PDA

View Full Version : Linux Creator Calls GPLv3 Authors 'Hypocrites' As Open Source Debate Turns Nasty



jrusso2
July 10th, 2007, 08:15 PM
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/07/linux_creator_c.html

This can't be good

CheShA
July 10th, 2007, 08:33 PM
ugh. I had heard that he was reasonably happy with the most recent draft before it was released.

forrestcupp
July 10th, 2007, 08:49 PM
This is also from "The Highly Reliable Times." :lolflag:

tehkain
July 10th, 2007, 08:52 PM
How is this new? This type of thing has been going on for years

DC@DR
July 10th, 2007, 08:53 PM
Damn, I don't know what is going on, but if Linus Torvalds is really fighting against Richard Stallman, the real winner would be Steve Ballmer, and that's not what we, FOSS community, would like to see :-(

DoctorMO
July 10th, 2007, 09:07 PM
It's so outrageous. calling Linux Torvalds business minded is just stupid; he's an engineer not a business man; he's never owned a business and had his mind on practicalities; on the other hand he's attempting to enter the debate on the assumption that Stallman is attempting to control the Linux Kernel project and that just isn't so.

There is a lot of mis-information going around and I don't like the fact that Torvarlds sucks it up. He's a nice guy but terribly impressionable about moral and ethical issues.

But the Stallman can be insensitive and annoying; qall great people have their flaws, even Charles Darwin filled his house with worms and played the bassoon at them.

zugu
July 10th, 2007, 09:35 PM
Yawn, here comes Solaris, GPL'd.

TBOL3
July 10th, 2007, 09:50 PM
This is also from "The Highly Reliable Times." :lolflag:

Actually, most of that was almost correct. The big thing I sadly disagree with is the statement that Linus will never agree with the GPLv3. Because people do change.


Damn, I don't know what is going on, but if Linus Torvalds is really fighting against Richard Stallman, the real winner would be Steve Ballmer, and that's not what we, FOSS community, would like to see :-(

Yes, I do agree. I think this is even more of a problem then MS has ever been. I've read about 1/2 of the license as of yet. (For those of you who are reading this because you can't sleep, I highly recommend reading the GPL, or any other license, it's bettor then counting sheep) But from what I've heard, I have to side with Linus. I had only one problem with the GPLv2. And it was the lack of compatibility between similar licenses.



On last thing. At the beginning of the license on reads...


GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE

Version 3, 29 June 2007

Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/>

Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Preamble

The GNU General Public License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.

The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users. We, the Free Software Foundation, use the GNU General Public License for most of our software; it applies also to any other work released this way by its authors. You can apply it to your programs, too.

When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs, and that you know you can do these things.


http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html


I find this strange for a license that's supposed to protect your freedom to CHANGE Source Code. I'm not talking about taking some person's GPLed project, and "tweaking" the license a bit. But if I START my own project, why can't I use a modified version of the GPL. It's one thing if it's a license to 'take away' freedoms. But a license to 'add' them should be able to be modified.

original_jamingrit
July 10th, 2007, 09:55 PM
I feel a disturbance in the Open Source.

RS and Linus have always represented the two dichotomies of FOSS: One uses good programming as a means to promoting free software, and the other uses free programming as a means to generate good software.

Pekkalainen
July 10th, 2007, 09:57 PM
Creator? Is he some sort of god? I prefer to call him author, he may have written the Linux kernel but he doesnt deserve a title higher than that.

Frankly I think Torvalds is biting the hand that feeds. Whats next? He convinces all devolpers to switch to the BSD license and see all his work being abused by groups that give nothing back?

If Hurd ever gets to a useable point this guys software is going to be removed from my machine :mad:

original_jamingrit
July 10th, 2007, 10:04 PM
I find this strange for a license that's supposed to protect your freedom to CHANGE Source Code. I'm not talking about taking some person's GPLed project, and "tweaking" the license a bit. But if I START my own project, why can't I use a modified version of the GPL. It's one thing if it's a license to 'take away' freedoms. But a license to 'add' them should be able to be modified.

You should be able to, it just means you can't call it GPLv3, you'd probably have to call it something else.

TBOL3
July 10th, 2007, 10:20 PM
Frankly I think Torvalds is biting the hand that feeds. Whats next? He convinces all devolpers to switch to the BSD license and see all his work being abused by groups that give nothing back?


Linus wouldn't support the BSD license for one reason. It doesn't have 'tit for tat'. Meaning that anyone could do almost whatever they wanted with the code without giving it back.


You should be able to, it just means you can't call it GPLv3, you'd probably have to call it something else.

Oh, I'm sorry.

However, it would be nice if they were more explicit about it.

Hex_Mandos
July 10th, 2007, 10:21 PM
Yes, the GNU folk have to protect their name. They didn't just patent hard copyleft, that'd be MSFTs approach.

As for the GPLV3, I don't think it's too bad. It's harder to read, but I don't disagree with the two major changes: the anti tivoization clause (Tivo can add as much DRM as they want, as long as we're just as free to remove it) and the patent convenant clause. Unlike the FUD some people have spread, GPL3 doesn't prohibit DRM or awfully restrict devs' freedoms.

