Will Stallman Kill the "Linux Revolution?"

frdmfghtr writes "The October 30 issue of Forbes Magazine has an article speculating that Richard Stallman's efforts to rewrite the GPL could threaten to 'tear it apart.' The article describes how the GPLv3 is expected to be incompatible with the GPLv2, causing trouble for Linux vendors such as Novell and Red Hat. The article wraps it up: 'And a big loser, eventually, could be Stallman himself. If he relents now, he likely would be branded a sellout by his hard-core followers, who might abandon him. If he stands his ground, customers and tech firms may suffer for a few years but ultimately could find a way to work around him. Either way, Stallman risks becoming irrelevant, a strange footnote in the history of computing: a radical hacker who went on a kamikaze mission against his own program and went down in flames, albeit after causing great turmoil for the people around him.'"

What a load of sensationalist FUD!

Linux is going to stick with GPLv2 regardless of what the FSF does with GPLv3. That has little to do with Linus disliking GPLv3, and much do to with not being able to track down all the contributors and get them to agree to a license change. GPLv3 is not going to cause any trouble for Linux vendors. It's certainly not going to "kill the Linux Revolution". There is nothing in GPLv2 or GPLv3 that prevents a Linux distribution from containing various programs under various licenses, just as Linux distributions today contain code under GPLv2, BSD, MIT, and other licenses. And GPLv3 doesn't make Stallman himself any more or less relevant that he's been in the past. The only point of bone-headed sensationalist reporting like this is to try to sell more copies of the magazine. Next month they'll tell us the GPLv3 will contribute to global warming, and the following month that it will promote slavery.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

Next month they'll tell us the GPLv3 will contribute to global warming

You mean, because you cannot pirate a GPL3ed work, and we need pirates to prevent global warming?

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

This is Forbes magazine.

The consequence of Richards vision is plenty for everyone and no capacity for hoarding, depriving, controlling and trading.

You think global warming holds a candle to something like this? He's a dangerous athiest among the flock.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

>This is Forbes magazine.

No it's worse than that.. It's Forbes magazine with an article written by Dan "SCO is going to win, Linux users are terrorists etc.." Lyons.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

Exactly. Personally I think that Stallman is a visionary and Linus is too pragmatist in a sense, as Stallman clearly wants to avoid the DRM/"Trusted computing" trap with GPLv3 and Linus can't see medium/longterm about this. Also, he doesn't seem to be really understanding the v3, since he claimed things like digitally signed repositories like apt-get would be not allowed with v3, while Stallman clearly established that it's not the case.

I think Linus is a good coder and project manager, but we shouldn't expect him to "show the way" in issues of principle/vision. He's an engineer, not a "freedom fighter".

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

Also, he doesn't seem to be really understanding the v3, since he claimed things like digitally signed repositories like apt-get would be not allowed with v3, while Stallman clearly established that it's not the case.

Unfortunately, Stallman only gets a say in the legalese as it's generated - he doesn't get a say in how the legal language of the GPLv3 is interpreted after it's finished. If attorneys say that this is a concern, then Linus has to worry about it - no matter what Stallman says.

Or do you seriously believe that Linus hasn't consulted with attorneys on this?

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

Or do you seriously believe that Linus hasn't consulted with attorneys on this?

I wouldn't be at all surprised. Considering how he's managed the Linux trademark, and the general lack of understanding of the GPL he's publicly displayed, I'd almost be surprised if he even knows any IP lawyers. In contrast, RMS has had Even Moglen [wikipedia.org] on board from day one.

Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear"?

I know, traditions and all, but after all, legal rulings are often called "opinions". Why does there need to be "interpretation"? When you make a law (or write a license), would it be so hard to tag a sentence or two in plain vernacular about the "intent"? Why wouldn't that have any weight, legally? I mean, if it is from the original author of the clause in question, why would it not have standing, even if clearly different from the exacting legalese? Seems like we have the author of GPLV3 explaining himself already! Couldn't the intent be part of the license?

