Why Torvalds is Sitting out the GPLv3 Process 365
lisah writes "Linus Torvalds has a lot of reasons for not wanting to participate in drafting the third version of the GNU General Public License (GPL): He doesn't like meetings, says committees don't make sense, has philosophical differences with the Free Software Foundation, and seems to be generally distrustful of the whole drafting process. Though Torvalds prefers the GPLv2, he says if others prefer the GPLv3, they ought to support it because 'it's not like it kills and eats small children for breakfast, and must never be allowed.'" Linux.com and Slashdot are both owned by OSTG.
The GPL3 process is not closed (Score:5, Interesting)
Torvalds doesn't need to contribute, but I'm glad he's moved to a more neutral stance. The GPLv2 is old and out of date and though it still works today, will start to crumble in a few years.
In every new project my firm does, we end up adding our own conditions onto the GPL3 (for instance for patents) and it'd be far better to have these defined as standard.
It's good to be critical of processes that aren't clear, and it's entirely possible that the FSF won't be able to produce a worthy successor to GPLv2, which is an incredibly important document in the history of software, but we should give them the benefit of the doubt.
Re:The GPL3 process is not closed (Score:5, Interesting)
Please explain how a license can "crumble".
Re:The GPL3 process is not closed (Score:5, Funny)
The original GPLv2 was, in fact, printed on a giant cookie.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Jokes aside, the GPLv2 was, in fact, chiseled into a large stone tablet. Those things most certainly crumble after a few millennia.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The GPL3 process is not closed (Score:5, Insightful)
More and more people will start exploiting the loopholes in GPL v.2 (e.g. apps as web servies, so they're not technically "distributed" to the users, TiVo-esque locking of hardware to use only the company's version of the program, etc.).
Re:The GPL3 process is not closed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The GPL3 process is not closed (Score:4, Informative)
However, the relative lack of success of BSD despite its greater maturity during the early years suggests that making it easy to lock up open systems on proprietary hardware is not a winning strategy. Take, for example, Solaris: it was derived from BSD, but it languished inside Sun for a couple of decades and Sun didn't make many meaningful contributions to BSD. The experience with other commercial users of BSD was similar.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
PostgreSQL, while an excellent product that I still use often, is stagnating while MySQL slowly surpasses it in every way.
I think we should save BSD for simple things such as glue libraries and reference implementations.
Re:The GPL3 process is not closed (Score:5, Informative)
Is it? I'm not familiar with the SPICE landscape, but I am with PostgreSQL:
Umm, what? How is PostgreSQL stagnating? It's a widely-used product with frequent releases, full-time contributors back to the open-source core, and several commercial support offerings. What do you mean by "MySQL slowly surpasses it in every way"? If you're talking about popularity, MySQL's always been more popular. If you're talking about something technical, well, I have absolutely no idea what it could be.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't buy it. The only examples
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Uhh, wasn't the fact that BSD was under the cloud of copyright infringement with AT&T's Sys V that caused BSD's slow usage? Linux came in right at that time to steal what could have been BSD's thunder.
At least that is how this old dude remembers it.
And Solaris is a straw man. SunsOS 4.x and older was BSD based. And what NFS, NIS, etc are nothing? As for SunOS 5.x, which is more commonly refered to Solaris, is Sys V Rel 3 based.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
BSD was technically superior long after the lawsuit had been resolved and when Linux was still in its early growth stages. BSD could have easily become the dominant open source operating system.
And Solaris is a straw man. SunsOS 4.x and older was BSD based. [...] As for SunOS 5.x, which is more commonly refered to Solaris, is Sys V Rel 3 based.
I fail to see your point. How does Sun changing directions mid-stream turn them into a
Re:The GPL3 process is not closed (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL was designed by the Free Software Foundation, and they made it very clear what they intended (in the GNU manifesto, etc.). By that standard, the loopholes are bugs.
In other words, the FSF's opinion is the only one that matters because it's their license. If you don't like it, use a different one or make your own. And if you already chose to use it (with the "...or later" clause), you had ample oppertunity to understand what you were getting into before you did it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's FSF's license only in that they have copyright on the text. Nothing more.