Myself, I'm more of a weak copyleft person (my favorite licenses are the MPL and Sun's version of it), but I like the main parts of the system to be protected by a strong license backed by an organization like the FSF.

TBOL3
July 10th, 2007, 10:29 PM
As for the GPLV3, I don't think it's too bad. It's harder to read, but I don't disagree with the two major changes: the anti tivoization clause (Tivo can add as much DRM as they want, as long as we're just as free to remove it) and the patent convenant clause. Unlike the FUD some people have spread, GPL3 doesn't prohibit DRM or awfully restrict devs' freedoms.


I see where you're coming from. But then again, I see where Tivo is coming from. It's your choice to buy the hardware. If the user chooses to buy hardware that restricts the user from changing it, then why would he/she want to. If the user wanted to play with the hardware, he/she should have bought something else. And if no one like not being able to change anything, then the company will A. go out of business. or B. change their policies/products they sell. That's really why MS is the leader. At the start, MS allowed the user to do what they wanted with their PC.

Edit: If I remember correctly, the GPLv2 also didn't require attribution for the work. Which I do disagree with.

Mathiasdm
July 10th, 2007, 10:31 PM
On last thing. At the beginning of the license on reads...



http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html


I find this strange for a license that's supposed to protect your freedom to CHANGE Source Code. I'm not talking about taking some person's GPLed project, and "tweaking" the license a bit. But if I START my own project, why can't I use a modified version of the GPL. It's one thing if it's a license to 'take away' freedoms. But a license to 'add' them should be able to be modified.
I agree, it's a strange thing, and one of the things I dislike about the GPL. (Edit: original_jamingrit apparently explained how it works. Thanks!)

Anyways, I tend to agree to Torvalds here. The FSF keeps running around talking about freedom, while the GPL (and not just version 3) restricts certain options too.
It might not have restrictions for users, but there are some annoying ones for the developers.

Same with the LGPL: great license, but I don't like one of the points (stating: 'this piece of software may be relicensed under the GPL').


Oh well, software licenses are hard to write, I'm sure ;-) So I'll just pick the one that suits me best :) (Edit: when I'm developing, that is ;-) )

cobrn1
July 10th, 2007, 10:33 PM
It's so outrageous. calling Linux Torvalds business minded is just stupid; he's an engineer not a business man; he's never owned a business and had his mind on practicalities; on the other hand he's attempting to enter the debate on the assumption that Stallman is attempting to control the Linux Kernel project and that just isn't so.

There is a lot of mis-information going around and I don't like the fact that Torvarlds sucks it up. He's a nice guy but terribly impressionable about moral and ethical issues.

But the Stallman can be insensitive and annoying; qall great people have their flaws, even Charles Darwin filled his house with worms and played the bassoon at them.

A very sensible viewpoint.

I personally think that linus is a nice enough guy, good programmer, but can act like a bit of a tit at times (throwing wobblies at GPLv3, his, 'i'm an engineer, so DRM is ok' thing, etc). In general, he's ok. He has his off moments, like we all do.

Stallman is much the same - it's sad for him that linux really stole his thunder, but really we all want the same thing. Now if he could stop insisting that it's GNU/linux as opposed to just linux then everything would be dandy (he insists that people use the former, and only journalists who agree may interview him)- i mran, no one else cares - that's just a personal sore spot me thinks...

All in all, we're all looking for the same thing, and I thiink it's safe to say the open source is not going to be disappearing anytime soon.

igknighted
July 10th, 2007, 10:34 PM
You should be able to, it just means you can't call it GPLv3, you'd probably have to call it something else.

HAHAHAHA!!! Remember the huge fight last year between the FSF/Debian and Mozilla? Wasn't this THE issue? That Debian changed Firefox a little and still called it Firefox? And now they do the exact same thing?

NOTE: That is not meant as a disrespectful laugh at the FSF, rather I actually find the whole situation rather amusing.

Honestly, I don't think there is anything to freak out about. I mean, even if the kernel doesn't go v3, what is to prevent distro's from releasing v2 and v3 software side by side? And if there are restrictions, no one will use v3 because why compile and release software under a license that restricts its ability to be distributed with the kernel it is made to run with?

The way I see it is, the worst thing that can happen is Linus and the FSF get into a hissy fight and the world moves on. It might even stir up more development of Solaris... and I think we can all agree, the more free OS's competing, the better off we are. So I am not concerned, I am 100% positive that in some way or another there will be a perfectly good FOSS operating system when the dust settles. Whether it is Linux under GPLv3 or v2, or Solaris or any other kernel I care not, so long as it works and there is a community behind it.

Andrewie
July 10th, 2007, 10:39 PM
HAHAHAHA!!! Remember the huge fight last year between the FSF/Debian and Mozilla? Wasn't this THE issue? That Debian changed Firefox a little and still called it Firefox? And now they do the exact same thing?

NOTE: That is not meant as a disrespectful laugh at the FSF, rather I actually find the whole situation rather amusing.

Honestly, I don't think there is anything to freak out about. I mean, even if the kernel doesn't go v3, what is to prevent distro's from releasing v2 and v3 software side by side? And if there are restrictions, no one will use v3 because why compile and release software under a license that restricts its ability to be distributed with the kernel it is made to run with?

