Myth of Linux Hobby Coders Exposed 252
Eh-Wire writes "Stuart Cohen, CEO of the Open Source Development Labs, does a short piece on the myth of renegade hackers coding in their parent's basements to create the Linux OS. He suggests this hasn't been the case for many years and goes on to claim that of the top 25 core developers, more than 90% of them are fully employed with some of the largest technology companies in the world. Stuart goes on to explode the myth of renegade programmers by saying, 'Sure, it represents a new way to create software, but the actual process looks a lot like how enterprise software has been made for decades.' A short but interesting read."
how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting article that raises an even more interesting issue, possibly legal: Aren't these coders constrained by the same template IP contracts found in most corporations today? The basic distillation of these constraints stipulate an employee basically gives up their rights and "software" no matter when it's written, how it's written... the company "owns" anything said employee writes. Are these OSS coders and contributors seeing special waivers in their employment contracts? I know the article says the community has formal procedures in place to protect OSS IP -- but what are those?
(I know these contracts are crap, but if they get your name in writing it can be a can of worms to draw a bright line between things that you (the employee) own and things they (the companies) own. I, as a contractor and consultant, have always taken contracting agreements and added my own modification which companies I work for must agree to before I'll sign the contract (I'll not get into specifics) and so far I've only had one company refuse.)
Is there empirical evidence these contributors are doing this on the up and up? I know the OSS considers the community nothing but good, but I have a certain lack of trust for large faceless, morally and ethically bankrupt corporations (which includes pretty much all of them).
Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:4, Insightful)
For a company that relies on OSS software for it's core business, it may make financial sense to hire one of the core maintainers full-time, so that they are guaranteed to get the features and bug fixes THEY need.
Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:4, Informative)
"The companies own the code and they contribute it to OSS projects instead of the individual coders. The result is the same."
That's partially true, but there's more. I worked for three years for a software company that sold a small office server that was essentially highly customised RedHat. We not only honoured the GPL on all the company-owned components, but also had employment contracts which explicitly stated that we were allowed to work on other GPL projects in our own time.
In other words there are at least a few enlightened companies out there who realise that value provided to the community comes back several times over, and that at worst having employees active in the FOSS community will make them look like Good Guys. At best, they leverage the work that gets done and roll it into their GPL product.
That company was later bought out by a larger one (which is why I left). That company continues to honour the GPL, though with somewhat less enthusiasm than the original. Anyway, they seem to have a credible business model - they just got USD 55 million in backing last month!
Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:5, Informative)
Regards,
Steve
Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:3, Insightful)
Then, if any problems come up, assign your code copyrights to the FSF, which is registerd as a non-profit. Point, match, game.
Really. (Score:2)
Hmm. Once I use the patriot act to subpeona your ip address from slashdot you won't be.
Really, come on dude loose lips sink ships and all that.
Re:Really. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:4, Insightful)
If it's in your contract that the company owns everything you write while you work for them, then what?
In the case of Linux and other GPLd software to which the code is a putback contribution, they have nothing to say, really. What can they do with the code? Sell it to SCO :-)?
If the company is paying someone to be the main author of a GPLd package, and they insist on "owning" the thing, they'd better also have a no-compete clause. If not, then the author can quit, use a publicly available snapshot, and start doing whatever it was they didn't want him to do.
Generally a company that open sources a package or contributes to an open sourced package is going to play nice. It's in their interest to have a good rep in the community.
Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:5, Interesting)
Refuse to sign it.
Just politely explain that that particular clause doesn't work for you, as you do a lot of programming at home for projects unrelated to their business and you want to continue to do so as you feel it helps to hone your programming skills. They will likely agree to strike out the clause. Yes, if you're just starting a new job and the job market is bad, it takes some cajones to do this. But realistically the chances are extremely low they'll simply say, "Oh, okay. Goodbye." and, presuming that they do say that, and you respond by offering to sign the damn waiver, the chances are even lower that they would continue to refuse to employ you. And at that point you can be very sure that they were just planning on using you as a carpet anyway, if the fact that you showed a bit of backbone scares them so much. Realistically, all most companies want is an employee who knows their stuff and works hard.