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's the pragmatic attitude of me. (Score:3, Informative)
First of all, I'm not speaking for the FSF.
Second, I have no doubt that they're trying to accomodate everyone as much as possible. However, they're not about to do something completely contrary to their stated goal, which is to make software that's free for the user. Fundamentally, the GPL exists to serve the FSF's goals; therefore, no matter how touchy-feely you try to make the process, the bottom line is that it's going to be what the FSF wants.
And before you complain about this, think for a minute and
So what does Linus really want? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your hardware doesn't run (by design) programs that you compile ?
Well, get some that does then. Why did you get non-user-modifiable hardware if you wanted to modify it ?
I can't modify the software on (for one example) my phone, do I care ? no. Because if I _wanted_ to modify it, I'd have bought a phone which supported me modifying it.
You can take every modification Tivo has made to GPL software and use it in your own PVR (or in something completely differe
Re:So what does Linus really want? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what does Linus really want? (Score:4, Insightful)
I am a programmer. I am not a tinkerer. I care about
The ability to tinker with a system just isn't that important to me. It's the ability to
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But you still need a device to run the code on. Consider the fact that in many cases (especially embedded) there isn't a good substitute device. What good does having the code do you in this case? What benefit do you get out of the GPL that you wouldn't get out of, say, MS's "shared source" licenses?
More importantly, why should the hardware device
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And again, the problem is that there may not be a substitute device. That is, there could be amazing, incredible innovation in some GPL'd code, that would be utterly useless to you without an open mp3 player. Now, that case is actually irrelevant now -- there's a player that encourages rockbox, and you can make Linux run on an iPod -- but it's still a valid point.
If you look at your history, I think RMS will back me up here. The whole free software movement was inspired by a printer driver without sourc
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Running modified code on the original hardware is convenient. It's probably what you want to do. It might even have been your inital goal. But calling it a "freedom" is just silly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This may be true with all methods of machine counts that you're aware of, but that's the ludicrous statement of a luddite to claim that no machine count can ever be trusted. Humans are much more easily bribed and manipulated than machines. Humans from both parties.
It costs more money, though, and it does take some amount of time more. That said, I was pretty annoyed that Kerry concede
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
With GPLv2, people who take your code and alter it have to publish the alterations. This adds to the store of knowledge generally available to the human race. Good ideas that improve
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The GPL3 process is not closed (Score:5, Insightful)
If you are only running a web service and not distributing anything then you don't need to compliy with the GPL whatever it or any future version says.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn, you're right; I hadn't thought of that. I guess that's why I hadn't seen anything in the GPL v.3 draft about it...
Thanks for pointing it out to me!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's one of the possible restrictions that can be optionally added which applies to public use of the software requiring distribution of the modified source.
RMS has said in speeches that both arguments held weight for him and so he decided to leave it up to the software developer and leave the default behavior to the way things currently are.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh well I am just about ready to switch to a free OS anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The point is that web application do not need to be distributed, so the GPL is quite useless to them, any u
Re: (Score:2)
No, as another poster pointed out, the GPL v.3 isn't (and can't) fix that issue anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The other example is binary modules. Even in the Linksys WRT54G, the wireless driver is binary-only. And they distribute it with the GPLv2 kernel and it seems it's allowed. And it seems that neither the GPLv3 addresses that.
Two Cases (Score:5, Insightful)
Second, ability to run the program, but not see the source code. Case in point, Google. It is beyond question that Google are using all kinds of GPL applications, from the kernel to webservers to highly modified filesystem drivers. All of it GPLed and none of the code available for you to see, despite the fact that Google allow you to use all these services online, you'll never see a line of the modified code.
Both these cases violate not the letter of the GPLv2 licence, but the spirit of it. That spirit being the ability to run the program, modify the source, and run the changed program. This is happening on small scales today. It could soon be happening on a huge scale, and that would undermine the whole FOSS community. GPLv3 will be needed in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Two Cases (Score:4, Insightful)
Been that way since the 80s. Nothing new. Nothing crumbled as a result.
Second, ability to run the program, but not see the source code.
Ditto.
Back almost two decades ago in college I used plenty of GNU software.
