GPLv3 - A Primer on Open Warfare in Open Source 449
savio13 writes "A BusinessWeek article about the GPLv3 starts to shed some light on where things are, and what the hold up is in getting the newest version out. They discuss the Stallman vs. Torvalds conflict, issues with DRM, the goal of 'one-stop licensing', and the ever-more-likely possibility that the newest version of the GPL just isn't relevant." From the article: "The impetus to make a profit (and its associated compromises) isn't sitting well with true believers in free software. And the resulting rifts were apparent at last week's LinuxWorld conference in San Francisco. On one side is Richard Stallman and his Free Software Foundation. When Stallman says "free" he doesn't mean price, he means freedom. He believes all software should be freely available to be modified by the public. And for him, this is nothing short of a moral fight. On the other is Linus Torvalds, the father of Linux. He and others in his open-source camp believe that freely sharing code simply produces the best software, but if other people want to hide their code, that's fine, too. Companies will just vote with their feet."
Stallman vs. Torvalds? (Score:4, Interesting)
It sounds like a mountain of a story being made out of a molehill of comments.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not Torvalds and I don't like the new version (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I'm not Torvalds and I don't like the new versi (Score:4, Insightful)
And I can't see why the technical detail of using the software through a network, instead that in the same machine, should vary the intent of the GPL - which is to allow the users of a program, in any form, the freedom to tailor it to their needs and execute it in their own.
Encapsulating the program in a remote server in effectively a way to circunvect the freedom protected by GPL. Why should it be allowed by the license? How does preventing this loophole become a "stretching" of the original intent?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a diffrent consept of the Intent of GPLv2.
I thought it was to allow you to know what was being executed on your machine (hardware or virtual).
so if I own and run a machine I should have a right to know what is happening to that machine. and I should be able to change it to make it do what I want, on my machine.
but if I comunicate with somebody elses machine (via network) I don't need to know what will be executed on there
Here's the newsforge article, plus 2 other links (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the newsforge story ("Torvalds' comments on GPLv3 committees refuted") [newsforge.com].
I blogged about this and added more info about the committees [fsfe.org].
One last think I want to point at is a side-by-side diff with the changes highlighted [fsfeurope.org] from draft 1 to draft 2 so everyone can see the responses to the public process that the committees talk about in the Newsforge article.
Re:Here's the newsforge article, plus 2 other link (Score:4, Insightful)
Let's look at it the other way. Should people be able to put restrictions on the users of free software, which effectively prevents them from taking advantage of the rights that the license gives them?
If you like the Apache 2.0, that's cool. If you like the GPL 2.0, that's also cool. What's uncool is taking software someone else wrote under something like the GPL v3, and removing the rights that the author has provided to end-users. That's like someone taking software under Apache 2.0, but not giving the end-users the patent grant, so that they are unable to defend themselves to patent claims.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The GPL v2 ensures that anyone else can build a more Free version of the Tivo-- one that would still appeal to the Tivo user base and still provide those who like to hack the box an ability to do so. Thus the GPL v2 makes Tivo's choice simply bad for business.
Quite frankly I don't think anyone cares what Tivo does on this matter. That is right-- nobody really cares because anyone can go out and install Tiv
Re:Stallman is proposing OSS suicide (Score:4, Informative)
You don't have to share your encryption key, as long as someone without it can modify the software and have it run as normal. Your signing key is yours alone, and as long as your program will run after modification without it, you're fine. The only time you have to share such a key is if it impossible to run a modified copy of the software on the relevant hardware without that key.
Re:Here's the newsforge article, plus 2 other link (Score:5, Insightful)
The way I'd put it is that the GPL has always required you to supply the COMPLETE source code that is needed to sucessfully compile the intended WORKING executable. Look at the Tivo case for example. What happens if Tivo themselves attempt to compile their software for its intened use, and they do not use their private key during the compilation process, and they do not embed that crypto signature in that executable? Then they themselves would be incapable of making the intended working executable. That signature is in fact a functional element of the executable, and the key is in fact a required portion of the source code for compilation.
The GPL3 simply clarifies that that key is indeed a part of the source. This is simply clarifying the origingal intent and fuction of the GPL. That either the original GPL already covers this sort of case (and simply no one has tested this issue legally), or this sort of case is an abusable loophole in the original GPL and the GPL3 simply closes that loophole.
-
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is abut control and access to media player source code, not to Tivo anyway. I personally am willing to stand aside my objections ot the DRM clause. The ASP clause however is the showstopper for me.