As a bonus, when you do this, you will likely be remembered as someone who stands up for themselves a bit more. As a result, you're more likely to get better raises and bonuses, simply due to the fact that the bosses don't really want to get into arguments or make a big deal about things most of the time (after all, their time is so valuable *cough*) so they'll give you a little more than most of the other people, since they'll think of you as someone who's more likely to argue about it.
That's been my experience anyway.
Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:2)
Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:2)
Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:2)
You cannot have my mind... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't care if it is illegal. My mind is my own and you can't have it. Nor will I sell it to you.
I don't care if it is unethical for me to sign a document (in bad faith) saying that you own everything I think of. It is still my mind, and there is still nothing you can do about it.
I feel completely justified in continuing to write my free code, and releasing it to the public domain under a pseudonym. This is how I preserve intellectual freedom in a wor
Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:4, Insightful)
As a result, you're more likely to get better raises and bonuses, simply due to the fact that the bosses don't really want to get into arguments or make a big deal about things most of the time (after all, their time is so valuable *cough*) so they'll give you a little more than most of the other people, since they'll think of you as someone who's more likely to argue about it.
Well, they're more likely to give you the bare minimum they think will keep your trap shut, and more likely to re-evaluate every year whether or not they really like having a whiner on staff. I think negotiating on terms of your employment contract that you don't like is a wise thing to do, and if you approach it with the right tone will impress people rather than put them off.
But, seriously, arguing with your boss about raises and bonuses is rarely productive. I learned this early on in my career, when I did exactly that. I got my raise, and was then laid off three months later (well, I was given the choice between relocating to Portland or taking a severance check). The whining and the layoff weren't direct cause and effect, but neither were they unrelated.
Want good raises and bonuses? Let your boss know that they're important to you (saying "I'd really like to get a substantial raise or a good bonus next year" in your annual review is sufficient), and then do a good job. If you get what you wanted, great. If not, find another company that will give you what you think you ought to get.
Well, there's two things... (Score:4, Interesting)
b) The company's permission to release it under an OSS license on their behalf.
You can have the latter, without having the former. That'd mean the company would be able to make a commercial product with the code, relicense the code, and the coder would not. But if released in a proper fashion, the license is still valid. And he, the person, could make a derivative of what he, the employee, has written under that license.
The only time there could be a problem is if the company has claim to the IP and has not been aware of its use (possibly because the coder thought they had no claim). But these are employed to work on the kernel, and are perfectly aware of it being licensed out.
In short, the only difference is whether the code has any commercial value on its own. If it doesn't make sense except for the specific task in the kernel, it doesn't really matter. The rest is about who can use it in other projects. I'd be more than happy to write OSS code "for hire".
Kjella
Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:2)
I've heard of people being in situations where anything they make at home becomes property of their work, but I don't think it is too common. Everyone I know that codes has an environment where they can do as they please on their own time and so long as the software doesn't compete directly with wh
Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:2)
Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:3, Interesting)
GPL doesn't apply to something you don't have the right to contribute, so that's not going to work. And if you do release company IP under GPL, they can sue you into the stone age and they'll win.
Second, it'
Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes, of course, but the company doesn't have any other options. They can agree to allow it to be GPL'd, or they can discard it. It's tainted by being a derivative work, so there is no third option. (Well, they could use it internally, but that's not a very exciting choice, unless they actually use the original, unmodified software, in which case, they're probably motivated to release their enhancements under the GPL).
(Note: I am of course, assuming that we're talking about the very common case of a contribution to an existing project. If you create a whole huge public project on your own when your employment contract forbids it, then you're just insanely stupid.)
Anyway, I was mainly trying to point out that you're unlikely to hurt the project by such actions. I agree with you that I may have underemphasised just how badly you can hurt yourself through such actions.
Re:how is OSS protected? specifically! (Score:2)
Oh, well that does make a difference. I'll confess I thought you were out of your mind. ;) Presumably if the company is involved with using OSS already they know what the GPL is, but I do realize that it doesn't always work that way.