To take a really off topic, but simple, example; When they said; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. They knew what them meant. Would it have been so hard to add a sentence? Either By this we mean a well regulated militia is one that is under state control or The intention of this is to prevent the state from usurping the rights of individuals, so this to means all citizens of good standing can bear arms.?

Makes a big difference, and not subject to later interpretation.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

The framers of the Constitution *did* think the Second Amendment was clear when written. And no one much questioned it for nearly 150 years: that's pretty darned good. 220 years of hindsight and court decisions have added an unbelievable amount of nuance and interpretation to what is simply the most carefully and expertly drafted political document in human history. How many other such documents have stayed around and had to be altered so little for such a long time? (Other than Germany's Rheinheitsgebot, that is.)

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

Let me see ... how many Ecumenical Councils were there? So the Nicene Council around 325 - oh, wait, the Nicene Creed was amended a little at the later Constinopolitan Council ... so it has only been unchanged in the last 1500 years. Besides the creed itself, they passed a whole lot of provisions of canon law. Then there were the provisions of the other councils, and the later Orthodox and Catholic Councils that still have force as canon law. The laws of England include provisions going back to the reign of Edward III (1300s) that are still in force (or were until recently). Hmmm Magna Carta - now there is a document to make your Constitution look like a juvenile.

History wasn't invented in America. Some places have been around longer, and have a longer tradition of unchanged principles. Jewish law goes back, in some matters, over 3,000 years. America is just a Johnny-come-lately in the world of legal history.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

It was always that way. Killing is perfectly justified for a large variety of reasons in the Torah. Capital punishment is common, there are fairly complex rules for retribution, and plenty of times G-d Himself says "go out and win a glorious victory" if you read the assorted Prophets and Writings. If all killing were outlawed, there'd be a heck of a lot of contradiction here.

Murder, though, is unjustified killing. It breaks one of the Ten Commandments to pick a child at random and bash his head in. It does not break one of the Ten Commandments to kill your enemy in battle.

I prefer to reading which doesn't cause G-d to be commanding His people to break the Ten Commandments, personally.

For the nitpickers:
The Hebrew word in question is 'ratzach' (which is conjugated to tirtzach in the text; Exodus XX, 13). Modern usage (according to my dictionary) clearly indicates murder as the first definition, and 'kill' as secondary. There is another verb 'harag' which can also mean 'kill', unfortunately I'm not as up on my Hebrew, so I can't say for sure whether this word is: a) used for more general killing, b) used more for killing of animals, or c) a modern invention.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

When they said; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. They knew what them meant.

They did indeed. However, word meanings and connotations change with time. Today many people think the "militia" is synonmyous with the National Guard (when in fact, the Guard has been part of the Army since 1933), and "well-regulated" means "operating under a large set of rules"; but at the time, it was clear to the authors that "militia" meant "every able-bodied man young enough to fight", and "well-regulated" meant "prepared and trained in military skills" [guncite.com].

The meaning of "arms" has also changed: at the time, it was understood to mean the sort of weapon carried by an infantryman. Heavier weapons would be refered to as "cannon"; so Amendment II doesn't mean you have a right to a howitzer on your front lawn. But people arguing against the Second Amendment today often attempt a reductio ad absurdum which includes WMDs under "arms".

(Some people evidently also seem to think that "shall not be infringed" somehow means "can be limited by the government", but that's a linguisitic drift that's harder to account for.)

Anyway, point being that what is absolutely clear and precise to one audience, can still be interpreted differently by another (especially if the two group have different motivations).

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

Ok, Fine. What counts as arms? a .22 pistol? A tank? A basement full of C-4? An F16? and what counts as a citizen of good standing? Someone who hasn't been convicted of a felony? Someone who has no criminal record? Does this include traffic violations? Even your clarifications must be further clarified. It's a never ending cycle that can never be fully codified.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

To take a really off topic, but simple, example; When they said; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. They knew what them meant. Would it have been so hard to add a sentence? [etc., etc.]

If you are familiar with the history, it's obvious that, at the time, it very clearly referred to an individual right to bear arms.