Re: (Score:2)
Round GPL3... Fight!!!
Stalhman Wins.
Flawless Victory.
Finish Him!
[up,up,down,forward,L1,R2,back]
Those who write the software have moved on. (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of the developers, the people who actually develop the open source software we use on a daily basis, have considered the situation and made a decision. Instead of dealing with the GPLv3, they realize that they can get just as much freedom and benefit by switching to another license. Some wi
Re:Those who write the software have moved on. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Wisely? Wisely?!? That's more than a little begging the question: how praytell is a BSD-style license wise? It means that one's code can be incorporated into proprietary software, and that one will not necessarily receive bug fixes or improvements. How is that wise?
One wonders if this AC is a Microsoft astroturfer...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
for d in
strings $d/* | grep -i Copyright | grep "Free Software" | wc -l
done
Results:
So... There appears to be quite a few programs on my Debian GNU/Linux system that are still Copyright Free Software Foundation.
Bet hey, YMMV. Maybe I'm the only one running Debian [netcraft.com].
From the article (Score:2, Funny)
So does that mean we call it Linux/GNU then?
It will be good enough (Score:3, Insightful)
Or nobody will use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It will be good enough (Score:5, Insightful)
This has nothing to do with not letting someone else make a profit and has all to do with not letting someone else lock you into some restricted platform and extort all they can get away with.
In response to grandparent, GPLv3 will become very relevant when you see some scum mass produce a $150 computer with GNU/Linux that is cryptographically locked and then sell $10 "extension" cartridges with popular free software, in the same way that Sony locks its gaming consoles.
GPL is about freedom to modify and share code and DRM implementations take away your ability to modify your software.
Re: (Score:2)
and this:
are likely often to be exclusive. The problem with trying to force freedom onto people is that one person's freedom means another person's limitation. In this case, you are taking freedoms from the developers and giving it to the community. That's great for the community,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're missing the fact that the developers selecting the license are not the same developers that get limited by the license.
The original developer putting something under the GPL essentially makes a protected donation to the community in question, with the explicit intention of preventing free riders (or they'd put their code under BSD or similar license). That the GPL v3 strengthens the an
Extremism leads to nothing (Score:2, Interesting)
While the ideal to have a "free" world filled with people who share their work no matter the cost may sound very appealing, so does the world of Utopia or paradise. In the real world this isn't going to happen, not in the amounts these p
Not Extremist (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
I think if Richard had children and the demands of feeding and housing a family he might have somewhat different views. I'm certainly far less left leaning that when I was in academia.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather think of it as growing up.
GPL 3 is indeed needed (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really understand what is the exact problem with GPL 3. If free software means one must be free to alter the software he runs, it was implied that one must be able to alter the software he runs and be able to test it. Unfortunately it was not directly said in GPL 2 and companies were using this fact as a tool to deny others to modify the code and use it. Now it will said in GPL 3.
I mean, it is like, you are free to say whatever you want but no voice should come out. Of course it should! That is what is meant with freedom!
And those who say it just brings out good code, well, for me, freedom is not about being good or bad, but being free. The whole GPL was based on the free-software philosophy. If you didn't like the philosophy, you didn't need to adhere to GPL in the first place. If you did, nothing is being changed!
Btw, nowadays(tm) even Linus is not adding much to the kernel but is more into maintaining it. And the real concern of Linus is that companies contributing to Kernel may panic and stop doing so. What is this RMS vs. Linus?
DRMed hardware (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's not a problem.
The big problem is if enough hardware manufacturers lock things down like that, then people who actually care about being able to hack/upgrade/brick their purchases won't be able to do what Linus suggests, which is to vote with their wallets.
In a market free of large, hostile, illegal monopolies, greedy copyright holders, and ass
I disagree (Score:2)
Admittedly you could make the point that vendors of embedded hardwar
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
GPL is to prevent commercial plundering (Score:2, Informative)
Vote with their feet? They did, but they forgot (Score:5, Insightful)
The article argues that copyleft (not free software) is anti-business. This is clearly not true because the copylefted free Unix-like operating system (GNU/Linux) has far more business contributions and business models base on it than the non-copylefted free Unix-like operating systems (the free BSDs).
So companies have voted with their feet and have sent a clear message that they will work with copylefted free software.