I agree with you that
Romatic vision (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Romatic vision (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Romatic vision (Score:2)
That's exactly what I meant. I guess I've been listening to too music music from the 1800s lately...
Re:Romatic vision (Score:2)
Re:Romatic vision (Score:2)
Why? Because it OSS copies CSS interfaces and features built with that research money?
Selected Instances (Score:5, Interesting)
Truth is, there are hundreds of major, active kernel developers.
Re:Selected Instances (Score:3, Funny)
Really...
I really do my best work in the attic.
Re:Selected Instances (Score:4, Insightful)
You have to explain your reasoning.
Fact a: There are 100s of kernel developer.
Fact b: Most work is done by a small elite.
What would change if he had choosen the top10 or the top 50?
Re:Selected Instances (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, it makes sense that only top developers would find themselves in a position where a company was prepared to pay them to carry on with their work.
Slashdot Nerds (Score:3, Funny)
No longer can anyone use the geek in their basement argument.(I know I know, im generalizing, so sue me)
Re:Slashdot Nerds (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Slashdot Nerds (Score:2)
Unless you're replying to someone french, in which case its
renegade prgrammers (Score:5, Funny)
PHBs will always get it wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Linux has grown up and had done so many years before most people who know about it now even knew that it existed. This is similar to how the Internet and email existed for decades before the general public knew anything about it.
Now, many companies, and even government organizations, have their hands in Linux because it provides real advantages over other systems.
The myth discussed in this article is really intended for a bunch of PHBs and people who aren't that technically inclined, who believe that Linux is a toy used by rogue hackers to break into peoples' Windoze boxes and steal their social security numbers... The kind of PHBs who wrote a book I recently read. Linux was mentioned only once, and that sentence stated something to the effect that, "Linux, a free software program available in the public domain..." Yeah. Even programmers know what the public domain is better than whatever PHB wrote that disgusting phrase.
idiots? (Score:3, Insightful)
You are right, they might be very smart 12 year old programmers. That's rare as the average age was between 22 and 37 the last time FOSS looked things [blueoxen.org]. Still, I know one very good 13 year old perl guy. In the free software world, what you do and make is more important than where you live or who you a
Re:PHBs will always get it wrong. (Score:2)
I figure it's time to start taking donations so that the IT community can support Bill Gates in his upcoming financial decripitude. I mean, after all, he was the guy that exposed the world at large to the marvels of computing and I don't think he should be thrown on the trash heap of society when it's all over.
Re:The Ubiquitous PHB (Score:2)
I meant whoever said Linux is public domain. Obviously it's not. It's copyrighted and protected by the same laws that will protect Microsoft Longtooth, it and when it's released. (Of course, by then quantum computing will be the norm, and Microsoft will have to delay Longtooth even longer to make it work on quantum computing processors, while Linux will have long had support for them. And PHBs will still think that Microsoft is the way to go
Re:The Ubiquitous PHB (Score:4, Funny)
How this is different from today is left as an exercise for the reader.
True, but ... (Score:5, Informative)
Please read this: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html [gnu.org]
and specially this: http://www.oreilly.com/openbook/freedom/ [oreilly.com]
Re:True, but ... (Score:2, Informative)
Now, the question is, is Linux compiled by Intel's compiler free or not? THAT's one for the lawyers.
Moderators don't like being corrected here. (Score:2)
There are a lot of moderators using their modpoints to make a statement instead of posting. It's also clear that a lot of moderation goes on without reading the article within the context of the thread in which it appears.
I recently linked [slashdot.org] to a Democracy Now! episode which provided some background on the thread's main topic--Giuliana Sgrena's rescue by Italian intelligence agent Nicola Calipari. At the time I posted, nobody else had linked to Sgrena talking about the situation in her own words; an obvio
Re:Moderators don't like being corrected here. (Score:2)
I also think it would be nifty if a moderator could add a comment, visible to the original poster and metamoderators, to explain why a particular post was marked a certain way. Allowing, or even requiring, this would
Re:True, but ... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:True, but ... (Score:2)
eh (Score:2, Funny)
Well, maybe not for the Linux kernel, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
I thank my lucky stars that this sort of setup works, as the work environment is optimal for me - no set hours, no boss, right in downtown. Just have to live simply.