That's what instigated the Battles of Lexington and Concord, and hence sparked the American Revolution. The British soldiers based in Boston went to collect caches of weapons from known or suspected agitators in the countryside. The British-American colonists felt their rights were violated, and it led to open combat, a fighting retreat, and the colonists successfully besieged Boston. All because the government wanted to collect weapons from citizens.

The problem is that, when man-portable automatic weapons were developed, the Constitution was not changed. Practically everyone recognizes that, if private individuals are allowed to own fully-automatic AK47s, there will be serious problems enforcing civil order. They were made illegal some time around 1900, but no one could be bothered with amending the Constitution to make such a law possible. So ever since that time, we have been subjected to the bizarre construction of 'oh yeah, it refers to ownership by militas, not to private ownership'. This only led to still more bizarre things like the creation of the 'Michigan Militia'.

Anyway, the problem is not that the second amendment is unclear. It's that it was outdated by late 19th-century technology, and we have been suffering under legal kludges ever since. All that we need is to pass a new amendment to say "people generally have a right to own handguns and rifles, but deadlier things can be prohibited".

But considering the trouble Congress has with even considering any modification at all (liberal or conservative) to Social Security, my hopes are not high.

Re:Slightly OT: Why isn't the language "more clear

I know, traditions and all, but after all, legal rulings are often called "opinions". Why does there need to be "interpretation"? When you make a law (or write a license), would it be so hard to tag a sentence or two in plain vernacular about the "intent"? Why wouldn't that have any weight, legally?

Because your "plain language" is plain to you but not to everyone else, and especailly not to an determined lawyer.

I live in Hong Kong, where your "intent" idea has sadly been put into effect. When Hong Kong was handed back by Britain to China in 1997 the laws of Hong Kong were determined by the "Basic Law", in effect a constitution, as enacted by the PRC after negotiation with the UK. However, some years later when the governement wanted to enact laws that went against the "obvious" interpretation of the Basic Law (relating to elections mostly), the rulings of Hong Kong's High Court were overridden by the government by appealing to the "intent" of the laws, by asking members of the committee that had drafted them what they had been thinking about. Thus the government is able to retrospectively change the effect of laws without even having to pass legislation.

So as much as we all hate lawyers, having judicial oversight that follows the strict letter of the law, and not its "intent", is a much more democratic system. If governments want to change laws, they can make new ones and let the legislators openly argue and vote on them.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

Or do you seriously believe that Linus hasn't consulted with attorneys on this?

See, now that's funny. Linus is the guy who claims that a device driver isn't a derived work of the Linux kernel if it was originally developed for a different operating system and then ported to Linux. This, of course, is not based on any legal principle.. it's just his opinion, but it doesn't stop people from quoting Linus like they're referencing case law.

What's more funny is that when Linus added the "userland exception" to the Linux kernel he was absolutely clear about what he wanted.. he wanted people to be able to write proprietary apps that can run on the Linux kernel. He didn't want people to be able to write proprietary extensions to the Linux kernel. Now he's changed his mind because his "pragmatism" is telling him that graphics card manufacturers will never open source their drivers and he really wants all those pretty 3d games.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

Well, it's hard to say how it will function. If software producer A sign their binaries, and hardware company B produces hardware that only reads binaries signed by A, the GPLv3 is somehow supposed to magically supply me with A's private key so that I might run modified versions of the application. But A isn't doing anything to demand release of the keys, and B isn't bound by the GPLv3 because they don't ship software. If a company can find a way to ship the software and hardware separately (or under the "mere aggregation" clause, or claiming that the software and hardware is not a derivative work according to copyright law), then the GPLv3 is screwed.
 

Well, the GPL is a distribution license, so it would only affect B if they are distributing the software.

If they don't have the key from A to distribute, they still have the option of getting the source (we are talking about GPL'd software, after all) and signing it themselves with their own key, then distributing that key with it.