The GNU GPL requires that everyone play fair. Many companies will look for ways to be the only person who is exempt from the rules, but free software will not gain acceptance by ditching copyleft and pandering to a few new best friends.
Didn't get this part right (Score:5, Insightful)
I think most free software advocates take great pains to state they aren't anti-profit. They're against profit gained from activities they see as immoral.
It sometimes seems like this is the same position, but it's not. Any position of morality has this effect whether it is being against slavery or child exploitation. Accepting any moral rule is bound to render some profitable activities immoral. What muddies the water is when you have a lot at stake. It's hard to reason objectively if you see great harm or great benefits from one course of action vs. another.
You end up weighing one set of envisioned benefits and harms vs. another. This is where moral reasoning gets tricky becuase you are no longer in the world of pure ideas, but dealing with predictions and probabilities.
DRM is a perfect example. Much depends on what you project the impact of widely adopted DRM to be. Human reasoning being what it is, when we are for something we see the benefits clearly and have trouble perceiving the downsides; when we are against it the opposite holds. DRM advocates believe that artists can only surivive economically with DRM; opponents think artists will find a way to survive. Opponents think DRM will be the end of intellectual freedom; proponents think that people will find a way to express themselves.
There is a third philosophical position, which is agnostic but somewhat libertarian:whether or not you are for DRM, if people want to link DRM modules into your code it's none of your business. Yet, I think, that people in this position might have trouble defending it if they truly believed the end of intellectual freedom would result.
Finally there are the radical positions: DRM is wrong whether it is good for society or not. OR: protection of indvidual intellectual property is paramount no matter what the cost to society. By in large people who take the radical positions will also claim that pragmatism backs them up. However, I think this actually makes them less convincing. The only reason to trot out practical consequences is if your hearer doesn't agree with your fundamental position.
Re: (Score:2)
"Guantanamo Bay" is fast becoming the new "Nazi" [wikipedia.org].
Have any of you *actually* read the GPLV3 draft? (Score:3, Informative)
http://gplv3.fsf.org/gpl-draft-2006-07-27.html [fsf.org]
That same old myth (Score:2)
From the summary...
What Stallman says is that free access to info
On bad journalists and their readers (Score:2)
The word "should" (Score:2)
Stallman "should" realize this.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The problems people have with binary drivers are not just from a free software purity point of view. Have you dealt with buggy NVidia or ATI drivers (or wireless cards) in GNU/Linux (or a BSD)? Often enough, these binary only drivers are among the slowest to get fi
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is rigid idealogues that get anything done in this world, not the convinience loving people like you and me. They are the ones that change the reality for you and me. We are just the cogs in the wheel. They bring about any change that really happens. Of course there are good and bad idealogies. This one is a definite good, just like Software Patents is a definite bad. Copywrite is somewhere in the gr
Who to thank (Score:5, Insightful)
If you can read this, thank a teacher
If you are reading it in English, thank a soldier
If you use GNU/Linux, thank RMS
If you can run your OSS program sans a compiler, then you could thank Linus.
The point is that like the soldier, RMS made it possible for Linus to excel with his Kernel.
It could also be argued that Hurd wasn't getting the job done and Linus did.
But in the final analysis you need to consider which came first - no GNU tools, no nice OS to use - the kernel is just a file system, a very useful one, true, but only when combined with the free things RMS had spent years fighting for..
One should never forget, or undervalue the soldier - even when it 'seems' his time has passed... because it never really does.
And yes you can just put me down as a FSF fanboy... I'm rather proud of it.
Spot the flaw in this logic... (Score:4, Insightful)
Therefore the CPU is part of the linux operating system.
Therefore the operating systems which I use are AMD/linux and Intel/linux.
(from here) [topology.org]
Linus has said before that he could have used any compiler, and any userland, its just that GNU was there at the right time. A distro could be built on BSD, or an environment based on icc (yes, it compiles the kernel)
wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a mis-characterization of Richard Stallman's viewpoint. He doesn't believe that all software source code should be available to the public. Rather, he believes that all source code should be available to the end user. There is an important difference.
'Free' software is not about creating a gigantic repository of source code. It's about each user having the freedom to modify the computer software they are using. A group of users can keep a piece of software (and associated source code) hidden from the public quite easily. The point RMS is trying to make is that it is inneficient, artificial and even immoral to restrict the user of software from viewing/modifying the internals of said software.
Of course when software is intended for public consumption, then under the FSF ideal the source code will be available to the public (and indeed we end up with repositories like sourceforge). But to comply with the GPL you don't need to post your code on a public server: you need only make it available to the users.