The way I see it is, the worst thing that can happen is Linus and the FSF get into a hissy fight and the world moves on. It might even stir up more development of Solaris... and I think we can all agree, the more free OS's competing, the better off we are. So I am not concerned, I am 100% positive that in some way or another there will be a perfectly good FOSS operating system when the dust settles. Whether it is Linux under GPLv3 or v2, or Solaris or any other kernel I care not, so long as it works and there is a community behind it.

:confused:

kernel and all the projects remain under GPLv2 and Linux continues on as it always has. Not sure how Solaris is in on this

igknighted
July 10th, 2007, 10:53 PM
:confused:

kernel and all the projects remain under GPLv2 and Linux continues on as it always has. Not sure how Solaris is in on this

Solaris is likely moving from the CDDL to GPLv3 according to Sun, so if linux doesn't move and there is a major rift between linus and the FSF, the FSF could move the GNU project's focus to the solaris kernel instead. Not too far fetched I don't think. With stuff like ZFS added to a greatly bolstered development core, I bet many users would follow as well.

needtolookatascreenshot
July 10th, 2007, 11:10 PM
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=519877

23meg
July 10th, 2007, 11:12 PM
But if I START my own project, why can't I use a modified version of the GPL

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL

aks44
July 10th, 2007, 11:27 PM
What about the "standard" GPL source file header that states (emphasis mine)


This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.

Does anyone know if the Linux kernel contains that specific provision?
If so, anyone is allowed to fork the existing GPL2 kernel to GPL3... (not that it would be any good, mind you)

needtolookatascreenshot
July 10th, 2007, 11:34 PM
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=519877

aks44
July 10th, 2007, 11:38 PM
No, the linux kernel is specifically only licensed under the GPL2.

Phew, that kinda relieves me :)

original_jamingrit
July 10th, 2007, 11:45 PM
HAHAHAHA!!! Remember the huge fight last year between the FSF/Debian and Mozilla? Wasn't this THE issue? That Debian changed Firefox a little and still called it Firefox? And now they do the exact same thing?


Sorry I guess my post wasn't clear. I just meant that you could make your own version the license, and then you will need to rename it. If you call it the GPL when it's not the GPL, I think it's considered entrapment if the user sees the name of the license and then uses your code/product without agreeing to what the license really says.

I'm not sure whether that means your own version of GPL can be as legally binding as the FSF's GPL, though.---- Never mind, I missed 23meg's post up above.


Does anyone have a link to the actual post by Torvalds?

I couldn't find one in the article and I couldn't find the post on the lkml.

Thanks.

seconded.

az
July 11th, 2007, 01:16 AM
It's so outrageous. calling Linux Torvalds business minded is just stupid; he's an engineer not a business man; he's never owned a business and had his mind on practicalities; on the other hand he's attempting to enter the debate on the assumption that Stallman is attempting to control the Linux Kernel project and that just isn't so.

There is a lot of mis-information going around and I don't like the fact that Torvarlds sucks it up. He's a nice guy but terribly impressionable about moral and ethical issues.

But the Stallman can be insensitive and annoying; ...

Luis Villa summed it up really nicely in his four-part blog about the release of the GPLv3.
http://tieguy.org/blog/2007/06/26/gpl-v3-the-qa-part-1-the-license/

In his summary of what the GPLv3 is all about he describes the two divides in free software: The pragmatists and the idealists. It would be really helpful if the media would catch on to this description of the FLOSS community because it really nails it on the head.

It's not business versus software freedom, there is actually mostly common ground between *those* two groups. It's the users' freedom versus the developers' freedom and again there is a ton of common ground between the two. The GPL is written primarily for the user (the idealist) to protect the four freedoms by preserving the right to chose what his/her computer runs.

The developer (pragmatist) can sometimes see the measures taken to preserve the Idealists' freedom a little annoying and would be willing to sacrifice them for pragmatic gain. The Idealist would reciprocate and simply not be interested in using such non-free software.

However, most of the things that protect software freedom for the Idealist also protect the Pragmatist - again, there is much more common ground between the two that there are differences. If that wasn't the case, the GPL would not be the most popular FLOSS licence today. Whether you think of it as protecting your code or protecting your freedom, it has worked out pretty well so far...



Honestly, I don't think there is anything to freak out about. I mean, even if the kernel doesn't go v3, what is to prevent distro's from releasing v2 and v3 software side by side? And if there are restrictions, no one will use v3 because why compile and release software under a license that restricts its ability to be distributed with the kernel it is made to run with?
... I am 100% positive that in some way or another there will be a perfectly good FOSS operating system when the dust settles. Whether it is Linux under GPLv3 or v2, or Solaris or any other kernel I care not, so long as it works and there is a community behind it.

Exactly! The GPLv3 is out! Hooray! Does that mean that the linux kernel *has* to switch to it? No! Can developers still release code under the GPLv2? Yes! It's their choice. The FSF only made the tool. It's up to the developers to use it if they want.


A very sensible viewpoint.

I personally think that linus is a nice enough guy, good programmer, but can act like a bit of a tit at times (throwing wobblies at GPLv3, his, 'i'm an engineer, so DRM is ok' thing, etc). In general, he's ok. He has his off moments, like we all do.