I love it.
Re:Well, maybe not for the Linux kernel, but... (Score:5, Funny)
That's remarkable! Do you produce some kind of servant or cooking robot?
Re:Well, maybe not for the Linux kernel, but... (Score:2)
Re:Well, maybe not for the Linux kernel, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
I've been working on git in my spare time, and it is obvious to me how much more gets done by people whose w
Re:Well, maybe not for the Linux kernel, but... (Score:2)
Hey, shouldn't yer nick be like "skaZEETYEmebaby"?...
What a joke of an article (Score:5, Insightful)
He suggests this hasn't been the case for many years and goes on to claim that of the top 25 core developers, more than 90% of them are fully employed with some of the largest technology companies in the world.
Yes, it makes the article more interesting to read. But it doesn't prove nor should be used to draw any conclusions. In other news, 90% of the top 25 swimmers, are very good and experienced swimmers. Swimming is not a hobby.
Number one, those people are already employed full-time, so they ARE doing a hobby.
Number two, if the top 25 people who contribute are doing a hobby part-time, and they're the top 25 people, then what does that say for the rest of the contributors to Linux? There are probably thousands of them.
This seems to actually DEFINE that Linux is coded by hobbyists. I don't know where they think this proves otherwise (that it's a MYTH.)
Re:What a joke of an article (Score:3, Informative)
Oh dear, it sounds as if you've managed to completely misunderstand the few basic points the man made, somehow thinking that he says the exact opposite of what he's actually saying...
Let's get this right, shall we? 90% of the top linux kernel coders are paid for that work by major corporations. W
Re:What a joke of an article (Score:2)
No, that's not what it says.
"Looking at the top 25 contributors to the Linux kernel today, you'll discover that more than 90% of them are on the corporate payroll full-time for companies such as HP, IBM, Intel, Novell, Oracle, Red Hat and Veritas, among many others."
Nothing about "paid for that work on Linux". Professional developers/testers/admin/whatever, y
Re:What a joke of an article (Score:2)
Nothing about "paid for that work on Linux". Professional developers/testers/admin/whatever, yes. But not necessarily paid kernel/OSS developers.
Yes, the author failed to fully make his own point. But the fact is that most of the top Linux kernel contributors are paid to work on Linux full-time.
Re:What a joke of an article (Score:3, Insightful)
I think you're completely missing the point of the article. He's blowing apart the 'Linux is just a toy OS written by hobby programmers who a real OS company would never let near their code' FUD that Microsoft et al like to use against Linux. The point is that while Linux developers may be hobbyists in the sense that they're doing this for fun, they're not the incompetents that anti-Linux FUD would make them out to be.
Like enterprise software has been made for years, (Score:2)
Though the terribly underfunded budget is still there...
Re:Like enterprise software has been made for year (Score:2)
Re:Like enterprise software has been made for year (Score:2)
They probably do, but the Linux kernel folks can push back with a valid excuse: any features that require horrible twisted hackery won't get accepted into the mainline code branches. Since the companies want to benefit from the ongoing development being d
Mixed Message (Score:4, Insightful)
The article winds up by saying that Linux is in professional hands. Perhaps that's so, at least for the kernel(certainly less so than other OSS projects), but there is a flip side. To the exact same extent that the ranks of Linux hackers become more professional, they also become less able to claim altruism or objectivity. Somebody whose livelihood is tied up in promoting something simply cannot avoid self-interested bias when it comes to decisions about it or comparison to alternatives. I'm not saying that's a good thing or a bad thing, but it's reality. Anybody who wants to tout the "professionalization" of Linux had better be prepared to tone down some of the moralistic lecturing as well. They're becoming a business competing with other businesses, and that doesn't grant much moral high ground.
