chair tosser? Would they call our president an inappropriate back-rub giving, hillbilly talking chimp? They think it is acceptable to trash rms and it shows they have an agenda. They are trying to create the famous Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt (FUD) about Linux.”
And so on.
But, “What really bothers me about this article is that if someone uninformed about Linux (someone like your boss or parent that you have been trying to persuade to try it out) reads this, it only reinforces their fears,” says the post, adding:
“Why try Linux when Forbes is saying that in the near future this crazy hair eating Stallman and his lunatic anarchists will be at your door? He strikes fear into the heart of IBM according to the article. If IBM is terrified of him, so scared they have invested billions into Linux, then why shouldn`t you be?
“Because the article is complete and utter bullshit, that is why.”
Meanwhile, “Is Daniel Lyons a loser?” – wondered Jem Matzan, last year, in The Jem Report.
“You’ve probably seen his name mentioned on Slashdot and Groklaw, and if you regularly read Linux-related news, you’ve probably read some of his articles and shook your head in disbelief,” says the story. “Forbes writer and fiction author Daniel Lyons’ articles regularly target Linux, free software, and companies that support Linux. So who is Daniel Lyons, and what is the origin of his anti-Linux agenda? I recently tried to find out.”
But, no banana.
“After emailing him my list of questions for the third time, Lyons sent a reply message saying that he was unable to grant interview requests without the approval of someone else in the Forbes hierarchy,” says Jem. “I did manage to contact someone else at Forbes, and finally got my interview questions in. That’s when Daniel Lyons told me that he didn’t want to participate in the article.”
And finally, under Dulling the predator’s fangs, “Daniel Lyons will no doubt continue to negatively spin all things Linux-related,” declares Jem, but, “in giving me the runaround, he has inadvertently given us all an excellent strategy for reducing his effectiveness: refusing to participate in interviews. If Lyons contacts you for an interview, send him a link to this article. Or for fun, you might give him the runaround first – route him to your PR department.”
Stay tuned.
Also See:
Linux Tech Daily – EFF Releases Bloggers’ Guide for Investigating Government Agencies, October 26, 2006
Forbes – Toppling Linux, October 30, 2006
The Jem Report – Is Daniel Lyons a loser?, July 13, 2005
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
October 26th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
It’s already been proven that it is a very real possibility of the attempted theft of linux code to provide “protection schemes” to the music cartels. The First4Internet that provided Sony with the rootkit scheme stole linux code to make a player as the only approved one the Sony disc would recognise as a player. Had it went unchallenged and unnoticed, it would have spread cartel wide. First4Internet was already bragging on their website of basically having all the major cartel members as customers. I would assume it was only because Sony got it’s hand slapped that the other members of the cartels didn’t go ahead with their plans and instead dropped it like a hot potato.
Naturally those with vested interests don’t want to see the possibility of their neat little schemes being turned to naught. So exactly why all the FUD? I would suggest that there are some hidden motivations that are bringing forth the vague slander.
October 28th, 2006 at 2:50 am
“…even a single line of Linux code.”
Surely a single line of code means nothing out of context. Imagine what would happen if you could copyright “return false;”!