Stallman is much the same - it's sad for him that linux really stole his thunder, but really we all want the same thing. Now if he could stop insisting that it's GNU/linux as opposed to just linux then everything would be dandy (he insists that people use the former, and only journalists who agree may interview him)- i mran, no one else cares - that's just a personal sore spot me thinks...


Regardless of their personalities, they both exemplify the Pragmatist versus the Idealist. Both of their points of view are valid. And most of the time, they are not mutually exclusive.

Adamant1988
July 11th, 2007, 01:23 AM
I may not always agree with Linus, but when he's right, he's right.

WebDrake
July 11th, 2007, 01:37 AM
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/07/linux_creator_c.html

This can't be good

The article is crap and is trying to create a big storm out of nothing.

Linus Torvalds' post is here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223

As anyone can see from reading it, there's no big hoo-hah or foul accusations being thrown at the FSF, just a reasoned and polite explanation of why he personally doesn't feel GPLv3 is a licence he wants to apply to his own work.

Hex_Mandos
July 11th, 2007, 01:44 AM
I see where you're coming from. But then again, I see where Tivo is coming from. It's your choice to buy the hardware. If the user chooses to buy hardware that restricts the user from changing it, then why would he/she want to. If the user wanted to play with the hardware, he/she should have bought something else. And if no one like not being able to change anything, then the company will A. go out of business. or B. change their policies/products they sell. That's really why MS is the leader. At the start, MS allowed the user to do what they wanted with their PC.

Edit: If I remember correctly, the GPLv2 also didn't require attribution for the work. Which I do disagree with.

Is it so weird for someone like Stallman to demand that hardware shouldn't limit users' freedom to use his software? If Tivo wants to restrict people's freedoms, the they shouldn't use GNU software and make their own OS!

jiminycricket
July 11th, 2007, 03:17 AM
This is a 'weird' article...it's dated July 10, yet the LKML post is from June 20.

Anyways, some nice things about GPLv3, link to the blog has the full list, this is just condensed:

http://lawandlifesiliconvalley.blogspot.com/2007/07/general-public-license-version-3-legal.html


1. Clarifying the Scope of GPLv3. The scope of the GPL license is one of the most critical issues for both vendor and users. The GPLv2 relied on United States copyright law for many of its critical definitions. Although the GPLv3 continues to use copyright as the basis for defining the scope of the license it is no longer based solely on United States copyright law. The GPLv3 has also clarified several important issues: for example, does “making the software available” (such as through an ASP) trigger the “copyleft” obligations of the GPLv3 (which include making source code available to licensees)? The GPLv3 clearly states no. Similarly, running the program and making modifications that licensee does not share do not trigger these obligations. Another important change is the deletion of the use of “collective work” in GPLv2: this term is defined in US copyright law as “a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions, constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective whole.” This definition is difficult to apply to software and this ambiguity was a major source of concern about the interpretation of GPLv2.

2. Patents. The GPLv2 did not deal directly with patent licenses because software patents were very rare when it was drafted in 1991. However, software patents have become very common in the software industry in the United States and, thus, the lack of a patent license in GPLv2 created serious ambiguities about its scope. Although the FSF had taken a position that the GPLv2 provided an “implied” patent license, the position was controversial. The GPLv3 grants a direct patent license by companies who contribute (rather than merely distribute) the work. The GPLv3 also includes other provisions relating to patents to prevent another transaction similar to the Microsoft/Novell deal.

3. Expanded Compatibility. ASL and Affero.

4. Broadened Scope of Works. The GPLv2 was limited to only programs. Although Sun Microsystems, Inc. was able to use the GPLv2 to license the RTL code for its SPARC chip, the GPLv2 was not designed for use with other types of works. The GPLv3 is much broader: it applies to any “copyrightable work” which ranges from software to documentation to music. It also expressly applies to “mask works” (which are the legal protection for the three dimensional design of semiconductors).

5. Termination. The GPLv2 terminated automatically upon failure to comply with its terms and continued use of the program was copyright infringement. GPLv2 did not address how to reinstate the rights under the license after coming back into compliance. This provision was particularly troubling as GPLv2 licensed software was used in consumer products such as television sets and computers which are sold in millions of units: even an inadvertent breach could result in massive liability for copyright infringement. The GPLv3 directly addresses this issue in Section 8. Although it continues to provide for automatic termination, it now includes a procedure for reinstatement.

6. Modification of Software for Consumer Products. This provision has received little comment, but could have an enormous impact. It requires that any consumer product which uses software licensed under the GPLv3 must “open up” the software.

7. Limitations on Digital Rights Management. The GPLv3 reflects the FSF’s hostility to DRM. Section 5 prohibits the use of software licensed under the GPLv3 to implement DRM (referred to as “effective technological measures” to conform to the provisions of the relevant WIPO treaty). In addition, it requires a user of GPLv3 licensed software to waive his rights under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and similar laws arising from the WIPO treaty to protect such works by using “anti-circumvention” technology.

8. Use of Contractors. One of the major changes in the software business since 1991 has been the increase in outsourcing of software development, either by independent contractors or outsourcing firms. Under the GPLv2 the transfer of a copy of the software to the independent consultant or outsourcing firm was a “distribution”...