In short, your example is pretty bad overall.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

wrong, history has proven that while Stallman's path is "the road not traveled", his views on corperate control of culture via copyright and patents have almost all come true verbatim. And key members of the industries view our current "freedom" as "consumers" as too much. RMS is about making sure SOMETHING remains truely, legally FREE. In the current corperate culture, that's extremely hard.. 75% of the "free" software on your computer you got legally for free (without money) is not FREE... you can't look at it to see how it works, you can't use it how you wish.. you may not even own the works you create with the program. But somebody let you have such a great thing for "free". That's the issue! Imagine when everything uses software, and everything needs you to give up special permission to the "owners" in order to get your work done... hell in a good part of the country, employeers can make you sign away rights so you can't even GIVE away works you create.

Trust me, without "crazies" like RMS there would be no ruler to meaure how bad the situation truely is. RMS BEGS people to follow him, but he's not the one out there passing crazy laws like the DMCA, or making 100 billion from "borrowed" code, or suing people for a few songs... those are the capitalists that know what's best for us.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

Yes, it is largely fud w/r/t to the kernel; but there is the issue of the rest of the toolchain (gcc, binutils, etc.) that the GNU foundation owns the copyright on, in addition to the large body of code licensed "GPL v2 or Later." Sure, the commercial vendors could fork or use the BSD tools, but then you have two different branches: the commercial branch, and the branch with code that the community chooses to license under GPL3. If the final GPL3 contains terms that would make impossible to provide to enterprise users, then some vendors could not provide that.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

Umm, you're wrong on both counts.

1)Having to spit out your source code

No, thats not in there. What it does say is that if the app already does that, you are not allowed to remove that (and distribute the new version). You don't have to make it do so in the first place though.

2)Can't use encryption

Sure you can. However, if you cryptographically sign your code and make hardware that only works with the signed version, you must provide your keys so that people can alter your code and use the derived version.

FSF less relevant than the projects it spawned?

I heard that GPLv3 kills puppies. Just what I heard. Seriously, if you're the FSF and you have a stated agenda that you would like to promote, wouldn't it be in your interest to tailor your fast and furious new license to complement the efforts of developers working on the most significant, most widely-used existing projects? I don't mean to downplay Stallman's or FSF's historical importance, but the future of free software is not with those players. It is with Linux, and Firefox, and so on--the software projects that Stallman and a ton of other people helped make possible.

Adoption of free software by non-nerds does not happen because of a Stallman speech about the software industry's problems, or because of GPLv3. Rather, it's the result of something as unassuming as a web browser that is more resilient to viruses and spyware than IE, and that provides a better browsing experience. That's really all that people care about.

I am not personally a fan of Stallman's--I think he's made his share of missteps that have hindered the free software movement. But overall, the net good that he and FSF have accomplished has already outweighed the bad. We have seen the open source movement burgeon and grow well beyond the ability of any one entity to kill it, hinder it, or even significantly influence it.

Does that mean we should dismiss GPLv3 as moot? No. Even if GPLv3 is 10 or even 20 years away from widespread adoption, or is just dismissed altogether as "aspirational", at least it's still out there. Out there to be used or out there to be used as a model for public licensing agreements yet to be drafted. There is no downside.

Re:FSF less relevant than the projects it spawned?

Adoption of free software by non-nerds does not happen because of a Stallman speech about the software industry's problems, or because of GPLv3. Rather, it's the result of something as unassuming as a web browser that is more resilient to viruses and spyware than IE, and that provides a better browsing experience. That's really all that people care about.

Recent Free Software gains in India were due to Stallman visiting and making a speech. He promised the locals freedom to adapt the code to their needs, and to be free of licensing free imposed by Western companies. Maybe in the United States all people care about is a better browser, but Stallman's globetrotting shows that a lot of people in disadvantaged places see value in the philosophy, not just the features.

Re:FSF less relevant than the projects it spawned?

Those don't sound like ordinary users to me. They sound like people who have the expertise to actually change the software they use.

I have no clue as to how to work on the electric lines in my house. But I can contract out to *any* qualified person to fix them.

Similarly, if I have a problem with Firefox, I may not have the knowledge to fix it myself. But I can contract out to *any* qualified person to fix it.

On the gripping hand, if I have a problem with $CLOSED_SOURCE_SOFTWARE, I'm screwed unless the vendor itself decides to fix it.

Original author's consent is not required

GPLv2 contains the following language in paragraph 9:

If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation.