In some cases, we had access to the source, but on the machines on which that software ran, I had nowhere near enough disk quota to rebuild a modified version, let alone install and run it. In some cases the programs we had access to were modified from the GNU source, and the full modified source was not made available.
From my experience at that time, this sort of setup was very common in academia, which was typically where you found GNU software then.
The GPL didn't noticably crumble as a result, and in fact its use has expanded massively since then.
Why ? Because we still had the freedom to look at the source and learn from it, take the source (get the original unmodified source in case 2), modify it to our hearts content, and run it somewhere else. So we did.
I was able in '92 to take a whole set of development tools and applications off a big proprietary Unix box and build/port them onto a Linux PC, which I then used as primary PC for almost ten years. That is the freedom GPL gives, No way could I have done that with proprietary apps.
To follow your logic, any system on which GPL software is installed must grant all users full admin rights to allow them to modify it _in_ _place_ (and therefore you could never use GPL software burned into ROM).
RMS might think that giving everyone root everywhere is the right thing to do, but outside of MIT, in the real world, it is totally impractical. Lots of people definitely _won't_ use GPLv3 software if that is what it means.
Re:Two Cases (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, why doesn't he _say_ that in the GPLv3 then ?
The word OWN does not appear in it except referring to "their own keys" and "ther own removal", nor does "owner" or "bought" "sell" or "purchase".
What it does say is this:
It is very clearly about USERS and not OWNERS.
The rest of the licence backs this up - anyone you "convey" the work to has to have full source including all keys, and "convey" is defined in terms of third parties making or receiving copies of the work, nothing about ownership vs. rental.
So, either
1. RMS can't get what he thinks expressed properly in the GPL
or
2. he doesn't think what you think he does.
Given his past writings on the subject of (non owner) users having root access (info su, or google "GNU su support wheel" or similar), (2) is most likely by far.
Re: (Score:2)
The GPLv2, for example, is focussed on the distribution of software. It dates from an era where distribution meant floppy disks, tapes, and perhaps for the very luck, FTP.
But today a lot (most?) software is never actually distributed to users - it is accessed via web services - and the GPL is powerless to force vendors who take GPL'd software and improve it, and embed those improvements into web applications, to release th
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The rest of your points I'd tend to agree with, but I'm not sure what you mean by the one above.
Considering how Sun and Microsoft have been making a mess of 'open' licences lately, the main reason I can think of for continuing to use v2 is that it is stable. It is a known quantity, and everyone (within certain circles obviously) is aware of what they can do with it. I can't see how time would 'age' a
Even regular folks like you and me can contribute. (Score:2, Interesting)
No, it's not, and you aren't making any sense. (Score:4, Insightful)
Your analogy makes no sense.
Forking the FSF license creation process is not like forking Linux; it would be like forking the Linux development model, which is equally impossible.
Forking Linux would be like forking the GPL itself, which is not only possible, but trivially easy: all you have to do is re-write it however you like, and rename it (e.g., "ACPL," for "Anonymous Coward's Public License").
He needs a Time Machine (Score:3, Informative)
For Torvalds, the controversy over the different versions of the GPL is ultimately very simple: If "I can just go back to 1992, when I relicensed Linux under the GPLv2, and ask myself: If I had the choice of licenses back then that I have today (including the GPL3 draft), which one would I have chosen? And the answer simply isn't the GPLv3. It might have been the Open Software License, though. But, most likely, it would still be the GPLv2."
No he doesn't... (Score:2)
...because he just said he would have chosen the same thing anyway (read the last sentence of your quote).
See, that's what I don't understand: why is Linus complaining? The kernel is licensed "v.2 only" anyway, so what the FSF does should be irrelevant to him!
maybe... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're referring to this, right?
You know, th
Re: (Score:2)
It's even worse than that. It's the tired old argument that people who release things under permissive licenses don't actually want people to make full use of those licenses.
News flash, Linus: If the Apache project didn't want its code to be able to be "hijacked" into GPLv3 projects, then they wouldn't have permitted it in the license.
Linus needs to learn to shut his damn mouth unless he actually has something intelligent to say.
Re: (Score:2)
But what the Hell does that have to do with Linus? None of his code is or ever will be (unless he relicenses it himself) GPL v.3! And nothing about the FSF's "mindset" or their definition of "compatible" can change this!