9. Application Service Provider (“ASP).

10. Additional Terms. The GPLv2 did not permit any modification of its terms which led to incompatibility with other FOSS licenses and potential problems in countries other than the United States where the wording of disclaimers and limitation of liability required to eliminate warranties and limit liability may differ from the United States. In Section 7, the GPLv3 permits limited modifications in these terms which will help solve these problems. In addition to making the GPLv3 compatible with the APL and permitting modified disclaimers of warranties and limitations, the provision permits adding limited attribution information (an approach which is being used by about twenty companies but using the Mozilla Public License as the basis) and various provisions to protect the use of trademarks and personal names.


Posted by Mark Radcliffe at 7:03 PM

steven8
July 11th, 2007, 04:03 AM
I may not always agree with Linus, but when he's right, he's right.

As usual Mr. Ant, you see both dimensions with crystal clarity . . . . .

Dr. C
July 11th, 2007, 04:19 AM
Does anyone have a link to the actual post by Torvalds?

I couldn't find one in the article and I couldn't find the post on the lkml.

Thanks.

There is not an actual quote from Linus Torvalds in the article because the author of the article did not have the intellectual honesty to put an actual quote from Linus Torvalds and a link to the actual post where allegedly Linus Torvalds called RMS and the authors of the GPL V3 hypocrites. What the author actually provided was a link to the home page of http://www.kernel.org

One of the responders to this "article" did to provide a link to a post that may be what the author was referring to http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223 however this post contains nothing to justify saying that Linus called RMS or any of the GPL v3 authors hypocrites.

As far as I can see the author of the article just made this up.

starcraft.man
July 11th, 2007, 04:26 AM
Wow. This got lots of traction and I was busy all day (Wrote up a 20 page how-to for beginners in about 10+ solid hours, had lots of editing too). Anyway, bleh. I find I'm getting annoyed with online bloggers quoting people like Linus and Stallman, they seem to be misquoted often or out of context for the sake of a headline. Personally, I don't care what happens with all of it. I just want everyone to get along and make a great product (Linux/Ubuntu). Since I don't code and just really help people, GPL matters don't really apply to me.

Dr. C
July 11th, 2007, 04:33 AM
Wow. This got lots of traction and I was busy all day (Wrote up a 20 page how-to for beginners in about 10+ solid hours, had lots of editing too). Anyway, bleh. I find I'm getting annoyed with online bloggers quoting people like Linus and Stallman, they seem to be misquoted often or out of context for the sake of a headline. Personally, I don't care what happens with all of it. I just want everyone to get along and make a great product (Linux/Ubuntu). Since I don't code and just really help people, GPL matters don't really apply to me.

The "author" of this article did not quote Linus at all. He simply made up a headline alleging that Linus said something and provided no evidence whatsoever that Linus actually said what what the "author" alleges. It is a lot worse than misquoting someone or quoting out of context.

starcraft.man
July 11th, 2007, 04:43 AM
The "author" of this article did not quote Linus at all. He simply made up a headline alleging that Linus said something and provided no evidence whatsoever that Linus actually said what what the "author" alleges. It is a lot worse than misquoting someone or quoting out of context.

Bleh, true. My point (at least what I was aiming for) was more that I don't like to get my info from bloggers about what person x said, if I wanna read it I'll actually go read what person x said. We really have to be a bit more sceptical about all these people who parade around with an opinion and spin on the way things are, their starting to become like the regular media *shudders*.

Your right though, he doesn't directly point to where Linus said any of it, just pointing to kernel.org (wow, really useful, like we couldn't find that). Anyway, off I go, that's it for me in this thread.

jiminycricket
July 11th, 2007, 04:49 AM
There is not an actual quote from Linus Torvalds in the article because the author of the article did not have the intellectual honesty to put an actual quote from Linus Torvalds and a link to the actual post where allegedly Linus Torvalds called RMS and the authors of the GPL V3 hypocrites. What the author actually provided was a link to the home page of http://www.kernel.org

One of the responders to this "article" did to provide a link to a post that may be what the author was referring to http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223 however this post contains nothing to justify saying that Linus called RMS or any of the GPL v3 authors hypocrites.

As far as I can see the author of the article just made this up.

The LKML post context is the midst of a debate. If you want to see the other side, this is Linus debating with a _RED HAT_ employee/engineer who's also a member of the FSF, I think in South America. Way out of context and it honestly seems a little troll-y to me, considering how much Microsoft has poisoned the well of the media regarding GPLv3 with their lobbying firms and white papers, polls and reports, and Reuters reports from Jim Finkle. The world could use less FUD.

TBOL3
July 11th, 2007, 05:31 AM
Is it so weird for someone like Stallman to demand that hardware shouldn't limit users' freedom to use his software? If Tivo wants to restrict people's freedoms, the they shouldn't use GNU software and make their own OS!

No, not at all. I have nothing against someone wanting to put software under any license. Even if it's proprietary. What I'm saying is that as a license that is supposed to protect freedom, of Users AND companies, I think it doesn't do the best possible job.

Also, I actually would prefer Tivo run linux. It is, in some small way, a form of advertising. It would most likely be better then whatever core they made. And they can spend more time/money on things that can make the system better.

