Although his achievements as the initiator of the free software movement and the GNU project are indisputable, it is very likely that he was also responsible for its decline. In this post I try to answer the question: Is Stallman responsible for the failure of the GNU project? Did the failure of the GNU project cause the decline of the free software movement?
So that readers can agree or disagree with me, and so that this article becomes the source of positive debate rather than just clickbait, I'm going to start by stating my definition of failure.
What is a failure?
Of the four definitions given by the RAE, we are going to stick with two:
1. m. Failure, adverse result of a company or business.
3. m. Fall or ruin of something with a crash and breaking.
In my opinion the first is what we are experiencing, and let's go straight to the second.
To understand how this applies to the GNU project and the free software movement, let's take a brief look at its origins and objectives.
Is Stallman the father of the failure of the GNU project?
Legend has it that, enraged by a malfunctioning printer, Richard Stallman asked for the driver source code to rewrite and was denied. Angry, he started the GNU project and the free software movement.
The reality is a little more complex.
It all started when Stallman became disillusioned that the open-door culture he had known at MIT had been lost. Before, at MIT, if a problem was found in the software, it was solved, if someone came up with an improvement, they implemented it, and if equipment was needed, it was borrowed, even if they had to break down the door of a superior's office. hierarchical to achieve it.
The straw that broke the camel's back was the purchase of a new computer with commercial software that, in Stallman's opinion, was poorly written, difficult to understand, and had a poor security policy. The developers were able to improve security policies to prevent Stallman from poking his nose. However, they failed to make the modifications that would allow the machine to connect to MIT's internal network and the external ARPANET network at the same time.
Please take note of what is going to be the first point of my argument. The open and non-hierarchical culture of MIT. Now comes the second.
They say that if you only have a hammer, all problems are nails and, As a programmer, Stallman decided that the solution was to create an operating system from scratch. To facilitate adoption he determined that it should look like Unix without being it. In fact, the name of the GNU operating system is a recursive acronym for GNU is not Unix.
However, willing to save work, he wanted to use a tool called Free University Build Kit) but the developer, although he gave him permission, warned him that the tool was still proprietary and that the new operating system should encourage people to buy it.
Stallman ended up developing his own compiler called GNU Emacs., based on a freely distributed tool, although when the company that owned it decided to stop being free, there was little of the original code left and they were able to eliminate it without problems.
Here is my second argument. The free tools that in reality are not and those that were and one day cease to be. Patience.
Years later, Stallman wanted to provide legal guarantees that would keep his tools free. For that In 1985 he created the Free Software Foundation and in 1989 he wrote the GNU General Public License that guaranteed end users the power to use, share, study and modify the software.
That the first objective was never met (Develop a free operating system) is undoubtedly. lThe appearance of Linux and the BSD derivatives are collateral events and would probably have occurred the same without the tools of the GNU project.
At Next Article I am going to try to demonstrate that the failure of the GNU project is the cause of the failure of the free software movement and that the person responsible for that failure is Richard Stallman