Point of clarification (Score:2)
Doesn't the GPL then also say that the end-user can freely redistribute the source and binaries? Doesn't that in effect make the source available to the public?
There are licenses which give the source code to the end-user, but don't allow for redistribu
Re: (Score:2)
But it does not mean that the end-user (or the distributor) *has* to make the source public, and that's what I was getting at.
For instance, if you use GPL code internally in an organization, then you don't have to release the code outside the organization. Your internal users must have access to the source, but you don't *have* to release it to the outsi
Obligatory comment (Score:3, Insightful)
Like with MIT or BSD licenses?
I don't get Linus. I don't like GPL, but as many people do like it and use it, I think there's a use for it and it's ok (that's freedom too). But Linus stated repeatedly to have picked GPL not because for "free" software, but for business reasons, so other businesses would contribute without worrying of competitors running away with the work and closing it. It is called as one of the reaons Linux is so succesful. For many, this is the sole purpose of picking GPL, not because they are hippies, but a practical choise not to be boycotted by potentially contributing companies (quite anti-hippy). So what made him change his mind and why didn't he choose MIT or BSD to begin with? These are -the- licenses if you don't mind others hiding code, exporting it to Mars, or yell it verse-like from towerlike structures towards the east, even for profit.
Re: (Score:2)
It might be because you're trying to delve the thoughts and beliefs of a person based on paraphrasing of a reporter (one that sounds very much like an out-sider to Open Source at that).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a perfectly reasonable position, no matter whether you agree with his line or not.
then Linus made a mistake (Score:3, Informative)
If that's truly Linus's opinion, then Linus should have picked the BSD license for his kernel, not GPLv2.
In any case, look at the relative success of the BSD and Linux kernels. The BSD kernel was much further advanced when Linux first came out, yet the Linux kernel is much more popular. At the very least, its GPLv2 license doesn't seem to have been in the way.
And, frankly, personally I really don't care about Linus's opinion anyway; the only part Linus provides for the "Linux" operating system is the kernel. If the Linux kernel project fell apart for whatever reason, the impact on Ubuntu, RedHat, Fedora, SuSE, etc. would be small since the Linux kernel would be replaced fairly quickly.
Good summary for a mindless Bizweek article. (Score:5, Insightful)
The two biggest sticking points are patents and digital rights management. HP's objection is a part of the license that says anything touched by GPL code becomes open source. In other words, if a company bundles its hardware with open-source software and ships it to customers, it surrenders rights to enforce patents.
The author of the article has confused a lot of old FUD with the issues dug up by Tivo. Patens and DRM are the focus of GPL 3 because they undermine the intentions of the GPL. The enemies of free software have bought a lot of bad legislation and piles of bogus patents. That's why a change in the GPL is happening. Let's keep looking.
When Stallman says "free" he doesn't mean price, he means freedom. He believes all software should be freely available to be modified by the public. And for him, this is nothing short of a moral fight. On the other is Linus Torvalds, the father of Linux. He and others in his open-source camp believe that freely sharing code simply produces the best software
It's amazing how the copyright warriors can be so heavy about author intentions and control of work on one hand and then so completely misrepresent this issue on the other. The issue that GPL 3 is trying to fix is best represented by Tivo. Tivo runs GPL'd software and the makers have enjoyed great quality and savings by doing that. The problem is that they have managed to completely thwart all of the GPL's and the software author's intentions with DRM. Tivo will give you a copy of the source code for their device. You can compile it but you can't run it because Tivo locked the hardware with software keys. It won't run your changes. This might not seem like a big deal to people who are used to non free video boxes, until they realize that the Tivo is not very different from any other computer. Without GPL 3, non free software companies can freely use the entire GPL codebase but lock out their users worse than Bill Gates ever imagined. This is an issue that the copyright warriors can't win if they pretend any respect for the author.
I suppose that's why the specter of "big business" is brought up. IBM, Chrysler and others can tell you there's nothing anti-business about the present GPL. They are making and saving tons of money without stepping on their users or the authors of the software they use. When you drop user rights and author rights all you are left with to argue is "non free is better for business" which is something few people will believe.