Atomic Dog
July 11th, 2007, 05:43 AM
[QUOTE=TBOL3;3000351]Also, I actually would prefer Tivo run linux. It is, in some small way, a form of advertising./QUOTE]

Do you really think 99.8% of tivo users/owners even know what operating system underlies their entertainment? Do they even care? They just just want to watch their Oprah or Jerry Springrer show and breathe open mouthed.

WebDrake
July 11th, 2007, 11:58 AM
There is not an actual quote from Linus Torvalds in the article because the author of the article did not have the intellectual honesty to put an actual quote from Linus Torvalds and a link to the actual post where allegedly Linus Torvalds called RMS and the authors of the GPL V3 hypocrites. What the author actually provided was a link to the home page of http://www.kernel.org

One of the responders to this "article" did to provide a link to a post that may be what the author was referring to http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223 however this post contains nothing to justify saying that Linus called RMS or any of the GPL v3 authors hypocrites.

As far as I can see the author of the article just made this up.

The author of the article gives some direct quotes which are found in the email I linked to. However he wrenches them so far out of context that their meaning becomes changed out of all recognition.

So yes, in essence he made it up.

DoctorMO
July 11th, 2007, 12:00 PM
Do you really think 99.8% of tivo users/owners even know what operating system underlies their entertainment? Do they even care? They just just want to watch their Oprah or Jerry Springrer show and breathe open mouthed.

I'm a bover'd, look at my developer face, it's not bover'd is it.

The GPLv3 doesn't prevent TiVo from including DRM or even making the DRM die if the _DRM_ parts are modified. what it does do is prevent the blanket "Must not modify" rules which TiVo have put over code which is open source, they need to stop taking shot cuts and create their DRM system properly so the system can be changed but the DRM is hardware based or running as a separate piece. It's really in response to the fear that intel, amd or other hardware makers could chain down the pc and server computers so they are never allowed to run non Microsoft authorised Linux variants; scary and probably not likely, but I feel safer knowing that linux will stop dead should any of those hardware makers do such a thing, and linux, gnu and their markets have too much value these days to throw away.

I don't know about all you arm chair critics but I was up there reading the GPLv3 drafts, making comments and suggestions some of which got included (such as the problem with ROMs, the licence was too vague about allowing modification) I also talked with Stallman and Torvards about coming to a compromise, Linux at least could see the point that TiVo damages his Linux trademark by advocating a known modifiable software and then not letting you modify it. Stallman wanted to hear more about revisions that still prevented the locking down of the GPL software specificity.

At least I'm not writing vile and fudtastic blogs attempting to condemn either side (really the same side, more like rival brothers if anything else)

BrokeBody
July 13th, 2007, 10:04 PM
http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/07/linux_creator_c.html

Well, I'm glad.

Zzl1xndd
July 13th, 2007, 10:13 PM
Although I agree with Linus it does worry my a bit that we might be displaced by Solaris at some point because of this as they will be able to take from us and give nothing back. Thus Solaris will start to move faster then Linux and at some point that may make us the Minority.

Zzl1xndd
July 13th, 2007, 10:14 PM
Also I challenge your Avatar to a Duel

zugu
July 13th, 2007, 10:19 PM
Dear Sun,
Please GPL3 Solaris at once! I'm tired of Linus' whining.
Thank you.

needtolookatascreenshot
July 13th, 2007, 10:24 PM
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=519877

starcraft.man
July 13th, 2007, 10:27 PM
We already had a talk about this post... and as I recall the general consensus was that it was a fabrication of the reality (i.e. part distortion field, part very out of context). Please don't take all bloggers at face value... just like you shouldn't take any one news show at face value either.

LINK! (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=497754)

Edit: Arrrr, got beaten.

BrokeBody
July 13th, 2007, 10:27 PM
Although I agree with Linus it does worry my a bit that we might be displaced by Solaris at some point because of this as they will be able to take from us and give nothing back. Thus Solaris will start to move faster then Linux and at some point that may make us the Minority.

He has said that that would be the only technical reason he sees for switching. That is a far cry from "we might be displaced by Solaris". ;)

23meg
July 13th, 2007, 10:32 PM
There's at least one more thread (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=497754) about this.

[Edit: Got badly beaten..]

Rhapsody
July 13th, 2007, 10:35 PM
Among several provisions viewed by many as anti-business is a GPLv3 rule forbidding commercial users of open source software from prohibiting customer modifications.

...what?

I'm not sure if this is clumsy phrasing or something, but the core principle of free software (and, by extension, the GPL) is that the user must be allowed to modify and/or redistribute the software. If even paying customers are prohibited from modifying the software, then what would be the point to the GPL?

This isn't 'anti-business', it's pro-freedom. If some businesses have been exploiting loopholes in the GPLv2 that have been closed off with the GPLv3, then who's fault is that?

Oh, and seeing as this was posted to a mailing-list, I'd expect there to be some online record of what Linux Torvalds actually posted, but the article doesn't seem to link to this. Does anyone have a direct link?

Drifter
July 13th, 2007, 10:47 PM
Money makes the world go round and round and round even open source will be driven by it someday.

bread eyes
July 13th, 2007, 11:02 PM
Not this stupid article again.
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=497754&highlight=informationweek

To sum it up: It's sensationalist and inaccurate. It's rubbish!