This provision gives the option of deciding whether to follow V2 or V3 to the person making a copy of V2 code, not to the author.

There is a serious ambiguity - if that person adds or changes some of the code, can that person convert the entire module to V3 or is the module now fragmented? And if the latter, how is anyone supposed to keep track of what statement of code is under what license?

Personally I have abandoned publishing code under the GPL - I now use the less restrictive, non-viral MIT/BSD style licenses.

There is another situation that few have discussed - The rules of copyright in the US are defined by statutes enacted by, and changable by, Congress.

There is a chance that Congress could amend the US copyright law to deny the right of enforcement to anyone who has made only a partial or small contribution to the totality of the work or if that contribution has been subject to several intervening layers of further contributions. (It would be a bear to define these things, but the Congress critters would be getting a lot of help from the IP and non GPL software industry.)

Insulting, inflammatory, & funny

There were a few inaccuracies right off the bat. For example, Stallman may have issues with the state of copyright law, but he's not against copyright per se. Indeed, the GPL is based on copyright law. Lyon also confuses free as in beer with free as in freedom.

But the main point is essentially correct: Stallman is trying to aggressively expand his "freedom empire" with the GPL 3, and it could just bite him on the ass.

The article also insulting, inflammatory, and funny. Gotta love a good dustup.

Re:Insulting, inflammatory, & funny

Actually, yes, Stallman is opposed to copyright, _per se_, at least as far a software is concerned. He's quite open about that; he believes deeply in something he refers to as "the freedom to tinker". Copyright, if it applies to software packages, completely breaks the freedom to tinker.

Re:Insulting, inflammatory, & funny

Then why does he copyright all his stuff instead of releasing it into the public domain free of copyright?

Because, all the fashionable slashdot trolling to the contrary, he's an eminently practical man. If he released it PD he knows someone would just grab it, modify it a little, and close it off. He knows this because he learned the hard way - this was done with much of his early work.

He'd like to change copyright law, but being unable at least for the moment to do that, he came up with a way to hack copyright law to serve his purposes instead.

Re:Insulting, inflammatory, & funny

But the main point is essentially correct: Stallman is trying to aggressively expand his "freedom empire" with the GPL 3, and it could just bite him on the ass.

I don't think "expand" is the right term here. "Preserve" would be much better.

Keep in mind that when GPL-2 was created there was no such thing as DMCA and software patents were a rather exotic idea. GPL-3 is the answer to new laws and aggressive interpretations of old ones.

"Global" and "Internet" are not just empty words. Combine a potential loophole (as one can use GPL source and lock down binaries with crypto key and DMCA) and millions of people and there *will* be a few unscrupulous ones that will spoil it for everybody (example: e-mail).

So, yes, we do need GPL-3, but the issue of how to deal with existing GPL-2 software is truly a hairy one.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

Mr. Bungi, I do not know why you defend this obvious hatchet-job published by Forbes. But the author of the article truely does not know (or care to know) what he is talking about. "Richard M. Stallman is a 53-year-old anticorporate crusader" This is not what RMS is about - he really does not give two hoots about corporations as such, much less "crusade" against them. Here is where the author engages in misleading non-truth ("specious lies?) "who has argued for 20 years that most software should be free of charge" Assuming the author knows anything at all about RMS and the Free Software Foundation, he knows that this is not true. Similarly: "He and a band of anarchist acolytes long have waged war on the commercial software industry" First, Stallman (unfortunately?) does not have acolytes - If there are such unthinking followers, I have not met them. Second, and mentioned above "war on the commercial software industry" is a complete fabrication. RMS, as far as I can tell, has little interest in damaging the commercial software industry. Yes, he is an ideologue, but put the emphasis on ideals. "dubbing tech giants "evil" and "enemies of freedom" because they rake in sales and enforce patents and copyrights--when he argues they should be giving it all away." Again, utter nonsense. Yes, I wonder why the Forbes piece was written - I am asking - and I wonder why you defend this object of malice.

Re:What a load of sensationalist FUD!

Article:

Richard M. Stallman is a 53-year-old anticorporate crusader who has argued for 20 years that most software should be free of charge.

