What do you think about Richard Stallman's decision?
September 7th, 2010 | 
Author: Richard Stallman(creator of GNU/Linux) is saying that he might remove linux because people are making it closed instead of what it originally was (open)
Closed means that it is propriotory and that it will cost money and there will be many restrictions but open means that it will be available for use for anybody and modifications to the open version is free as to the user without any costs (money and so on)
Larry Ellison made a version of linux that is called enterprise linux unbreakable which is closed and wants to charge money for it. This is why Richard Stallman wants to change open source but has not yet.
Posted in Q&A | 
Tags: costs money, enterprise linux, gnu linux, larry ellison, linux, open source, richard stallman
Stallman didn’t create Linux, Linus Torvalds did – doing something that Stallman and his cronies hadn’t been able to do for years.
It is true that the core of Linux is open source, meaning that you can get hold of the source code, but what you can do with it depends on the license. Stallman’s license is very restrictive and says that any changes you make have to be submitted back. While I agree with that to some extent, he’s taking it too far.
Linux was released under his license (GNU), which is why it sometimes has the name GNU/Linux, but he has absolutely no right (legal or otherwise) to stop it. The code is out there with license.
What he has proposed to do is that in the next version of his license he will put restrictions that says anyone who uses this code cannot have thing like copyright protection running with it. But this can only affect new code releases, not what is already out there.
What he will end up doing is forcing the companies to make Linux closed source.
The fact also is that without companies adding closed source components to Linux it wouldn’t be popular at all. Take ATI drivers. For the latest ATI graphics cards, you need to use the closed source proprietary drivers from AMD/ATI if you want to get 3D graphics working.
The fact is Stallman should shut his mouth, trim his beard, get some manners and bugger off. He didn’t invent Linux and has added nothing to it in the last decade except licenses that may end up causing the death of a great operating system.
Is there a source for this "fact"? And Stallman isn’t the only creator/contributor by far, I don’t see how he could possibly "remove linux". Remove it from what?
Richard Stallman does not have the power to single-handedly mandate that Linux source or the OS cost money. There will always be free distributions of it due to the way the license agreement was setup, and there will always be versions you have to pay something for.