Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: [News] Tanenbaum: Microsoft Paid for Attack on Linus Torvalds

  • Subject: Re: [News] Tanenbaum: Microsoft Paid for Attack on Linus Torvalds
  • From: "amicus_curious" <ACDC@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:26:55 -0500
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: Usenet Monster - http://www.usenetmonster.com
  • References: <2439115.O7Pejsr7oG@schestowitz.com>
  • Xref: ellandroad.demon.co.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:485421
"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message 
news:2439115.O7Pejsr7oG@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Interview with Dr Andrew S Tanenbaum
>
> ,----[ Quote ]
> | Andrew S Tanenbaum: A couple of years ago this guy called Ken Brown
> | wrote a book saying that Linus stole Linux from me, from Minix,
> | and therefore the intellectual property rights are unclear and
> | therefore companies shouldn't use Linux because I might sue them.
> |
> | It later came out that Microsoft had paid him to do this --
> | and I defended Linus. I wrote on my Web site saying that this
> | guy Brown came through, visited me and I gave him the
> | [correct] story.
> `----
>
> http://www.builderau.com.au/strategy/architecture/soa/Interview_with_Dr_Andrew_S_Tanenbaum/0,339028264,339273224,00.htm
> http://tinyurl.com/3c78xz
>
> This is a new interview (not the one posted yesterday).

Other quotes from Andy:

On Linus;

"My faulting of Linus was that he had a good, nice clean microkernel and he 
could have gone and made a better one out of it. Science progresses when you 
take something and make a better one, not a worse one of what you already 
had.
I thought he should have taken and made a better microkernel, fine! But he 
was 20 years old, didn't have that much experience; he was a kid and he 
developed it differently."



On Stallman:

"I was talking to [Richard] Stallman once and we got onto the subject of 
Free Software, and he sort of bit my head off when I used the term 
incorrectly from his point of view.

Free Software is software when you have the source and you can do what you 
want with it, whether it is the Berkeley license or the GPL, isn't so 
important. The important thing is having the source code and being able to 
play with it yourself.

And he went bananas and said "No, the license is the most important thing!" 
And I said "No, the software is the most important thing, and having the 
source code out there and the details of the licensing are secondary.

The important thing is that you release the source code and other people can 
use it to modify it as you wish under reasonable conditions; the exact 
nature of those conditions isn't so important. He just went ape."



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index