Not really, a lot of what he's saying is accurate.

needtolookatascreenshot
July 13th, 2007, 11:06 PM
http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=519877

az
July 14th, 2007, 01:05 AM
Not really, a lot of what he's saying is accurate.

No, it's taken out of context. Linus is not calling the person to whom he is talking in the message a hypocrite, not the FSF.

Zzl1xndd
July 14th, 2007, 03:18 AM
He has said that that would be the only technical reason he sees for switching. That is a far cry from "we might be displaced by Solaris". ;)

True Linus didn't say it but if Solaris Did move and we didn't then it is likely that it could happen. Although if Solaris doesn't then Linus can hold the line as without the Linux Kernel there is no OS to speak of.

bread eyes
July 14th, 2007, 03:39 AM
The article? No.

I meant Linus, I guess I need to read more closely.

icecruncher
July 14th, 2007, 06:38 AM
what's new, reporters like to take things out of context, that how they make their storries.
lol

Starchild
July 14th, 2007, 09:52 AM
The article is crap and is trying to create a big storm out of nothing.

Linus Torvalds' post is here: http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/6/20/223

As anyone can see from reading it, there's no big hoo-hah or foul accusations being thrown at the FSF, just a reasoned and polite explanation of why he personally doesn't feel GPLv3 is a licence he wants to apply to his own work.

The article is definitly a piece of sensatioalist crap, resurrecting an lkml flamewar from weeks ago to coincide with the release of GPLv3 for obvious reasons.

BUT, I would not go so far as to call Torvals posts as 'reasoned and polite'. Time and again he goes on full frontal ALL-CAPS name-calling and manages to come off as utterly selfish and totally uninformed as far as the philosophy of ethics and the concept of freedom is concerned.

Wiebelhaus
July 15th, 2007, 03:56 AM
I don't get it , The new GPL indicates that hardware manufacturers will not be able to sue an end user if he changes the software to do something other then it was intended , Like ignore or remove DRM? And Linus Torvald is pissed because he feels that that would hinder Linux adoption by big name hardware vendors?

Is that the Jist of it?


Also a very long time ago I watched a "History of....Linux , GPL , GNU....something" type program , it was very good , But I noticed that these two god heads were nice and respectful to each other and on the subject of each other , but there seemed to be an underlying uncomfortableness between them , Has this not been going on for years?


Also why hasn't Stallman created a kernel? or has he and it wasn't accepted or what?

I'm confused..


please Tell-a-Noob , thanks.

az
July 15th, 2007, 12:48 PM
I don't get it , The new GPL indicates that hardware manufacturers will not be able to sue an end user if he changes the software to do something other then it was intended , Like ignore or remove DRM? And Linus Torvald is pissed because he feels that that would hinder Linux adoption by big name hardware vendors?

Linus has said that he feels the GPLv2 is his idea of a good license because it protects the software and pretty much only sticks to software. He feels that the GPLv3 goes too far and should not dictate anything about what the hardware should do or not do to run the software. I guess he feels that a software developer should only exercise rights over the software.

RMS would say that the software world is different than 15 years ago and many things can threaten the user's freedoms. That's why the GPLv3 has to tackle some issues that are beyond just the code itself.



Also a very long time ago I watched a "History of....Linux , GPL , GNU....something" type program , it was very good , But I noticed that these two god heads were nice and respectful to each other and on the subject of each other , but there seemed to be an underlying uncomfortableness between them , Has this not been going on for years?


This is nothing new and it is something the media love to capitalize on. It is a sensationalist spin on the fact that software freedom caters to both the idealists and the pragmatists. The thing that the media don't tell you is that both groups are pretty much the same and enjoy the same benefits from the GPL.

The pragmatists are those that use the software because it works. It so happens that the GPL allows developers to create good code because it is free. The fact that anyone can take this code and improve it without license traps tends to create great software.

The Idealists are those that use the software because it protects their freedoms. As computers are more pervasive in our daily lives, the Idealists feels that using non-free software (closed source or otherwise) allows your computer to take away your privacy, or that the author of the software is taking away your freedom to do what you want with your own computer.

Both the Idealist and the Pragmatist benefit from what the other side thinks is more important, but both sides are willing to trade off the other's qualities to benefit their own. Linus is willing to trade off the additional protection of the GPLv3, so that developers do not have to worry about such things as existing patent agreements or hardware to get in their way.

RMS would not compromise software freedom for a small number of developers.

Now, both sides are correct. And both sides rarely conflict at all in real life.



Also why hasn't Stallman created a kernel?

Stallman does other things. Stallman wrote the GNU toolchain, which is what you use to compile stuff (including the kernel). But to put things into perspective, Linus wrote Linux as a M.Sc project and has since devoted years of full-time work on it.

You don't just write a kernel like you write a text editor.



or has he and it wasn't accepted or what?



There is no competition to create a kernel. To think that software would be rejected because you disagree with the author's views simply doesn't happen. If the software works, it works.

GNU (the OS) was developing a kernel called HURD. That kernel was a micro-kernel design, which is a more advanced type of kernel than linux, which is monolythic. The practical advantage of a monolythinc kernel is that it is faster to develop. When Linux came around, it worked then and there, whereas Hurd was harder to develop and so never got traction.

