It seems to me that the Forbes article is fundamentally correct. Stallman is a nutcase, and he's trying to force the Linux community to do things his way, on penalty of losing the GNU tools. Stallman is trying to impose his concept of DRM on the Linux community, and a heck of a lot of very important people aren't buying what he's selling. So this will inevitably lead to a split between Stallmanized code and non-Stallmanized code.

It's unpleasant to think about this, but it's very likely to happen. Nobody can get Stallman under control, and he has enough fanatical followers to cause a serious split.

The Forbes article is right on: Stallman is a lunatic and Linux is in trouble because of it.

No one can force these companies to do anything. They are free to continue to use and develop the software they are using now under the terms that they have agreed to.

The Forbes article is a terrible hack job and I was glad to see some good comments to that effect in the comments section. I found the article through this blog and expected it to be negative, but was looking forward to reading a well-written counterpoint. Instead it's a joke (and leading me to agree with Linux Tech Daily about the magazine itself, for printing it). Apparently Lyons has an axe to grind with Stallman (and probably free software as well) and couldn't be bothered to get facts straight.

I was surprised IPcentral linked to a printer-friendly page. It seems odd to not point to the main article page where there are probably more ads and more chances for Forbes to earn some money for their content. I tried to visit it out of curiosity but noticed it requires an account, so maybe you're just providing a convenience for your readers. Does convenience trump respect for the IP rights of others?

I know this is fun and games, but Scott, how is linking readers to the print-friendly page not respectful of IP. I respect Forbes' IP rights, but that does not obligate me to send readers to a bunch of ads.

Still, your comment conflates two issuess: revenue model (ads) and economic foundations for IP (recoupment of capital). By saying that I'm not increasing reader views of Forbes' ads, you're implying that I somehow disagree with the economic justification for IP. Thats a stretch...

By the way, if Forbes closes off general access to its Stallman article, readers will be required to enter subscription information at both the main article page and the print-friendly page. This is a guess, but it makes sense b/c no company would construct a business model so easily circumvented that all one has to do is Google "print friendly page" to access content freely. If this is not the case, I'll call Forbes to ask them if they're aware of the situation, and change the link in my blog to send readers to the main article page where they need to enter subscription information.

Scott, you say: "Lyons has an axe to grind with Stallman (and probably free software as well) and couldn't be bothered to get facts straight."

This is silly. Virtually everyone who ever met Stallman has an ax to grind with him, so that's neither here nor there.

As to the allegation that he got the facts wrong, I'd like to see some substantiation. I've read some of the exchanges between Torvalds and Stallman on GPLv3 and it seems to me that Lyons is fairly representing the dispute.

"Despite these characterizations of Stallman, he still retains some popularity among FOSS supporters."

My suggested edit:

"Despite these mis-characterizations of Stallman, he still retains some popularity among FOSS supporters."

Again they get so many facts wrong, and Forbes is clearly hoping that the Linux revolution will be "taken down."

Stallman has made it clear that if people want to go on distributing under version 2.0, he can not stop them from using that version of the GPL.

After all it is the writers, as the copyright holders, who decide what version is used.

This is a typical hack job, and thankfully we have Pamela Jones over at Groklaw to expose these repeated lies.

My prediction is that eventually the kernel writers will come around to Stallman's position, but that it will take several years, after Tivo-isation becomes more rampant.

Forbes: "Richard M. Stallman is a 53-year-old anticorporate crusader who has argued for 20 years that most software should be free of charge."

No, Stallman argues that most software should be free to examine and modify as the user sees fit.

"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."

As enigma_foundry mentioned, this is also false. The only control Stallman has is what goes into the latest version of the GPL. Software developers are free to use whichever version they feel suit them best (if any do). Stallman can not change that.

"In recent years Stallman and the FSF have been cracking down on big Linux users, enforcing terms of the existing license (GPLv2, for version 2) and demanding that the big tech outfits crack open their proprietary code whenever they inserted lines from Linux. Cisco and TiVo have been targets; Cisco caved in to Stallman's demands rather than endure months of abuse from his noisy worldwide cult of online jihadists. Nvidia, which makes graphics cards for Linux computers but won't release enough of the code behind them to satisfy Stallmanites, also came under attack. "It's an enemy of the free software community, so we call them 'inVideous,'" says Peter Brown, executive director of the Free Software Foundation."

Any fan of strong IP and contract rights should agree with Stallman and the FSF here, since these companies, by incorporating GPL's code, agreed to abide by those terms.

"If Linus Torvalds sticks with his old kernel under the older and less restrictive version-2 license, and Stallmanites ship version-3 code, what is Red Hat to do? The two licenses appear to be incompatible."

This is only a problem in programs that try to incorporate both v2 and v3 GPL code. Two separate programs, one under v2 and one under v3 could co-exist on the same machine without trouble. The author makes this problem out to be more than it really is.

Hi, Noel. Personally I think it should be fine to send people to any page that is publicly accessible. If the operators of a web site don't like that, they shouldn't make it publicly available. But many IP advocates -- I'm not saying this includes you! -- make the argument that sending people to print-friendly pages is akin to stealing, just as they associate other kinds of copying and fair use of public information with the physical property crime of theft.

And then there are people like Charles Cooper who think that if Google links to a news site with an excerpt/summary of the content, this is a terrible thing: http://news.com.com/2010-1030_3-6127780.html?part=rss&tag=6127780&subj=news

Do you agree with Cooper?

My suggestion that you were being disrespectful of IP was completely spurious, of course. It just seems like there is a contradiction in the attitude of IP defenders depending on if they're making a buck on digital restrictions or if they have to deal with inconveniences caused by the stifling environment created by systems of control. (Similar to filmmakers moving to Hollywood to avoid having to honor Edison and the MPPC's patents?) It seems to me that as more and more control over ideas and content is made possible, the resulting system will be unbearably cumbersome for ordinary folks to use, just as today it would be a minor hassle for your readers to encounter the Forbes main article page, so that you send them to the print page. Here's your opportunity to help introduce your readers to a world where things are more controlled and hard to use: you can choose to steer them towards registration, regardless of what Forbes says.

Those are good points Scott, but I don't want to get too far off topic here. If you want to discuss the Google issue, email me, or just write a comment if I blog on it.