Re: (Score:2)
No he doesn't...
I'm sure he'd still say he needs a time machine.
This makes sense. He's a developer at heart. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This makes sense. He's a developer at heart. (Score:4, Insightful)
None of us, even Debian developers, enjoy dealing with legal issues. We do it because not doing so is short-sighted. IMHO, Linus often fails to understand the full scope of a non-technical problem, and when challenged, he uses "I'm apolitical" as an excuse to remain ignorant.
Linus is a decent programmer and a mediocre project manager. He's not a visionary, and I think his relevance has peaked or will soon do so. For the FSF, on the other hand, it's only the beginning. Linus is probably disappointed because the FSF won't cater to him or change its goals to suit his needs (see his complaint about the FSF not giving him early access to the first draft of GPLv3), but frankly I couldn't care less if the FSF just ignored him altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
...whether or not the legal debate directly affects him. See also: BitKeeper. He wasn't interested in the silly licensing issues until the rug got jerked out from underneath all the kernel developers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then why is he continually debating the legalese of the GPL3 draft? To me, it sounds more like he wants to be "right" but doesn't want to do anything that could put him in a position to look stupid. See also: pretty much every debate Linus gets involved in.
I'm holding out (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
KFG
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So make your own! It's not like anything's stopping you...
(Note that it may not be as enforcable as the GPL, however.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm holding out for the kills small children and eats them for lunch license.
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/home/eula.mspx [microsoft.com]
A simpler explanation (Score:5, Interesting)
Torvalds may not like the GPLv3. However, I think that is orthogonal to why he is sitting out the process. At heart, the man is an engineer/coder. How many people work as software engineers/programmers/code monkeys/whatever and jump at the shot to sit in the "politcal" meetings? Seriously. As a general rule, engineers and programmers would rather be engineering and programming. They don't care so much about marketing. They don't care so much about the political undercurrents of the organization. They just want to do their job well.
Re:A simpler explanation (Score:4, Insightful)
An even simpler explanation (Score:2)
Many people have contributed code to Linux, and those people retain the rights to that code and every one would have to agree to move to GPL3. Linus cannot just say "all Linux code becomes GPL3".
He could say that all **future** Linux code becomes GPL3 otherwise it does not get gitted, but that cannot be retospectively applied to existing code and would mean that the ma
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think he can, because he couldn't mix the two together - as far as I can see, GPLv3 adds additional restrictions, so you can't link it with GPLv2.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A simpler explanation (Score:5, Insightful)
LT has made it pretty clear that the spirit of the GPL v3 is not the same as the v2 to him, and that's his objection. I definitely agree with that, even though I strongly dislike the v2 as well.
I suspect the real reason he has dropped out of the conversation is because he has no interest whatsoever in the direction of the v3 and the FSF has made it VERY clear that they have no intent on changing the parts he hates. It doesn't help him or them 1 iota to stay, so he left. Smart man.
"Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference."
Re: (Score:2)
Linus. He originally licensed Linux under a free-for-non-commercial-use license, and changed it to the GPL when asked. He doesn't agree with the FSF's philosophy, which is embodied in the GPL. He likes some of the side-effects of the GPL, but has never been a strong advocate if it or the philosophy it represents.
Re: (Score:2)
How, precisely, would he do this by sticking with GPLv2?
Perhaps, and hey, this is just a guess, Linus thinks that the GPLv3 will outlaw uses (such as signed code) which he feels are legitimate, this overly limiting the application domains in which OSS can play.
BTW, do you always chalk up disagreements with your personal opinions as flaws in the other person's character? Just OOC?
Re: (Score:2)
Which is the fatal flaw of any engineer or programmer especially when their common sense tech skills could save the company (or movement) when a non-tech person gets at the helm and steers everyone into a situation that sinks them all.
To play on a Hellraiser movie quote: "You may not believe you can affect politics, but politics believes it can affect you."