So GNU put aside the HURD kernel which was still a way off from being functional and now uses the Linux kernel (GNU/Linux) What people call Linux is really the GNU operating system running on a Linux kernel. Ubuntu is GNU, for example.

So to get back to your question about why RMS has not written a kernel, why hasn't Linus Torvalds written an OS (Toolchain for compiling, system tools, command-line utilities, etc...)? Because they are two different things.

Wiebelhaus
July 15th, 2007, 12:58 PM
AZ)

Thanks for taking the time to explain that , Much appreciated.

WebDrake
July 15th, 2007, 10:48 PM
The article is definitly a piece of sensatioalist crap, resurrecting an lkml flamewar from weeks ago to coincide with the release of GPLv3 for obvious reasons.

BUT, I would not go so far as to call Torvals posts as 'reasoned and polite'. Time and again he goes on full frontal ALL-CAPS name-calling and manages to come off as utterly selfish and totally uninformed as far as the philosophy of ethics and the concept of freedom is concerned.

In my experience (and again this comes from having read original posts and their context) most of that "rudeness" is actually deliberately over the top to make a point and comes with a good deal of humour.

I don't think he is selfish or uninformed, just rather intolerant of people who tell him things like, "YOU MUST DO IT THIS WAY OTHERWISE IT WON'T BE FREE SOFTWARE!!!" Because there's no such "must". If you want a good, intelligent discussion, you'll get one, but he doesn't suffer fools gladly.

Starchild
July 19th, 2007, 09:56 AM
In my experience (and again this comes from having read original posts and their context) most of that "rudeness" is actually deliberately over the top to make a point and comes with a good deal of humour.

I'm afraid I will have to disagree. It is exactly being deliberately rude to make a point that is considered unreasonable, illogical and ,well , impolite. And I don't see much humor in there either. And I have read most of that long thread as well. He is clearly trying to bully the opponent by using strong and rude language in order to scare him away which is the exact opposite of being "reasonable and poltie".


I don't think he is selfish or uninformed, just rather intolerant of people who tell him things like, "YOU MUST DO IT THIS WAY OTHERWISE IT WON'T BE FREE SOFTWARE!!!" Because there's no such "must". If you want a good, intelligent discussion, you'll get one, but he doesn't suffer fools gladly.

The concept of Free Software can be regarded as an application of the concept of Human Rights to the domain of science and technology, and the Computing Science specifically. That is why it's a social and ethical issue and not a technical one.

You can obviously disagree with all of that as Linus apparently does, but one thing to keep in mind is that the ethical imperative that stems from this view is directly related to the tradition of "Humanistic Ethics" (ie. the moral imperative seeks what is good and desirable for human beings considering the human condition and stems from human beings themselves and is based on reason and logic. It's rational). Linus on the other hand tries to frame the issue as having come from the tradition of "Authoritarian Ethics" (ie. the moral imperative comes from a higher power, rests on the assumption that human beings are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong themselves and is based on fear and domination. It's irrational). Nothing could be further from the truth.

The ethics of software freedom (and the concept of Free Software) have as much to do with Authoritarian Ethics as does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Trying to claim otherwise and calling people who hold this view names is either disingenuous or uninformed.

WebDrake
July 19th, 2007, 10:27 PM
I'm afraid I will have to disagree. It is exactly being deliberately rude to make a point that is considered unreasonable, illogical and ,well , impolite. And I don't see much humor in there either. And I have read most of that long thread as well. He is clearly trying to bully the opponent by using strong and rude language in order to scare him away which is the exact opposite of being "reasonable and poltie".


Well, I wasn't thinking of just that particular debate, but I take your point.



The concept of Free Software can be regarded as an application of the concept of Human Rights to the domain of science and technology, and the Computing Science specifically. That is why it's a social and ethical issue and not a technical one.

You can obviously disagree with all of that as Linus apparently does, but one thing to keep in mind is that the ethical imperative that stems from this view is directly related to the tradition of "Humanistic Ethics" (ie. the moral imperative seeks what is good and desirable for human beings considering the human condition and stems from human beings themselves and is based on reason and logic. It's rational). Linus on the other hand tries to frame the issue as having come from the tradition of "Authoritarian Ethics" (ie. the moral imperative comes from a higher power, rests on the assumption that human beings are incapable of distinguishing right from wrong themselves and is based on fear and domination. It's irrational). Nothing could be further from the truth.

The ethics of software freedom (and the concept of Free Software) have as much to do with Authoritarian Ethics as does the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Trying to claim otherwise and calling people who hold this view names is either disingenuous or uninformed.

I think you may be assuming too much about my opinions. I would have come back at Linus in that discussion and I believe I could have made the pro-GPLv3 argument much more effectively than his opponent. ;)

Still, I am not sure that I agree with your point about human rights. I think they are related but it is dangerous to conflate matters that are intimately related with their technological and social context with the far more general and generic rights encapsulated in the Universal Declaration. This is implicit in Stallman's own speeches where he notes the differences in conception between the copyright system of hundreds of years ago and what it was designed for---the printing press---compared to the situation we face today. A better way of putting it is that when it comes to this particular technological situation, those older copyright and patent policies have a corrosive ethical and social effect for which free software provides a positive replacement.