Underestimating relevance (Score:5, Interesting)
I think BW underestimates the relevance of the FSF. Yes, Linux uses GPLv2 only. Yes Mozilla uses their own license. But if you look at the basic toolchain that Linux, Mozilla and the like use, the majority of that infrastructure's copyright rests with... the Free Software Foundation. Use GCC to compile? Depend on Bash, flex, bison? They'll be moving to GPLv3. Even something as basic as grep, chances are if you're on a Linux system you use the FSF's version of it.
It's also going to depend on developers, not companies (unless those companies are also the developers and copyright holders on the programs). I'd note that one of the tipping points for the GPL was when people started to find GPL'd software in commercial products which the code owners themselves were locked out of by lack of source code. I think the same pattern will repeat, with the GPLv3 being RMS-only for a bit and then it'll pick up steam when a few high-profile developers want to modify a neat device and find they're locked out of modifying their own code by DRM.
That said, it's unlikely the Linux kernel will ever move to GPLv3 regardless of what Linus thinks simply because of the infeasability of contacting every copyright holder. It's been mentioned as a protection: there's so many copyright holders no company (say, Microsoft) could get authorization from all of them to put their release of the Linux kernel under a more restrictive license. The same thing applies to any contemplated change to GPLv3.
law versus license (Score:3, Interesting)
I agree with Richard Stallman's efforts to put clauses in GPL3 to alleviate the DRM and software patent problems. However, I don't have much hope that these clauses will be very effective.
I think that a much more effective course of action is to try to change the laws on DRM and software patents. I think that we should lobby governments all over the world to abolish software patents. In the case of DRM I think that the DRM copyright protection should be legal but that the DRM laws should not contain clauses making it illegal to create software or hardware which can copy DRM protected material. The act of copying copyrighted material should be illegal but the act of creating a copying machine should be legal.
-----------------------
Steve Stites
absolute freedom (Score:2)
Stop the insanity! (Score:4, Insightful)
ARRRGHGHGHGHGHH!! If I read this once more I'll puke. Why doesn't the FSF rename itself to the Freedom Software Foundation and stop explaining it over and over and over and over and over and over...
2 vs 3 (Score:2, Insightful)
As I understand it, the GPL in it's current form (v2) allows for modifications to the existing code if, and only if, that code is then posted with the same license. Correct? However, if you're using it for yourself, then there's no need to post the source unless you want to. You are limited, however, in that you cannot re-distribute
Free is Free (Score:3, Insightful)
TFA got it wrong - not a radical new idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Stallman created the GPL because the radical idea of making software proprietary was beginning to become the norm, replacing the original way of doing things openly. When AT&T started licensing UNIX, a things were starting to change. Before that, the UNIX and other project source code was shared openly, but there was no formal license. So AT&T simply changed the rules. RMS realized that there needed to be a formal way to ensure that software could be explicitly declared free and the GPL became the way to do that.
So, the idea was not radical, but rather an attempt to go back to the way everything used to be done, but in a formal declared way.
Re:This explains an email I got (Score:5, Informative)
I agree with you that trying to get people to refer to it as GNU/Linux is a lost battle, but to say the reason is because Linus wrote it is silly. Stallman has probably written more code that is currently used in the Linux operating system than Torvalds has.
I always thought this argument by is stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
The userland != the OS. The OS *is the kernel*. The rest is just tools on top. I could install the BSD userland on the Linux kernel, and it would still be Linux. "GNU/Linux" is just RMS ego-stoking - you don't *have* to use the GNU utilities with the Linux kernel.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I got so tired of making the argument because people just would not listen despite the fact that it is clearly layed out in the very early pages of "Operating System Concepts" (aka The Dinosuar Book).
I even quoted it at one point, and people were saying that was wrong. That's right, they were saying that what could basically be considered the canonical book on operating systems was wrong =]
Re:I always thought this argument by is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
b) In the Dinosaur Book, it says the following (emphasis mine):
He goes on to list several contributing bodies such as MIT Xwindows and of course GNU utilities. (page 740)Though you cite this book, they take the opposite view you're trying to support with it. Strange...
Re: (Score:2)
The FSF was working towards creating a full operating system, and Linus came and filled in a fairly small part of it, proportionally. Afterwards, all the Unix systems derived from this is called "Linux", for some strange reason - as if they were all really similar systems, instead of a collection of fairly different Unix systems that happen to share a kernel.
Eivind.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If it was such a small part, why is it so important, and why (in the past 15 years, not counting the time when the Hurd was already in development) has there been nothing to replace it?