In other news... (Score:4, Interesting)
If the linux team consisted of 25 full-time employees and 10000 volunteers, I'd expect the full-time employees to take the top 25. Doh.
I'm not quite sure what the story here is. Is it that there are any at all, or is it suggesting that most of the linux developers are like that?
Besides, on the whole "how is it organized part", the GPL is a software license, not a development license. If you want to run your code tree like a cathedral, you can. It's simply a matter of what is most efficient, just like for businesses.
Still, I don't see the real news here. Full-time employees do more than volunteers? Huge projects need a review process and managers, both OSS and not? The important part is still what sets them apart, not the similarities. In my opinion, at least.
Kjella
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
Fully Employed. As in, ELSEWHERE. Duh.
Re:In other news... (Score:2)
Nope. The real news is that one of the bfd's about using Linux (or OSS in general) is that it isn't made by a big evil corporation. The revelation that a lot of what you like about Linux was made by a big corporation (those are typically evil) is shocking.
I dunno if I'd call it 'news' so much as a story intended to stir up a few jokers. On a side note: People shouldn't take the word 'news' in the tagline too seriousl
Linux in professional hands? (Score:5, Funny)
yeah, like these guys [devnulled.com].
yeah, been a victim of that legend. (Score:2)
However I have contributed to F/OSS projects.
And of course when I tell people that are not in any way involved with software ive been percieved as a hacker.
'oh your a hacker arent you?'
mind you, thats from the layman.
but its happened to me. its that 'you must be an evil person' stereotype that bothers me, personally.
Re:yeah, been a victim of that legend. (Score:2, Funny)
What is being exposed? (Score:4, Insightful)
-matthew
Shhhh! (Score:2)
Don't tell the PHBs!
We all know this is what's really going on, that essentially we're getting corporations to pay our salaries while we work together for the common benefit of all. We also know that doing this is in the corporation itself's best interest if the corporation can use the resulting software, which is why we don't have any guilt about it.
But the PHB types really don't get it. As long as we keep them thinking that a large chunk of the software they're running is being given to them for free
So Linux is not bizarre after all (Score:4, Interesting)
A more apt description is 'Open Cathedral', in my opinion.
Wikipedia is also like a 'Bazaar', but that also falls under the concept of many parts that are not precisely interconnected.
Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not from where I'm sitting.
I've done enterprise software development. Managing the releases is something that the Linux kernel developers don't know how to do. In real software companies, there is a quality assurance (QA) team whose purpose is to make sure that the releases pass standardized tests. I don't think the kernel developers know what that mean.
Want an example? Download the 2.6.0 kernel, untar it, and do the following:
This is supposed to build a kernel with the default options. Sounds relatively simple, right? Well, it's not, because about 10 seconds after you press ENTER, compilation halts with an error:
That's right - you can't even build it! From an enterprise standpoint, this isn't just embarrassing, it's pathetic. It shows that there is virtually no real quality control in the kernel releases. How in the world could the kernel developers release a version of Linux without even checking to see if it compiles normally?
Maybe you're thinking it's just a one-time fluke? Well, you'd be wrong. Because the 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 kernels have the same bug!
Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. (Score:2)
Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. (Score:2, Informative)
That's the kernel.org 2.6.0 kernel, as is.
Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. (Score:3, Informative)
Fedora Forum traced it to Notwork Mangler, aka Network Manager and I had to remove it.
How is the typical Linux user supposed to manage when the standard install programs cause problems like that? I think Fedora is the beta test for Red Hat Enterprise Server. I feel like a crash test dummy for running Fedora with con
Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. (Score:2)
How is the typical Linux user supposed to manage when the standard install programs cause problems like that?
What's a "typical" Linux user? I think, at present, the typical Linux user is fairly technical and probable able to deal with such issues as well as you did.