If you refuse to deal with politics, i
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Even simpler (Score:4, Insightful)
Or, put simpler: I think he simply doesn't understand it. And yes, I know that sounds arrogant, but if you remember his posts on Groklaw, he demonstrated again and again that he thought the GPLv3 demanded things that it didn't, and that he had completely missed the point of what it's actually trying to do. For instance, he actually brought out that old FUD about how disabling DRM will prevent certain security measures, which it doesn't.
I don't think Linus and PJ actually disagree, but I do think PJ actually knows her stuff, and Linus should stick to the actual coding, organizing, and benevolent dictating of the kernel itself.
That, or sometime fairly soon, we're going to actually squeeze a statement from Linus that, given the choice, he'd go with BSD or public domain. They seem more in line with his ideals.
There's a lot to what you say (Score:3, Insightful)
It's true. Engineers, scientists, programmers, mathmeticians, etc, would rather engineer than participate in meetings and organizational politics. Often, this is accompanied by an inability to play well with others--which I suspect is the case in this instance.
There are so many cases on the record where LT beats a hasty retreat after his arguments are demonstrated to have poor logic. Let's hope LT learns to moderate his penchant for hyperbole. Let's all be glad he codes better than he discusses policy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Torvalds: I'm going to fucking bury the FSF! (Score:3, Funny)
"And Ode to GPLv2" (Score:4, Informative)
"One of the reasons I didn't end up signing the GPLv3 position statement that James posted (and others had signed up for), was that a few weeks ago I had signed up for writing another kind of statement entirely: not so much about why I dislike the GPLv3, but why I think the GPLv2 is so great.
Rest of the post [lkml.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why Torvalds is Sitting out the GPLv3 Process (Score:2)
Ballmer got there early this year... (too easy?)
it's not like he has a choice (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I think the GPLv2 will sooner or later kill the Linux kernel. Some highly successful embedded Linux systems like the WRT54G only became hackable because the manufacturers made a mistake. Evidently, embedded users of Linux just don't get the benefits of openness, and they'll get better and better at circumventing the GPLv2; the GPLv2 will turn more and more into a kind of encumbered BSD license, and you can see how well BSD did with that.
Of course, I'm not too concerned. I think we really need a successor to the Linux kernel anyway, yet the industry is happy to keep running a 30 year old kernel design. If being increasingly the target of GPL circumvention is what it takes to motivate people to move to a new kernel, that's fine with me, too.
Re:it's not like he has a choice (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, no kidding... I mean, there definitely aren't any successful [freebsd.org] BSD [openbsd.org] variants [apple.com] available and widely deployed. And there certainly aren't any other successful [apache.org] non-GPL [mozilla.org] projects [postgreqsql.org] out there. Yup, the GPL is definitely *the* only way to go if you want to make a successful open source project... assuming, that is, you're a single-minded zealot (or troll?).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm glad he's sitting this one out (Score:3, Insightful)
Every week brings a new drama-bomb in the endless pissing contests and personal rivalries/vendettas. If half the energy expended to one up, or argue with another developer was put into the development process, an untold number of projects might be a bit further along. One thing you can say about closed-source software is that the financial pressures end up stifling a great deal of the petty childishness that seems to pervade the OSS community, and taints its image in the process.
Don't get me wrong, you still get this sort of crap on the closed-source side of things - "I don't want to use your standard...I want to reinvent the wheel for this app..." etc, but it's not at the forefront. Human nature dictates that you will find these problems everywhere, but in the corporate, closed-source enviroment, it comes down to one conclusion - eventually the project needs to get done.
If OSS wants to gain more acceptance, it needs to put this sort of thing aside and get back to the core issue - it's the code, dammit. None of the present issues with the community are insurmountable, but direct action needs to be taken, these problems are not going to going away on their own. Rampant egoism, Not Invented Here Syndrome, coder-centric, not user-centric development methodologies...these all slow the pace of progress and paint open source in a very bad light.
OSS has a large community of smart people, and I just think it can do a whole lot better.
Re: (Score:2)
I really REALLY want all users of "non-OSS" licenses to respect, 100%, their license. I really REALLY want full penalties for all license violations, or the simple inability to run "unlicensed" software. I am all for "software registration and enabling".
Really.
Because "non-OSS license" users will then actually care about the licenses they have. The ONLY reason that isn't the case is that illegal copying is (generally) encouraged.