If Stallman was really concerned about being fair (as opposed to feeding his ego,) he would insist that everyone call it "Mozilla/[KDE/QT]/X/GNU/Linux". (Oh, he says "if you want to", you could call it that, but *he* won't - yeah, and I will only call it "Linu
Re: (Score:2)
As for "If it is such a small part, why is it so important" - that's sort of like saying "Why are sparkpl
+1 Pedantic (Score:3, Informative)
Apple refers to the Mac OS X kernel as XNU [wikipedia.org]. "Mac OS X" is generic enough that it encompasses the userland and kernel all at the same time.
wrong (Score:2)
If you look at the documentation of the UNIX operating system and the POSIX standard, the kernel interface is only a small part of it.
"GNU/Linux" is just RMS ego-stoking - you don't *have* to use the GNU utilities with the Linux kernel.
What matters in practice is why people use "Linux", and I can tell you: it's not for the kernel. If, for some reason, the Linux kernel stopped being available tomorrow, all the "Linux" distributions would switch to the BSD, Darwin, or Solaris kernel an
The genesis (Score:3, Funny)
Emacs begat elisp
elisp begat gcc
gcc begat gnu
gnu begat hurd
hurd has a growth-inhibiting condition, so
gcc begat linux, and qt
qt begat kdelibs
kdelibs begat kde
kde begat kubuntu
and there was light
Any similarity with the truth is mere coincidence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I always thought this argument by is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Then please don't call it "Windows", call it "kernel32.dll" (or whatever file contains the kernel).
The kernel is the core of the operating system. It is not the whole system by itself since, by itself, it is insufficient to operate the system. Just try it: install Lilo (or Grub) and Linux kernel to an empty partition, and try to boot. The kernel will halt with kernel panic, since it can't find init, and can't do anything useful by itself.
One can argue just what programs constitute the operating system, but the kernel alone sure as hell won't let you operate the machine. Unless it's some perverted ultra-monolithic setup.
Re:I always thought this argument by is stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Stallman considers it merely a device to draw attention to the Free Software philosophy. It's a response to his observation - certainly in line with my own experience - that many new users know exactly who Linus "Linux" Torvalds is and about his "Just for Fun" philosophy, but relatively few learn about the importance of freedom. The result being, when later confronted with Free Software ideals, such people often consider them unrealistic and impractical, not realising they formed the basis of the "Linux" operating system they're so enthusiastic about.
This matters to Free Software advocates because they measure success by the number of users who come to value their freedom, not those who've installed GNU/Linux solely for its technical advantanges or as a status symbol, who'll readily switch back to a proprietary OS when tempted with a sexier product.
Whether or not you think it's an effective tactic, that's the reasoning. As for the idea of it being an "ego" thing, as RMS himself has responded, why isn't he asking that people call it "Stallmanix"?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps to keep people like Stallman happy it should be called Gnome/KDE/GNU/Linux since I suspect a lot of linux users never tough the gnu stuff themselves but go via the GUI.
Re:This explains an email I got (Score:4, Informative)
You can run all of the GNU tools on a wide variety of other kernels, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here. The GNU set of tools existed well before Linux, and they would certainly have a great deal of value even if Linux had never been written. The Linux kernel without any tools at all is essentially useless. What's the point of having a running kernel if you don't even have a shell?
Calling it GNU/Linux acknowledges the fact that GNU tools have always provided a big part of the core of the operating system. However, that's not to say that I personally advocate calling it GNU/Linux. Personally, I think that name is just to cumbersome to ever gain widespread acceptance, and it's pointless to try and get people to use it.
Re: (Score:2)
Look up "router"
GNU/Windows? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't mind Stallman simply siggesting that some credit is due to th GNU project. But the idea that the GNU project can adopt the Linux kernel and then try to require that everyone refers to the agregate as GNU/Linux when other GNU environments exist without such requests (GNU
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The kernel is GPL software, but there is no GNU software in it as far as I know. And there are Linux systems where the implementation of the UNIX userland system tools do not come from GNU either, for example the case of embedded systems using BusyBox [busybox.net].
Since a big problem in the GPLv3 debate covers the actual practices of companies that devel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you 911 only runs a kernel? By your logic, since the largest chunk of a distribution is GNU code RMS gets to call it GNU/Linux.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
GNU/Linux (Score:2)
If Linus wrote it and he calls it Linux, thats good enough for me.
Um, are you joking? Yes, Richard Stallman can go on a bit about calling it GNU/Linux, but it's precisely to get people to realise that the operating system as a whole wasn't just written by one person.