If what you wanted to ask is "how is a non-technical Linux user supposed to manage", then the answer is that the non-technical Linux user should probably stay away from Fedora which, as you noted, is a beta test distribution whose users a
Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. (Score:2)
Jeremy
Re:Enterprise-like development? I don't think so. (Score:2)
Are you trolling? (Score:2)
Because the one example you give doesn't work. Maybe the Linux kernel team isn't the only one that needs better QA?
Re:Are you trolling? (Score:2)
wget http://www.kernel.org/pub/lin ux/kernel/v2.6/linux-2.6.0.tar.bz2 [kernel.org]
This is very odd. The slashcode appears to have inserted the anchor tags.
wget http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/linux- 2.6.0.tar.bz2 [kernel.org]
Hmmm. So it appears that slashcode tries to linkify that link, but when it's in an <ecode> entity, the anchor tags get displayed, rather than used as a link.
I guess slashdot needs better QA, too! Of course, we already knew that.
Terminology & structure: the QA is done elsewh (Score:3, Interesting)
You're looking at the wrong part of the system. You're criticising the product based on internal development snapshots, and criticising the release process due to confusing product releases with kernel-developer releases, which are roughly equivalent to the code that would be sent between groups within an enterprise product development team. That's an easy mistake due the public nature of the engineering process.
The vanilla 2.6.0 kernel (vanilla meaning the one from kernel.org) is not intended to mean t
Re:Hmm Complier version platform. (Score:2)
Who says they don't live in basements? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because they're fully employed by some of the largest tech companies doesn't mean they don't live in their parent's basements and telecommute.
Set A can always include Set B.
It's like saying that since the wealthiest people in the world are tech geeks, and wealthy people get hot babes, that tech geeks have hot babes.
Perhaps most tech geeks - even those who are wealthy - don't have hot babes (or hunks, whatever) - but most wealthy people (of which tech geeks are a very wealthy subset) do have hot babes/hunks?
Therefore, it's totally possible for them to live in very fancy basements in their parents homes and still be fully employed by big tech firms.
And maybe a few actually own their own homes, but who knows, because the statistics are flawed by virtue of the premise as stated.
Think of it as a Venn diagram in action. Just because top models hang with some economists doesn't make economists party animals and opposite-gender magnets.
What he fails to mention (Score:2)
Given that, we all know they still live in their parents basement.
Just as the saying goes (Score:2)
Well duh (Score:2)
Let's hope so. I mean we're not talking about the 1 milionth, pre-alpha IRC client sitting around dormant on sourceforge.
SCO Created It (Score:2, Funny)
Oh, wait...
A short but interesting read. (Score:2)
Why Always The Bottom? (Score:2, Funny)
OK... answer these: (Score:3, Interesting)
How many of them don't work for IBM or some other company that have a huge vested interest in the Linux kernel (SuSE/Novell, RedHat, etc)
How many of these people work on non-OSS for a day job and basically are subsidising OSS through non-OSS work?
If any work for non-OSS companies, how many of those companies know that this is going on?
If any work for non-OSS companies, how many can actually be working in a conflict of interest situation?
My theory has always been that few people actually work and make a living doing OSS. Most work for non-OSS/commercial/proprietary companies and are basically subsidized by these companies. Also, if these people aren't already independently wealthy, they wouldn't be able to feed themselves or their families by their work in OSS.
Meaning (Score:2)
Yeah right (Score:2)
Newsflash... programmers eat food! (Score:2)
Except that enterprises don't put out a call to say, "Hey! Anyone interested in hacking a device driver for X? We can't pay you, but your name will be up there in lights!" Enterprise coders are commodities. They are not expected to be evangelists, and are not expected to be excited about the work. That's left up to senior management.
i've been saying this for a year now (Score:2)
It only makes sense. (Score:2)
At virtually every stage of development, the code is available for review by those who have an interest. It's like a global faculty peer review that follows the traditional tenets of the scientific method.
Well, it's computer science. It was only a matter of time until somebody realized that this was the best way.
As much as Slasdotters love to make fun of him, this is all thanks to the awkward charisma of Richard M. Stallman.
Re:Slashdotted, heres the article (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Slashdotted, heres the article (Score:2)