Financial pressure? I don't think that's the re
their differences are simple (Score:5, Insightful)
The FSF is concerned with users. The whole thing started when Richard Stallman couldn't fix the printer driver that he was a user of. The FSF's goal is to ensure that everyone who uses software, ever, has the technical and legal right to modify the software they are using.
Linus seems more concerned with developers. If someone comes along and contributes some sweet code to the Linux kernel, he thinks it's only fair that any developer gets the opportunity to use that code too, in their own project. But he's not concerned that an end user can't install a modified version of Linux on their Tivo.
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow, I get the feeling it wasn't Linus who originally said that.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you mean that the FSF is concerned with end use and Linus is concerned with development?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When you are a developer, you get to decide how the software works. You can decide that, for example, DVDs can have previews that the software refuses to skip over.
When you are a user, you're stuck with the decisions the developer made, unless you have both the technical and legal capability to chang
Re:their differences are simple (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One is that the cost of manufacturing a custom piece of hardware is very high -- completely out of the bounds of hobbyists. That means that individuals are essentially dependent on corporations to manufacture the kind of specialized hardware they want. This is true of many physical products: cars, light bulbs, paper. What makes computer hardware different is that hardware manufacturers can use software to make the product specifically disobey its owner.
Malignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
What's interesting to me is when Torvolds says the GPL2 is where companies and open source people can meet in perfect harmony, as if companies like the GPL2. No company likes the prospect of having to open up their product because some 'tard put in GPL code without their knowledge. They put up with it because they have to, because it's a reality they can't escape. I know I have had many heated arguments about making code GPL when others on a project wanted BSD to be more 'corporate friendly'. Perfect harmony? Wtf world is he living in? Use GPLv3 and they will come and work with that too (even though they don't want to) and for the same reasons.
I think the real question is, as an open-source developer, why wouldn't you choose GPLv3 over v2? Because you want some company to use your program and then sue you because you made use of their patents? Or you want your software to make DRM devices cheaper to create? Or you want your license to be worded in a way that is ambiguous in some regions? I wonder why Linus wants linux to be licensed without patent protections, with ambiguous language, and in a way that supports DRM?
What's actually going on here "spin-free" (Score:5, Interesting)
about "free software". What they are truly fundamentally about is
creating a comprehensive category of software which is completely free from
corporate/business control, and which individual users can completely control in
all aspects as they wish.
His fundamental motivation is an anti-corporation, pro-individual/community
point of view. The fact that the mechanism for enabling his version of
"free software" is the GPL and a common pool of open source is
secondary. If he could have gotten a global law enforced that all corporations
must release all their source code freely on the Internet, that's what he would
have done, instead of GNU and GPL.
RMS is an absolutist on this point. He truly sees this as good vs. evil, and as
a belief system about which there can be no question.
To help understand this, http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemI
read this interview.
This is where the insistence that DRM and "Trusted Computing" and
software patents must be abolished comes from. These are all tools that
corporations use to protect their property. RMS does not believe they should
have property like this... that it should all be made available to users with no
control by corporations.
Linux is also licensed under the GPL (v2), but comes from a completely
different motivation than RMS. Torvalds simply believes the open-source
development model is the most effective way to create excellent software.
Torvalds is just fine with corporations and businesses using Linux for profit,
even if that means "controlling" some aspects of its use. He
certainly has opinions on DRM, patents, and "Trusted Computing", but
he's not going to let those get in the way of Linux development.
So now starts the struggle for control of "what is the meaning of free
software". RMS is clearly trying to re-establish his vision of the
principles involved by pushing through GPL v3, because he's seen GPL v2 used in
ways that offend his principles deeply. Is it too late? Has the FOSS movement
taken off to an extent that he no longer controls it? Stay tuned.
Re: (Score:2)
RSM isn't the only driver of the elimination of software patents. There is another of opinion (one I happen to agree with) that simply doesn't believe software should be patnented. It shou
He Can Just Forget Politics (Score:3, Insightful)
Linus, you're never going to have a successful career in politics with an attitude like that.
Caveman, kill, eat! (Score:4, Funny)
GPL3 may not look like that, but Stallman does!!
Linus needs to be more consistent (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)