RMS quote:

"I think it is ok for authors (please let's not call them "creators", they are not gods) to ask for money for copies of their works (please let's not devalue these works by calling them "content") in order to gain income (the term "compensation" falsely implies it is a matter of making up for some kind of damages)."

The guy is wakko, but you know why he's so successful? Because people make a god or demon out of him; hes neither. The guy has obviously spent some time learning the history of copyright/patent/trademark laws, and thats more than most can say.

He understands that copyright law was enacted to benifit the public, not the author. He understands that patent laws were enacted to encourage publication, and that trademark laws try and enforce a certain level of market transparency for .. gee, the public.

His ideas may come across as complicated and pedantic to people; which is the way it should be. We're talking about the systems that were put in place to encourage the advancement of science, technology, and culture here.

FTFA:

Cisco caved in to Stallman's demands rather than endure months of abuse from his noisy worldwide cult of online jihadists.

As soon as you agree with an article that demogogues by using the word "jihad", you might begin to question the source. RMS, that crazy nut, is basically pointing out that the last 500 years of laws based on intellectual property arn't based upon secrecy; they're based on encouraging publication while granting the author (and more importantly, denying the state) a relatively modest amount of control over the invention or creative work. In other words, he realizes that we've all been through this before, and its the public domain that needs protecting, not the author, because in lieu of laws that protect the public right to its own culture and technological innovation, we end up with something that very closely mirrors a feudalist system with a barrier to market that would make Adam Smith rise from the dead to slap us silly. The guy might be a little too over the edge, but anyone with a basic grasp on the history of copyright, patent, and trademark laws should immediately understand where hes coming from. This article does little else than cry wolf for some tech companies. I work for tech companies, as a programmer. They won't live or die based on licenses of available technologies. This is just a bunch of whining.

No more so than the MPL

It would be nice to have everything under compatible licenses, but it would also be nice to have all DRM proponents sent to PMITA prison.

There's always BSD.

Many of us have already moved away from Linux to BSD. Besides the many technical advantages of FreeBSD, the portability benefits of NetBSD, the extreme security of OpenBSD, and the massive scalability of DragonFly BSD, we don't have to deal with unreasonable licensing nonsense.

If somebody wants to take BSD code, modify it and not release those changes, then so be it. It doesn't hurt the rest of us, as we still have FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD and DragonFly BSD to use. Beyond that, such use may make somebody else better off. Thus, there's a net benefit overall. We lose nothing, yet others gain.

And I'd be very happy if Microsoft were to use more BSD code in their products. Doing so would result in a vast increase in the quality of their codebase. That, in turn, will result in fewer infected Windows systems that send terabytes of spam to my mail servers. The less spam my servers have to filter, the more money I save in bandwidth and processing costs. I may even be able to reduce the number of mail servers I have.

Re:There's always BSD.

It is ironic that you are forcing your personal definition of "free" upon me.

Re:There's always BSD.

I think the greatest difference lies in the position of "free"

BSD code is free code to be used in software.
GPL code is code to be used in free software.

I don't have a problem seeing that free has two different meanings, and that I don't need to subscribe to one particular definition. Of course, we can still have a holy war about which is "better". In fact, I liked those two lines so much I'll make it my sig.

what a difference a decade makes

GPL 1 and 2 were developed far from the public eye. V3 is being debated and written under intense scrutiny. It would be hard to avoid the controversy being generated now.

The Linux kernel may not switch, but that will not doom V3, nor will it doom the FSF or Stallman. There is much that has happened since V2, and the attempts to address things like DRM and patents have and will continue to shed light on the ugly underbelly of modern software licensing. This, I think, is good.

"Free software" means something different now. It's not just being able to tweak a text editing program, or encourage community development and review. It's about who will control the millions of PCs in the world. The more that Microsoft and the RIAA/MPAA continue to try to lock down the PC, turning it into nothing more than a delivery system for DRMed content, the more relevant the FSF becomes.

Re:what a difference a decade makes

The Linux kernel may not switch, but that will not doom V3, nor will it doom the FSF or Stallman.

