Well, anyone can add anything to an image, including "Hardy and Laurel". (The official site has http://www.slackware.org/grfx/shared...bsite_logo.png ftr)

"Why not Hardy and Laurel?"
Not to offend, but Answering a question with a question is avoidance.

This is my final post to this topic to avoid being baited.

Well personally I have nothing against RMS, in fact I enjoy listening to his speeches, mostly so I can laugh as he inevitable bash the **** out of M$. But, many of his ideas are extremist views, even more so than my views. And, of course, people are going to get into heated arguments over this stuff. I also try hard not to make personal attacks, we're attacking ideas not people ... lets keep it that way.

Extremist? Really. What are you a republican? Richard Stallman's view is that anyone should be free to the fullest extent to use, modify, and distribute the software. That's all, the basic freedoms don't make him an extremist.

Linus on the other hand, he's view is to stay away from the politics, and the freedom doesn't matter as long as the software works, use what works, that's why we have binary blobs in the current Linux Kernel, that's why I can't fix any part of that code in my copy of the Linux Kernel.

Why? Because Linux is a basic working Monolithic kernel?

"When I do this, some people think that it's because I want my ego to be fed, right? Of course, I'm not asking you to call it `Stallmanix`!" -Richard Stallman, as an answer given in a question-and-answer session after Free software: Freedom and cooperation.

But Linus has made you call it Linux, i.e. Linus+Unix.

You need to learn the definition of the word "hypocrite."

Richard Stallman wants software to be free, that's why -- contrary to what you said about license restrictions -- the GPL ensures inalienable rights to your freedom to use, copy, modify, and distribute the software. When a lot of OSI licenses restrict some of your freedoms.

Linus is more of an hypocrite, he licenses Linux under the GPL, but won't go to GPL version 3.

That's not the part that makes him an extremist, it's his political views that him an extremist. I agree with everything that RMS says with respect to FLOSS, but not with everything he says about other things, which he tends to infuse into his speeches.

And no, I'm not a "republican" ... not even such such a thing exists. If you were to ask me my political affiliation I would say either "none" or "anarchist". Also, I never said there was anything wrong with being an extremist.

Oh, and in conflicts between Linus and RMS, Linus is usually right. As for the GPL3, I much prefer the GPL2, mostly because of the grandfather clause in the GPL3 ... that one was highly disputed and nobody did anything about it, they just left it in there. Until they take it out, I'm against the GPL3.

Then perhaps you should try using GNUs Mach OS with the Hurd kernel.

There's a reason why the GNU Project was scarcely heard of before Linux, even after seven years of developing software and preaching politics. Furthermore, Sir Linus Torvalds wanted to name his OS "Freax".

Quotation please. I find myself agreeing with Richard Stallman on all of he political views, both FOSS, and "real-world," but I don't recall any time when he "infuse[ed]" some unrelated political view of his in to a speech, they are always as examples.

Anarchy, eh? Isn't that a little extremist of you? And, no, "republicans" exist, you can't just say they don't.

Grandfather clause? Again, point me to where in the GPL version 3 something like this is implemented. Also I think a grandfather clause is necessary to ensure the freedom of the software users.

Actually, that's "GNU's Mach microkernel with the Hurd kernel."
Both GNU Mach and GNU Hurd are Kernels, like Linux is a Kernel.

Yeah, and the reason is that the GNU Project was brand new at the time, just like the Linux Kernel was. GNU/Linux popularized when the operating system could be used, when the GNU operating system could be used.

Yeah, but it ended up being called "Linux" because Linus wasn't good enough at organizing, documenting, and speaking about his Kernel, or his "operating system" as he calls it.

He could/should have asked for it to be incorporated in to the GNU Project. GNU would have considered it. http://www.gnu.org/gnu/gnu-linux-faq.html#linuxgnu

My mistake. But that just means they'd already failed twice.

Keep your facts straight- The GNU Project was not brand new in 1992, it was founded in 1983. Their 'system' was popularized in 1992 when it was made useful with Linux.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Project

If Linus hadn't written Linux, we'd still be stuck with Windows, Mac, or Unix, and GNU will still be unheard of.

And that's just an unfounded opinion, unless you can show proof otherwise.

First see section 11 on Patents:
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html

That is the grandfather clause ... it was highly disputed when the GPLv3 was in preliminary stages of being completed. That is a ridiculous clause, just waiting for some lawyer to find a way around.

As for Stallman, see here for an example:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questi...light=Stallman

As for anarchy, read my sig. In reality, the current system is extremist, in fact, in comparison, anarchy looks quite moderate.

...and using Cygwin, or MSYS/MinGW, or GnuWin32, or DJGPP.

I see this being appropriate. Lawyers are always going to find a way around the GPL, the only thing that stops this is new versions.

I also see this as appropriate. If I am reading it right, he is saying authors of books with copyright on the works, holds the copyright so long, even renewing it, that when the author dies the copyright is still registered, and is handed over to the author's wife, children, or grandchildren eventually, when the work should have expired and been set to be released into the public domain, as normally happens 50-100 years after the authors death. When instead the he author's wife, children, or grandchildren continue to benefit from the authors work, when they didn't write the book, and don't deserve the money.

Am I wrong?

I don't see your "sig." anywhere, maybe it's AdBlock, can you please quote it for me?

Yeah, I think that's what he's saying, and it's stupid to say this, IMO. So what if the relatives didn't write the book, they are his family and he would want to give them the money earned from his book. Does RMS want everyone to start from zero every time without any inheritance of any kind ? How incredibly hellish that would be, you could never progress in any way, it would be like a caste system almost ... and likely absolute domination / totalitarianism because of the lack of distribution of power. It's an incredibly dumb idea, IMO, and hopefully he didn't really mean it. I mean imagine if your parents couldn't give you any money (or very little) because of these types of laws being implemented, you'd have to work your @$$ off and in the end you wouldn't be able to leave your children any inheritance either ... a caste system basically, everyone would be maintain at the same level of poverty ... pure hell on earth.

My sig:

Anarchy - a theory that regards the absence of all direct or coercive government as a political ideal and that proposes the cooperative and voluntary association of individuals and groups as the principal mode of organized society.

~ Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)