Re:This explains an email I got (Score:5, Funny)
HURD will never be out (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I tend to go with the Linus Camp. (Score:5, Insightful)
Dare I ask why you can't or shouldn't? The simple fact is, the GPL is doing mostly today what it was designed to do, to give users the freedoms that Stallman set-out to insure existed in GPLed code. To me, the work of GNU has created a moral and social reform in some sense, by making people realize it is possible to run ever increasing sections of one's system on an open and modifiable platform.
And those people have it. At the same time, users want the freedom to take the work of others and fit it to their needs while at the same time allowing others to benefit from their work.
So, a new license offering more choice is intended to feed mindless zealots? Why with language like that, you must be against the creation of all sorts of new licenses!
If you want to control your users, then the GPL isn't for you. Nor was it ever designed to be. But don't be surprised when this means you can't use the GPL code of others.
Yea, that bastard Stallman. How dare he write up a new license to further refine his intentions. By God, it's almost as if he's the copyright holder of GNU and as a "developer" wants to decide what others do with his code. Hell, he sounds just like you. The funny thing is, he's interested in furthering user freedom. Clearly anyone who cares about the freedom of the common man is Far Left.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. BSD is about giving freedom to the end user. GPL about paying a price to the "creator" who calls that "freedom". BSD is end-user oriented, GPL developer oriented. It's about getting back stuff. You got it exactly the other way round. If I hand you a gift and then limit what you can do with it because I want stuff back, it's not giving total freedom. If I hand
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
We run a 5000 node shop, spread across the country. After paying for the MS tax we can write anything we need in-house and/or pay contractors to do it well within budget. If you start
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
The answer is: It's not. It's about making everyone believe in his Communist propaganda. (Not using that as a curse word, it accurately describes the GPL. 'Everyone is equal and we will force you to be equal. To use our software, you must admit that equality and release your own goods that force others to admit that equality.')
The LGPL is less evil... Interesting how that works. Replace 'GPL' with 'Evil' and you
I tend to go with the Stallman Camp. (Score:2)
It's not like the spirit of the license is changing, the wording is just being articulated better to avoid DRM checksum type loopholes. Yes, there are various licenses, and you should carefully decide which one you want to use, be it BSD, GPL or just plain old public domain. However, if you disagree so strongly with GPL on principle of it being too far to the left politically, you have to realise that open source software such as the Linux kernal wouldn't even have the rest of an operating system to interfa
Linus is Wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
As for GPL version 2 being popular, well, why not let the market sort it out? The GPL version 3 may well prove itself in due course.
How is wanting people to respect the terms of your licence 'far left' in any case?
Can you really tell us why? (Score:2)
GPL 3 is basicly a way to make the midless Stallman followers to be more zealot about the things Stallman disaproves of.
but fails to tell us any of the "minless" "zealot" goals. Seeing as you can think for yourself, jello man, why don't you tell us why you object to GPL 3.0, besides it's association with RMS. I suggest you start with tivo and GPL 2 intentions. When you get around to explaining how Tivo eliminates the freedom indended by the GPL and
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
These have some restrictions in them that many devs would find onerous, but they're much more open than the standard EULA. A license covering use of the Windows source code (they do exist) are probably much lo
Social reform (Score:2)
So what do you think the proprietary vendors, RIAA, MPAA and their ilk are doing? Remember what the point of copyright was and what these organisations are attempting to do with it now.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, now. You have total freedom of choice when it comes to purchasing, or not, the work created by an artist who happens to have employed a record label (that happens to be a member of that trade association) to handle their business chores, and implement (or not) DRM or other mechanisms on the distribution of their creative work. All you have to do is not be a customer of that artist.
If you so disapprove of their ch
Re: (Score:2)
You're entirely free to do whatever you want with software you have written. What the GPL, versions 2 and 3, are about is what you can and cannot do with software someone else wrote. You want the right to determine terms for your software? You have to respect the right of someone else to determine terms for their software.
What a sad waste of time. (Score:3, Insightful)
In an era when companies are patenting "one click" buttons, to say that the people that provide a legal framework for FOSS are doing nothing, is most disingenious, uninformed and frankly idiotic.
Some people in the IT world need to broaden the view of the issues at hand, hacking (in the good sense of the word) is not what software is all about, your right to tinker, protected by people like this "albatross" you deride so cheaply, is essential if you have any hope of chall