That's not the issue. The problem is that it's becoming likely that GPLv3 will split FOSS software in two, with half the people going with GPLv2-only and the other half going with GPLv3-or-later. This means no possible exchange of code between the two pools and possibly lots of forks, especially for libraries. I hope the worst case scenario doesn't happen, but GPLv3 has potential for doing much more damage than any gain it can provide (even it you think it's good in itself). As far as I'm concerned all the (L)GPL software I write will be GPLv2-or-later, making GPLv3 useless, but mitigating the incompatibility problem.

Gee, I wonder why RMS wouldn't answer this hack

A cantankerous and finger-wagging freewheeler, Stallman won't comment on any of this because he was upset by a previous story written by this writer.

Right, because all this writer does is spout vitriol and spread fear, uncertainty and doubt all in an apparent attempt to garner page views. It's no wonder RMS doesn't have time to respond to such a writer. [In fact, I've discovered that I don't have time to finish reading this article either.] One wonders why McVoy even bothered to respond.

Footnote?

Say what you will about Richard Stallman, footnote he will never be. That's like saying the Wright brothers are a footnote in aviation.

And as far as any possible splinter goes, this will separate the wheat from the chaff in both directions. It may be painful, but good will come of it.

Not the first time: GFDL incompatible with GPL

This has happened before. A while back I tried without success to convince Richard Stallman that continuing to promote a license (the GNU Free Documentation License or GFDL)
        http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html [gnu.org]
which was incompatible with the GPL was a bad thing. :-)
See for example some reasons at:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Free_Documentatio n_License [wikipedia.org]
    http://home.twcny.rr.com/nerode/neroden/fdl.html [rr.com]
My particular interest was to use information from the GFDL-licensed Wikipedia in GPL programs. I'd go further and question the very reasons the GFDL was created in the first place -- just to make dead tree book publishers' lives easier? Where is the emphasis on freedom there?

I think it is easy for any technologist to underestimate community issues and then to see a license as a program for individual behavior instead of a constitution for a community. The GPL works. It has problems, sure, but it works well enough as a constitution for cooperation. More variants of licenses mainly just make more problems IMHO.

You should've used emacs...

"...my chainsaw is incompatible with my text editor."

You should've used emacs.

Is Forbes Credible?

I find it hard to take Frobes seriously when they start out by misrepresenting the postion of the person they are talking about (Stallman).

"Richard M. Stallman is a 53-year-old anticorporate crusader who has argued for 20 years that most software should be free of charge. He and a band of anarchist acolytes long have waged war on the commercial software industry, dubbing tech giants "evil" and "enemies of freedom" because they rake in sales and enforce patents and copyrights--when he argues they should be giving it all away."

• Stallman does not argue that "most software should be free of charge". The GPL, which he wrote, specifically says one is allowed to charge for GPLd software.
• Stallman doesn't argue that "they should be giving it all away." He does argue that they shouldn't have a monopoly, which is very different to "giving it all away".

Re:Is Forbes Credible?

It's not splitting hairs. The GPL is quite specific:

"...have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish),..."

and

"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."

The GPL distinguishes between licensing and distribution. You may not charge for the right to copy the program ("...to be licensed as a whole at no charge..."). You may charge for the act of distributing the program (see above).

The GPL does not dictate that you must give someone a copy of a program. You are free to say no when someone asks for a copy of a program without paying money.

If you choose to sell a copy of a program to someone you may distribute it as a source or binary.

If you distribute it as source take the money, give them the source code and that is the end of the transaction. There is no limit to the money you can legally charge as the GPL does not come into play until the transaction is complete.

If you distribute it as binary take the money, give them the binary. Again there is no limit to the money you can legally charge under the GPL for distributing the copy. In the case of distributing the binary you must also offer to provide the source at a minimum cost of distribution. This is fair as you have already made your profit on the distribution of the binary. It's worth noting that the offer to distribute source for minimal cost only comes into play once you have distributed a binary. Distribute source initially and you can charge what you want for it.

The low cost of GPLd software is a consequence of unfettered competion, not the GPL. Something to warm the heart of every capitalist.